JOEMAR ORTEGA,

Petitioner,





- versus -




PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 151085

Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
*

CHICO-NAZARIO, and
NACHURA, JJ.


Promulgated:


August 20, 2008

Facts:
Petitioner, then about 14 years old,
[5]
was charged with the crime of Rape in
two separate informations both dated April 20, 1998, for allegedly raping
AAA,
[6]
then about eight (8) years of age.
Before these disturbing events, AAA's family members were close friends of
petitioner's family, aside from the fact that they were good neighbors. However,
BBB caught petitioner raping his younger sister AAA inside their own
home. BBB then informed their mother MMM who in turn asked AAA.
[11]
There,
AAA confessed that petitioner raped her three (3) times on three (3) different
occasions.
The first occasion happened sometime in August 1996. MMM left her
daughter AAA, then 6 years old and son BBB, then 10 years old, in the care of
Luzviminda Ortega, mother of petitioner, for two (2) nights because MMM had to
stay in a hospital to attend to her other son who was sick.
[13]
During the first night
at petitioner's residence, petitioner entered the room where AAA slept together
with Luzviminda and her daughter. Petitioner woke AAA up and led her to the
sala. There petitioner raped AAA. The second occasion occurred the following
day, again at the petitioner's residence. Observing that nobody was around,
petitioner brought AAA to their comfort room and raped her there. AAA testified
that petitioner inserted his penis into her vagina and she felt pain. In all of these
instances, petitioner warned AAA not to tell her parents, otherwise, he would
spank her.
[14]
AAA did not tell her parents about her ordeal.

The third and last occasion happened in the evening of December 1,
1996. Petitioner went to the house of AAA and joined her and her siblings in
watching a battery-powered television. At that time, Luzviminda was
conversing with MMM. While AAA's siblings were busy watching, petitio
ner called AAA to come to the room of CCC and BBB. AAA obeyed. While inside
the said room which was lighted by a kerosene lamp, petitioner pulled AAA
behind the door, removed his pants and brief, removed AAA's shorts and panty,
and in a standing position inserted his penis into the vagina of AAA.
[15]
AAA
described petitioner's penis as about five (5) inches long and the size of two (2)
ballpens. She, likewise, narrated that she saw pubic hair on the base of his penis.
[16]


This last incident was corroborated by BBB in his testimony. When BBB was
about to drink water in their kitchen, as he was passing by his room, BBB was
shocked to see petitioner and AAA both naked from their waist down in the act of
sexual intercourse. BBB saw petitioner holding AAA and making a pumping
motion. Immediately, BBB told petitioner to stop; the latter, in turn, hurriedly left.
Thereafter, BBB reported the incident to his mother, MMM.
MMM, together with Luzviminda, brought AAA to Dr. Lucifree Katalbas,
the Rural Health Officer of the locality who examined AAA and found no
indication that she was molested.
[20]
Refusing to accept such findings,
on December 12, 1996, MMM went to Dr. Joy Ann Jocson (Dr. Jocson), Medical
Officer IV of the Bacolod City Health Office. Dr. Jocson made an unofficial
written report
[21]
showing that there were abrasions on both right and left of the
labia minora and a small laceration at the posterior fourchette. She also found
that the minor injuries she saw on AAA's genitals were relatively fresh; and that
such abrasions were superficial and could disappear after a period of 3 to 4 days.
Dr. Jocson, however, indicated in her certification that her findings required the
confirmation of the Municipal Health Officer of the locality.
Subsequently, an amicable settlement was reached between the two families
through the DAWN Foundation, an organization that helps abused women and
children. Part of the settlement required petitioner to depart from their house to
avoid contact with AAA.
[23]
As such, petitioner stayed with a certain priest in the
locality. However, a few months later, petitioner went home for brief visits and in
order to bring his dirty clothes for laundry. At the sight of petitioner, AAA's father
FFF was infuriated and confrontations occurred. At this instance, AAA's parents
went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which assisted them in filing
the three (3) counts of rape. However, the prosecutor's office only filed the two (2)
instant cases.



Issues:
1. Whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape as found by both the RTC and the CA.
2. Whether the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9344 apply to petitioner's
case, considering that at the time he committed the alleged rape, he was merely 13
years old.
Ruling:
1. In sum, we are convinced that petitioner committed the crime of rape
against AAA. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant's candor is the single most
important factor. If the complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, the
accused can be convicted solely on that basis.
[44]
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA,
did not doubt AAA's credibility, and found no ill motive for her to charge
petitioner of the heinous crime of rape and to positively identify him as the
malefactor. Both courts also accorded respect to BBB's testimony that he saw
petitioner having sexual intercourse with his younger sister. While petitioner
asserts that AAA's poverty is enough motive for the imputation of the crime, we
discard such assertion for no mother or father like MMM and FFF would stoop so
low as to subject their daughter to the tribulations and the embarrassment of a
public trial knowing that such a traumatic experience would damage their
daughter's psyche and mar her life if the charge is not true.

2. Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 clearly and explicitly provides:

SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. A child fifteen
(15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall
be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing
laws.