SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 178323. March 16, 2011.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . ARMANDO

CHINGH Y PARCIA , accused-appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

Armando Chingh y Parcia (Armando) seeks the reversal of the Decision 1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01119 convicting him of Statutory Rape
and Rape Through Sexual Assault.
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
On March 19, 2005, an Information for Rape was led against Armando for
inserting his ngers and afterwards his penis into the private part of his minor victim,
VVV, 2 the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about March 11, 2004 in the City of Manila, Philippines,
[Armando], with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly commit sexual abuse and
lascivious conduct upon a ten (10) year old minor child, [VVV], by then and there
pulling her in a dark place then mashing her breast and inserting his ngers in her
vagina and afterwards his penis, against her will and consent, thereby causing
serious danger to the normal growth and development of the child [VVV], to her
damage and prejudice.

Contrary to law. 3

Upon his arraignment, Armando pleaded not guilty to the charge. Consequently,
trial on the merits ensued.
At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, VVV; the
victim's father; PO3 Ma. Teresa Solidarios; and Dr. Irene Baluyot. The defense, on the
other hand, presented the lone testimony Armando as evidence.
Evidence for the Prosecution
Born on 16 September 1993, VVV was only 10 years old at the time of the
incident. On 11 March 2004 at around 8:00 p.m., along with ve other playmates,
VVV proceeded to a store to buy food. While she was beckoning the storekeeper,
who was not then at her station, Armando approached and pulled her hand and
threatened not to shout for help or talk. Armando brought her to a vacant lot at
Tindalo Street, about 400 meters from the store. While in a standing position
beside an unoccupied passenger jeepney, Armando mashed her breast and
inserted his right hand index nger into her private part. Despite VVV's pleas for
him to stop, Armando unzipped his pants, lifted VVV and rammed his phallus
inside her vagina, causing her to feel excruciating pain. SCIacA

Threatened with death if she would tell anyone what had happened, VVV
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 kept mum about her traumatic experience when she arrived home. Noticing her
odd and uneasy demeanor as well as her blood-stained underwear, however, her
father pressed her for an explanation. VVV confessed to her father about her
unfortunate experience. Immediately, they reported the matter to the police
authorities. After his arrest, Armando was positively identi ed by VVV in a police
line-up.

The genital examination of VVV conducted by Dr. Irene Baluyot (Dr.

Baluyot) of the Philippine General Hospital's Child Protection Unit, in the morning
of 12 March 2004, showed a "fresh laceration with bleeding at 6 o'clock position"
in the child's hymen and "minimal bleeding from [said] hymen laceration." Her
impression was that there was a "clear evidence" of "penetrating trauma" which
happened within 24 hours prior to the examination. The photograph of the
lacerated genitalia of VVV strongly illustrated and buttressed Dr. Baluyot's
medical report. 4

Evidence for the Defense

Armando denied that he raped VVV. Under his version, in ( sic) the night of
11 March 2004, he and his granddaughter were on their way to his cousin's house
at Payumo St., Tondo, Manila. As it was already late, he told his granddaughter to
just go home ahead of him while he decided to go to Blumentritt market to buy
food. While passing by a small alley on his way thereto, he saw VVV along with
some companions, peeling "dalanghita." VVV approached him and asked if she
could go with him to the market because she will buy "dalanghita" or sunkist. He
refused her request and told VVV instead to go home. He then proceeded towards
Blumentritt, but before he could reach the market, he experienced rheumatic pains
that prompted him to return home. Upon arriving home, at about 8:30 o'clock in
the evening, he watched television with his wife and children. Shortly thereafter,
three (3) barangay o cials arrived, arrested him, and brought him to a police
precinct where he was informed of VVV's accusation against him. 5

On April 29, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC), Branch 43, after
nding the evidence of the prosecution overwhelming against the accused's defense of
denial and alibi, rendered a Decision 6 convicting Armando of Statutory Rape. The
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered , the Court nds accused
ARMANDO CHINGH GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime
of Statutory Rape de ned and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of
the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353 and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify private complainant
[VVV] the amount of fty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as compensatory
damages, fty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and to pay the
costs.
It appearing that accused is detained, the period of his detention shall be
credited in the service of his sentence.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, Armando appealed the Decision before the CA, which was docketed
as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01119.
On December 29, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision 7 nding Armando not only
guilty of Statutory Rape, but also of Rape Through Sexual Assault. The decretal portion
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 of said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE , the assailed decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with
the following MODIFICATIONS: accused-appellant is hereby found GUILTY of
two counts of rape and is, accordingly, sentenced to suffer, for the crime of
statutory rape, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and, for the offense of rape
through sexual assault, the indeterminate penalty of 3 years, 3 months and 1 day
o f prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 11 months and 1 day of
prision mayor, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay the victim, a total of
P80,000.00 as civil indemnity, P80,000.00 as moral damages; and P40,000.00 as
exemplary damages, or a grand total of P200,000.00 for the two counts of rape.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED. 8

In ne, the CA a rmed the decision of the RTC, and considering that the appeal
opened the entire case for judicial review, the CA also found Armando guilty of the
crime of Rape Through Sexual Assault. The CA opined that since the Information
charged Armando with two counts of rape: (1) by inserting his nger in the victim's
vagina, which is classi ed as Rape Through Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; and (2) for inserting his penis in the
private part of his victim, which is Statutory Rape, and considering that Armando failed
to object thereto through a motion to quash before entering his plea, Armando could be
convicted of as many offenses as are charged and proved.
The CA ratiocinated that coupled with the credible, direct, and candid testimony
of the victim, the elements of Statutory Rape and Rape Through Sexual Assault were
indubitably established by the prosecution. DHCSTa

Armando now comes before this Court for relief.

In a Resolution 9 dated September 26, 2007, the Court required the parties to le
their respective supplemental briefs. In their respective Manifestations, 1 0 the parties
waived the ling of their supplemental briefs, and instead adopted their respective
briefs filed before the CA.
Hence, Armando raises the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE
CRIME OF RAPE UNDER ARTICLE 266-A, PARAGRAPH 1 (D) OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE IN SPITE THE UNNATURAL AND UNREALISTIC TESTIMONY OF
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE
CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Simply stated, Armando is assailing the factual basis of his conviction, which in
effect, mainly questions the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution, particularly his victim, VVV.
Armando maintains that the prosecution failed to present su cient evidence
that will overcome the presumption of innocence. Likewise, Armando insists that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 RTC gravely erred in convicting him based on the unrealistic and unnatural testimony of
the victim. Armando claims that VVV's testimony was so inconsistent with common
experience that it deserves careful and critical evaluation. First, it was so unnatural for
VVV to remain quiet and not ask for help when the accused allegedly pulled her in the
presence of several companions and bystanders; second, VVV did not resist or cry for
help while they were on their way to the place where she was allegedly abused, which
was 300 to 400 meters away from where he allegedly pulled her; third, VVV could have
run away while Armando was allegedly molesting her, but she did not; fourth, Armando
could not have inserted his penis in the victim's organ while both of them were
standing, unless the victim did not offer any resistance.
Generally, the Court will not disturb the ndings of the trial court on the credibility
of witnesses, as it was in the better position to observe their candor and behavior on
the witness stand. Evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a
matter best undertaken by the trial court; it had the unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-
examination. Its assessment is entitled to respect unless certain facts of substance
and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. 1 1
From the testimony of the victim, VVV, she positively identi ed Armando as the
one who ravaged her on that fateful night of March 11, 2004. VVV clearly narrated her
harrowing experience in the hands of the accused. Notwithstanding her innocence and
despite the thorough cross-examination by Armando's counsel, VVV never faltered and
gave a very candid and truthful testimony of the traumatic events. VVV's testimony was
corroborated and bolstered by the ndings of Dr. Irene Baluyot that the victim's genital
area showed a fresh laceration with bleeding at 6 o'clock position in her hymen. 1 2 Dr.
Baluyot concluded that an acute injury occurred within 24 hours prior to the
examination and that the occurrence of rape within that period was very possible. 1 3
Also, the age of VVV at the time the incident occurred, which was 10 years old, was duly
established by her birth certificate, 1 4 her testimony, 1 5 and that of her father's. 1 6
Time and again, this Court has held that when the offended parties are young and
immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of
what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and
embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they
testi ed were not true. 1 7 A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of de oration;
publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her
private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma
and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to
protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the
wicked acts committed against her. 1 8 Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the
lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.
19

On the other hand, Armando admitted that he saw VVV on the date of the
incident, but denied the accusations against him and merely relied on his defense that
he was watching TV with his family when barangay officials arrested him. aCcHEI

Armando's defenses were also unavailing. His contention that it was unnatural
and unrealistic for VVV to remain quiet when he pulled her from her companions and
why she did not cry for help or run away when he was allegedly ravaging her deserves
scant consideration. Clearly, the reason why VVV did not shout for help was because
Armando told her not to shout or talk. 2 0 Likewise, the reason why VVV did not run
when Armando was molesting her was because his nger was still inside her private
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 part. 2 1 Moreover, Armando's argument that he could not have inserted his penis in the
victim's organ while both of them were standing is preposterous. It is settled that
sexual intercourse in a standing position, while perhaps uncomfortable, is not
improbable. 2 2
Armando tendered nothing but his bare denial and contention that he was
elsewhere when the crime was committed. Aside from this, he presented no more
evidence to substantiate his claims. Jurisprudence dictates that denial and alibi are the
common defenses in rape cases. Sexual abuse is denied on the allegation that the
accused was somewhere else and could not have physically committed the crime. This
Court has always held that these two defenses are inherently weak and must be
supported by clear and convincing evidence in order to be believed. As negative
defenses, they cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the complainant. 2 3
Consequently, Armando's bare denial and alibi must fail against the testimony of VVV
and her positive identi cation that he was the perpetrator of the horrid deed.
Unmistakably, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Armando had carnal
knowledge of VVV.
Anent Armando's conviction for the crime of Rape Through Sexual Assault.
The CA correctly found Armando guilty of the crime of Rape Through Sexual
Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8353, or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997. 2 4 From the Information, it
is clear that Armando was being charged with two offenses, Rape under paragraph 1
(d), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, and rape as an act of sexual assault under
paragraph 2, Article 266-A. Armando was charged with having carnal knowledge of
VVV, who was under twelve years of age at the time, under paragraph 1 (d) of Article
266-A, and he was also charged with committing an act of sexual assault by inserting
his nger into the genital of VVV under the second paragraph of Article 266-A. Indeed,
two instances of rape were proven at the trial. First, it was established that Armando
inserted his penis into the private part of his victim, VVV. Second, through the testimony
of VVV, it was proven that Armando also inserted his finger in VVV's private part.
The Information has su ciently informed accused-appellant that he is being
charged with two counts of rape. Although two offenses were charged, which is a
violation of Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
states that "[a] complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the
law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses." Nonetheless, Section 3, Rule
120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure also states that "[w]hen two or more
offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to
object to it before trial, the court may convict the appellant of as many as are charged
and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the
ndings of fact and law in each offense." Consequently, since Armando failed to le a
motion to quash the Information, he can be convicted with two counts of rape.
As to the proper penalty, We a rm the CA's imposition of Reclusion Perpetua for
rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A. However, We modify the penalty for Rape
Through Sexual Assault. AIHTEa

It is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the sexual abuse, VVV was
ten (10) years old. This calls for the application of R.A. No. 7610, or "The Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," which
de nes sexual abuse of children and prescribes the penalty therefor in Section 5 (b),
Article III, to wit:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether
male or female, who for money, pro t, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or in uence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxx xxx xxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be:
Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is
under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its
medium period. 2 5

Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a
child exploited in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It
covers not only a situation where a child is abused for pro t, but also where one —
through coercion, intimidation or in uence — engages in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child. 2 6
Corollarily, Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations 27 of R.A. No. 7610 de nes
"Lascivious conduct" as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the
genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any
object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person, whether of the same or
opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or
gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. 2 8

In this case, the offended party was ten years old at the time of the commission
of the offense. Pursuant to the above-quoted provision of law, Armando was aptly
prosecuted under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
R.A. No. 8353, 2 9 for Rape Through Sexual Assault. However, instead of applying the
penalty prescribed therein, which is prision mayor, considering that VVV was below 12
years of age, and considering further that Armando's act of inserting his nger in VVV's
private part undeniably amounted to lascivious conduct, the appropriate imposable
penalty should be that provided in Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is
reclusion temporal in its medium period.
The Court is not unmindful to the fact that the accused who commits acts of
lasciviousness under Article 366, in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610,
suffers the more severe penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period than the
one who commits Rape Through Sexual Assault, which is merely punishable by prision
mayor. This is undeniably unfair to the child victim. To be sure, it was not the intention
of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to
sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No.
7610 is still good law, which must be applied when the victims are children or those
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 "persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take
care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition." 3 0 TCHcAE

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the

indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be properly imposed under the law,
which is fteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal.
On the other hand, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower
in degree, which is reclusion temporal in its minimum period, or twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
Hence, Armando should be meted the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12)
years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to
fteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as
maximum.
As to Armando's civil liabilities, the CA correctly awarded the following damages:
civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and another P50,000.00 as moral damages for Rape
under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A; and civil indemnity of P30,000.00 and moral
damages also of P30,000.00 for Rape under paragraph 2, Article 266-A. In line,
however, with prevailing jurisprudence, we increase the award of exemplary damages
from P25,000.00 and P15,000.00, for Rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A and
Rape under paragraph 2, Article 266-A, respectively, to P30,000.00 for each count of
rape. 3 1
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated
December 29, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01119 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION .
For Rape under paragraph 1 (d), Article 266-A, Armando Chingh y Parcia is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; and for Rape Through Sexual Assault under
paragraph 2, Article 266-A, he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as
minimum, to fteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay VVV the total of P80,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P80,000.00 as moral damages, and P60,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., * Abad and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

*Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura,

per Special Order No. 933, dated January 24, 2011.

1.Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Magdangal

M. De Leon and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-26.
2.The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well
as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to
Republic Act No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; Republic
Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for
Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes";
Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Their Children," effective November 5, 2004; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
3.Records, p. 1.
4.Rollo, pp. 4-5.

5.Id. at 5-6.
6.CA rollo, pp. 51-59.
7.Rollo, pp. 2-26.
8.Id. at 25-26.
9.Id. at 29.

10.Id. at 30-31 and 33-34.

11.People v. Tormis, G.R. No. 183456, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 903.
12.TSN, (Dr. Irene Baluyot), June 27, 2004, p. 23.
13.Id. at 29-30.
14.Records, p. 63.

15.TSN, (VVV), August 23, 2004, p. 7.

16.TSN, September 13, 2004, p. 10.
17.Flordeliz v. People, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 225, 234.
18.People v. Matunhay , G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 307, 316.

19.Id. at 317, citing People v. Quiñanola, 366 Phil. 390 (1999).

20.TSN, (VVV), August 23, 2004, pp. 6-7.
21.Id. at 10.
22.People v. Iroy , G.R. No. 187743, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 245, 250; People v. Castro, G.R.
No. 91490, May 6, 1991, 196 SCRA 679.
23.Supra note 18, at 317.
24.Art. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —

xxx xxx xxx

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth
or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person.
25.Emphasis supplied.
26.Supra note 17, at 240.

27.Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases (adopted on
October 11, 1993).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 28.Supra note 17, at 241, citing Navarrete v. People, 513 SCRA 509, 521-522 (2007); Olivarez v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 465, 473-474; People v. Bon,
444 Phil. 571, 584 (2003).

29.R.A. No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of (which took effect on October 22, 1997) reclassified
rape as a crime against person and repealed Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The
new provisions on rape are found in Articles 266-A to 266-D of the said Code.
30.R.A. No. 7610. Art. I, Sec. 3 (a).
31.People v. Lindo, G.R. No. 189818, August 9, 2010, 519 SCRA 13.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com