People of the Philippines vs. Robert Balanza

Positive identification by the victim prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi, especially where the victim was not actuated by any improper motive; alibi is unavailing where the accused fails to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the damages awarded are P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present, all earning interest at six percent per annum from finality of the decision until full payment.

Balanza was the founder of the fraternity "Junior KKK" (Krist King Kappa), and "AAA" was his 14-year-old neighbor in Cebu City. The charge was prosecuted as rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The co-accused, "BBB," was a 13-year-old minor at the time of the offense and was accordingly dropped from the Information, being exempt from criminal liability under Section 6, in relation to Section 20, of Republic Act No. 9344, as amended by Republic Act No. 10630; he was instead subjected to an intervention program under the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

"AAA" was a 14-year-old girl who had long been a neighbor of Robert Balanza in Cebu City. Balanza was the founder of a fraternity known as "Junior KKK," which stood for "Krist King Kappa."

At about 8:00 p.m. on October 7, 2006, "AAA" was walking home from work when Ronnel Fernandez approached her and told her that Balanza wanted to talk to her, ostensibly to offer her the position of treasurer in the fraternity. "AAA" refused the offer. Ronnel Fernandez and another fraternity member, Rommel Inot, then held her hands and forced her to go with them to Balanza's nipa hut. Inside the hut, "AAA" saw Balanza and several other fraternity members, namely Vernie Tinapay, Jemerico Inot, and John John Taborada. Balanza again offered her the position of treasurer, which surprised her since she was not even a member of the fraternity. After she refused, members of the Junior KKK forcibly brought her to a nearby cornfield. There, Balanza forcibly removed her pants and inserted his penis into her vagina. "AAA" felt helpless and cried while Balanza was raping her. After Balanza consummated the act, the minor co-accused "BBB" followed his example and raped her by inserting his penis into her vagina. Balanza and "BBB" then fled the cornfield, leaving "AAA" alone. She went home thereafter feeling violated and ashamed.

An Information was filed charging Balanza, together with "BBB," with rape committed on or about October 7, 2006, at around 8:00 p.m. in Cebu City, alleging that the two, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with the use of force and intimidation upon the person of "AAA," a minor 14 years of age, took turns in having carnal knowledge of her without her consent and against her will. "BBB" was dropped from the Information because he was a 13-year-old minor exempt from criminal liability pursuant to Section 6, in relation to Section 20, of Republic Act No. 9344, as amended by Republic Act No. 10630, and was instead subjected to an intervention program under the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Only Balanza was arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty.

For his defense, Balanza denied the charge and claimed that on the night of the alleged crime he was at the house of his neighbor Joseph Antonio, located about 100 meters away from his own house. He insisted that at 7:00 p.m. he went straight to Joseph's house immediately after school and stayed there until 10:00 p.m., in the company of Giovanne, Meve, and Joseph; at around 9:00 p.m., Joseph's wife Rosa also joined them inside the house.

Both the RTC and the CA found that the prosecution had sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of rape. The trial court found "AAA's" testimony straightforward and trustworthy and gave full weight and credit to her positive identification of Balanza as the person who raped her in the cornfield, a finding affirmed by the CA.

• Positive Identification: Balanza maintained that his identity as the perpetrator of the crime was not sufficiently established by the prosecution through clear and convincing evidence, and he prayed for his acquittal on this ground.
• Credibility of the Complainant: Balanza argued that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime cast doubt on the credibility of "AAA."
• Denial and Alibi: Balanza denied the charge and claimed that at the time of the alleged crime he was at the house of his neighbor Joseph Antonio, about 100 meters away from his own house, where he stayed from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in the company of Giovanne, Meve, and Joseph, later joined by Joseph's wife Rosa at around 9:00 p.m.

• Positive Identification: Whether Balanza was positively identified by "AAA" as the culprit in the charge of rape.

• Positive Identification: Yes. "AAA" clearly and positively identified Balanza during trial as the person who raped her in the cornfield, and positive identification prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi, especially where the victim was not actuated by any improper motive. The alibi was rejected because the element of physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene was not established.

• Positive Identification: Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353, provides that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation; when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented. Both the RTC and the CA found that the prosecution sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of rape, and no compelling reason existed to depart from these findings. During trial, "AAA" clearly and positively identified Balanza as the person who ravaged her in the cornfield, testifying that they had been neighbors for a long time, that Ronnel Fernandez and Rommel Inot held her hands and forced her to go to Balanza's nipa hut, that Balanza again offered her a rank in the Junior KKK, that the fraternity members thereafter brought her to the cornfield, that Balanza removed her long pants and inserted his penis into her vagina, that she felt pain and cried because she was afraid and ashamed, and that "BBB" then did the same thing to her. The Court applied the settled rule that positive identification prevails over the defense of denial and alibi, especially when the victim was not actuated by any improper motive, and the time-honored principle that "no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth." It likewise stressed that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. "AAA's" testimony was straightforward and trustworthy, and the factual findings of the trial court concerning the rape and her credibility, affirmed by the CA, were sustained. As to Balanza's alibi, the rule is that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was present at another place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Balanza himself testified that Joseph's house was only about 100 meters more or less from his nipa hut; the element of physical impossibility was thus missing, and the CA correctly ruled that such distance could not conclusively preclude the possibility of his presence at the scene of the crime at 8:00 p.m. on October 7, 2006. Finally, the award of damages was increased in line with People vs. Jugueta, which held that where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the proper amounts awarded should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present, with all damages earning interest at six percent per annum from finality of the Decision until full payment.

• Positive Identification Prevails Over Denial and Alibi — Where the victim clearly and positively identifies the accused as the perpetrator, such identification prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi, especially when the victim was not actuated by any improper motive. In this case, "AAA" positively identified Balanza during trial as the person who raped her in the cornfield, and the Court held that this identification, coupled with the absence of any improper motive on her part, outweighed Balanza's denial and alibi.
• Requisites of Alibi — For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. The defense failed because Balanza himself testified that the house where he claimed to be was only about 100 meters from his nipa hut, so the element of physical impossibility was missing and the distance could not conclusively preclude his presence at the crime scene at 8:00 p.m. on October 7, 2006.
• Credibility of Child Victims of Rape — Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. The Court applied this doctrine to "AAA's" testimony, which it found straightforward and trustworthy, and affirmed the factual findings of the trial court on her credibility as sustained by the CA.
• "No Young and Decent Lass Will Publicly Cry Rape" — A time-honored principle holds that no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth. The Court invoked this principle in rejecting Balanza's challenge to "AAA's" credibility.
• Damages Where the Penalty Is Reclusion Perpetua — Under People vs. Jugueta, where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the proper amounts of awarded damages are P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances present; all damages awarded earn interest at six percent per annum from finality of the decision until full payment. The Court applied this rule to increase the damages awarded by the CA.
• Elements of Rape Under Article 266-A — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (a) through force, threat, or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (d) when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. Both the RTC and the CA found all the elements of the crime sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court found no compelling reason to depart from these findings.

• "We have consistently held that positive identification prevails over the defense of denial and alibi especially when the victim was not actuated by any improper motive, as in this case." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for rejecting Balanza's challenge to his identification, anchoring the affirmance of his conviction on the primacy of the victim's positive identification over his denial and alibi.
• "It is also a time-honored principle that, 'no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth.'" — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the credibility principle applied to the complainant's testimony, a formulation commonly cited in Philippine rape jurisprudence.
• "It also bears stressing that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a child 'says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.'" — This passage defines the evidentiary treatment accorded to child victims' testimony and explains why "AAA's" account was credited over the defense's challenge to her credibility.
• "Well-settled is the rule that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was present at another place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime." — This passage states the two-element test for alibi, the application of which disposed of Balanza's defense given the 100-meter distance between his claimed location and the crime scene.

• People vs. Veluz, 593 Phil. 145, 161 (2008) — Cited as authority for the principle that no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth; relied upon to reinforce the credibility of "AAA's" accusation.
• People vs. Sobusa, 624 Phil. 533, 547 (2010) — Cited as authority for giving full weight and credit to the testimonies of child victims, and for the rule that when a child says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.
• People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 373 — Controlling precedent on the award of damages; followed in increasing the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each, with interest at six percent per annum from finality until full payment.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 — Defines rape as carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation; when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. The Court cited the provision as the governing definition and noted that both the RTC and the CA found all its elements established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Section 6, in relation to Section 20, Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), as amended by Republic Act No. 10630 — Provides that a child fifteen years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability but shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20. The provision was applied to drop the 13-year-old co-accused "BBB" from the Information and to subject him to an intervention program under the Department of Social Welfare and Development instead of arraignment.
• Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) — The statute in relation to which the rape was charged before the RTC, which convicted Balanza of rape in relation to RA 7610.

Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, and Tijam, JJ.