Remiendo vs. People

A conviction for statutory rape is sustainable where the victim's age below 12 is established by a certified true copy of her Certificate of Live Birth and clear, unobjected testimonies of the victim and her mother, and where the accused, though a minor above 15 but below 18 at the time of commission, acted with discernment as demonstrated by the circumstances of the crime.

Robert Remiendo resided near the house where AAA's family stayed in Badiwan, Tuba, Benguet. AAA was born on February 21, 1986, making her below 12 years of age at the time of the alleged commission of the crimes in March and May 1997. Remiendo was born on January 21, 1982, placing him above 15 but below 18 years of age at the time of the rapes. Two criminal informations were filed against him for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The case also implicates R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), which raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility and provides for suspended sentences for children in conflict with the law.

AAA was born on February 21, 1986, and at the time of the commission of the offenses was a minor below 12 years of age. She knew Robert Remiendo as he resided near the house where her family used to stay in Badiwan, Tuba, Benguet. Sometime in March 1997, after AAA's parents and brother left for work and she was alone in the house, Remiendo entered, pushed her into a room, and threatened to kill her if she reported what happened. He undressed himself and AAA, made her lie on the bed, and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA struggled and felt pain but did not shout because Remiendo warned her he would kick her. She did not tell her parents when they arrived, fearing her mother might whip her.

Sometime in May 1997, AAA was again sexually assaulted by Remiendo, this time in his house. She was on her way to see her mother at her workplace after lunch when she passed by Remiendo's house; he pulled her inside and brought her to his room. She cried and shouted, but Remiendo told her to keep quiet. She struggled but was helpless because he was stronger. He removed his clothes, told her to remove her panty, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain and tried to push him away but could not. Afterwards, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone. AAA later executed a sworn statement identifying Remiendo as the person who raped her.

Dr. Ronald R. Bandonill, NBI medico-legal officer, physically examined AAA on January 2, 1998, and found old lacerations of the hymen at the 5:00 and 7:00 o'clock positions, indicating that her hymen was altered by a hard rigid instrument more than three months prior to the examination. Psychiatrist Dr. Elsie I. Caducoy examined AAA on July 12, 1998, and found her suffering from psychosis and organicity, with a below average IQ of 88 but not at the level of mental retardation. AAA's medical history showed she suffered head and body injuries from being sideswiped by a motor vehicle in 1996, which substantially contributed to her condition. During the examination, AAA revealed that Remiendo and a certain Reynoso Cera raped her. The psychiatrist opined that during the rape, AAA did not have a seizure because she was able to narrate what happened and identify her rapist.

The defense presented Lea Chiwayan, a friend and playmate of AAA, who testified that AAA told her she had a crush on Remiendo, and that AAA claimed her brother and father had sexual intercourse with her, and that Reynoso Cera raped her. Chiwayan also recounted an incident where AAA said Remiendo pulled her behind a church and had sexual intercourse with her, but later took it back as a joke. Remiendo, upon learning of the accusation, confronted AAA, slapped her, and directed exhaust fumes at her from a borrowed vehicle. Remiendo testified in his own behalf, denying the charges and describing his daily activities as a jitney driver under strict supervision. He learned of the charges when he received a subpoena from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in January 1998.

The RTC found Remiendo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory rape. The CA affirmed the conviction with modification on civil liability. Remiendo was born on January 21, 1982, and was thus above 15 but below 18 years of age at the time of the rapes. By the time the RTC promulgated its Joint Judgment on October 27, 2004, Remiendo was already 22 years old.

• Insufficient Proof of Victim's Age: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove the true and real age of the private complainant, contending that the Certificate of Live Birth was not admitted by the RTC in its Order dated September 14, 1999 because it was neither identified by any witness nor marked as an exhibit during trial. He further claimed that based on defense witness testimonies and the Elementary School Permanent Record, AAA was more than 12 years old in March and May 1997.
• Credibility of the Victim: Petitioner questioned AAA's credibility as a witness, claiming she was smiling during her testimony and that her failure to flee and her act of taking off her panties herself belied her charges of statutory rape.
• Benefit of R.A. No. 9344: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to establish that he acted with discernment in the commission of the crimes, and thus he should be exempt from criminal liability under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.

• Proof of Victim's Age: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established that AAA was below 12 years of age at the time of the commission of the crimes.
• Credibility of the Victim: Whether AAA's testimony is credible notwithstanding petitioner's claims regarding her demeanor and conduct during the alleged rapes.
• Applicability of R.A. No. 9344: Whether petitioner is entitled to exemption from criminal liability under R.A. No. 9344 on the ground that he was a minor above 15 but below 18 at the time of commission and allegedly did not act with discernment.

• Proof of Victim's Age: Yes. AAA's age was sufficiently established by the certified true copy of her Certificate of Live Birth, which is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth, and by the clear and unobjected testimonies of AAA and her mother BBB that she was born on February 21, 1986.
• Credibility of the Victim: Yes. AAA's testimony was credible and was corroborated by the NBI medico-legal examination showing healed hymenal lacerations; the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight and is binding absent arbitrariness.
• Applicability of R.A. No. 9344: No. Petitioner acted with discernment as shown by the circumstances of the crimes, and his claim was rendered moot because he had already reached 22 years of age at the time of sentencing, exceeding the maximum age of 21 under Section 40 of R.A. No. 9344.

• Proof of Victim's Age: The elements of statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. Pursuant to the guidelines in People vs. Pruna, the best evidence of age is the original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth. In this case, the prosecution offered a certified true copy of AAA's Certificate of Live Birth showing she was born on February 21, 1986, which was reserved for marking as shown in the Pretrial Order dated November 16, 1998. Although the RTC issued an Order dated September 14, 1999 stating the document was neither identified nor marked, the Court held that a certificate of live birth is a public document that constitutes prima facie evidence of the fact of birth and does not need authentication; it can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Even assuming the Certificate was not appreciated, the prosecution still established AAA's age under the Pruna guidelines because both AAA and her mother BBB testified that AAA was born on February 21, 1986, and this fact was neither denied nor objected to by the defense. Petitioner's argument that the prosecution admitted AAA's birthday was February 21, 1983 was rejected because the admission was merely that the school record contained that entry — not that the entry was correct. As between the school record and the testimonies of AAA and BBB, the latter must prevail.

• Credibility of the Victim: The trial court's assessment of witness credibility deserves great weight and is even conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight, because the trial court has the full opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying. Testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, as no young woman of tender age would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial if not motivated by the desire for justice. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth. AAA's testimony was corroborated by the NBI medico-legal examination showing old lacerations of the hymen at the 5:00 and 7:00 o'clock positions, indicating alteration by a hard rigid instrument more than three months prior. Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration. When the consistent testimony of a rape victim is consistent with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that carnal knowledge was established. Petitioner failed to show any improper motive on the part of AAA to testify falsely.

• Applicability of R.A. No. 9344: Under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344, a child above 15 but below 18 years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with discernment. Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving it through evidence of physical appearance, attitude, or deportment before, during, and after the commission, and during trial. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. In this case, Remiendo acted with discernment: in March 1997, he waited for AAA to be alone before entering, and threatened to kick her if she shouted; in May 1997, he pulled AAA into his house, ravished her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. His own testimony showed he knew rape was wrong — he was enraged when asked if he raped AAA, to the point of slapping her and directing exhaust smoke at her. Furthermore, even if he qualified for benefits under R.A. No. 9344, his claim was rendered moot by Section 40 thereof, which allows the court to extend a suspended sentence only until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. Remiendo was born on January 21, 1982, and the Joint Judgment was promulgated on October 27, 2004, making him 22 years old at the time of sentencing — no longer a child for purposes of R.A. No. 9344.

• Pruna Guidelines on Proof of Age in Rape Cases — The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth. In its absence, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and school records showing the date of birth suffice. If such documents are unavailable, the clear and credible testimony of the victim's mother or a qualified family member on pedigree suffices under certain circumstances depending on the age bracket sought to be proved. In the absence of all the foregoing, the complainant's own testimony suffices if expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. The prosecution bears the burden of proving age, and the failure of the accused to object to testimonial evidence on age shall not be taken against him. The trial court should always make a categorical finding on the victim's age. In this case, the Court applied the first guideline (certificate of live birth) and the fourth guideline (complainant's testimony admitted by the accused) to establish that AAA was below 12 years old.

• Certificate of Live Birth as Prima Facie Evidence — A certificate of live birth is a public document consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer. As such, it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth, does not need authentication, and can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The Court held that despite the RTC's September 14, 1999 Order, the Certificate was correctly appreciated because it is self-authenticating under Rule 132, Section 23 of the Rules of Court.

• Discernment Under R.A. No. 9344 — Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. For a child above 15 but below 18 to be criminally liable, the prosecution must prove discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude, or deportment not only before and during the commission but also after and during trial. The surrounding circumstances — including the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor's cunning and shrewdness — must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. The Court found discernment established through Remiendo's deliberate timing, threats, and his own admission of outrage when confronted with the accusation.

• Mootness of R.A. No. 9344 Benefits Upon Reaching 21 — Under Section 40 of R.A. No. 9344, a court may extend a suspended sentence only until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. If the child in conflict with the law has reached 21 at the time of sentencing, he can no longer be considered a child for purposes of the Act, rendering any claim for its benefits moot and academic.

• "A certificate of live birth is a public document that consists of entries (regarding the facts of birth) in public records (Civil Registry) made in the performance of a duty by a public officer (Civil Registrar). As such, it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth of a child, and it does not need authentication. It can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary." — This passage articulates the evidentiary weight of a certificate of live birth, explaining why the RTC's failure to formally admit it did not preclude appreciation of AAA's age.

• "Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial." — This defines the doctrine of discernment under R.A. No. 9344 and sets the prosecution's burden of proof, which is central to the Court's rejection of Remiendo's claim for exemption from criminal liability.

• "Remiendo, being above 15 and under 18 years of age at the time of the rape, and having acted with discernment, but having already reached 21 years of age at the time of the imposition of his sentence by the trial court, his claim for the benefits of R.A. No. 9344 is rendered moot and academic in view of Section 40 thereof." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the R.A. No. 9344 issue, combining the finding of discernment with the mootness arising from Remiendo's age at sentencing.

• People vs. Pruna, 439 Phil. 440 (2002) — Controlling precedent on the appreciation of the age of a rape victim. The Court applied the guidelines laid down in this case to determine whether AAA's age below 12 was sufficiently established.
• People vs. Basmayor, G.R. No. 182791, February 10, 2009 — Cited for the proposition that sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape, and that testimonies of young rape victims deserve full credence.
• People vs. Barcena, G.R. No. 168737, February 16, 2006 — Cited as the source of the Pruna guidelines as applied in subsequent jurisprudence.
• Llave vs. People, G.R. No. 166040, April 26, 2006 — Cited for the definition of discernment and the prosecution's burden to prove it under R.A. No. 9344.
• Padua vs. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008 — Cited for the application of Section 40 of R.A. No. 9344 regarding the maximum age of 21 for suspended sentences.

• Article 266-A(1)(d), Revised Penal Code — Defines statutory rape as sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age. The Court identified its two elements: (1) carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) the woman is below 12 years of age, both of which were established.
• Section 6, R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) — Provides that a child 15 years or under is exempt from criminal liability, and a child above 15 but below 18 is likewise exempt unless he acted with discernment. The Court applied this provision to determine whether Remiendo, who was above 15 but below 18 at the time of commission, was criminally liable.
• Section 40, R.A. No. 9344 — Provides that a court may extend a suspended sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. The Court applied this provision to hold that Remiendo's claim was moot because he was already 22 at the time of sentencing.
• Rule 132, Section 23, Rules of Court — Provides that public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The Court relied on this rule to uphold the evidentiary value of AAA's Certificate of Live Birth.
• Rule 129, Section 4, Rules of Court — Defines judicial admission as an admission made by a party in the course of proceedings that dispenses with proof. The Court applied this to reject Remiendo's argument that the prosecution judicially admitted AAA's birthday as February 21, 1983, clarifying that only the existence of the entry in the school record was admitted, not its correctness.
• Rule 130, Section 40, Rules of Court — Allows testimony of family members on matters respecting pedigree. Cited in the Pruna guidelines as a basis for admitting family testimony on the victim's age when documentary evidence is unavailable.

Carpio (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Velasco, Jr., and Peralta, JJ., concurred. (Carpio Morales was an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario per Special Order No. 720 dated October 5, 2009.)