G.R. No. 208842 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. REYNALDO SIMBULAN ARCEO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly decided that: WHEREFORE, finding the accused Reynaldo Simbulan Arceo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and considering the presence of aggravating circumstance of minority, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in this case. Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the victim [MMM] the amount of P75,000.00 and another amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages. With cost against the accused. [17] Accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals on 7 June 2010, [18] arguing that: I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(A), ARTICLE 266-A OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8353, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF INTIMIDATION; II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; AND III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(D), ARTICLE 266-A OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8353, DESPITE THE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WAS OVER TWELVE (12) YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED RAPE ON JULY 22, 2000. [19] On 12 March 2013, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming in toto the trial court's judgment. Accused-appellant filed the instant appeal. In a Resolution [20] dated 13 November 2013, the parties were required to simultaneously submit their respective supplemental briefs if they so desired. Both parties manifested that they were adopting their respective briefs filed before the appellate court. [21] Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for decision. In his Brief, [22] accused-appellant contends that the element of intimidation is lacking in this case to prove his guilt to the crime of rape. Accused-appellant asserts that based on MMM's testimony, he did not employ intimidation as to have cowed her into submission. His alleged acts of covering MMM's mouth and straddling her with his legs were performed only after MMM woke up and were never used to compel MMM into having sexual intercourse with him. Accused-appellant also assails the lack of medical basis to prove that there was sexual contact between him and MMM. The medical report does not corroborate MMM's testimony, as the abrasion could have been brought about by other causes. Accused-appellant avers that the prosecution failed to prove that MMM was below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime resulting in the absence of one element lacking of the crime of rape. Based on MMM's birth certificate, she was born on 21 November 1987 thus she was 12 years and 8 months old on 22 July 2000, the date of the alleged rape. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that the rape was committed through force because accused-appellant "forced" hims