BAGUIO CITY

SECOND DIVISION
Agenda of
Item No.

“G.R. No. 260054 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v.

Rudy Yosores Mambayas, Jr., XXX260054, Accused-Appellant).* — This
Court resolves an Appeal1 seeking the reversal of the Decision2 of the Court
of Appeals (CA), which affirmed with modification the Decision 3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), which found XXX260054 guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, as
amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-
Rape Law of 1997, qualified by his relationship with Cody Chental Marie C.
Mambayas (AAA).

The Antecedents

In an Information4 XXX was charged with rape defined and penalized

under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraphs 1 and 5 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, the accusatory portion
of which reads:

That sometime in 2008 at Patag, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused, taking advantage of his moral ascendancy and by means of force
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of her (sic) biological daughter, three (3) year old
Cody Chental Marie C. Mambayas, born on December 20, 2005, by then
and there inserting his penis inside her vagina, to her damage and
prejudice.

Contrary to and in violation of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal

Code, as amended by RA 8353 in relation to Article 266-B Paragraph[s] 1
and 5 of the same law.5

*
1
Rollo, pp.
2
Id. at 9–27. The October 22, 2020 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01891-MIN was penned by
Associate Justice Lily V. Biton, and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Oscar V.
Badelles of the Special Twenty-Third Division of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
3
Id. at pp. 30–37. The February 2, 2018 Decision in Criminal Case No. 2016-104 was penned by Judge
Richard D. Mordeno of Branch 22, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro City.
4
Records, p. 3.
5
Id.
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 260054

Upon arraignment, XXX260054, assisted by counsel de officio,

pleaded not guilty to the charged against him.6 Trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented the following as witnesses: AAA260054,

the victim;7 Alma Corre Mambayas (BBB260054), the mother of
AAA260054; 8 Dr. Ciara Chloe Pingol (Dr. Pingol), the attending physician;9
and Police Officer 1 April Rose Alta.10

According to the prosecution, during one night in 2008, three-year-old

AAA260054 went to sleep on her own in their house as she could no longer
wait for BBB260054, who was then working late. AAA260054 lived with
XXX260054, BBB260054, and her three siblings at the time. XXX260054
asked AAA260054’s siblings to leave the house.11

AAA260054 was awakened when XXX260054 lay beside her. He

then removed her short pants and underwear. After removing his short pants
and undergarment, he placed himself on top of AAA260054, inserted his
penis inside her vagina in a push and pull motion.12

AAA260054 merely cried during the horrendous experience and could

not immediately tell BBB260054 about what transpired when the latter
arrived as she was afraid that XXX260054 would do something to her
mother.13

The following day, while giving AAA260054 a bath, BBB260054 saw

bloodstains in her underwear. When asked about the bloodstains,
AAA260054 refused to respond.14

It was only in 2009, when BBB260054 and AAA260054 were brought

by BBB260054’s mother and sibling to Iligan City, that AAA260054
confided in her mother about the sexual assault committed by XXX260054.
BBB260054 opted to let go of the issue and lift the same up to the Lord, as
she was then separated from XXX260054 and they were safe from him.15

On June 10, 2014, BBB260054 received a call from AAA260054’s

teacher, informing her that XXX260054 visited the school which caused
AAA260054 to tremble and cry upon seeing him. It was then that
6
Records, p. 24.
7
TSN, June 22, 2016, p. __.
8
TSN, September 20, 2016, p. __.
9
TSN, August 30, 2016, p. __.
10
TSN, February 21, 2017, p. __.
11
CA rollo, p. 68.
12
Id.
13
Id. at 69.
14
Id.
15
Id.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 260054

BBB260054 decided to proceed to the police station to report the rape

incident and have it entered into the blotter.16 On June 13, 2015, BBB260054
was examined by Dr. Pingol, who then prepared a medical certificate
wherein she observed old healed hymenal lacerations at 5 and 7 o’clock
positions.17 She testified that the lacerations could be caused by blunt objects
such as an erect male organ.18

The defense presented XXX26005419 and neighbor, Andy Lasco

(Lasco),20 as its witnesses.

According to XXX, in 2008, he was still living with his wife and
AAA. In 2012, BBB260054 left the conjugal dwelling because she got
pregnant by another man and lived with him thereafter. She gave birth to
another child on May 21, 2012. XXX260054 found out about this when his
son with BBB260054 informed him.

Despite this, XXX260054 did not go after BBB260054 because she

took care of their children. However, he was surprised to learn that a case
was filed against him. XXX260054 believed that AAA260054 was being
used and coached by BBB260054, because she was living with another man.
XXX260054 denied the accusation against him and cited his good
relationship with AAA260054.21 Lasco testified that XXX260054 and
AAA260054 were close and that AAA260054 would help XXX260054 did
the laundry.22

The RTC rendered its Decision 23 finding XXX260054 guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified statutory rape, the dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, judgment is

hereby rendered finding the accused [XXX260054] RUDY YOSORES
MAMBAYAS,JR., GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
statutory rape, as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, [paragraph]
1 of the Revised Penal Code, and further qualified by his relationship with
the victim. Accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

The accused is further directed to pay “AAA[260054]” [PHP]

100,000.00 as civil indemnity, [PHP] 100,000.00 as moral damages and
[PHP] 30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at the legal rate
of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

16
Id.
17
Id.
18
TSN, August 30, 2016, p. 5.
19
TSN, June 27, 2017, p. __.
20
TSN, November 8, 2017, p. ___.
21
CA rollo, pp. 30-31 and TSN, June 27, 2017, p. 11.
22
TSN, November 8, 2018, p. 6.
23
Rollo, pp. 30–37.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 260054

SO ORDERED.24
The RTC found that the credibility of AAA260054 as a witness is
unquestionable. The RTC noted that it had the occasion to observe the
demeanor of AAA60054 when she was put to the witness stand. By the time
AAA60054 started to speak, the RTC easily noticed the angst in her. At
times, she would be morose, and at some other time, she showed restiveness.
The RTC found that she was able to recollect her harrowing ordeal in a clear,
direct and straightforward manner25 and the inconsistencies in her narration
were too trivial and inconsequential.26

Aggrieved, XXX60054 appealed his conviction to the Court of

Appeals.27

In its Decision,28 the CA affirmed with modification the Decision of

the RTC, increasing the amount of exemplary damages to PHP 100,000.00.
The CA found that AAA60054’s testimony sufficiently established that
XXX60054 succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. 29 The CA rejected
XXX60054’s claimed that the accusations against him were merely
fabricated to cover up the fact that his wife was living with another man who
allegedly impregnated her.30 The CA likewise rejected his claimed that the
Information filed against him violated his right to be sufficiently informed of
the cause and accusation against him on account of the date of commission
of the offense was not spelled out with exactitude.31

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision32 reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby

DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 02 February 2018 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 22, Cagayan de Oro City, in CR FMY CASE No.
2016-104 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused Rudy
Yosores Mambayas, Jr. is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is hereby ORDERED to pay
the private offended party as follows: civil indemnity of [PHP]
100,000.00, moral damages of [PHP]100,000.00, and exemplary damages
of [PHP] 100,000.00. All award of damages shall earn interest at the legal
rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this
Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.33

24
Id. at ___.
25
CA rollo, p. 50.
26
Id. at 51.
27
Id. at ___.
28
Id. at 9–27.
29
Rollo, p. 20.
30
Id. at 21.
31
Id. at 22.
32
Id. at 26.
33
Id.
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 260054

XXX260054 filed a Notice of Appeal,34 seeking the reversal of the CA

Decision before this Court.35

Both the Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney’s
Office, on behalf of XXX260054, manifested that supplemental briefs will
no longer be filed.36

Issue

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of

XXX260054.

Our Ruling

The Appeal is without merit.

Rape, as defined under the first paragraph of Article 266-A of the

Revised Penal Code, provides:

Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed:

1. By a man who shall have 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 (12) years of age or is

demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above
be present.

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.

34
Id. at ___.
35
Id. at 4–5.
36
Id. at 41–50.
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 260054

To secure a conviction for statutory rape under Article 266-A of

the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must establish the following
elements: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (2) the
accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was
force, threat, intimidation, or grave abuse of authority.37

Moreover, it has been settled that if sexual intercourse is committed

with a child below seven years old, the proper designation of the crime is
always “qualified statutory rape.” Rape shall be qualified when the victim is
below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree,
or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; and/or when the
victim is a child below seven years old.38

Here, AAA260054 was merely three years old when she was sexually
assaulted. In line with the guidelines set in People v. Pruna,39 in appreciating
age either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, the
best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or
certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. Accordingly,
the prosecution’s presentation of AAA260054’ Certificate of Live Birth 40
duly established her age. The relationship of XXX260054 and AAA260054
was likewise established through the Certificate of Live Birth,41 coupled with
XXX260054’s own admission that AAA260054 was his biological
daughter.42

As to XXX260054’s carnal knowledge of AAA260054, it bears

noting that the factual findings of the trial court, including its
pronouncement as to the credibility of the witnesses, should be accorded
great weight and respect. This is because trial courts have the opportunity
to personally examine and observe the demeanor, manner, and body
language of the witnesses when they were placed on the witness stand
during trial.43

As observed by the CA, the RTC keenly observed the demeanor of

AAA260054 when she testified in the witness stand.44 The RTC concluded
that, “[w]ithout no doubt, the credibility of ‘AAA[260054]’ as witness is
unquestionable.”45 Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked or
misunderstood any factual circumstance in this case, this Court upholds the

37
People v. Toreno, Jr., G.R. No. 250332, November 23, 2021 [Per J. Caguioa, First Division]. [FN 48]
38
People v. YYY, G.R. No. 252865, August 4, 2021 [Per J. Inting, Second Division]. [FN 43-44].
(Emphasis supplied)
39
People v. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002 [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., En Banc]. [Betw. FN 77-
79]
40
Index of Exhibits, Exhibit B.
41
Id.
42
TSN, June 27, 2017, p. 4.
43
People v. XXX, G.R. No. 255491, April 18, 2011 [Per J. Hernando, Second Division]. [FN 52]
44
Rollo, p. 21.
45
CA rollo, p. 50.
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 260054

findings of RTC and the CA in giving credence to AAA260054’s

testimony.

In deciding cases involving rape, this Court recognizes that an

accused may be convicted on the basis of the victim’s sole and
uncorroborated testimony, provided that it is logical, credible, consistent,
and convincing46 Other than the manner by which her testimony was
delivered, AAA260054’s testimony contained clear and categorical details
which paint a full picture of accused-appellant’s sexual assault.
AAA260054 even demonstrated the incident through the use of
anatomically-correct dolls. The testimony of AAA260054 more than
sufficiently supports XXX260054’s conviction, to wit:

Q: You said that when you were sleeping your father lay beside you.
Were you awake or asleep at that time?
A: I was sleeping and I was awakened.

Q: What happened after that?

A: He removed my short pants and panty.

Q: After removing them, what happened?

A: Then he inserted his… inside my vagina.

Q: Why do you mean by his?

A: His penis.

Q: Considering that you were three-years old at that time. I want you to
demonstrate it. (Records: The Prosecutor is holding two dolls). If this first
doll represents you and this second doll represents your father, how did
your father remove your underwear or short pants?

A: He removed it. (Records: Witness demonstrated how her short pants was
removed by making a pulling motion on the supposed short pants of the
doll.)

Q: Did he remove it from your legs?

A: Yes.

Q: You said you were lying down. Can you demonstrate using these dolls
how you lie down and how your father also lie down?

A: My father went near me at my feet.

Q: You said he was lying next to you. Please demonstrate.

A: Yes. (Records: Witness demonstrate how her father lay beside her by
placing the two dolls lie down close to each other).

Q: Then, what happened next after he lay next to you?

A: He undressed me.

46
People v. Sanay, G.R. No. 248113, December 7, 2021 [Per J. Caguioa, First Division]. [FN 29]
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 260054

Q: After undressing you, what happened next?

A: He inserted his penis into my vagina.

Q: Did he has clothes or did he remove his clothes?

A: He removed his short pants.

Q: How about his brief?

A: He also removed it.

Q: How did he insert his penis into your vagina?

A: He placed himself on top of me.

Q: You are still three years old at that time?

A: Yes.

Q: How were you able to remember all of that?

A: I often have dreams about it.47

In his Brief with the CA, accused-appellant claims that AAA’s

testimony was lacking in details and that there were too many loopholes
that escaped the RTC’s attention which are sufficient to acquit him. 48
Accused-appellant highlighted how AAA could not remember particular
details surrounding the alleged crime, such as the year her parents
separated, whether she mentioned she was raped in 2008 to Dr. Pingol, the
date when did she told mother she was raped, among others.49

In our view, these are inconsequential matters which do not impair

AAA’s credibility as a witness, nor touch upon the elements of the crime of
Rape. What is material is that AAA categorically testified that accused-
appellant placed himself on top of her and forcibly inserted his penis inside
her vagina in a push and pull motion.50

Moreover, it bears noting that AAA was merely three (3) years old
when she was raped by her father. Being subjected to the horrors of
incestuous rape at such a young age from a perpetrator who is normally
expected to give solace and protection to the victim,51 AAA cannot be
expected to remember every detail of this very traumatic experience.

47
TSN dated June 22, 2016, pp. 8-9; Emphasis supplied.
48
CA rollo, pp. 32 and 35.
49
CA rollo, pp. 37 and 38.
50
People v. Talmesa, G.R. No. 240421, November 16, 2020 [Per J. Inting, Third Division]. [Betw. FN 31
and 32]
51
People v. AAA, G.R. No. 248777, July 7, 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta, First Division]. [FN 21]
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 260054

In the similar case of People v. Fetalco,52 citing People v. Piosang,53

the Court emphasized that when the victim is of tender age and immature,
courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired,
considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which
she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true:

At such a young age, it is only natural for AAA to forget some

details of her horrors to cope with the trauma. Rape is a painful
experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. It is something
which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the
victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and
subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be
expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the
traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone.

In People v. Piosang, We have held that testimonies of child-

victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape has, in fact, been committed.
When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are
inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering
not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she
would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth
and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.
Considering that AAA was only four (4) years old when she was raped
and was only six (6) years old when she took the witness stand, she
could not have invented a horrible story.54

The Court does not find it necessary to incisively discuss accused-

appellant’s contention that Dr. Pingol’s medical findings failed to
corroborate AAA’s testimony because of her statement that a hymenal
laceration can be caused by any blunt object. It has been repeatedly held that
the medical examination of the victim or the presentation of a medico-legal
report or medical certificate is not essential to prove the commission of rape
since the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict
the accused-appellant of the crime.55

Accused-appellant also highlights the insufficiency of the Information

for indicating merely “sometime in 2008” as the date when the rape incident
occurred. According to accused-appellant, the failure to allege with
particularity the date of the commission of the offense deprived him of his
right to intelligently prepare for his defense and convincingly refute the
charges against him.56

Accused-appellant’s argument fails to convince. In rape cases, the

date of commission is not an essential element of rape. The material fact or
circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of
52
G.R. No. 241249, July 28, 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta, First Division]. [FN 31-34]
53
G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]. [FN 19]
54
Emphasis supplied.
55
People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 142662, August 14, 2001 [Per J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division]. [FN 29-
31]
56
CA rollo, p. 41.
Resolution 10 G.R. No. 260054

its commission.57In fact, the Court has previously upheld complaints and
informations in prosecutions for rape which do not indicate the precise date
of commission of the crime, such as in People v. Ibañez58 (“sometime in
June 1997” and “sometime in April 1999”) and People v. ZZZ59 (“sometime
in the early part of 2008”).

Finally, accused-appellant imputes ill motive on the part of AAA and

BBB, claiming that AAA was merely being used by BBB because the latter
is living with another man and bore his child. Notably, however, accused-
appellant failed to present any clear and convincing proof that AAA nor
BBB was moved by hatred or revenge. Thus, accused-appellant's bare
allegation of ill motive must fail.60

Between the positive and categorical testimony of a rape victim, on

one hand, and accused-appellant’s bare denial, on the other, the former
generally prevails. Universally accepted is the rule that a denial is self-
serving and cannot prevail over the declaration of a credible witness who
testifies on affirmative matters.61 AAA’s clear, positive, and credible
testimony outweighs accused-appellant’s bare denial.
|||

In view of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming
the verdict of conviction of accused-appellant.

Considering that the penalty for Qualified Statutory Rape is death and
the same cannot be imposed in view of RA 9346, the RTC correctly
imposed the sentence of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.62
As to the award of damages, the Court of Appeals correctly modified the
Decision of the RTC to conform with prevailing jurisprudence setting civil
indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at PHP 100,000.00
each. Each monetary award shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The

Decision dated October 22, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
HC No. 01891-MIN is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Rudy Yosores
Mambayas, Jr. is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Qualified
Statutory Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.

Accordingly, he is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion

perpetua. He is likewise ORDERED to pay AAA the amounts of PHP
100,000.00. as civil indemnity, PHP 100,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP
100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
57
People v. Biala, G.R. No. 217975, November 23, 2015 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]. [FN 28-29]
58
G.R. No. 174656, May 11, 2007 [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc]. [FN 20-21]
59
G.R. No. 232329, April 28, 2021 [Per J. Hernando, Third Division]. [FN 24-25]
60
People v. Jagdon Jr., G.R. 242882, September 9 2020 [Per J. Delos Santos, Second Division]. [FN 63]
61
People v. Operario, G.R. No. 146590, July 17, 2003 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]. [FN 14]
62
Id. at note 35.
Resolution 11 G.R. No. 260054

Legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all

damages awarded from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.”