2/18/2020 [ G.R. No.

213830, November 25, 2015 ]

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 213830, November 25, 2015 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS ROY UYOY HANGGAN ALIAS "TOTO"

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 25, 2015, which reads as
follows:

"G.R. No. 213830 (People of the Philippines versus Roy Uyoy Hanggan alias "Toto"). - On appeal is the
February 28, 2014 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01041-MIN affirming the
conviction of appellant Roy Uyoy Hanggan alias "Toto" for three counts of rape.

Three Informations were filed charging appellant with rape. The accusatory portion of the first Information reads:

On 28 September 2004 at 6:00 o'clock more or less in the evening, at [XXX], Claveria, Misamis
Oriental, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused
knowing fully well the minority of [AAA],[2] and with force and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with thirteen-year [13] old [AAA]
against her will and without her consent to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO and in violation of Article 266-A Paragraph 1 in relation to Article 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353.[3]

The two other Informations[4] are similarly worded except that the alleged second rape happened at around 9:00
p.m. on September 28, 2004 and third rape happened at around 3:00 a.m. of the next day at YYY, Claveria,
Misamis Oriental.

The evidence for the prosecution showed that sometime on September 28, 2004, while 13-year-old AAA was on
her way home, she was dragged by appellant towards a santol tree. Upon reaching the santol tree, he undressed
her, took off his clothes, and had sexual intercourse with her. She shouted for help but no one was around at that
time. She tried to fight him but to no avail.[5]

Appellant then told AAA that he will bring her to Zamboanga. She tried to run away but he was able to grab her
hands. He then brought her to his mother's house in YYY, Claveria. Later that night, AAA was awakened because
appellant had sexual intercourse with her again. She tried to kick him but he was holding her legs. She did not
shout because she was afraid.[6]

AAA was awakened at dawn because appellant had sexual intercourse with her. As she had no more strength, she
was only able to put up a little fight.[7]

When morning came, AAA asked permission from appellant to go home. He allowed her to go home but told her
not to tell anyone. Instead of going home, she went to her aunt's house which is nearer and revealed to her what
happened. AAA likewise told her mother that appellant raped her and they went to the Claveria police station to

elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=70432&Index=%2aaa1de0751c9cff7439815a4b27e3ab58&… 1/5
2/18/2020 [ G.R. No. 213830, November 25, 2015 ]

report the incident.[8]

On the same day, AAA was examined by a doctor. The findings, as stated in the medical report, are: (1) hymen
with incomplete laceration with edematous hyperemic borders; (2) abrasion on left leg; and (3) positive for
spermatozoa.[9]

For his defense, appellant testified that he and AAA are sweethearts. He claimed that they met on September 28,
2004 because she wanted to borrow money to pay her classmate. They went home to YYY, Claveria because it
was already night time and she was afraid that she might be spanked by her father for coming home late. They
slept separately in his mother's house. They never had sexual intercourse.[10]

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found AAA's testimony credible and convicted appellant. It ruled:

THIS COURT BELIEVES THE MINOR OFFENDED PARTY, AND HER TESTIMONY. The
minor offended party and her testimony are credible. She testified directly, positively, and in a
straightforward manner. There is neither cause nor reason for this Court to withhold credence to her
testimony, x x x

xxxx

When the minor refused to go to the santol tree, he dragged her to the tree. When the accused raped
the minor near the santol tree, she tried to fight him back by kicking him but she had no strength to
fight him. After she was sexually molested, she tried to run away, but she was unable to do so
because he grabbed her hands. Surely, her resistance to the accused shows that she did not consent
to have sexual intercourse with the accused, and accused forced her to have sexual intercourse with
him. When the accused raped her for the second time at around nine o'clock in the evening at his
house, she tried to kick him but she could not kick him because he held her legs. When he raped her
the third time at around 3:00 a.m., she did not fight him anymore because she had no more strength.
On these three occasions, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had sexual intercourse with
the minor without her consent and accused succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her by his
employment of force. There is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime
of rape on these occasions.

THE DEFENSE OF DENIAL OF THE ACCUSED IS NOT TENABLE. As a matter of fact, the
mother of the accused Erlinda Hanggan who testified demonstrated that the accused and her mother
are not credible. The accused testified that the minor slept beside his mother in their house at
[YYY], Claveria, and he slept under the table far from the minor. His mother, however, testified
that the accused and the minor were sleeping beside each other. Moreover, the mother testified that
both the accused and the minor arrived at her house well-groomed. But the accused testified that he
and the minor were wet because it was raining at that time, xxx[11]

The CA denied the appeal of appellant and affirmed his conviction for three counts of rape. The CA noted that
AAA's testimony is direct and consistent even on cross-examination.[12] The CA also noted that AAA's testimony
is supported by the medical report which showed that AAA's hymen has an incomplete laceration with edematous
hyperemic borders, that spermatozoa was found, and that there is abrasion on AAA's left leg.[13] The fallo of the
appealed CA Decision reads:

elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=70432&Index=%2aaa1de0751c9cff7439815a4b27e3ab58&… 2/5
2/18/2020 [ G.R. No. 213830, November 25, 2015 ]

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court is
Affirmed with Modifications:

1. Roy Hanggan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape and shall suffer
an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua for each count;

2. Roy Hanggan shall pay the offended party P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity for each count of rape; and

3. Roy Hanggan shall pay the offended party P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count
of rape.

SO ORDERED.[14]

Hence, this appeal.

The appeal lacks merit.

It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to
the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the
judge had the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth
or not.[15] In this case, the RTC found AAA and her testimony credible, and noted that she testified directly,
positively, and in a straightforward manner. The RTC rejected appellant's defense for lack of credibility. The CA
also found AAA's testimony to be direct and consistent even on cross-examination. The determination by the trial
court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, as in this case, is accorded full weight
and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.[16]

Well-entrenched is the rule that the testimony of a minor rape victim, such as AAA, is given full weight and
credence considering that no young woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her
private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by
the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[17]

As to the sweetheart theory or sweetheart defense, we have viewed it as an oft-abused justification that rashly
derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence
to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence.[18] The defense cannot just present testimonial
evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required - such as tokens,
mementos, and photographs.[19] There is none presented here by the defense.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM the February 28, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR FIC No. 01041-MIN with MODIFICATION that all damages awarded shall earn 6% interest per
annum reckoned from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

With costs against the appellant. (Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Leonen, J.,
designated additional Member per Raffle dated September 10, 2014.)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=70432&Index=%2aaa1de0751c9cff7439815a4b27e3ab58&… 3/5
2/18/2020 [ G.R. No. 213830, November 25, 2015 ]

(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

[1] Rollo, pp. 3-12. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. luting with Associate Justices Edgardo A.
Camello and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring.

[2] The victim's real name and personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish or

compromise her identity as well as those of her immediate family are withheld per People v. Cabalquindo, 533
Phil. 703, 709 (2006).

[3] Records, p. 2.

[4] Id. at 4-7.

[5] Rollo, p. 4.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 5.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 5-6.

[11] CA rollo, pp. 36-37.

[12] Rollo, p.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 12.

[15] People v. Obina, 632 Phil. 288, 293 (2010).

[16] People v. Sabadlab, 679 Phil. 425, 438 (2012).

[17] People v. Opong, 577 Phil. 571, 589-590 (2008), citing People v. Arsayo, 534 Phil. 381, 397 (2006).

[18] People v. Daldo, 599 Phil. 382, 388 (2009), citing People v. Barangan, 560 Phil. 811, 835 (2007) and People

v. Calongui, 519 Phil. 71, 77-78 (2006).

[19] Id., citing People v. Batiancila, 542 Phil. 420, 431 (2007).

elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=70432&Index=%2aaa1de0751c9cff7439815a4b27e3ab58&… 4/5
2/18/2020 [ G.R. No. 213830, November 25, 2015 ]

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: January 15, 2016

Supreme Court E-Library

elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=70432&Index=%2aaa1de0751c9cff7439815a4b27e3ab58&… 5/5