G.R. No.

208835
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs.
NOEL BEJIM y ROMERO, Accused-Appellant
DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This is an appeal from the September 25, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR-HC No. 05010 affirming with modification the December 9, 2010 Consolidated
Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, La Trinidad, Benguet, finding appellant
Noel Bejimy Romero guilty of seven counts of rape.

Factual Antecedents

On February 19, 2007, appellant was charged before the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, with
seven counts of statutory rape under seven separate Informations, viz.:

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6765

That sometime in the first week of October. 2001, x x x Province of Benguet, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of "AM,"3 a minor being six (6)
years and eleven (11) months of age at the time of the commission of the crime, to her damage
and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6766

That sometime in the second week of October, 2001, x x x Province of Benguet, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously haw carnal knowledge of "AAA," a minor being six (6)
years and eleven (11) months of age at the time of the commission of the crime, to her damage
and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6767

That sometime in the month of September, 2001, x x x Province of Benguet, Philippines, and
"Within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of "BBB," a minor being seven (7)
years and eleven (11) months of age at the time of the commission of the crin1e, to her damage
and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.6
Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6768

That sometime in the month of September, 2001, x x x Province of Benguet, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the Above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of ''CCC," a minor being seven (7)
years and ten (10) months of age at the time of the commission of the crime, to her damage and
prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.7

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6769

That sometime in the second week of October, 2001, x x x Province of Benguet, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of "CCC," a minor being seven (7)
years and eleven (11) months of age at the time of the commission of the crime, to her damage
and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.8

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6770

That sometime in the last week of October, 2001, x x x Province of Benguet, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of "CCC," a minor being seven (7)
years and eleven (11) months of age at the time of the commission of the crime, to her damage
and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.9

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6771

That sometime in the first week of October, 2001, x x x Province of Benguet, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of "CCC," a minor being seven (7)
years and eleven (11) months of age at the time of the commission of the crime, to her damage
and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.10

On May 8, 2007, appellant was arraigned in all the seven Informations and pleaded not guilty.
The cases were consolidated and tried jointly.

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6765

"AAA'' first met appellant who was the helper of her cousin ''CCC's" father at "CCC's" house
when she went there to play. In the first week of October 2001 while at "CCC's" house, appellant
made "AAA'' lie on a sofa. He undressed her, applied cooking oil on her vagina and on his penis,
and then rubbed his penis against her vagina for some time. He then pulled "CCC" to the sofa
and again placed cooking oil on his penis and on "CCC's" vagina. "AAA" saw this because she
was just a meter away from them. Appellant warned "AAA" and ''CCC'' not to tell anyone of
what transpired otherwise he would kill them and their families.

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6766

Sometime in the second or third week of October 2001, while "AAA" and "CCC' were playing at
the latter's house, appellant again pulled them to a sofa. When appellant went to the kitchen,
"AAA" and "CCC" tried to run away but appellant caught them at the living room. He forced
''AAA" to lie on the sofa, pulled down her pants and panties to her ankle, and applied cooking oil
on his penis and her vagina. Appellant rubbed his penis on "AAA's vagina. She felt pain.
Thereafter, appellant likewise pulled "CCC" to the sofa, brought down the latter's pants, and
rubbed his penis against her vagina. After threatening them, appellant wore his pants and went
out of the house.

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6767

"BBB" is also a cousin of "CCC" and "AAA". In the first week of September 2001, while she
and "CCC" were inside the latter's house. appellant suddenly pulled them to the sofa in the living
room. Appellant laid "CCC" on the sofa, applied cooking oil on her vagina and his penis; and
tried to insert his penis into "CCC's" vagina. Thereafter, appellant turned to "BBB." He made her
Lie on the sofa, lifted her skirt, pulled down her panties, his pants and brief, and tried to insert
his penis into her vagina, Unsuccessful, he just brushed or rubbed his penis against her vagina.
"BBB" felt pain in her vagina. Appellant immediately stood up; fixed his clothes and ran away
upon seeing the arrival of "BBB's" cousins. "DOD" and "EEE." "BB" told her cousins that they
were sexually molested by appellant but wan1ed them not to tell anybody because if they do
appellant would kill them.

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6768

'"CCC" knew appellant because he was the helper of her father and lived with them in their
house. In the first week of September 2001, while she and her cousin "BBB" were playing inside
their house, appellant closed all the windows and doors, made her lie on the sofa, lowered her
pant5 and underwear down to her ankle, and put cooking oil on his penis and on her vagina.
"BBB" saw appellant's penis penetrating ''CCC's" vagina. When appellant saw "CCC's" two
sisters "DDD" and "EEE" arrive, he went out of the house.

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6769

In the second week of October 2001, appellant laid ''CCC" on the kitchen table, removed her
pants, put cooking oil on his penis and her vagina and tried to penetrate it but was unsuccessful.
Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6770

In the last week of October 2001, while "CCC" was sleeping in her sister's bedroom, appellant
came and removed her clothes, mounted her and tried to insert his penis but he failed, albeit she
felt his big penis. "CCC" did not tell her father of what happened because of appellant's threat.

Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6771

Sometime in the first week of October 2001 and while inside "CCC's" house, appellant laid
"CCC" on the sofa, put cooking oil on her vagina and his penis. He tried to insert his penis into
her vagina but failed. Thereafter, appellant went outside. "CCC" did not tell anyone about the
incident because of appellant's threat to kill her and her family.

"AAA,'' ''BBB" and "CCC" were physically examined by Dra. Bernadette Valdez (Dra. Valdez).
The result of her examination which was reduced into writing11 shows no evident injury at the
time of her examination though her medical evaluation does not exclude possible sexual abuse.

Appellant denied the accusations against him claiming that he was not in the house of "CCC"
when the alleged incidents happened in 200l.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

After trial, the RTC rendered on December 9, 2010 its Consolidated Judgment finding appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua for each count. He was also ordered to pay the amount of ₱50,000.00 as
civil indemnity and another ₱50,000.00 as moral damages for each crime.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA, in its Decision dated September 25, 2012, affirmed with modifications the RTC
Consolidated Judgment in this wise:

ACCORDINGLY, the Consolidated Judgment dated December 9, 2010 is AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION, as follows:

1. pronouncing appellant Noel Bejim y Romero guilty of qualified rape in Criminal Case Nos.
07-CR-67-65 and 07-CR- 67-66 and liable for Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as
moral damages and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count;

2. pronouncing appellant Noel Bejim y Romero guilty of statutory rape in Criminal Case ·No.
07-CR-67-67 and liable for Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity. Php75,000.00 as moral damages
and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and,

3. pronouncing appellant Noel Bejim y Romero guilty of statutory rape in Criminal Case Nos.
07-[CR]-67-68, 07-[CR]-67-69, 07- [CR]-67-70, and 07-[CR]-67-7 l and liable for Php75,000.00
as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral [damages] and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages
for each count.

In Criminal Case Nos. 07-CR-67-65 and 07-CR-67-66 appellant shall not be qualified for parole.

SO ORDERED.

Appellant interposed before this Court the present recourse adopting the same argument he
raised in his brief before the CA, viz.:

The court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape despite
the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.13

In support of his argument, appellant impugns the victims' credibilities by capitalizing on the
alleged inconsistencies in their open court testimonies; their failure to shout for help during the
alleged incidents; the belated filing of their complaints; and, the medical finding of no evident
injury during their examination.

Our Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.

The inconsistency pointed out by appellant as to whether "AAA" was alone or with "BBB"
during the alleged incident on the first week of October 200 l refers merely to inconsequential
matter that will not affect the determination of whether appellant is innocent of the crime
charged or not. "[D]iscrepancies referring only to minor details and not to the cen1ral fact of the
crime do not affect the veracity or detract from the credibility of a witness' declaration x x x."14
Respecting the alleged inconsistency on whether appellant's penis touched "AAA's" vagina or
not, the same has been clarified by "AAA" herself15 "AAA" stated that appellant's penis indeed
brushed her vagina. As held in Dizon v. People,16 "(i]n rape cases, the testimony of [the]
complainant must be considered and calibrated in its entirety, and not in its truncated portion or
isolated passages thereof The true meaning of answers to questions propounded to a witness is to
be ascertained with due consideration of all the questions and answers given thereto. The whole
impression or effect of what has been said or done must be considered, and not individual words
or phrases alone. Facts imperfectly stated in answer to a question may be supplied or clarified by
one's answer to other questions."

The failure of the victims to shout for help or escape during the incidents does not undermine
their credibility. It is not also fatal to the prosecution's case. "[N]o standard form of behavior can
be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be
expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. People react differently to emotional stress,
and rape victims are no different from them."17

Neither the delay in reporting the incidents to the proper authorities tainted the victims'
credibility. For sure, there was no prompt revelation of what befell the victims. But "long silence
and delay in reporting the crime of rape have not always been construed as indications of a false
accusation."18 "A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its
commission is unreasonable and unexplained."19In the present case, appellant threatened the
victims that he would kill them and their families if they would tell anyone of what he did to
them. To our mind, this is a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Regarding the findings of Dra. Valdez that her physical examination on the victims shows no
evident injury, this Court had already ruled that ''a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is
sufficient to convict the [accused] of the crime."20

Appellant denies being Cit the house of "CCC" duri.ng the incidents. However, he failed to
provide an account of his whereabouts such that it was physically impossible for him to have
committed the crimes. Appellant's unsubstantiated denial must fail in light of the categorical
testimonies of the victims that it was he who molested them.

Notably, appellant's belabored attempt to reverse his conviction is essentially anchored on

credibility.1âwphi1 The general rule is that "this Court will not disturb the findings of the trial
court as to the credibility of witnesses, considering that it is in a better position to observe their
candor and behavior on the witness stand."21 However, this principle ·does not .preclude a
reevaluation of the evidence to determine whether matei1al facts or circumstances have been
overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court.22 Consistent with the p1incipal that an appeal in
a criminal action opens the whole case for review, we shall now determine whether the' evidence
of the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant for qualified rape and
statutory rape.

Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman with the use of force, threat or
intimidation or when she is under 12 years of age or is demented. Where the victim is below 12
years old, the only subject of inquiry is whether ''carnal knowledge" took place. Carnal
knowledge is "the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with a
woman".23 There must be proof that his penis touched the labias of the victims or slid into their
female organs and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, to produce a conviction of
rape by sexual intercourse.24

''AAA" recounted the details on how the alleged rape was committed as follows:

The alleged rape committed on the first week of October 2001 (Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6765)-

xxxx

Q: And what did he do after he made you lie down on the sofa?

A: He went to get cooking oil and poured it on his penis and he undressed me and he also poured
cooking oil on my vagina.

Q; After he placed oil [on] his penis and placed oil (on] your vagina, what did he do next?
A: He rubbed his penis on my vagina.

The rape on the second week of October 2001 (Criminal Case No. 07-CR- 6766)-

Q: And after pulling down your pants and panty, what did he do next?

A: Sir, he again placed cooking oil on his penis and [on] my vagina and he again rubbed his
penis into my vagina.

Q: And did you feel anything when he rubbed his penis [on] your vagina?

A: Yes, sir, it was quite painful.26

Regarding the rape allegedly committed during the first week of September 2001 (Criminal Case
No. 07-CR-6767) "BBB" narrated her horrifying experience as follows:

Q: So after Noel Bejim sat beside you, did Nod Bejim do anything Else?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did he do?

A: He pulled me and let me lie down on the sofa.

Q: Was he able to make you lie down on the sofa?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And when he was able to lay you down on the sofa, what did he do next, if any?

A: He lifted my skirt and . . .

Q: After he lifted your skirt, what did he do next, if any?

A: He brought down my panty and he pulled down his clothes.

Q: What clothes did he bring down?

A: Sir, his pants sir and his brief.

Q: And after he brought down his pants and his brief, what did Noel Bejim do next?

A: He tried to insert his penis [into] my vagina.

Q: Did you feel his penis [inside] your vagina?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And was he able to insert his penis into your vagina?

A: Sir, he just brushed it.

Q: And what did you feel, if any, when he was brushing his penis [on] your vagina?

A: It was painful, sir.

Q: So after rubbing his penis into your vagina, what did he do next?

A: When he saw my cousins, he immediately got up, stood up.

Q: And when he stood up, what did he do next?

A: He fixed his pants and his brief and he ran away.27

The foregoing revelations of "AAA'' and "BBB" show that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution did not conclusively establish the element of carnal knowledge. In the
aforementioned cases, there is no categorical proof of entrance or introduction of appellant's
male organ into the labia of the pudendum of "AAA." Neither is there evidence to show that
appellant made an attempt to penetrate "AAA's" vagina. The prosecution’s evidence lacks
definite details regarding penile penetration. On the contrary, "AAA'' and "'BBB" stated that
appellant merely "brushed or rubbed" his penis on their respective private organs. While "BBB"
testified that appellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina, she nevertheless failed to state for
the record that there was the slightest penetration into it. What is clear on record is that appellant
merely brushed it.

The Court held in People v. Butiong28 that ''the labia majora must be entered for rape to be
consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, a
grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not
sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the
female organ, i.e., touching of either the labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no
consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness." While
"the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act
is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge,"29 "the act of touching should be m1derstood here
as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias of the female organ and not mere
touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudemdum."30 Indeed, the grazing of the victims'
private organ caused pain, but it cannot be presumed that carnal knowledge indeed took place by
reason thereof As the Court held in People v. Brioso,31 "the Court is loath to convict an accused
for rape solely on the basis of the pain experienced by the victim as a result of efforts to inse1t
the penis into the vagina." Significantly, from their own declaration following the public
prosecutor's questioning, they suffered pains not because of appellant's attempt to insert his penis
but because of the grazing of their vagina.
Given the foregoing and since there is neither clear showing or direct proof of penile penetration
or that appellant's penis made contact with the labias of the victims, which is an essential element
of the crime of rape, we cannot sustain appellant's conviction for the crime of rape in Criminal
Case Nos. 07-CR-6765; 07-CR-6766; 07-CR-6768; 07-CR-6769 and 07-CR-6770.

However, appellant can be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 5 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610,32 which was the
offense proved though he was charged with rape through sexual intercourse in relation to RA
7610, applying the variance doctrine under Section 4 in relation to Section 5 of Rule 120 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.33 The crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336
of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610, which was the offense proved is included in
rape, the offense charged.34

The essential elements of sexual abuse under Section S(b) of RA 7610 are as follows:

(l) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;

(2) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse; and,

(3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age

On the other hand, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC are as
follows:

(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

(2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

b) Where the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

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; and (3) That the offended party is another
person of either sex.36

All the elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC and sexual abuse under
Section 5(b) of RA 7 610 were sufficiently established in the afore-numbered cases. Specifically,
appellant committed lasciviousness when he poured cooking oil on the victims' private organ and
rubbed them with his penis. The victims were under 12 years of age as established by their
respective birth certificate and therefore way below 18 years of age. They were subjected to
"other sexual abuse" as required wider Section 5(b) of RA 7610. "A child is deemed subjected to
'other sexual abuse' when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult."37 There is coercion or influence when there is some form of compulsion
equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free will.38 In
the present cases, the victims were sexually abused as they were coerced, influenced, threatened
and intimidated by appellant who was the helper of "CCC's" father.

Based on the evidence established, appellant can thus be held criminally liable of the crime of
Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of RA7610.39

On the alleged rape committed during the second week of October 2001 (Criminal Case No. 07-
CR-6769) ''CCC declared:

Q· And after your pants were removed, what did Noel Bejim do next?

A: He again raped me, sir.

Q: What did he do?

A: He again, tried to put his penis into my vagina.'

Q: Did you feel his penis into your vagina?

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: And what happened when he was trying to insert his penis into your vagina?

A: Sir it failed.

Q: What do you mean it failed?

A: It did not enter, it cannot enter. He was hard up inserting his penis.

Q: Why?

A: Because his penis is big.

As to the rape allegedly committed in the last week of October 2001 (Criminal Case No. 07-CR-
6770) "CCC's'' pertinent testimony is as follows:

Q: And after he removed your clothes, what did he do next?

A: He again tried to insert it [into] my vagina, sir.

Q: Did you feel his penis in your vagina?

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: What did you feel?

A: He was trying to insert his penis into my vagina, your Honor and I felt pain.

Q: What caused that pain?

A: His penis is big.

We find no compelling reason why we should not apply our earlier ratiocination in Criminal
Case Nos. 07-CR-6765, 07-CR-6766 and 07-CR-6767 to the incidents committed on "CCC"
sometime in October 2001. In Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6769, "CCC'' categorically testified that
appellant failed to inse1t his penis into her vagina because it is big. Similarly, in Criminal Case
No. 07-CR- 6770, "CCC" revealed that she felt pain when appellant was trying to insert his penis
into her vagina because it is big. Significantly, however, we could not discern from her testimony
that there was penile penetration even only in the slightest degree. To conclude that there was
penile penetration simply because they felt pain when appellant tried to insert his penis into her
vagina is engaging in the realm of speculation. However, the medical examination on "CCC,"
though not indispensable in a prosecution for rape, shows no evident injury. At this juncture, it
must be stressed that in a criminal prosecution, each and every element of the crime, must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment must never rest on speculation or suspicion, no
matter how strong it is. "Courts cannot function to supply missing links in the prosecution
evidence which otherwise insufficiently proves carnal knowledge.''42

Relative to the rape which allegedly occurred in the first week of September 2001 (Criminal
Case No. 07-CR-6768) "CCC" related her ordeal as follows:

Q: In the year 2001 while you were in Grade Two, do you recall if Noel Bejim did anything to
you?
A:Yes, your Honor.

Q: What did he do to you?

A: He raped me, sir.

Q: So you said you were raped by Noel Bejim, how did he rape you, what did he do to you that
you claim that he raped you?

A: Sir, he [got] cooking oil, your Honor.

Q: After he got cooking oil, what did he do with the cooking oil, if you noticed?

A: He placed the cooking oil [on] my vagina and [on] his penis.

Q: So after he removed x x x your pants and panty [and] while you were lying down on the sofa,
what did Noel Bejim do next?
A: He tried to put his penis [into] my vagina.

Q: How did he try?

A: He held his penis.

Q: And what did he do with his penis?

A: He inserted it [into] my vagina.

Q: Did his penis touch your vagina?

A: No, your Honor.

Q: It did not touch your vagina?

A: His penis touched my vagina.

Q: Now, you said he was trying to insert his penis into your vagina, what motion did he do, if
any?

A: He was hard up.

Q: Did you feel his penis?

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: You felt it in your vagina?

A: Yes, your Honor.

"CCC' continued further in narrating the incident of rape allegedly committed in the first week of
October 2001 (Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6771) as follows:

Q: And after putting cooking oil [on] your vagina and [on] his penis, what did he do next?

A: He tried again to put his penis [into] my vagina but he failed again.

Q: Did you feel his penis into your vagina?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, why did you say he failed?

A: It was not inserted enough.

Q: Do you know of any reason why it was not inserted enough into your vagina?

A: Because his penis is big

Based on the foregoing narration, the Court is convinced that in Criminal Case Nos. 07-CR-6768
and 07-CR-6771, there was a slight penetration on "CCC's" genitalia. "CCC'' positively testified
that appellant's penis indeed touched her vagina. That appellant's penis was not inserted enough
only indicates that he was able to penetrate her even partially. Anyway, complete penetration is
not required to consummate the crime of rape. "Full penile penetration is not a consummating
ingredient in the crime of rape."45 Thus, from the testimonial account of "CCC," the Court could
reasonably conclude that there was indeed carnal knowledge by appellant of the victim "CCC."
We therefore sustain the CA in finding appellant guilty of statutory rape in Criminal Case Nos.
07-CR-6768 and 07-CR-6771, the only elements of which are "(1) that the offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such woman is under 12 years of age or is demented."46

With the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of appellant of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610 in Criminal Case Nos. 07-CR-6765,
07-CR-6766, 07-CR-6767, 07-CR-6769 and 07-CR-6770 and statutory rape in Criminal Case
Nos. 07-CR-6768 and 07-CR- 6771, having been proven, we shall now determine the appropriate
penalties imposable for each offense.

Under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610,47 the penalty
for acts of lasciviousness when the victim is under 12 years of age is reclusion temporal in its
medium period which has a range of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Applying the Jndete1minate Sentence Law, the
minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of the penalty next
lower in degree i.e., reclusion temporal in its minimum period or from twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. The maximum of the indeterminate penalty
shall be taken from the proper penalty that could be imposed under the RPC for acts of
lasciviousness which, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance in these cases, is the
medium period of reclusion temporal medium which ranges from fifteen (15) years, six (6)
months and twenty (20) days to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days.

In Criminal Case Nos. 07-CR-6768 and 07-CR-6771, the sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed
upon appellant by the CA for the crime of statutory rape is in accordance with Article 266-B of
the RPC, as amended, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. Likewise proper are the
awards of civil indemnity in the amount of Php75,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of
Php75,000.00 for each count of rape. The award of exemplary damages in the amount of
Php30,000.00 is increased to Php75,000.00 for each case.

WHEREFORE, the appealed September 25, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with modifications. Appellant Noel Bejim y Romero is found GUILTY of:

1. Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case Nos. 07-CR- 6765, 07-CR-6766, 07-CR-6767, 07-CR-
6769 and 07-CR-6770 and sentenced in each case to an indeterminate prison term of thirteen
(13) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to
sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days of reclusion temporal medium, as
maximum. In addition, appellant is ordered to pay the victims the amounts of Php20,000.00 as
civil indemnity, Php15,000.00 as moral damages, Php15,000.00 as exemplary damages, and
Php15,000.00 as fine, for each count of acts of lasciviousness.

2. Statutory Rape in Criminal Case Nos. 07-CR-6768 and 07-CR-6771 and sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and ordered to pay the offended party the
amounts of Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages and Php75,000.00
as exemplary damages for each count of rape.

Appellant is ORDERED to pay the offended parties interest on all damages awarded at the legal
rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.