Facts:
In four criminal cases, XXX26l049 was charged with violation of Section 4(a) of RA No. 9995.
AAA261049, BBB261049, and DDD261049 are sisters, while CCC261049 is their cousin. XXX261049 is their uncle, who frequented their house as he was tasked to supervise the ongoing renovation at that time.
AAA261049 testified that on October 11, 2016, she saw her uncle enter the bathroom. After about five minutes, XXX261049 came out, prompting AAA261049 to get her hot water and take her turn in the bathroom. As she was preparing, she noticed a tiny light shining through a small hole in a Safeguard soap box on top of the shelf. Upon checking what was inside the soap box, she saw a Blackberry cellular phone with the video on for around nine minutes already. She immediately recognized the phone as XXX261049’s.
Scared but curious, AAA261049 checked the recording and saw XXX261049 in the act of setting up the phone in the bathroom at the beginning of the video. Shocked at her discovery, she hastily deleted the video.
She browsed further through the phone’s contents and saw several nude videos, not only of herself, but also those of BBB261049, DDD261049, and CCC261049, while taking a bath in the same area.
With quick thinking this time, before she deleted the videos from XXX26l049 ‘s phone, AAA261049 hurriedly got her own phone and, thereafter, came back to capture snippets and stills of the malicious videos from XXX261049’s phone. Unfortunately, as she was rushing, AAA261049 was not able to capture a video or photo with DDD261049 in it.
They then copied the nude stills from AAA261049’s phone to a DVD-R and made printed copies for evidentiary purposes. The next day, they reported the incident to the barangay.
After trial, the RTC rendered the Joint Decision 24 dated February 8, 2019. In Criminal Case Nos. 18882, 18883, and 18884, the RTC found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which were corroborated by the authenticated video and photos submitted in evidence, credible and sufficient to support a conviction for the violation of Section 4(a) of RA No. 9995. However, in Criminal Case No. 18885, the RTC found insufficient evidence to convict XXX261049 since no photo or video of DDD261049 was presented.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Joint Decision in its entirety.
Hence, this Petition. XXX261049 reiterates his acquittal since the pieces of evidence against him are entirely circumstantial and, as such, insufficient to justify his conviction.
He argues that each circumstance relied upon by the courts a quo was solely hinged upon the incredible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and that there was no proof to corroborate AAA261049’s claim that she saw XXX261049 in one of the videos, setting up the phone in the bathroom.
Issue:
Was XXX261049’s guilt for the violation of Section 4(a) of RA No. 9995 proven beyond reasonable doubt?
Parsed from Sec. 4 of RA 9995, “photo or video voyeurism” is committed when:
1. The accused takes a photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or captures an image of the private area of a person or persons such as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast;
2. The photo or video was taken without the consent of the person/s involved; and
3. The photo or video was taken under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Court affirms the uniform findings of the RTC and the CA on the existence of all these elements.
First, it is undisputed that videos of AAA261049, BBB261049, and CCC261049 while taking a bath naked were captured through a built-in video recorder in a Blackberry phone.
Anent the second element, there is no question that the malicious videos were taken without the consent of the victims because it was intentionally done in an unobtrusive manner, i.e., through a phone hidden in a soap box.
As to the last element, needless to say, the videos were discreetly taken in a bathroom, i.e., under “circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a private area ofthe person was being captured or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.”
Contrary to XXX261049’s insistence, AAA261049’s failure to make a copy of the video which showed XXX261049’s face does not undermine the credibility of her testimony.
“It is settled that there could be “no hard and fast gauge [to measure one’s] reaction or behavior when confronted with a startling, not to mention horrifying, occurrence x x x. Witnesses[, more so victims,] of startling occurrences react differently depending upon their situation and state of mind, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. x x x”
Also, the lack of ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses further strengthens their credibility. Jurisprudence tells us that witnesses were not ill- motivated in testifying when there is no evidence of such ill or improper motive. Here, the Court finds XXX261049’s unfounded allegation, not only flimsy but scarcely credible, that the charges were stirred by the offended parties’ feeling of dislike towards their uncle because of being reprimanded for coming home late and refusing to help with the household chores. Truth be told, it is highly improbable that decent and professional women such as AAA261049 (a nurse), BBB261049 (an accountant), DDD261049 (a senior software engineer), and CCC261049 (a content editor) would concoct a sordid story and ridicule themselves and their family’s reputation on public trial simply because they did not like their uncle’s reproach.
Verily, there is moral certainty that XXX261049 captured naked images of AAA261049, BBB261049, DDD261049, and CCC261049 through his phone. The above-enumerated circumstances were proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution evidence; and such proven collateral facts, taken together, provided an unbroken chain leading to the fair conclusion that XXX261049 perpetrated the offense charged. Indeed, there is no requirement in our criminal law that only direct evidence may convict. “The identity of the perpetrator and the finding of guilt may rely solely on the strength of circumstantial evidence, which should be scrutinized “like a tapestry made up of interwoven strands which create a pattern;” each strand cannot be plucked out and appreciated separately because it only forms part ofthe whole picture.
This is consistent with Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, which ordains the sufficiency ofcircumstantial evidence for conviction when: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
XXX261049’s unsupported denial finds no chance to prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which were corroborated by the other evidence on record. Denial is an inherently weak and self-serving defense, bereft of weight in the courts of law when uncorroborated by any other competent evidence.
Therefore, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the conviction.