EN BANC
[G.R. No. 138987.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
Not only did the victim, Mary Ann Rodriguez, traumatically and painfully lose her virginity and psychological well-being when her father, the accused, ravaged her. She also lost her family when her mother refused to believe her harrowing tale and, along with her siblings, testified against her. But all is not lost, for at least, the arms of the law will rightfully coddle her and the blind lady of justice will dispense justice due her.
A complaint was filed against the accused Rodolfo Rodriguez on
"The undersigned, in behalf of MARY ANN B. RODRIGUEZ, who is a minor, 16 years of age (,) accuses RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, whose maternal surname, date and place of birth cannot be ascertained (,) of the crime of RAPE (Art. 335, RPC), committed as follows:
That on or about the 13th day of June, 1997, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of MARY ANN RODRIGUEZ against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW."[1]
Mary Ann Rodriguez, the private complainant, is the daughter of
the accused Rodolfo Rodriguez. She lived
with him, her mother Irene, her siblings PJ, Monyeen,
Josie, Paul and Andrew, and her seventeen year-old cousin, Edlin
Taonera, in Barangay Salvacion, Habog-Habog, Molo,
While living with her father, the latter beat up Mary Ann with
fist blows in the abdomen and ears because he did not approve of young men
visiting her. She cried whenever he beat
her up and her mother also cried and just kept quiet. On
On
Mary Ann thought of telling her mother about her agonizing experience, but the accused was still home, so she told her only the following day when the accused had left. Her mother at first cried when she learned about it, then went inside her room, and after some time, came out smiling. So Mary Ann just washed the bloodied blanket and threw away her torn bra because her mother would not believe her story. In July, her cousin, Edlin Taonera, started to live with them. After testing the waters and finding out that Edlin could be trusted, Mary Ann told her in August that her father sexually abused her and that her mother refused to believe her. Fed up with her father's beatings, she also confided these to Edlin. She also told her younger sister about her harrowing tale, but the latter advised her to keep it to herself, otherwise their father would beat her up again.
After Mary Ann's father raped her on
On
Thereafter, upon the suggestion of Silla,
Mary Ann lived at the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
because her father was looking for her.
She filed a complaint for rape against him. While she felt pity for her father who could
be sent to jail if found guilty, she also felt her father had to pay for
ravaging her. Her traumatic experience
made her hate men, lose trust in everybody around her, including her parents,
classmates, roommates, and even herself, and lose interest in her studies
because she felt she did not have anybody to offer her studies to as her mother
did not believe her. She also felt
abandoned and that nobody cared for her.
She could not sleep well since that fateful night of
Lucy Gonzales took the witness stand. She is a resident of San Nicolas, Oton,
On
The next day, Montano, Silla, Gonzales
and Mary Ann went to the DSWD in Oton,
Nina Joy Tañada, Municipal Social
Worker and Development Officer of the DSWD of Oton,
Dr. Owen Lebaquin testified that in
September 1997, he was assigned as regional medico-legal officer in
Irene Fe Rodriguez, wife of the accused, testified for the
defense. She denied talking to Mary Ann,
her eldest child, about the alleged rape incident of
On
When the accused learned of the rape charge against him, he did
not get mad as he knew he did not do anything wrong. He continued to go to work as chief security
guard of Tinsay Security Agency until he was
arrested. With his arrest, the Rodriguez
family suffered financial problems and was forced to leave the house they
rented and lived with their neighbor.[8]
PJ Rodriguez, Mary Ann's fifteen year-old sister, took the
witness stand. In June 1997, she lived
with her father, mother, and siblings in their house in Barangay
Salvacion, Habog-Habog, Molo,
PJ testified that Mary Ann never confided to her that their
father raped her on
Monyeen Rodriguez, Mary Ann's youngest
sister, also took the witness stand. In
June 1997, she was living with the accused, her mother, and her sisters Mary
Ann and PJ in their house in Barangay Salvacion, Habog-Habog, Molo,
On
The accused took the witness stand. He denied Mary Ann's allegation that he raped
her on
The accused also denied touching Mary Ann's private parts and
peeping at her when she was dressing up prior to
On
The accused learned that Mary Ann filed the instant case against
him in September 1997. He continued his
employment as Chief Security Guard at Tinsay Security
Agency until he was arrested.[11]
The trial court gave credence to the version of the prosecution and convicted the accused, viz:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court, finding the
accused, Rodolfo Rodriguez, guilty of raping his minor daughter Mary Ann
Rodriguez beyond the shadow of doubt, hereby sentences him to suffer the
extreme penalty of death in accord with the provisions of Art. 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. He is also directed to indemnify his daughter
the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the cost."[12]
Hence this automatic review with the following assignment of errors:
"I. The honorable lower court erred in convicting the accused-appellant under the provisions of R.A. (No.) 7659 notwithstanding that paternity is not alleged in the information.
II. The honorable lower court erred in finding the complainant honest, frank, clear and convincing as to give no reason to doubt her honesty and sincerity.
III. The honorable lower
court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond the shadow of doubt
for the crime charged."[13]
The appeal is partially meritorious.
In assailing the decision of the lower court, the accused attempts
to puncture the credibility of private complainant Mary Ann Rodriguez. He cites several inconsistencies in the
latter's testimony which, according to him, casts doubt on its veracity. First, Mary Ann stated in her direct
examination that when she woke up, she saw her father tying her right leg. On cross-examination, however, she said that
she woke up with her father still tying her right hand, and not her leg.[14] Second, she testified that she was awakened
when her father took off her bra and she even asked him, "Why are you
doing that to me?"[15] On cross-examination, she testified that she
felt some sort of pain when her father was taking off her bra, but she did not
mind it because she thought she was just being bitten by insects.[16] Third, she testified on direct examination
that when her father was taking off her bra, she asked him, "Why are you
doing that to me?"; while on cross-examination, she stated that having
been suddenly awakened while her father was tying her right hand to the bed post,
she was not able to come to her senses immediately and managed only to say,
"Tay", and nothing more.[17]
Apart from these inconsistencies in Mary Ann's testimony, the
accused also cites inconsistencies in her conduct. For one, Mary Ann continued to live with the
accused after the alleged June 13, 1997 rape incident and July 18, 1997
attempted rape, i.e., from June 14, 1997 to August 25, 1997.[18] She also threw away her torn bra and the
bloodied blanket which, according to the accused, she could have shown to her
mother as proof that her father raped her.[19] Considering the above inconsistencies, among
others, the accused concludes that the presumption of his innocence has not
been overthrown and he should thus be acquitted.
We disagree. The
inconsistencies pointed out by the accused are all but minor and tend to
bolster rather than weaken the credibility of the victim and her testimony.[20] It is understandable that Mary Ann would not
remember the minor details of her forced initial sexual congress considering
how traumatic and harrowing it was. No
woman would wish to retain in her memory such tragedy which had befallen her.[21] What is important is that she remembers the
material details of her father's sexual assault upon her.
The accused also points out that considering the size of Mary
Ann's house, the proximity of Mary Ann's room to the sala
where her mother was sleeping, and that the walls between the rooms were made
of sawali, it was improbable that Mary Ann's
mother who was sleeping at the sala just outside Mary
Ann's room was not awakened by the scuffle inside Mary Ann's room at the time
she was allegedly raped.[22] We have ruled, however, that “for rape to be
committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be
fine for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their
evil deed.”[23] “Rape may be committed even when the rapist
and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's wife was asleep or even in
a small room where other family members also slept.”[24] Worthy of notice is Mary Ann's testimony
that her right hand and leg were tied to the bedposts, her left leg was pinned
down by the accused's knee, and her mouth was stuffed
with an unused panty and held by the accused.
Mary Ann's movements were therefore restrained. Added to this, the accused threatened to kill
her if she did not keep still.
Finally, the accused makes much of the fact that it took Mary Ann
all of 77 days before she reported the rape to the authorities and avers that
there is no justification for such delay as her father did not threaten her
during that period.[25] Time and again, we have ruled that delay in
reporting the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge.[26] Fear of reprisal, social humiliation,
familial considerations and economic reasons may get in the way of the victim's
report of the crime.[27] At any rate, Mary Ann did not altogether
fail to report her agonizing experience as she in fact told her mother about it
the next day, but the latter did not believe her. She also confided it to her younger sister
who, however, advised her to keep it to herself.
All told, Mary Ann's testimony, corroborated by the results of
the medical examination conducted upon her, is clear and credible. We find no sufficient reason to disturb the
findings of the lower court and adhere to the well-settled rule that findings
of the trial court are generally considered final and accorded great weight,
given their advantage of observing the manner and demeanor of the witnesses as
they testified in court.[28] The denial of the accused deserves scant
consideration as it is inherently a weak defense which cannot prevail over the
positive identification of the accused by the victim.[29] We find the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape.
With respect to the penalty imposed by the trial court, the
accused argues that assuming arguendo that the Court finds him guilty as charged,
he cannot be convicted of qualified rape under R.A. No. 7659 as paternity was
not alleged in the information. He
faults the decision of the lower court as contrary to prevailing jurisprudence
when it stated that, "the relationship of the accused with the victim is
not an essential ingredient of the offense, neither is it a qualifying
circumstance that failure to state in the information would prevent the court
from appreciating or taking it into consideration. Such circumstance is simply generic which,
when proved or shown during the hearing, may be taken into consideration in
determining the appropriate penalty provided by law."[30] We uphold the accused's
position. The Court has not just once
ruled that the failure to allege the relationship of the accused to the victim
constitutes a fatal defect.
Not only the relationship, but also Mary Ann's age, was not properly alleged. The complaint reads, viz:
"The undersigned, in behalf of MARY ANN B. RODRIGUEZ, who is a minor, 16 years of age (,) accuses RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, whose maternal surname, date and place of birth cannot be ascertained (,) of the crime of RAPE (Art. 335, RPC), committed as follows:
That on or about the 13th day of June, 1997, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said accused, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of MARY ANN RODRIGUEZ against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW."[31]
Mary Ann's age at the time of filing of
the complaint appears in the caption or preamble of the complaint as a
description of the victim. Her age at
the time the rape was committed, however, is not specified in the body of the
complaint narrating the act or omissions constituting the offense. In People
v. Bali-Balita,[32] we held that the relationship of the victim
with the accused was not sufficiently alleged in the information as it appeared
only in the preamble or caption of the information, viz:
“What is controlling is the description of the criminal act and not, as in this case, the description of the identity of the accused. It has been held that 'the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or the preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated . . . . But from the actual recital of the facts as alleged in the body of the information.' (Buhat v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 701 at 716-717 [1996]) In this case (,) the information upon which the appellant was arraigned does not state in the specification of the acts constitutive of the offense that he is charged as the live-in partner of the mother of the alleged victim. This insufficiency prevents a judgment of conviction for qualified rape and thus, the death penalty cannot be imposed.” (emphasis supplied)
At any rate, Mary Ann's age was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution offered two certifications to prove her age. One is a certification from the Office of the
Municipal Civil Registrar of the
To characterize rape as heinous and to justify the imposition of
the supreme penalty of death, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and
her relationship to the offender as a single special aggravating circumstance
must be alleged.[33] The accused would be denied of his right to
be informed of the charges against him and thus of due process, if he is
charged with simple rape and he is convicted of its qualified form punishable
by death, although the attendant circumstances qualifying the offense and
resulting in the imposition of the death penalty were not alleged in the
information.[34] As the special aggravating circumstances of
relationship and minority were not properly alleged in the complaint and Mary
Ann's age was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, we reduce the penalty imposed
upon the accused Rodriguez to reclusion perpetua.
Anent the damages, current case law fixes civil indemnity in case
of simple rape at P50,000.00 and moral damages also at P50,000.00. Prevailing jurisprudence also sets exemplary
damages at P25,000.00 to "deter other fathers with perverse
tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing
their daughters."[35]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we AFFIRM the decision of the
trial court with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is found guilty of
the crime of simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
reclusion perpetua with all its accessory
penalties and to pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo,
Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo,
J., please see concurring and dissenting
opinion.
Quisumbing, J., abroad, on official leave.
Carpio, J., on official business abroad.
[1] Original Records, p.
1.
[2] TSN, Mary Ann
Rodriguez,
[3] TSN, Mary Ann
Rodriguez,
[4] TSN, Mary Ann
Rodriguez,
[5] TSN, Lucy Gonzales,
[6] TSN, Nina Joy Tañada,
[7] TSN, Dr. Owen Lebaquin,
[8] TSN, Irene Fe
Rodriguez,
[9] TSN, PJ Rodriguez,
[10] TSN, Monyeen Rodriguez,
[11] TSN, Rodolfo
Rodriguez,
[12] Original Records, p.
273; Decision, p. 30.
[13] Rollo,
pp. 83-84; Appellant's Brief, pp. 6-7.
[14] Rollo,
pp. 94-95, 97; Appellant's Brief, pp. 17-18, 20.
[15] Rollo,
p. 98; Appellant's Brief, p. 21.
[16] Rollo,
p. 99; Appellant's Brief, p. 22.
[17] Rollo,
pp. 99-101; Appellant's Brief, pp. 22-24.
[18] Rollo,
p. 158; Appellant's Brief, p. 82.
[19] Rollo,
p. 163; Appellant's Brief, p. 87.
[20] People v. Nerio,
G.R. No. 142564,
[21] People v. Mitra,
328 SCRA 774 (2000), citing People v.
Villamor, 297 SCRA 262 (1998), citing People v. Zaballero,
274 SCRA 627 (1997).
[22] Rollo,
p. 161; Appellant's Brief, p. 85.
[23] People v. Lalingjaman,
G.R. No. 132714, September 6, 2001, citing People v. Ildefonso
Bayona, 327 SCRA 190 (2000).
[24] People v. Arteche
Antonio y Payagan, 333 SCRA 201 (2000).
[25] Rollo,
p. 163; Appellant's Brief, p. 87.
[26] People v. Supnad,
G.R. Nos. 133791-94,
[27] People v. Lusa,
288 SCRA 296 (1998), citing People v.
Fuensalida, 281 SCRA 452 (1997).
[28] People v. Gonzaga,
et al., G.R. Nos. 135402-03,
[29] People v. Carbonell,
et al., G.R. Nos. 140789-92, September 28, 2001, citing People v. Sacapaño,
313 SCRA 650 (1999).
[30] Rollo,
p. 86; Appellant's Brief, p. 9.
[31] Original Records, p.
1.
[32] 340 SCRA 450 (2000).
[33] People v. Ramos, 296 SCRA
559 (1998).
[34] People v. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463
(1997).
[35] People v. Galvez,
G.R. Nos. 136867-68,