EN BANC
[G.R. No. 140384.
July 4, 2002]
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JONEL MANIO alias “BOBONG,” accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
On 16 October
1998, Jonel Manio, a.k.a. “Bobong,” was charged before the Regional Trial Court
(“RTC”) of Macabebe, Pampanga, with the crime of rape -
“That on or about the third day of
September 1998, in the municipality of Apalit, province of Pampanga,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused ALIAS BOBONG MANIO, by means of force and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with
a minor, five years of age, Catherine Navarro.”[1]
The trial ensued
shortly after the arraignment at which the accused had pleaded “not guilty.”
The case for
the prosecution. -
On the evening
of 04 September 1998, Beatriz Pastor-Pili Garcia noticed that her 5-year old
daughter, Catherine Navarro, was crying but when asked what the trouble might
be, she refused to talk. When pressed to answer, the young girl finally broke
down and told her mother that, at noontime the day before while in the house of
their neighbor, Bobong Manio had molested her. When the mother examined her
daughter’s underwear, she saw that it was stained with blood. Beatriz proceeded
to the house of the barangay captain who then summoned Mania. When again
queried in the presence of Manio, Catherine kept mum after having seen Manio
leering at her. The following day, Beatriz took her daughter to the Apalit
police station in Pampanga where sworn statements were taken. On 09 September 1998,
Dr. Jaime Rodrigo L. Leal confirmed, following a medical examination, that
Catherine was indeed sexually abused. The report read:
“Conclusion:
“Healing hymenal laceration,
present.
There are no external signs of recent application of any form of violence.
“Remarks:
“Patient with disclosure of sexual
abuse.
Physical findings of genitalia indicative of penetration.”[2]
The defense. -
The accused
testified that he only learned of the indictment when he was served with a
subpoena by the court. At trial, he proffered the defense of denial and alibi,
giving the trial court a detailed account of his whereabouts on the 3rd of
September 1998 to disprove the accusation against him and to show that he did
not see and could not have encountered Catherine, let alone raped her, on any
hour of that day. He insisted having been then at home with his wife and two
children. When his eldest son, Kenneth, shortly arrived from school, he asked
his wife to prepare the table for lunch. When they were about to eat, his compadre,
Romeo “Meo” Balgos, dropped by to have a talk with him. It was
shortly before one o’clock in the afternoon, after Balgos had left and his
family had finished with their noonday meal, that the accused was able to take
lunch. After partaking of his meal, he took a nap with his two children before
leaving with his family for his parents’ house, located just a short distance
from their own house, to spruce up the place in time for the arrival from
hospital confinement of her mother.
While on his way
home the night of the next day, the parents of private complainant blocked his
path and accused him of raping their daughter, which accusation, he described
as impossible as he did not see Catherine the whole day. He asked the couple to
have their daughter examined by a physician. Later, he was summoned by the
barangay captain before whom he was apprised of the complaint for rape against
him. Appellant vehemently denied the charge. The barangay captain and the
barangay councilors asked Catherine Navarro questions but the young girl
remained silent. A certain Boy Sikat, the alleged live-in partner of the mother
of private complainant, told him to ask for forgiveness and suggested that he
should settle the case by giving P10,000.00 to the family of the victim. The
accused shrugged off the advice that would have meant admitting something he
did not do.
The judgment. -
On 14 September
1999, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of statutory rape -
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the
accused Jonel Manio alias “Bobong Manio” guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Rape of a six-year old minor, and as a consequence of which and
pursuant to the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the
mandatory penalty of death is hereby imposed on him. He is likewise ordered to
pay and indemnify the offended party in the amount of P50,000.00.”[3]
In this
automatic review of his conviction, appellant assails the decision, basically
questioning the factual findings, of the trial court.
There is not
much that the Court can do to help the cause of appellant.
Testifying on
what had happened to her on 03 September 1998, the six-year old victim,
Catherine Navarro, narrated thusly -
“FISCAL DATU
You said
that you know Bobong Manio by having pointed to him a while ago. You also
stated that something was done to you by him and when you were asked you do not
want to answer.
What did
Bobong Manio do to you?
“WITNESS
He inserted
his penis into my vagina, sir. (Kinarat)
“x x x x x x x x x
“FISCAL DATU:
You said
that Bobong Manio did something to you, ‘kinarat,' what exactly did he
do to you?
“WITNESS:
‘Kinarat,’
sir.
“Q. Do
you know that you have a reproductive organ or a sexual organ?
“A. …….
“COURT
Let her
point to her pekpek.
“FISCAL DATU
Will you
please point to us your pekpek?
“WITNESS:
(Witness
points to her pekpek)
“COURT:
You stated
the word ‘kinarat,’ and this was what Bobong Manio did to you?
“WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
“x x x x x x x x x
“COURT:
Did Bobong
Manio ever play with you?
“A. No,
sir.
“Q. If
he did not play with you, what was it that he did to you?
“A. ‘Kinarat,'
sir.
“Q. When
he did that to you, what did you feel?
“A. I
did not feel any, sir.
“Q. Were
you not hurt?
“A. I
was hurt, sir.
“Q. Did
you notice if there was blood that came out from you?
“A. Yes, sir, I noticed that there
was blood.
“Q. Where was the blood that you
saw?
“A. In my panty, sir.
“Q. What
about your pekpek, did you look at it if you saw blood?
“A. Yes, sir, there was blood.
“x x x x x x x x x
“ATTY. HERNANDEZ:
Catherine,
what the accused allegedly did to you at that time was bad, do you know that?
“WITNESS:
Yes, sir, I
know that.
“Q. And
since you know that it was bad, did it not occur to your mind to shout so that
people may come to your rescue?
“A. I
shouted and I also cried, sir.”[4]
Per his medical
report, Exhibit “C,” the examining physician, Dr. Jaime Rodrigo L. Leal, found
“healing hymenal laceration” and concluded that his “physical findings of
genitalia [was] indicative of penetration.” The counsel for the accused agreed
to dispense with the doctor’s testimony; the accused himself was asked to sign
the minutes of the proceedings to signify his conformity on the admission made
by counsel.[5] Be that
as it might; a medical examination of a victim of rape would not be
indispensable to establish the fact of rape the proof of which could also come
from a credible witness.
Hardly, could
appellant’s defense of denial and alibi stand against the positive
identification made by five-year old Catherine. In fact, the supposed alibi even
bolstered the fact that appellant was in close proximity of the crime
scene. No possible ill-motive on the part of the complainant or her family
was shown that could have made any of them institute the case against appellant
and falsely implicate him for a serious crime he did not commit.
The mother of
the victim, Beatriz Pastor-Pili Garcia, testified on the age, and presented
before the trial court the birth certificate, of her daughter attesting to the
fact that Catherine Navarro was barely six and a half years old at the time of
the rape on 03 September 1998, having been born on 16 February 1992.
Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, provides -
“Article 335. When and how rape
is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
“x x x x x x x x x
“(3) When the woman is under twelve
years of age or is demented.
“x x x x x x x x x
The penalty of death shall also be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
“x x x x x x x x x
(4). when the victim is a religious
or a child below seven (7) years old.”
The Court is thus left with no alternative but to sustain the imposition
by the court a quo of the penalty of death. In keeping with current
jurisprudence on the matter, the offended party is entitled to moral damages of
P75,000.00 and the award by the trial court of civil indemnity should be
increased to P75,000.00.
Three Justices
of the Supreme Court maintain their position that the law, insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional; nevertheless, they submit to
the ruling of the majority to the effect that the law is constitutional and
that the death penalty could be imposed.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the judgment of
the Regional Trial Court of Macabebe, Pampanga, Branch 55, finding
accused-appellant Jonel Manio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
statutory rape committed against six-year old Catherine Navarro and imposing on
him the penalty of death with the MODIFICATION (a) that the amount of civil
indemnity of P50,000.00 is increased to P75,000.00 and (b) that another
P75,000.00 by way of moral damages is likewise awarded to the offended party.
Costs de oficio.
In accordance
with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised
Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be
forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the
pardoning power.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing,
J., abroad.