EN
BANC
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, |
G.R. No. 168174 (Formerly
G.R. Nos. 156174-76) |
|
- versus - |
Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ. |
|
FRANCISCO REYES y ABREMATEA @ “UTOY,” Appellant. |
Promulgated: April 13, 2007 |
x- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
For our review is the Decision[1] dated
The Informations that led to Reyes’s
conviction are as follows:
Criminal Case
No. C-57023
x x x x
That on or about and
sometime in November, 1995 in Caloocan City, [Metro Manila], Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being
then the father of [AAA], a minor of eleven (11)
years old, with lewd designs, and by means of force, threats and intimidation,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual
intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and
without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Criminal Case
No. C-57024
x x x x
That on or about and
sometime in the year 1988, in Caloocan City, [Metro Manila], Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being
then the father of [AAA], a minor of four (4)
years old, with lewd designs and by means of force, threats and intimidation,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual
intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and
without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Criminal Case
No. C-57025
x x x x
That on or about the 8th
day of July 1999 in Caloocan City, [Metro Manila], Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the
father of [AAA], a minor of 14 years
old, with lewd designs and by means of force, threats and intimidation, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual
intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and
without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
During
trial, the prosecution presented five witnesses: (a) private complainant AAA; (b) Medico-Legal
Officer Dr. Jose Arnel M. Marquez; (c) Barangay Captain Eduardo Bade; (d) the
victim’s mother ABC; and (e) SPO1 Antonio Peñaranda.
The defense, on the other hand, presented
Reyes as its sole witness.
The facts culled from the RTC and the Court
of Appeals findings reveal that on
When ABC and DDD arrived, the door of the
house was closed, music was playing loudly and the sala was dark. As ABC entered, she heard someone crying in
the bathroom. She saw AAA inside and
asked what she was doing. Her daughter
did not reply but left the bathroom in a huff.
When ABC confronted Reyes, the couple started arguing. ABC went upstairs and repeatedly asked AAA why
she was crying, but the latter kept quiet as she saw Reyes behind ABC holding
an icepick. It was only later that AAA
confided to her brother DDD. After DDD informed
ABC what Reyes had done, they immediately went to the barangay office to report
the rape. The following day, AAA was
examined at the National Bureau of Investigation. Thereafter, they lodged a complaint against
Reyes.
For his part, Reyes alleged that AAA
fabricated the rape story because his wife and daughter wanted to get even with
him for his beating them whenever he got drunk.
On
The dispositive portion of the RTC
decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
for insufficiency of evidence, the information in Crim. Case No. C-57023 and
Crim. Case No. C-57024 are hereby DISMISSED and the accused is hereby
ACQUITTED.
In
Crim. Case No. C-57025, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Rape and he is hereby sentenced to suffer death by lethal
injection. He is likewise ordered to pay
the private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The
City Warden of Caloocan City, is hereby ordered to commit the person of the
accused Francisco Reyes to the National Bilibid Prison,
Let
the entire records of this case be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic
review as mandated by law.
SO
ORDERED.[6]
Reyes
appealed. In line with our ruling in People v. Mateo,[7]
we referred the present case to the Court of Appeals.[8]
Upon review,
the Court of Appeals concluded that contrary to appellant’s claim, the finding
in the medical examination of the victim’s genitalia showing shallow healed
laceration about five days old or more was not incompatible with AAA’s
testimony that Reyes had intercourse and used his finger on her. It reasoned that fresh lacerations in the
vagina are not necessary in establishing rape nor does it preclude rape especially
when the victim is of tender age. Rape
is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum
of the female organ.[9]
Thus, the decretal portion of the Court
of Appeals’ decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED
and the assailed November 11, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan
City, Branch 128, finding accused-appellant Francisco Reyes guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of qualified rape and sentencing him to suffer the DEATH PENALTY is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that he is ordered to pay the victim,
[AAA], P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and
P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Pursuant to Section 13
(a), Rule 124 of the Amended Rules to Govern Review of Death Penalties, the
case, together with the entire records, is hereby forthwith CERTIFIED and ordered ELEVATED to the Supreme Court for
review.
SO ORDERED.[10]
In his
appeal, appellant assigned a single error:
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE.[11]
Appellant
contends that the victim’s testimony that the appellant had intercourse with
her and used his finger on her is inconsistent with the medico-legal findings
that she had no fresh lacerations, and thus there exists reasonable doubt
sufficient to acquit him.
On this lone
issue, we are in agreement with the appellate court, which found no reasonable
doubt that rape was committed by appellant.
We note likewise that
in an attempt to discredit his daughter AAA, appellant points out that it is
perplexing for the former to report to Dr. Marquez during the medical
examination that he only inserted his finger in her vagina but failed to
mention that he penetrated her with his penis.
We find nothing
perplexing in her testimony. It is not
unnatural for a rape victim, especially one who is of tender age, to make
discrepant statements. But, so long as
the testimony is consistent on material points, slightly conflicting statements
will not undermine the witness’s credibility or the veracity of her
testimony. They in fact tend to buttress,
rather than impair, her credibility as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed
testimony. Inconsistencies and
discrepancies as to minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of the
crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal.[12]
Further, a victim’s testimony is the most
important evidence of the sexual assault.[13]
The lone testimony of the rape victim – if
credible, straightforward, convincing and otherwise consistent with human
nature and the ordinary course of things – may stand as the robust pillar of
conviction.[14]
In incestuous rape, we have held that a
rape victim’s testimony against her father is entitled to greater weight
because it is deeply ingrained in our culture to revere and respect our elders,[15]
thus, unless true, a child would not thoughtlessly accuse a parent of rape.
In addition, when the credibility of the
witness is at issue, we have laid down the following parameters: First,
the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court
unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied
some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the
result of the case. Second, the findings of the trial court
pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight and
respect since it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they
testified on the witness stand. Third, a witness who testified in a
categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained
consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[16]
The RTC had ruled that the testimony of AAA
about the unfortunate incident is clear, unequivocal and credible. We find nothing in our review to depart from the
RTC and Court of Appeals findings.
Lastly, denial by an accused is
self-serving, and cannot prevail over the declaration of a credible witness who
testifies on affirmative matters.[17]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated
(1)
the
penalty imposed is reduced to RECLUSION
PERPETUA without eligibility for parole as provided for by Republic Act
No. 9346;[18] and
(2)
the award of exemplary damages is reduced,
from P75,000 to P25,000,
consistent with prevailing jurisprudence,[19]
but moral damages should also be awarded in the amount of P75,000.[20]
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
|
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
ROMEO
J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 16-23.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] G.R.
Nos. 147678-87,
[8] Rollo, p. 2.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] People v. Bares, G.R. Nos. 137762-65,
[13] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 140676,
[14] People v. Dawisan, G.R. No. 122095,
[15] Supra note 12, at 453.
[16] People v. Baltazar, G.R. No.
115990,
[17] People v. Operario, G.R. No. 146590,
[18] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty in the
[19] People v. Bidoc, G.R. No. 169430, October 31, 2006, p. 19, citing People v. Sambrano, G.R. No. 143708, February 24, 2003, 398 SCRA 106, 117.
[20] People v. Salome, G.R. No. 169077,