EN
BANC
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G. R. No.
173050 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. Promulgated: April 13, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For Review is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01654 dated 22 February 2006 which
affirmed the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch
261, in Criminal Cases No. 120008-H, 120306-H to 120392-H, dated 14 November
2003, finding accused-appellant Ac-Mad Mandapatan y Dimalapang guilty of qualified rape.
The accused-appellant
was charged with eighty-eight counts of rape in eighty-eight separate Informations. Except
for the dates of the alleged commission of the crimes, the eighty-eight Informations read alike:
The Prosecution, through the undersigned
Public Prosecutor, charges Ac-Mad Pandapatan y Dimalapang with the crime of rape under RA 8353 in relation
to RA 7610 (SC A.M. 99-1-13), committed as follows:
On or about [date], in Taguig,
Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused,
being the father of complainant [AAA], who is a minor, 15 years old, by means
of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have [sic] sexual intercourse with [AAA], against her will and
consent.[3]
Upon
arraignment, accused pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crimes charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The evidence of the prosecution and the
defense, as summarized by the trial court, are as follows:
Dr. Mary Ann Gajardo
testified that on
Findings:
Hymen: fleshy, elastic type hymen with
presence of shallow healed laceration at
Conclusion:
Physical findings on the genetalia
are indicative of penetration.
There are no external signs of application of
any form of physical trauma.
She further declared that if the incident
took place on
Private complainant, [AAA], on direct
examination, testified that the accused, Acmad Pandapatan, is her father and that she was born on
Sometime in the second week of September,
2000, at around
While she was lying down, Acmad
undressed himself and laid on top of her. Acmad kissed her
body from neck to her private part, spread her legs while holding her hands and
forced his penis inside her vagina.
Whenever she tried to resist, Acmad would
strongly hold her hands. She did not
know how long Acmad stayed on top of her. She felt pain when Acmad
inserted his penis into her genetalia. The knife was beside Acmad
while he was raping her and he returned the same to the kitchen after the
rape. Thereafter, Acmad
told her not to tell her mother or anyone about what happened, otherwise he
would kill her. He also said to her that
he would kill her mother and her younger sibling should she tell her mother
about the rape. She then proceeded to
the comfort room and washed herself while her father went out of the house to
buy food for breakfast. The incident
happened almost everyday while her mother was at work and her brother was in
school from the second week of September 2000 until
In the evening of
On cross, she declared that she learned that
rape is bad at the age of 13. Her mother
explained to her its meaning when she asked her after she had read in a newspaper
“na iyong 6 na taong gulang
na bata ay nireyp ng tatay
niya”. She never
realized that what she had read would happen to her. Before the incident, she was close to Acmad. During the
first rape, she did not shout for help because Acmad
told her not to make a noise and she was not able to talk because she was very
much afraid. She did not try to go to
the barangay or police authorities to report the
matter. Whenever she and Acmad were at home, she would avoid him and would not
follow his orders. She did not try to
run away from home. She tried to make
ways to avoid being raped, like going to school early. In all instances of rape, she kept silent and
pretended that nothing happened, until on
[BBB] testified that private complainant
[AAA], is her daughter while accused, Acmad, is her
husband. As a sewer, she would report
for work six (6) days a week, Sunday to Friday, from
On cross, she declared that she had no
personal knowledge regarding the incident.
When she asked [AAA] why it took her so long before she revealed the
incident, [AAA] said she was afraid that Acmad might
kill her and [CCC] (her younger brother).
PO3 Antonio Hernandez testified that in
January 2001, he was one of the operatives of the DILG Special Task Force. On
On cross, he declared that he had no personal
knowledge regarding the rape. At the
time they arrested Acmad, they had no warrant of
arrest and he was then not doing any illegal act but had voluntarily submitted
himself.
Renea Serad testified that
in the evening of
On cross, she declared that she had no
personal knowledge with respect to the alleged rape. Her niece, [AAA], did not tell the details of
the rape as she did not ask her about it.
The defense presented the accused, Acmad Pandapatan, who denied the
charges.
Acmad testified that sometime in January 2001, at
about
From September 2000 to
On cross, he admitted that [AAA] is his
daughter; that from September 2000 until
On 14
November 2003, the trial court rendered its Decision convicting the
accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 120306-H, but acquitting him in Criminal
Cases No. 120008-H and 120307-H to 120392-H.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the
Prosecution, having proved the guilt of the accused, Acmad
Malawi Pandapatan, beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 120306, he is hereby meted the capital
punishment of DEATH.
He is likewise hereby ordered to pay the
offended party, [AAA], the amount of P75,000 as
civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages without the necessity of
proving the same. An award of P25,000.00 to complainant as exemplary damages is also in
order, to deter fathers with perverse behavior from sexually abusing their
daughters.
Insofar as Crim.
Case Nos. 120008-H, 120307-H to 120392-H are concerned, said accused is hereby
ACQUITTED thereof, for insufficiency of evidence.
The Warden of the Pasig
City Jail, Nagpayong, Pinagbuhatan,
Inasmuch as the penalty it imposed
was the death penalty, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the
Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000
Rules of Criminal Procedure.[6] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[7] the case was transferred to the Court
of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[8]
On
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the
appealed Decision dated
Should no motion for reconsideration be filed
in this case by the accused-appellant within the allowable reglementary period,
or after the lapse thereof, let the entire records of this case be forwarded to
the Honorable Supreme Court for appropriate action hereon.[9]
As no
Motion for Reconsideration was filed with the Court of Appeals, the latter
forwarded the records of the case to this Court on
On 19
September 2006, this Court noted (1) the Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental
Brief dated 28 August 2006 filed by the Public Attorney’s Office for the
accused-appellant, stating that the accused-appellant opted not to file a
supplemental brief since there were no new issues material to the case which
were not elaborated upon in the Appellant’s Brief and that the
accused-appellant had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in his brief;
and (2) the Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated 29
August 2006 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, stating, among other
things, that the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed instead of the penalty of
death due to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 and that they were adopting
the arguments stated in the Appellee’s Brief dated 5
March 2005.[12]
In the
aforementioned Appellant’s Brief, the following Assignment of Errors was
submitted to this Court:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL
FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
THE ACCUSED APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS
NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[13]
Accused-appellant claims if it were
true that AAA was raped almost everyday from September 2000 to January 2001,
the rage and fury she felt against the accused would be so overwhelming and
“enough to cause her to either divulge her ordeals to her mother or to anyone
close to her immediately after experiencing several sexual assaults; to report
the incident to the police if she was afraid of the death threats made by the
accused to herself, her mother and her sibling; to move away from their house,
or to do something to protect herself or perhaps, not allow herself to be left
alone with the accused everyday.”[14] Accused-appellant also points to the fact
that their place “consisted of six rooms for six families, with three rooms
each on both sides. Separating the three
rooms from the other three was an aisle which was only 1½ meters wide. The room has a window which was always kept
open. At the back of the room were
houses located at a distance of 1½ meters only.
The complainant could have easily shouted for help from the families
living in the same place.”[15]
The accused-appellant also emphasizes
the part of the testimony of Dr. Mary Ann Gallardo that the laceration of the
victim’s hymen did not exceed fifty percent of its opening and that the shallow
healed laceration at the 9:00 o’clock position on the victim’s hymen would
indicate that the rape took place more than two weeks prior to the victim’s
examination on 17 January 2000.
According to accused-appellant, this is contrary (1) to the allegation
of the prosecution that he committed eighty-eight counts of rape, and (2) to the
testimony of AAA that the last sexual assault happened on
Finally, the accused-appellant reminds
this Court that the date of the first Information charging him for rape was “on
or about the second week of September,” while there was an exact date for the
other 87 alleged rape incidents.
According to the accused-appellant, it is highly doubtful that the
private complainant failed to remember the date of the first sexual assault
while she remembered the exact dates of the other eighty-seven alleged rape
incidents considering that what she allegedly went through was horrifying,
traumatic and painful.[18]
We are not persuaded. Delay in reporting the rape incidents,
especially in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against
the victim, more so when the lecherous attacker is her own father. Strong apprehensions brought about by fear,
stress, or anxiety can easily put the offended party to doubt or even distrust
what should otherwise be a positive attitude of bringing the culprit to
justice. The Court has thus considered
justified the filing of complaints for rape months, even years, after the
commission of the offense.[19]
In a long line of cases, this Court
has held that delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of
physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim.[20] A
rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason.
It is this fear, springing from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to
build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, will numb
his victim into silence and submissiveness. Incestuous rape magnifies this
terror, because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace
and protection to the victim. Furthermore, in incest, access to the victim is
guaranteed by the blood relationship, proximity magnifying the sense of
helplessness and the degree of fear.[21]
In the case at bar, AAA indeed failed
to immediately inform her mother of the sexual assaults she suffered from her
father. However, that it took her four
months before she finally mustered courage to disclose her ordeal is not inconsistent
with ordinary human experience. The
prosecution had established that the accused-appellant had threatened to kill
AAA, her mother and her brother should she tell anyone of what happened. On direct examination, AAA declared:
Q: Why
did you not tell your mother about these incidents on the second week of
September?
A: Natakot po ako.
Q: You were afraid of what?
A: Binantaan po niya ako.
Q: What
was the threat all about?
A: Na papatayin po niya ang
Mama ko at kapatid po.[22]
As regards the proximity of the
adjoining rooms to the place of the alleged commission of the offense, this
Court has consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where
people congregate – in parks, within school premises, inside a house where
there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members
are sleeping.[23] Lust is
no respecter of time, place or kinship.[24]
In contrast, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[25]
Accused-appellant’s theory – that the
extent of the laceration on AAA’s hymen is inconsistent with her assertion of
repeated rape – may well be a defense against the charges of rape subsequent to
that which occurred on the second week of September 2000. Accused-appellant, however, has already been
acquitted of such charges. The only
conviction which is the subject of this review is that which allegedly occurred
on the second week of September, the probability of which was not diminished,
and was even supported, by the shallow healed laceration testified to by Dr.
Gallardo.
The fact that the laceration of the
hymen did not exceed fifty percent of its opening does not negate the fact of
rape, either. In People v. Echegaray,[26]
we held, citing People v. Melivo,[27]
that
The vaginal wall and the hymenal
membrane are elastic organs capable of varying degrees of distensibility.
The degree of distensibility of the female
reproductive organ is normally limited only by the character and size of the
pelvic inlet, other factors being minor. The female reproductive canal being
capable of allowing passage of a regular fetus, there ought to be no difficulty
allowing the entry of objects of much lesser size, including the male
reproductive organ, which, even in its largest dimensions, would still be
considerably smaller than the full-term fetus.
Dr. Gallardo further explained that
the circumference of the hymen varies for different women and depending on the
circumstances at the time of the examination:
Q: What
is the normal size of the circumference of a hymen?
A: It
depends … it varies from 0.5 cm to 1 cm (the hymenal
opening), ma’am.
Q: So,
if a person is on a non-virginal state the hymenal
opening would be much much big? [sic]
A: The
hymenal opening is not conclusive… if the person is
relax (sic) the hymenal opening is bigger, ma’am.
Q: In
this particular case of the victim when you examined the victim … was she
relaxed? Was she under pressure?
A: She’s
relaxed, ma’am.[28]
Also, the extent of the laceration on
the hymen depends on the force applied when the vagina was penetrated:
Prosecutor Reyes:
So,
would you say that if the same person did the same to the victim, the same
measurement of the organ that will penetrate the genitalia of the victim? (sic) Would you have
the same findings? For example I’m a
victim of this successive sexual abuse with only one (1) man with the same size
of penis would penetrate my genitalia would I have the same injury from the
start up to the last act?
A: No,
ma’am. It varies.
Q: What
would cause the variation of the injury?
A: It
depends upon the force. There are other
factors wherein the hymen is lacerated, ma’am.[29]
At any rate, laceration of the
victim’s hymen is not an element of the crime of rape. In rape cases, what is material is that there
was penetration of the female organ.[30]
As regards the allegation regarding
AAA’s failure to remember the exact date of the first rape, we have already
held that rape victims are not expected to mechanically keep tab and give an
accurate account of the exact dates of the rape. It is not farfetched for
a victim of a harrowing and traumatic encounter to even shut off certain
portions of that experience.[31] Behavioral psychology also teaches us that
different people react dissimilarly to similar situations. [32] Verily, the exact date of rape is not an
essential element of the crime, and the mere failure to give a precise date,
let alone an incorrect estimate, will not discredit the testimony of the
victim.[33]
Thus, after a careful review of the
records of this case, we entertain no doubt that AAA was indeed raped by her
biological father in the second week of September 2000. There is absolutely no reason for the
prosecution witnesses, particularly AAA and BBB, to lie. Accused-appellant indeed claims that AAA had
filed these cases of rape against him upon instigation of BBB because of a
quarrel between BBB and his children by his previous wife who used to go to
their house. However, he also admitted that
there was no serious quarrel or misunderstanding between him and BBB. On the other hand, AAA’s testimony, which was
corroborated by Dr. Gallardo’s medical findings, was straightforward, candid
and convincing:
Q: Miss witness, let’s go back to the incident of rape which you have said, second week of September 2000, will you please narrate to us in brief how this rape actually happened?
A: Bale po umaga iyon, natutulog po ako at may humawak sa braso ko at nagising ako at may nakatutok na kutsilyo.
Q: Will you please tell us if you know, who was this person who actually held your arm and poked the knife at you?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Who was this person?
A: My father, ma’am.
Q: You are referring to the accused in this particular case?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: By the way, will you please stand up and look around the courtroom and tell us if your father Acmad Pandapatan is inside this courtroom?
A: Yes, ma’am, he is here.
Q: Can you point to him?
A: That man, ma’am.
“INTERPRETER:
“Witness pointing to a person inside the courtroom wearing a yellow t-shirt and a maong pants, who upon being asked answered by the name Acmad Pandapatan.
“FISCAL TAMANG:
“And then you said you woke up with the knife pointed at you, will you please tell us what happened after that?
A: He told me not to make a noise, ma’am.
Q: And then?
A: He told me to stand up and he told me to remove my dress, ma’am.
Q: And then what did you tell him when he told you to remove your dress?
A: I asked him bakit po.
Q: And then what was the response of your father?
A: And then he told me huwag maraming daldal.
Q: You said you were standing at that time and undressed, what was the position of your father?
A: Nakatayo rin po.
Q: Did you undress when your father told you to do so?
A: Damit lang po, pero sabi niya lahat po.
Q: What were you wearing at that time?
A: T-shirt and shorts po.
Q: And then when you said you were undressed, you removed your T-shirt and shorts?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Were you wearing underwear?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: How about your panty or your underwear, did you remove them also?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And then after you undressed, what happened next?
A: I was made to lie down.
Q: Did you lie down?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And then what happened after you lie down?
A: Siya naman po ang naghubad.
Q: While he was undressing, what were you doing?
A: Nakahiga lang po ako at nakatagilid.
Q: Naked?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And then when you said your father undressed himself, you mean to say all, including his trousers and shorts?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Was he wearing an underwear at that time?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Did he remove his underwear, also?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: So he was totally naked at that time?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Tell us when you were already lying down and your father was already undressed, what happened next?
A: Dumapa po siya
sa akin.
Q: What was your position when he lay flat on you?
A: Nakatihaya po.
Q: And then what happened after you said he lay on top of you?
A: Hinalikan niya po iyong katawan ko, iyong harapan ko hanggang baba.
Q: And then what were you doing while your father was kissing you?
A: I was crying ma’am.
Q: Up to what part of your body did your father kiss you?
A: Hanggang dito po.
Q: From where?
A: Hanggang leeg, hanggang sa ari ko.
Q: Then what did you do, while this was going on?
A: Umiiyak po at ang sabi ko, huwag po.
Q: What was the reaction, if any, of your father?
A: Ang sabi po niya, manahimik ka.
Q: And then after that, did anything happen?
A: Yes, ma’am, tapos po iyong hita ko ibinukaka niya.
Q: Then what happened when he tried to spread your legs?
A: Hinawakan po niya iyong dalawa kong kamay at ipinipilit niyang ipasok iyong ari niya.
Q: Will you please tell us how your father held your hands?
A: Iyong dalawa niyang kamay
nakaharap sa
akin.
Q: You said your father tried to insert his penis into your vagina, did he succeed in penetrating his penis?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Did you offer any resistance while he did that to you?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: What kind of resistance did you offer?
A: Lumalaban po ako sa kanya.
Q: What did your father do while you were resisting?
A: Lalo niyang hinigpitan ang pagkakahawak sa akin.
Q: How long did your father stay atop you?
A: I do not know, ma’am.
Q: What did you feel when your father actually inserted his penis on your genitalia?
A: Masakit po.
Q: And then after that, what happened?
A: Pagkatapos po niyang magparaos sa akin, sabi po niya sa akin huwag daw po akong magsusumbong sa mama ko o kaninuman dahil papatayin daw po niya ako.
Q: And then what did you do, after he told you that?
A: Sabi po niya magbihis
ka na.
Q: Did you dress up?
A: Nagpunta po ako
sa C.R.
Q: What did you do inside the C.R.?
A: Nagbanlaw po.
Q: After that, what did your father do?
A: Lumabas po siya,
para bumili ng almusal.
Q: You mentioned that your father poked a knife at you while you were sleeping and you woke up, what happened to the knife now, while the rape was going on?
A: Ibinalik po niya sa kusina.
Q: Why? Where was the knife when he raped you?
A: Nandoon po sa tabi niya.[34]
Time and again, we have consistently
held that no young girl would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime at
the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself
to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other
than a fervent desire to seek justice.[35] A
rape victim’s testimony against her parent is entitled to great weight since
Filipino children have a natural reverence and respect for their elders. These
values are so deeply ingrained in Filipino families and it is unthinkable for a
daughter to brazenly concoct a story of rape against her, if such were not
true.[36]
Furthermore, the trial court’s
assessment of the facts deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and
binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence.
Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses’
deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position
than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.[37]
For there to be qualified rape, at
least one of the attendant circumstances mentioned in Article 335[38]
must be alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial.[39] In the instant case, since the attendant
circumstances of the victim’s minority and her relationship with the offender
have been properly alleged in the information and established during trial, the
trial court’s imposition of the penalty of death on appellant would have been justified.
However, while the above discussion
on qualified rape is still relevant as regards the civil liability of the
accused-appellant, Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, “An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,”[40] has
prohibited the imposition of the supreme penalty of death. Pursuant, therefore, to Section 2 thereof,
the penalty to be meted on appellant shall be reclusion perpetua. Said section reads:
SECTION 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Notwithstanding
the reduction of the penalty imposed on accused-appellant, he is not eligible
for parole following Section 3 of said law which provides:
SECTION 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua,
or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be
eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended.
With regard to the award of damages,
the same must be modified. The P75,000.00 awarded by lower courts as civil indemnity is
correct, as the same is the amount awarded if the crime is qualified by
circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[41] The amount of P25,000.00
awarded by the Court of Appeals as exemplary damages was proper due to the
presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.[42] However, with respect to the award of moral
damages, the P50,000.00 awarded by the Court of
Appeals should be increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or
proof of basis thereof.[43]
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CANCIO C.
GARCIA
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
|
|
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice |
[1] Penned by
Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao
with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Celia
C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 68-78.
[3] Records, pp. 18-189.
[4]
[5]
[6] CA rollo, p. 1.
[7] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[8] Rollo, p. 186.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] People
v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168161,
[20] People
v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, 22 January 1998, 284 SCRA 590, 614, citing People v. lbay,
G.R. No. 101631, 8 June 1994, 233 SCRA 15, 25; People v. Lucas, G.R. No. 80102, 22 January 1990, 181 SCRA 316,
325-326; People v. Valdez, G.R. No. L-51034,
[21] People v. Gallo, id.
[22] TSN,
[23] People v. Paraiso,
G.R. No. 131823,
[24] People v. Lagarto,
383 Phil. 591, 649 (2000); People v.
[25] People v. Sangil,
Sr., 342 Phil. 499, 506 (1997); People
v. Leoterio, 332 Phil. 668, 675 (1996); People v. Talaboc,
326 Phil. 451, 460 (1996).
[26] 327 Phil. 349, 360 (1996).
[27]
323 Phil. 412, 426 (1996).
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30] People v. Naag,
G.R. No. 136394,
[31] People v. Zaballero,
G.R. No. 100935,
[32] People v. Ibay,
G.R. No. 101631,
[33] People v. Mirafuentes,
G.R. Nos. 135850-52,
[34] TSN,
[35] People v. Bernabe, 421 Phil. 805, 811 (2001); People v. Melivo, supra note 27; People v. de Guzman, 333 Phil. 50, 66 (1996).
[36] People v. Mangitngit, G.R. No. 171270,
[37] People v. Escultor,
G.R. Nos. 149366-67,
[38] Art. 335. When and How Committed. – Rape is committed:
x x x x
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
[39] People v. Caliso, 439 Phil. 492, 507-508 (2002).
[40] Republic Act No. 9346 took effect
immediately after its publication in two newspapers of general circulation,
namely
[41] People v. Barcena,
G.R. No. 168737,
[42] People
v. Arsayo, G.R. No. 166546,
[43] People v. Alfaro, 458 Phil. 942, 963 (2003).