|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - ARDEL CANUTO,
Appellant. |
G.R. No. 166544 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, GARCIA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated:
July 27, 2007 |
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
For final review is the Court of
Appeals Decision[1]
of
The Amended
Information dated
That on or about the 28th day of June, 1999, in Barangay
Caranday, Municipality of Baao, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
lewd designs, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [AAA],[3]
a 15-year old girl, against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice
of the offended party in such amount as may be proven in court.
That qualifying aggravating circumstances are present in
this case as follows: The accused is the common[-]law spouse
of the mother of the minor victim, who was still below 18 years of age at the
time of the commission of this Rape incident.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”[4] (Emphasis supplied)
During the pre-trial conference, appellant
admitted that he is the common-law spouse of AAA’s mother CCC.[5] Even CCC
admitted at the witness stand that she is not married to appellant.
AAA was born on
After BBB
died, CCC started living with appellant, without the benefit of marriage, at
Caranday, Baao, Camarines
From the evidence for the prosecution,
the following version gave rise to the filing of the information against
appellant:
On June 28,
1999, AAA’s grandmother left to assist a woman deliver a baby,[9]
leaving her and her three cousins, namely: Jennifer, Jennyrose and Jennylyn,
all surnamed Villagomez, and aged 9, 6, and 3 years old, respectively, in the
house. At around
Months later or on
Denying the accusation, appellant claimed
that at the time of the alleged rape, he was sleeping in his house at Caranday after taking supper, he having gotten tired after working
at his farm from
On cross-examination, appellant admitted
that the house of AAA’s grandmother where she is living is one (1) kilometer
away from his house and could be negotiated in 15 minutes by foot;[17]
and that he had been previously incarcerated at the National Penitentiary in
AAA’s mother CCC, testifying for the
defense, corroborated appellant’s claim that at the time of the alleged rape, he
was already asleep,[20]
she adding that the family members usually sleep at
By Decision of
WHEREFORE, finding accused, Ardel Canuto GUILTY of the crime of rape
under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Rep.
Act 7659, further amended by Art. 266-A and 266-B beyond reasonable
doubt, he is sentenced to a penalty of death, to pay an indemnity of FIFTY
THOUSAND (Php 50,000.00) PESOS and to pay the costs.[23]
After
a review of the case by the Court of
Appeals to which it was forwarded by this Court pursuant to People v.
Mateo,[24] the appellate court affirmed the trial
court’s decision with modification consisting of an increase in the amount of civil
indemnity and an addition of moral and exemplary damages awarded to AAA, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex
delicto; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages.
With costs against the
accused-appellant.
Pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC in
re: Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death
Penalty Cases) let the entire records of this case be forwarded to the
Honorable Supreme Court for review.[25] (Underscoring supplied)
In his Brief[26]
filed with this Court, appellant maintains that the lower courts erred in convicting
him, the prosecution having failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[27]
Appellant calls
attention to AAA’s declaration that she did not recognize the person who
entered her grandmother’s house as the only light came from a gas lamp which
was quite far from her.[28]
He calls attention too to AAA’s failure to
take any precautionary measure to secure the door of the house, following her
claim that appellant had earlier raped her on June 26, 1999;[29]
and to AAA’s claim that she felt nothing when appellant’s penis was being
inserted in her vagina, unlike other similarly situated victims who would
describe the experience as horrible, dreadful or painful.[30]
Moreover, appellant
harps on AAA’s long delay in reporting the incident to thus create serious
doubts on her claim, and only when she was already six months pregnant following
her alleged rape by a certain Ricardo Bresinio in August 1999[31]
(A separate complaint for rape was also filed
by AAA against Bresinio.)
Finally, appellant
questions the failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance
of stepfather-stepdaughter relationship.[32]
The conviction of appellant must be
sustained.
Appellant
casts doubt on AAA having recognized him as the malefactor, in light of her
admission at the time of the incident, that the only light available came from
a gas lamp which was “a bit far from [her].”[33]
AAA testified on re-direct examination,
however:
Q Now, you said during the cross examination that when the
accused entered the door of your grandmother’s house, you were not yet able to
recognize him, at what point of time you already recognized the accused?
A I was able to recognize him when he approached me,
sir.
Q So, how were you able to recognize him when he approached
you?
A Now, he faced me and besides his voice is familiar to me.[34] (Underscoring supplied)
That the gas lamp was “a bit far” from
AAA when the incident occurred did not preclude her from recognizing appellant.
The scene was not exactly in pitch
darkness. Besides, AAA lived with appellant for “more or less 6 years” to
enable her to acquire familiarity with his voice, gait and demeanor.
Appellant’s denial being unsubstantiated
by clear and convincing evidence, it cannot prevail over the positive, candid
and categorical testimony of the private complainant.[35]
Neither can alibi.
Appellant himself testified that the
distance between his house and that of AAA’s grandmother could be negotiated by
“not more than 15 minutes”[36]
walk from his house. It was thus not
physically impossible for him to have been at the place, the date and time of
the commission of the offense.
Notably, appellant
did not even intimate the presence of any dubious reason or fiendish motive for
AAA to falsely charge him.[37]
That AAA felt nothing
while she was being raped by appellant does not negate the commission of the
crime. A 15-year-old naive barrio lass, threatened with death or serious
injury if she repulses the accused’s sexual advances, can only cower in fear
and yield into submission.
As for AAA’s delay of almost six months
in reporting the incident to the authorities, People v. Francisco,[38]
People v. Marcelo[39]
and People v. Bayani[40]
enlighten. In these cases, this Court declared
that a six-month delay in reporting the rape to the authorities does not impair
the credibility of the private complainant or indicate a fabricated charge if
satisfactorily explained.[41]
In AAA’s
case, the fear instilled in her by appellant that he would kill her and her kin
if she reported the questioned act could explain the delay, especially given
her awareness that appellant had been
previously convicted and detained for killing someone. Besides, many victims of rape never complain
or file criminal charges against the rapist, they preferring to silently bear
the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the
offender’s making good his threats.[42]
The Amended Information alleges that
appellant is the “common[-]law spouse of the mother of
the minor victim.” As stated earlier, appellant admitted that AAA’s mother CCC is
his common-law spouse. And so did
CCC. There is thus no stepfather-stepdaughter
relationship to speak of.
As for
AAA’s minority, her Certificate of Live Birth[43]
clearly shows that she was born on
Article 266-B paragraph 6(1) of the
Revised Penal Code provides that the death penalty shall be imposed upon the
accused if 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.
Minority
and relationship constitute special qualifying circumstances which, when alleged
in the Information and proved during trial, as in the instant case, warrant the
imposition of the death penalty on the malefactor.
In view, however, of the passage and effectivity
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346[44]
on
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.
The applicability of the foregoing
provision of R.A. No. 9346 is undeniable in view of the principle in criminal
law that favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which
are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[45]
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals
Decision of
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby 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. 3-27. Decision penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Lucenito N. Tagle.
[2] Records, pp. 98-107. Decision penned by Judge Alfredo D. Agawa.
[3] The real names of the victim and
her parents are withheld to protect their privacy. (Vide People v.
Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[4] Records, p. 35.
[5]
[6] Exhibit “A,” Certificate of Live
Birth, id. at 71.
[7] TSN,
[8] Ibid.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22]
[23] Records, p. 107.
[24] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
While the
Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases where
the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an
intermediate review. If only to ensure
utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now
deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the Court of
Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court. Where life and liberty are at stake, all
possible avenues to determine his guilt or innocence must be accorded an
accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone. A prior determination by the Court of Appeals
on, particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an
error of judgment. If the Court of
Appeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing the
corresponding penalty as the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering
judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court for
its final disposition.
[25] Rollo, p. 134.
[26] CA
rollo, pp. 38-51.
[27]
[28]
[29] Ibid.
[30]
[31] Ibid.
[32]
[33]
[34] TSN,
[35] People v. Arevalo, Jr., G.R. Nos. 150542-87, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 604, 619; vide also People v. Torres, G.R. No. 170837, September 12, 2006, 501 SCRA 591, 611; People v. Suyu, G.R.No. 170191, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 177, 200; People v. Lachica, G.R. No. 143677, May 9, 2002, 382 SCRA 162, 176; People v. Mores, G.R. No. 107746, July 28, 1999, 311 SCRA 342, 351;
[36] TSN,
[37]
x x x x
Q So you do not know any reason why a case of rape was filed against you by [AAA]?
A None, sir.
Q Do you know the companion here, the Auntie of [AAA]?
A I know her.
Q What is her name?
A [DDD].
Q Is she in court?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please point to her?
INTERPRETER:
Witness looking around the court and pointing to a person who when asked of her name answered [DDD].
ATTY. SE
Q Do you know if any interest she has or why she accompanied [AAA]?
A I do not know, sir.
x x x x
[38] G.R. No. 141631,
[39] G.R. Nos. 126538-39,
[40] G.R. No. 120894,
[41] Vide People v.
Barcena, G.R. No. 168737,
[42] People v.
Geromo, G.R. No. 126169,
[43] Supra note 6.
[44] An Act Prohibiting The Imposition Of Death
Penalty In The
SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
[45] This principle is embodied under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code
which provides:
ART. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, which is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.