EN BANC
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - MELITON JALBUENA
y TADIOSA, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 171163
Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING,* YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, ** CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: July 4, 2007 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Accused-appellant Meliton Jalbuena y Tadiosa was
charged with rape of a daughter, a minor,[1] in an Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-601 before
the Lucena City Regional Trial Court, which reads:
x x x x
That on or about the month of August 1996, at Barangay Ilayang
Nangka, in the Municipality of Tayabas, Province of Quezon, Philippines[,]
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
with lewd design, by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and
there[,] willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one
[AAA], his own daughter, a minor, 11 years of age,[2]
against her will.[3]
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
From the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is culled:
In the morning of August 19, 1996, while her mother BBB was out of the
house, her father-accused-appellant approached AAA while she was in bed, pulled
down her underwear, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis in her
vagina. She was warned not to report the incident to anyone; otherwise, something
bad would occur to her.[4]
The incident was repeated on two other occasions, the last of which was in
the morning and witnessed by her uncle CCC while accused-appellant was on top
of her.
CCC reported what he saw to AAA’s grandfather who merely advised her to
avoid her father, to an aunt, as well as to her mother BBB who refused to believe
it.[5]
AAA later mustered enough courage to narrate her ordeals to two
classmates who reported them to their teacher, who in turn reported and brought
her to the school principal.[6]
On
P.P.E.:
Internal Exam – admits tip of finger with
difficulty
Hymen – intact
Vaginal Smear taken for Spermatozoa – NONE
SEEN
x x x x[7] (Emphasis supplied)
Hence, accused-appellant’s indictment.
Accused-appellant denied the accusation and gave his side of the case as
follows:
He could not have raped AAA as his job as a canvasser of plastic wares required
him to be out of the house most of the time, except on Saturdays, albeit he
would return home in the afternoon or evening.[8]
Appellant’s wife BBB corroborated his claim.
Branch 58 of the RTC of Lucena City, however,
found the testimony of AAA “clear, consistent, direct and without any
hesitation when confronted by the presence of her own abuser.”[9] It discredited
appellant’s defense of alibi, there being no proof that it was physically
impossible for him to be at the place, date and time of the commission of the
offense.
The trial court thus disposed in its Judgment of
WHEREFORE, accused MELITON
JALBUENA y TADIOSA of Bgy. Ilayang Nangka, Tayabas, Quezon, is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape, defined and punished under Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659; and in the absence of any
mitigating circumstance and with the special aggravating circumstances of
minority and relationship alleged and duly proven by the prosecution, Meliton
Jalbuena y Tadiosa is hereby sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of
DEATH.
Further, accused is hereby
ordered to pay to the offended party, [AAA] the amounts of P75,000.00,
as civil indemnity, P50,000.00, as moral damages, and P25,000.00,
as exemplary damages.
The Jail Warden, Quezon
Provincial Jail,
The Branch Clerk of Court is
hereby directed to forward the entire records of this case to the Supreme
Court, Manila, for automatic review of the case pursuant to the provision of
Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.[11] (Emphasis in the original; underscoring
supplied)
This case was forwarded to this Court
for automatic review in view of the death penalty imposed. Per People v.
Mateo,[12]
however, this Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals by Resolution of
The appellate court, finding that the
testimony of AAA is credible and free from material inconsistencies and
contradictions, affirmed the Judgment of the trial court by Decision of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
appealed judgment dated
In accordance with A.M. No.
00-5-03-SC which took effect on
Hence, the present review of the case.
By Resolution of
In his Brief filed before the appellate court, accused-appellant faulted
the trial court (1) for convicting him despite the failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and (2) in not considering the
information insufficient to support a judgment of conviction for failure to
state the precise date of the commission of the rape.[18]
The second assigned error shall, for obvious reasons, first be resolved.
Appellant questions as fatally defective the information for failure to
allege the date and time of the commission of the offense charged, thus violating
his constitutionally protected right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him and depriving him of the opportunity to prepare for
his defense.
Prior to its substantial incorporation in the Revised Rules of Court in
2000, Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, reads:
Sec. 11. Time of the commission
of the offense. – It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise
time at which the offense was committed except when the time is a material
ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to
the actual date at which offense was committed as the information or complaint will
permit.[19]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In
rape, the gravamen of the offense, being the carnal knowledge of a woman, the
date is not an essential element, hence, the specification of the exact date or
time of its commission is not important. [20]
In
statutory rape, like in this case, what matters most is that the information
alleges that the victim is a minor under twelve years of age and that the
accused had carnal knowledge of her.[21]
If
accused-appellant found the information defective as it bears only the month
and year of the incident complained of, he should have filed a Motion for Bill
of Particulars, as provided for under Rule 116,[22]
before he entered a plea. His failure to do so amounted
to a waiver of the defect or detail desired in the information.[23]
Indeed, in the case at bar,
the criminal complaint states that the rape was committed “on or about the
month of August 1996.” Such an allegation in the criminal complaint as to the
time of the offense was committed is sufficient compliance with the provisions
of Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Besides, if
the appellant was of the belief that the criminal complaint was defective, he
should have filed a motion for a bill of particulars with the trial court before
his arraignment. The appellant failed to do so. It was only when the case was
brought to this Court on automatic review that he raised the question of the
supposed insufficiency of the criminal complaint, which is now too late by any
reckoning.[24]
At
all events, accused-appellant participated in the trial and never objected to
the presentation of evidence by the prosecution that the rape was committed “on
or about the month of August 1996.”
Appellant likewise never
objected to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution to prove that the
offenses were committed “on or about sometime (sic) 1987, prior and
subsequent thereto.” He cannot now pretend that he was unable to defend himself
in view of the vagueness of the allegation in the Information as to when
the crimes were committed, as it was shown to the contrary that he participated
in the trial and was even able to give an alibi in his defense.[25]
(Italics in the original)
On the merits, accused-appellant assails the credibility of AAA’s
testimony that she was raped three times, in light of the finding of Dr.
Salumbides that her hymen was intact.
And accused-appellant questions the prosecution’s failure to present as
witness AAA’s uncle CCC who allegedly saw him on top of AAA, which failure amounts
to, so he claims, willful suppression of evidence.
In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single
most important issue.[26] If
the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, the accused may be
convicted solely on that basis.[27] Significantly, the trial court, passing on
AAA’s credibility, noted:
The credibility of the
testimony of the offended party is put to a stringent test in order that it
could be said as credible to sustain a conviction. The Court finds [AAA’s] testimony
to have passed said test. Her testimony given in open court is clear,
consistent, direct and without any hesitation when confronted by the presence
of her own abuser.
It is noted that [AAA]
had to tell her story several times – to her two classmates, to the
teacher, the principal, the police, the doctor, the Municipal Trial Court Judge
who conducted the preliminary investigation, to the prosecutor, to the social
worker and to this Court, in the presence of the public and her father. Her
testimony is one and the same – her father sexually abused her not once,
but thrice, and that every time she was subjected to this maltreatment, her
mother was out of their home, her father would pull down her panty, laid on top
of her, placed his sexual organ into her own private part and made push and
pull, or rubbing motions (binubundol-bundol o ikinikiskis). Worse, she was
always warned not to tell anyone about the incidents or her father would kill
her.[28] (Underscoring supplied)
Apropos is
this Court’s taking stock of the fact that when one accuses a close relative of
having raped her, as in this case where AAA accused her very own father,[29] her testimony is entitled to greater weight.
x x x [A] daughter would not accuse
her own father of a serious offense like rape, had she really not been
aggrieved. Her testimony against him is entitled to greater weight, since reverence
and respect for elders is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even
recognized by law. x x x
That she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had
she not been aggrieved would be absurd.[30] (Underscoring supplied)
Accused-appellant’s claim that AAA charged
him with rape because he would scold her very often does not impress. People v. Bidoc instructs:
x x x In
previous cases, this Court held that parental punishment or disciplinary
chastisement is not enough for a daughter in a Filipino family to falsely
accuse her father of rape. She would not subject herself to an examination
of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of public trial, and
embarrass herself with the need to narrate in detail how she was raped if she
was not in fact raped. It takes depravity for a young girl to concoct a tale
of defloration, which would put her own father on death row, drag herself and
the rest of her family to a lifetime of shame, and make them the object of
gossip among their classmates and friends.[31] (Underscoring supplied)
That AAA’s hymen remained intact despite the claim of three occasions of rape
is not impossible and does not negate a finding that they were committed.[32] A
torn or broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, not even when the
victim is an innocent child.[33] Dr. Salumbides, on cross- examination,
testified that there are several classes of hymen; some are elastic and
flexible that even in cases of several deliveries, the hymen remains intact.[34]
As to the failure of the prosecution to present AAA’s uncle CCC and to proffer
a plausible explanation therefor, a prosecutor has the discretion, the prerogative
to determine the witnesses he is going to present.[35]
In any event, the records show that on the request of the prosecution,[36] several
subpoenas[37]
for, as well as bench warrants[38] against,
CCC were issued. CCC, however, had ceased
to reside in Barangay Ilayang Nangka and his whereabouts could not be
ascertained. The trial court in fact even
reprimanded on one occasion SPO2 Edilberto Conjares, the subpoena/warrant
officer of the Philippine National Police in Tayabas, Quezon, for failure to
serve the subpoena.[39]
On accused-appellant’s alibi, the rule is settled that for it
to prosper, it must be established with clear and convincing evidence not only
that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the
time of its
commission.[40] This, accused-appellant failed to do. As reflected above, he admitted that after
work, he goes home in the afternoon or early evening.[41]
The qualifying circumstances of
minority and relationship were alleged and established. Hence, the death
penalty imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals is
proper. In view, however, of the subsequent enactment on
A word on the award
of moral damages. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence,
the amount of P50,000 which was awarded by the
trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, is increased to P75,000.[43]
WHEREFORE, the assailed
sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole, and the award of P50,000 for moral damages, is
increased to P75,000.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
|
(ON OFFICIAL LEAVE) LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice (ON LEAVE) 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 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, 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
* On Official Leave.
** On Leave.
[1] Committed under the then Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, which states:
ART. 335. When and how
rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
1.
By using force or intimidation;
2.
When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3.
When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented;
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
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, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim.
x x x
x
[2] AAA was born on
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Exhibit “A,” records, p. 416.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[13] CA rollo, p. 110.
[14]
[15]
[16] Rollo, p. 18.
[17]
[18] CA rollo, p. 46.
[19] Section 11, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure now states:
Sec. 11. Date of commission of the offense. – It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
[20] People v. Almendral, G.R. No. 126025,
[21] People v. Hilet, 450 Phil. 481, 488 (2003).
[22] Section 10, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, now Section 9, Rule 116 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, states:
Section 10. Bill of Particulars. – Accused may, at or before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects and the details desired.
[23] People v. Almendral, supra note 20 at 451-452.
[24] People
v. Espinosa, supra note 20 at 93.
[25] People v. Almendral, supra note 20 at 452.
[26] People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 172118,
[27] People v. Fernandez, supra; People v. Corpuz, supra at 448; People v. Guambor, 465 Phil. 671, 678 (2004).
[28] Records, pp. 430-431.
[29] People v. Herevese, 457 Phil. 725, 736 (2003); People v. Briones, 439 Phil. 675, 676 (2002); People v. Miasco, 416 Phil. 612, 627 (2001); People v. Teves, 397 Phil. 536, 542 (2000); People v. Ramos, 386 Phil. 662,667 (2000).
[30] People v. Briones, supra at 685. Vide People
v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 171020,
[31] G.R. No. 169430,
[32] People v. Gagto, 323 Phil. 539, 551 (1996).
[33] People v. Ballesterol. 436 Phil. 274, 282 (2002); People v. Lomibao, 391 Phil. 912, 927 (2000); People v. Tirona, 360 Phil. 611, 621 (1998).
[34] Records, p. 68, TSN,
[35] Calimutan v. People, G.R. No. 152133,
[36] Records, p. 68, TSN,
[37]
[38]
[39] Order dated
[40] People v. Espinosa, supra note 20 at 100. People v.
Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40,
[41] Records, p. 366, TSN,
[42] Vide People v. Bidoc, supra note 31; People v. Tubongbanua,
G.R. No. 171271,
[43] People v. Fernandez, supra note 25; People v. Guillermo,