THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- PATERNO OLIQUINO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 171314 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR.,* CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For Review
is the Decision[1] rendered
by the Court of Appeals promulgated on 21 March 2005 in CA-G.R. CR No. 00540
entitled, “People of the Philippines v.
Paterno Oliquino,” affirming, with modification, the Decision[2]
dated 3 December 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 3, in
Criminal Case No. 7192, finding appellant guilty of the crime of rape and
imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
By virtue of the complaint of AAA,[3]
an Information dated
That on September 30, 1995 at around 7:00 o’clock in the
morning, more or less, at Barangay Quinuartilan, Municipality of Camalig,
Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and threatening the victim
with a fan knife (balisong), by means of force, threat and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have
carnal knowledge with AAA, against her will and consent, which act impregnated
her, to her damage and prejudice.[6]
Upon arraignment, appellant, duly
assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.[7]
The evidence for the prosecution
established the following antecedents:
In the morning of
AAA did not tell anyone about what
occurred during that morning. Her
grandmother, however, noticed that AAA’s stomach was getting bigger and asked
the latter if she was pregnant. AAA
ignored said inquiry. Finally, on
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that Mr./Ms.
AAA, a 16 (year) old, female, single, 2nd
yr. H.S. and presently residing at Kuinantilan (sic), Camalig, Albay.
Had been (examined, treated) and was found to be pregnant
for 8 months. Last Menstrual Period:
Physical Exam:
Abdomen: Globularly enlarged AOG.[15]
On
Appellant
admitted that he is the father of the child born to AAA.[17] He, however, denied having raped AAA for according
to him, the two of them had a sexual relationship which commenced in June 1995
when AAA borrowed P50.00 from him in order to pay her
tuition fee.[18] He claimed that at one time, BBB sent AAA to
fetch him at
Another
instance, appellant revealed, when they had sexual intercourse was when he was
again summoned by BBB. According to
appellant, he and AAA went fishing at a nearby river and on that occasion, he
“used to touch the vagina of (AAA).”[21] Then, there was the instance when BBB sent
AAA to his house but before they made their way back to where BBB lived, he and
AAA first engaged in sexual intercourse.[22]
As far as appellant could recall, the
two of them had more than fifty sexual encounters.[23]
He also
surmised that BBB was aware of his relationship with AAA for the former even
told him to buy a pig for AAA to raise.[24] He also maintained that he could not have
raped AAA at her grandparents’ kitchen as the place was filthy because her
invalid uncle defecated there.[25]
Appellant
likewise stated in his testimony that he came to know that AAA was pregnant in
April 1996 when he returned from
To support the theory that appellant
and AAA were lovers, the defense presented Otilo Gomez, Buenaventura Arogar,
and Haydee Ortile.
Gomez stated in the witness stand that
appellant was staying in his property located in Manawan, Camalig, Albay; that
he treated AAA as his granddaughter even though they were already distant
relatives; that there were occasions when he saw AAA, a high school student, go
to appellant’s house; that at times, he even witnessed appellant carry AAA on
his back to help her cross the river; that he actually saw the appellant and
AAA in a compromising situation at appellant’s house when he once took a peek
inside after hearing an “unusual” sound emanating from therein.[28]
Arogar testified that he used to
always see appellant and AAA together; that there were even two instances when
he witnessed appellant and AAA riding the same carabao with the latter in front
and appellant at the back holding onto AAA’s waist; that appellant quickly
removed his hands from AAA’s waist as soon as he saw that he (Arogar) was
looking at them.[29]
Arogar proceeded to claim that
appellant entrusted to him the amount of two thousand pesos. However, after appellant returned from
Ortile, who is a half-sister of
appellant, testified that on
On rebuttal, both AAA and BBB
categorically denied the allegations of appellant and his witnesses.[32]
In its decision of
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing considerations, this Court (finds)
the accused PATERNO P. OLIQUINO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
RAPE and sentences him to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to
indemnify the victim AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Considering that accused Paterno Oliquino admits that he
is the father of CCC[33] which is the product of the rape committed by
him upon private complainant AAA(,) he is ordered to acknowledge the child CCC
as his daughter and to give her the necessary support.[34]
Appellant
seasonably appealed his case before this Court.
In our Resolution dated
The Court of Appeals affirmed, with modification, the findings of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the appellate court’s Decision states:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the
decision subject of the appeal is hereby AFFIRMED save for a slight
modification in that the accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim an
additional amount of the P50,000 as civil indemnity.[36]
Once again, appellant is pleading his
case before us arguing that the prosecution was unable to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.[37]
Appellant maintains that AAA’s account
of what transpired during that fateful day “is not in accord with human
experience and does not carry with it the essence of truth”[38]
and should not have been given full evidentiary weight and credence.
He also argues that his testimony as
well as those of his witnesses were consistent and reliable as compared to the
version presented by the prosecution.[39] Thus, while alibi is an inherently weak
defense, the same gains significance and strength when it is corroborated by a
credible witness. In this case, he
insists that the prosecution was not able to discredit the witnesses he
presented before the trial court.
Lastly, appellant points to the period
of time that had lapsed before AAA instituted the criminal case against
him. This fact, he argues, gives rise to
the assumption that the filing of the rape charge was a mere afterthought so
that AAA and BBB could extract some money from him.[40]
Appellant’s arguments fail to
convince.
As with other rape cases, the outcome
of the present action boils down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. In this regard, it has been this Court’s
consistent stance that the trial court’s evaluation of the testimonies of
witnesses are accorded highest respect as it had the singular opportunity to
observe the witnesses and to gauge their truthfulness. Appellate courts do not have the same
privilege for, in deciding cases, they are confronted with mere cold
transcripts of the testimonies given before the trial court. Thus, it is settled that-
The question of whether or not the sexual intercourse in
question is free and voluntary, hinges, on the credibility of witnesses, the
determination of which is largely addressed to the sound discretion of the
trial court. Appellate courts will
generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that it has
unequalled competence to consider and determine the credibility of witnesses,
in view of its unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses on the
stand, an opportunity not afforded the appellate court, unless it has plainly
overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might
affect the result of the case.[41]
WITNESS:
A. I was
preparing food for breakfast.
Q. Now,
while you were preparing food for breakfast, what happened?
A. That
morning, Paterno Oliquino arrived.
Q. When
you say Paterno, is he the same Paterno Oliqiuino who is the accused in this
case?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What
happened after Paterno arrived?
A. When
Paterno arrived, he held my both hands.
Q. What
happened next after he held your two hands?
A. He
pushed me.
Q. And
what happened to you after he pushed you?
A. After
pushing me, he immediately sat on my stomach. (Witness points to her stomach).
Q. What
was your position when the accused sat on your stomach?
A. I was
already lying because of the push that he made.
Q. Was
your face facing upward or facing towards the ground?
A. My face
was facing up.
Q. Now,
what else happened after he sat on your stomach while you were lying on the
ground?
A. He
undressed me.
Q. How did
he undress you?
A. He
removed my shorts (sic).
Q. After
he removed your shorts, what else did he do?
A. He also
removed my panty.
Q. Then,
after he removed your panty, what else happened?
A. After
removing my panty he also undressed himself.
Q. What
did he undress himself?
A. First,
he removed his pants.
x
x x x
COURT:
Q. What
did he remove first?
WITNESS:
A. His
shorts and then his briefs (sic).
PROSECUTOR TOLOSA:
Q. Then
after he removed his shorts and briefs (sic), what transpired next?
A. After
that he placed himself on top of me and placed his penis on my vagina.
Q. Was his
penis inserted on your vagina?
A. The penis of Paterno was inserted on my
vagina.
PROSECUTOR TOLOSA:
Q. Then
after his penis was inserted to your vagina, what happened next?
WITNESS:
A. I felt
pain.
Q. Did you
shout?
A. I was
hindered by Paterno from shouting because according him when I shout he will
kill me.
Q. So what
did you do?
A. I did
not move because I was afraid.
Q. How
long was Paterno on top of you?
A. For a
while, sir.
Q. Now,
after he finished, what transpired next?
A. After
that, after Paterno was through, he put on his brief.
Q. Did he
talk to you before he left?
ATTY. MACASINAG:
Leading.
WITNESS:
A. I was
instructed not to shout, otherwise, he will kill me.
PROSECUTOR TOLOSA:
Q. Were
you afraid?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Why?
A. Because
he will kill me.
x x
x x
ATTY. MACASINAG:
Q. Can you
demonstrate to us how Paterno Oliquino sat on your stomach by demonstrating it
using the Court Process Server as yourself and you as Paterno Oliquino.
COURT:
Q. She’s
lying down. Just a moment, where were
you lying down?
WITNESS:
A. I was
lying on the floor.
COURT INTERPRETER:
At
this juncture, witness is going down the witness stand to demonstrate how the
accused sat on her stomach. Witness is
now sitting on the stomach of the Process Server. The position is that like she is riding on a
horse back, facing both legs of the Process Server.
ATTY. MACASINAG:
Q. So on
that position, Madam Witness, your panty and your shorts were removed by
Paterno Oliquino?
WITNESS:
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And on
that position, Paterno Oliquino inserted his penis to your vagina?
A. After
removing my short pants and panty, he changed his position by turning and
facing me already.
Q. And he
kissed your lips?
A. No,
sir.
Q. He did
not kiss your breast?
A. No,
sir.
Q. So he
just immediately inserted his penis on your vagina?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And on
your position demonstrated a while ago by you, you did not hold anything to
protect yourself because Paterno at that time was facing your legs?
WITNESS:
A. No,
sir.
x x x x
COURT:
Q. In that
position, he removed your short pants and your panty?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you
not move?
A. I was
attempted to move but he told me not to move.
Q. He
really told you not to move?
A. Yes
because I was afraid.
Q. Why
were you afraid?
A. Because
he will kill me.
Q. By his
bare hands or what?
A. He was
armed, your honor.
Q. What?
A. A small
knife.
Q. What
did he do with it?
A. He was
just holding that small knife.
Q. Did he
show it to you?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now,
when he was able to remove your panty and your shorts, what did he do next?
A. After
removing my short pants and my panty he face (sic) me already.
Q. You did
not stand at first?
A. I stood
up but he placed his both legs spread on my body.
Q. Facing
you already. You’re face to face already?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. He was
able to remove his short pants, how?
A. He was
standing straight with his legs spread, that was the time when he removed his
pants.
COURT:
Q. At that
time when he remove his short pants as well as his briefs (sic), he was with
you?
WITNESS:
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. At that
time when he removed his brief and shorts, he was standing astride facing you?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. After
that when he was able to remove his shorts and his briefs (sic), what else did
he do?
A. He
placed himself on top of me.
Q. After
that, what else did he do?
A. That
was the time when he placed his penis on my vagina.
Q. After
placing his penis and penetrated on your vagina, what did he do?
A. When
his penis was already on my vagina, he started pumping.
Q. How
many minutes, how many seconds or how long?
A. For a
while, sir.
Q. After
he satisfied himself, what did he do?
A. That
was the time when he dressed up.
Q. What
you are telling here is true?
A. It is
true, sir.
Q. You
must remember that what you are telling here is serious? If he found to be guilty, he might be
penalized or sentenced to death?
A. That is true, sir.[42]
Equally significant is that the defense
counsel asked AAA to demonstrate how appellant removed her shorts and panty as
well as how appellant removed his pants and brief. In addition, the presiding
judge himself subjected AAA to scrutiny and he even went as far as to impress
upon her the serious nature of the crime she filed against appellant and the
grave penalty that awaited him if convicted; yet, AAA remained steadfast in her
contention that appellant indeed raped her.[43] To our minds, these amply support the
findings of the court a quo.
On the other hand, appellant
completely relies on the supposed relationship he had with AAA which allegedly
started in June 1995. As we had
previously declared elsewhere, for this defense to prosper, “it should be
substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship – like
mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.”[44] In this case, appellant depended on the
testimonies of witnesses who claim to have seen him and AAA on various
occasions. Still, we believe that these
testimonies fail to vindicate appellant.
We quote with approval the following
observation of the trial court with respect to the testimony of Gomez, the
owner of the land where appellant built his house:
It is noteworthy to consider
first the actuation of Ortilio Gomez: He
considers AAA (his) granddaughter, nevertheless, he kept mum about what he saw
between Paterno and AAA who were engaged in the alleged sexual act because he
presumed that they have a good understanding.
In a barangay where the residents regard themselves as closely
knit and who observe family tradition, as in this case, the normal reaction of
Otilio Gomez is to talk to herein accused and ask him why he was having a
relationship with AAA who was only 15 years old then. But he never lifted a finger to tell Paterno
or AAA’s grandmother because he “presumed” the good relationship of the
two. The relationship of Paterno and AAA
if there really was, is unusual which can not be taken sitting down by an
on-looker, especially considering that Otilio allegedly saw the two in (a
compromising) situation.[45]
We likewise cannot afford to give
weight to Ortile’s claim that BBB and appellant had already reached an
agreement regarding AAA’s condition.
According to Ortile, appellant, who happens to be her half-brother, had
offered to marry AAA and pay for the delivery of their baby. To be more specific, Ortile stated that on
Even appellant’s actuation after he
learned of AAA’s pregnancy belies his claim that he loved her. In his testimony, he stated that he found out
in April 1996[49] that
he had impregnated AAA and that he was more than glad that he would finally
have his own child.[50]
Yet, instead of facing his obligation, he still opted to go to
Moreover, he alleged that as soon as
BBB discovered AAA’s pregnancy, BBB asked that they discuss the problem at the
municipal hall but he refused. He then
requested his sister to talk to BBB at the latter’s house. This testimony contravenes BBB and Ortile’s
accounts of what transpired immediately after AAA’s condition was
detected. Both BBB and Ortile claimed in
the witness stand that the former found out that AAA was pregnant in May 1996. Ortile was even more specific on the date of
the discovery which she claimed occurred on
What further destroys the veracity of appellant’s contention was his own testimony that it was only in July 1996, when he sent Ortile to BBB in order to tender his offer of marriage or support for AAA and the child.[51] Such belated attempt on appellant’s part to appease AAA and BBB betrays his plea of innocence and amounts to nothing but a desperate attempt at evading the consequences of his offense. Not a few number of cases have established that an offer of marriage is considered an implied admission of guilt of the accused.[52]
As for AAA’s delay in reporting the rape, suffice it to state that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[53] It must be remembered that appellant threatened AAA with harm in the event that she told anyone of what happened between them. The lingering fear instilled upon AAA is understandable considering that appellant lives only about one kilometer away from her. Also, he was called upon by her grandmother, BBB, to help in making copra. The possibility of him making good his threat is therefore not remote at all and the fear for her life remained palpable. Besides, this Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that people placed under the burden of emotional stress react differently. Some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility; while some may openly welcome the intrusion.[54] There is no standard form of behavior when one is faced by a shocking incident. Under emotional stress, the human mind is not expected to follow a predictable path.[55] As we held in People v. Geromo[56] -
[I]ntimidation must be
viewed in light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the
commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that the intimidation produces a
fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused,
something would happen to her at the moment, or even thereafter, as when she is
threatened with death should she report the incident. x x x.
Finally, the parties agree that there was no animosity among them prior to this dispute. This, to our minds, undermines the appellant’s case for in areas such as where AAA was raised, young ladies by custom and tradition act with circumspection and prudence, and that great caution is observed so that their reputation remains untainted.[57] We see no reason, and appellant failed to produce any, to inquire into the motive behind AAA’s institution of this action except to seek justice for the irreparable damage that appellant had inflicted upon her. Indeed, no woman, much less a young girl such as AAA, would make public a painful and humiliating secret unless she was viciously wronged.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, “(w)henever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon,” the penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same statute instructs us that in the event the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
In this case, as the Information does not allege any attending circumstance in the execution of the crime of rape. We, therefore, sustain the penalty of reclusion perpetua that was imposed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
In
addition, appellant, being an unmarried man, is ordered to acknowledge the
child of AAA pursuant to Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code that directs
persons guilty of rape to acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should
prevent him from so doing. Corollarily,
appellant must provide support to his illegitimate child with AAA’s in the
amount of P500.00
each month.[58]
The
Court of Appeals is likewise correct in directing appellant to pay AAA the
amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil
indemnity apart from the P50,000.00 earlier given by the trial court in
the form of moral damages for it is settled that these two are distinct from
one another, thus:
With regard to his civil liability, however, the trial court’s
award of damages should be modified.
Under the present law, an award of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. This is exclusive of the award of moral
damages of P50,000.00, without need of further proof. The victim’s injury is now recognized as
inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling crime
of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages.[59]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00540 affirming, with
modification, the decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 3, Legazpi City,
in Criminal Case No. 7192, is hereby AFFIRMED. In addition, appellant is ordered to give
support to his offspring by AAA in the amount of P500.00 each month. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
(On Leave)
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-10.
[2] Records, pp. 109-131.
[3] Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victim’s privacy.
[4] Records, p. 12.
[5] An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes.
[6] Dated
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Exh. “A” for the prosecution; Exh. “1” for the defense.
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30]
[31]
[32] TSN,
[33] The child of AAA.
[34] Records, p. 131.
[35] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[36] Rollo, p. 9.
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] People v. Soterol, G.R. No.
L-53498,
[42] TSN,
[43]
[44] People v. Gabelinio, G.R.
Nos. 132127-29,
[45] Records, p. 123.
[46] TSN,
[47] Records, p. 4.
[48] People v. Niebres, G.R. No.
69190,
[49] TSN,
[50]
[51] TSN,
[52] People v. Andaya, 365 Phil.
654, 669 (1999), citing People v. Valdez,
G.R. No. L-51034,
[53] People v. Melendres, 393 Phil. 878, 894 (2000).
[54] People v. NIebres, supra note 48 at 119.
[55] People v. Solomon, 434 Phil. 1, 21 (2002).
[56] 378 Phil. 972, 981 (1999), citing People v. Melendres, supra note 53.
[57] People v. Caratay, 374 Phil. 590, 608 (1999).
[58] People
v. Sgt. Bayani, 331 Phil. 169, 202 (1996).
[59] People
v. Caratay, supra note 57 at 610-611.