THE PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
- versus
- Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
HERMINIGILDO SENIERES, VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Appellant,
Promulgated:
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
On
automatic review is the Decision[1] dated
WHEREFORE, Judgment is
hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 16691-R, the Court finds the
accused Herm[e]nigildo Senieres guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
of rape as charged in the Information, defined and penalized under Section 2,
Par. 1 (a) and (d) of Republic Act [No.] 8353 which amended Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code* and hereby sentences
him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua; to indemnify the complainant [AAA] the sum of P100,000.00
as Moral Damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to
pay the costs.
The accused Herm[e]nigildo Senieres, being a detention
prisoner, is entitled to be credited 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the
service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code.
2. In Criminal Case No. 16692-R, the Court finds the
accused Herm[e]nigildo Senieres Guilty beyond reasonable doubt for (sic) the
offense of rape committed on December 17, 1998 as charged in the Information,
defined and penalized under Sec. 2, Par. 2 of Republic Act [No.] 8353* and hereby sentences
him, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer imprisonment ranging
from four (4) years two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as Minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day
of Prision Mayor as Maximum, to
indemnify the offended party [AAA] the sum of P20,000.00 as Moral
Damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the
costs.
The accused Herm[e]nigildo Senieres, being a detention
prisoner, is entitled to be credited 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the
service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code.
SO ORDERED.[3]
Initiated by AAA’s sworn statement,[4]
accused Senieres was charged with two (2) counts of rape in the following
Informations, to wit:
CRIMINAL CASE NO.
16691-R
The undersigned accuses HERM[E]NIGILDO SENIERES [a.k.a.]
“EMING” of the crime of RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER R.A. [No.] 8353,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 22nd day of November
1998, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation lie down and
have carnal knowledge of the complainant [AAA], a minor[,] 11 years of age,
against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
CRIMINAL CASE NO.
16692-R
The undersigned accused HERM[E]NIGILDO SENIERES [a.k.a.]
“EMING” of the crime of RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER R.A. [No.] 8353,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of December
1998, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously by means of force, threat or intimidation, commit an
act of sexual assault upon the person of [AAA], a minor[,] 11 years of age, by
inserting his penis into the anal orifice of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
At his arraignment on
AAA testified that on the night of
When AAA awakened the following day,
Senieres was no longer around. She, however, did not report the incident to her
aunt CCC or to anyone else as she was afraid that Senieres would make good his
threat to harm her younger sister.[12]
After the incident, AAA stayed at her
godmother’s house which is a few houses away. On
On
Sometime after the incident, AAA left
for her uncle EEE’s house, in a town somewhere in Benguet, in order to be away
from Senieres.[16]
On
In April 1999, AAA reported for the
first time what had happened to her aunt BBB. AAA was emboldened by the courage
of a child who had reported a similar incident of sexual abuse against her
father.[18]
AAA and her aunt
BBB then traveled
to
Dr. Villaseñor testified that he found
a shallow, healed laceration located at
For his part, Senieres denied the
charges against him. He claimed that he could not have raped AAA on
The trial court favored AAA’s version
of the events and convicted Senieres of the crimes charged, ruling in this
wise:
The Court cannot give credence to the assertion
of the accused that he could not have raped AAA on the night of
AAA categorically testified that she arrived in
x x x
Likewise, the Court cannot give weight to the claim of
the accused that on the night of
He failed to present his
alleged relative Mary Jane or any other member of the latter’s family or any
other person to corroborate his claim. It should not be difficult for him to
secure their presence in court if indeed he was with his relatives on those
nights or that he spent those nights at
Besides, granting for the sake of argument that he was at
The judgment of conviction was
elevated to the Court for automatic review. In a Resolution[30]
dated
In a Decision[33] dated
The Court of Appeals also held that Senieres defenses
of denial and alibi have no leg to stand on. Senieres failed to present
convincing proof that he was present at some other place about the time of the
alleged crime and that he was at such other place for so long a time that it
was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when the crime was
committed. Senieres likewise failed to substantiate his claim that AAA was not
in
The Court of Appeals, however, modified
the award of moral damages to P50,000.00 for each count of rape and
imposed an additional amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each
count of rape.[36]
In the Court’s Resolution[37]
dated
After a careful and meticulous review of the
records of the case, the Court finds no reason to overturn the findings of fact
and conclusions commonly reached by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
The Court affirms Senieres’ conviction.
Senieres
contends that no rape occurred on
Senieres’
contentions are bereft of merit.
First,
it should be reiterated that in a rape case, what is most important is the
credible testimony of the victim. A medical examination and a medical
certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to a prosecution
for rape. The court may convict the accused based solely on the victim’s
credible, natural and convincing testimony.[41] In
this case, both the courts are in agreement that AAA was candid, natural,
forthright and unwavering in her testimony that Senieres raped her on two
occasions. AAA’s credibility is strengthened by the absence of evidence showing
that she had any ill-motive in testifying against Senieres.
Secondly, Dr. Villaseñor’s report
revealed that AAA suffered shallow, healed lacerations at 7 and
Thirdly,
AAA categorically said that Senieres inserted his penis into her vagina and
that she felt pain when he did.[44]
Dr. Villaseñor’s testimony supports AAA’s assertion, to wit:
PROS. CENTENO:
Q Now, going back to the
A This
is caused by [the] insertion of a foreign object or instrument, sir.
Q Now,
what would be the possible foreign object or instrument which could have been
inserted in the vagina of the victim which could have caused these kinds of
laceration?
A Possible
instruments like a fully erect male genital organ, finger, or any blunt object that is inserted into the
genital organ, sir.
Q Now, in your examination as a
medico-legal officer of the Philippine National Police, Doctor, what would be
the most possible foreign object that would cause [these kinds] of lacerations?
A The
[sic] fully erect male genital organ, sir.
Q Now,
why do you say that the most possible foreign object which could have cause [these
kinds] of lacerations would be a fully erect male genital organ?
A Considering,
sir, that there were three lacerations and there was a laceration that was
considered deep, that may be caused only by the insertion of a male organ, sir.[45]
AAA
likewise clearly testified that Senieres inserted his penis into her anus, to
wit:
Q And
after your uncle Eming was able to remove your shorts and panty, what happened
next?
A Itudtodok na diay buto na diay ubet ko (He
was inserting his penis into my anus).[46]
It
may be well to point out that the trial court found AAA’s testimony to be
truthful, viz.:
There is no reason to
doubt [AAA’s] testimony. She was candid, natural, forthright and unwavering. In
short, her testimony bears the earmarks of credibility.
Further strengthening [AAA’s]
credibility is her lack of ulterior motive against the accused and the absolute
absence of evidence that even remotely suggested that she could have been
actuated by ill motive. It is settled that where there is no evidence
indicating that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by
improper motive, the presumption is that she was not so actuated and her
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[47]
It is a settled principle that the
trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct
and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so
conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and
deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimony.
Unless the trial judge plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, his assessment on
credibility must be respected.[48]
AAA’s
alleged act of casually putting on her underwear after the rape and her failure
to immediately report the two (2) incidents of rape do not vitiate the credibility
of her account. The Court has repeatedly
observed that no standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim
following her defilement, particularly by a child who could not be expected to
fully comprehend the ways of an adult.
People react differently to emotional stress and rape victims are no
different from them.[49]
Moreover, long silence and delay in
reporting the crime of rape has not always been construed as an indication of a
false accusation. The principle applies with greater force where, as in this
case, AAA was only 11 years old and was, in all likelihood, susceptible to
intimidation and threats of physical harm especially from a close relative.[50]
Against
the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, Senieres merely interposed the
defenses of denial and alibi. He claimed that on both occasions, he was
somewhere else and could not have been at the scene of the crime.
Having been positively and
unmistakably identified by AAA as her rapist, Senieres’ weak defenses of denial
and alibi cannot prosper. The settled jurisprudence is that categorical and
consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill-motive on the
part of the eyewitness testifying thereon, prevails over the defenses of denial
and alibi which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, as in the
cases at bar, constitute self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.[51]
Alibi, like denial, is also inherently
weak and easily fabricated. For this
defense to justify an acquittal, the following must be established: the
presence of the appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the
offense and the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.
These requisites have not been met.[52]
Senieres claimed to be at a relative’s house on both occasions of rape.
Considering that this relative’s house is a jeepney ride away from the house
where the two (2) incidents of rape were committed, it would have still been
physically possible for him to be present at the scene of the crimes at the
time of their consummation.[53]
In
sum, the guilt of Senieres was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court
therefore affirms his conviction for two (2) counts of rape in Criminal Case
Nos. 16691-R and 16692-R.
With respect to Senieres’ civil
liability, the Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and P50,000.00 as moral damages in favor of AAA for being a victim of simple
statutory rape.[54]
However, the award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages
adjudged by the appellate court for the
crime
of rape by sexual assault are excessive and should be reduced. In line with
prevailing jurisprudence, AAA is entitled to an award of P25,000.00
civil indemnity and P25,000.00 moral damages for being a victim of rape
by sexual assault.[55]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00
as moral damages. In Criminal Case No. 16692-R, appellant HERMENIGILDO SENIERES
is sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from four (4) years two (2) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum;
and to pay AAA the amounts of P25,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00
as moral damages.
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second 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 had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[2]The
real name of the victim is withheld per R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
*The
pertinent provisions of law are as follows:
Sec. 2.
Rape as a Crime Against Persons.–The crime of rape shall hereafter be
classified as a Crime Against Persons under Title Eight of Act No. 3815, as
amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, there shall be incorporated into
Title Eight of the same Code a new chapter to be known as Chapter Three on
Rape, to read as follows:
Chapter Three
Rape
Art. 266-A. Rape;
When and How Committed. – Rape is committed:
1) By a
man who has carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a)
Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When
the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By
means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When
the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By
any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another
person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital
or anal orifice of another person.
Art. 266-B.
Penalties. – Rape under paragraph I of the next preceding article shall
be punished by reclusión perpetua.
x x x x
Rape
under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision
mayor.
[5]
[8]The
real name of the witness is withheld per R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. 9262. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[10]Senieres
is the uncle of AAA as he and AAA’a father are first cousins, and consequently
a relative by consanguinity within the 3rd degree. This circumstance
of relationship, however, was not alleged in the Information to be considered
qualifying; CA rollo, p. 33.
[33]Rollo, pp. 3-18; Penned by Associate
Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.