PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
-
versus - QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,*
ROGELIO ALARCON y TIOXON AZCUNA,**
Appellant, TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
NACHURA, JJ.
Promulgated:
March
7, 2007
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
Subject
of this automatic review is the Decision[1] promulgated
by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01000. The appellate court had affirmed the Regional
Trial Court’s (RTC) judgment in Criminal Case No. 8620-2001-C finding appellant
guilty of qualified rape but modified the RTC judgment in Criminal Case No.
8621-2001-C by finding appellant guilty of acts of lasciviousness only instead
of rape.
Based
on the complaints filed by private complainant AAA[2], assisted
by Sister Laura P. Chavez (Sister Laura), appellant was charged with two (2)
counts of statutory rape. In Criminal
Case No. 8620-2001-C, the accusatory portion in the Information reads, thus:
That
sometime in the month of March 2001 at Brgy. Tuntungin-Putho, Municipality of
Los Baños, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused thru force, violence and intimidation and with
lewd design, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal relation with one [AAA], a ten (10) year old minor, his own daughter,
against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
In Criminal Case No. 8621-2001-C, the
Information’s accusatory portion, except as to the exact date of the commission
of the offense, similarly reads, thus:
That sometime in the
month of March 2001 at Brgy. Tuntungin-Putho, Municipality of Los Baños,
Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
above-named accused thru force, violence and intimidation and with lewd design,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal relation
with one [AAA], a ten (10) year old minor, his own daughter, against her will
and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Upon
arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
Afterwards, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the victim,
AAA, who recounted the details of her harrowing experience that began one
evening in March 2001 at her home in Los Baños, Laguna, which she shared with her
father, the present appellant, and four (4) of her siblings.[5] While they were all sleeping side by side in
one room, AAA was awakened by appellant, who removed her panty and told her to
remain quiet. He then forced his penis
into her vagina. After finishing the act,
appellant hit AAA.
Later that month, just a few days before
24 March 2001, another similar incident occurred. That afternoon, at their home, appellant
ordered AAA to lie down. She refused to
obey him but appellant started molesting her by removing her panty and letting
his penis touch her vagina.[6] This incident occurred while AAA’s two elder
(2) siblings were sleeping at home. On
AAA’s
half-sister, BBB,[8]
testified that she lived with her four (4) siblings in Barangay Buot, Los
Baños, Laguna. At around
On
In
his defense, appellant denied the charges hurled against him. He claimed that on the dates of the alleged rape
incidents, he was working overtime as a welder in Cabuyao, Laguna. He insinuated that Sister Laura may have had
an influence in the filing of cases because his children told him that she convinced
them to stay at the Tahanan ng Ama.[10] Asencion Alarcon (Asencion) corroborated his
brother’s alibi. He allegedly served as
the time keeper in the place where appellant worked. He declared that appellant worked from
On
The
trial court gave full credence to the categorical and positive testimony of the
victim, AAA, which was corroborated by the Rape Case Report. It ruled that the act of AAA in immediately
reporting the crime further strengthened her credibility.[14]
Pursuant
to People v. Mateo,[15]
appellant filed a Notice of Appeal[16]
before the Court of Appeals.
On
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated P25,000.00 in addition
to the civil indemnity of P75,000.00, and the amount of moral damages is
increased to P75,000.00.
Pursuant to A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC (Amendments to the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases) effective
With respect to Criminal Case No. 8621-2001-C, accused-appellant’s
conviction is modified to acts of lasciviousness and he is accordingly
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6)
years of prision correccional, as
maximum. Accused-appellant is ordered to
pay private complainant P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P40,000.00
as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.[17]
In
downgrading the crime to acts of lasciviousness, the appellate court observed
that in Criminal Case No. 8621-2001-C, there was no showing of penetration of
the vagina in the recounting of the second incident. The appellate court observed that when AAA
testified as to that incident, she merely said, “Dinidikit po niya,” when asked how she was molested by appellant.
In
a Resolution[18] dated
As
earlier noted, concerning Criminal Case No. 8621-2001-C, the Court of Appeals modified the trial
court’s guilty verdict of appellant from rape to acts of lasciviousness. We can no longer review this aspect of the
Decision without violating the right against double jeopardy, which proscribes
an appeal from a judgment of acquittal or for the purpose of increasing the
penalty imposed upon the accused,[19]
as in this case. The instant case was brought to this Court by way of automatic
review which is mandatory only where the
penalty imposed is death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment. The present appeal should therefore be
treated as an appeal only from that aspect of the appellate court’s decision finding
appellant guilty of qualified rape.
Appellant challenges the credibility
of AAA on three (3) grounds: first, considering
that the house is small and has only one room, and the fact that they slept
side by side, it would be impossible for the other children not to be awakened
when the alleged incidents of rape allegedly took place; second,
AAA nurtured ill-feelings towards appellant because the latter maltreated and
beat her and her siblings; and third,
AAA admitted that the information she relayed before the police came from Sister
Laura.[20]
The
issue of a witness’s credibility is best addressed to the sound discretion of
the trial court, which had the unique opportunity to observe the witness
firsthand and note her demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling
examination. Hence, on this issue, findings of the trial court will not be
disturbed on appeal unless the lower court overlooked, ignored, misapprehended,
or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances so material such as to affect
the outcome of the case.[21] No compelling reason was shown why this Court
should depart from the findings of the trial court, which found the testimony
of AAA as believable, positive, clear and convincing.[22]
Recounting her ordeal in the first
incident, AAA testified:
FISCAL:
Q- Miss Witness, do you know a person by the name of Roger Alarcon?
WITNESS:
A- He is my father, sir.
Q- Kindly identify him if he is inside the [c]ourt room?
A- (Witness pointing to a man wearing [a] stripe[d] t-shirt and who upon inquiry gave the name of Rogelio Alarcon).[23]
x x x x
Q- What were you doing
just before you were raped by your father for the first time?
A- I was already asleep,
sir.
Q- What arose [sic] you
when you were raped at that time?
A- My father was waking
me up, sir.
Q- How did you wake up?
A- My other siblings were
already asleep when he was shaking my shoulders, sir.
Q- Was he saying
anything?
A- Nothing, sir.
x x x x
Q- What else did he do
when he shake [sic] your shoulder?
A- He removed my panty, sir.
Q- What else did he do
when he removed your panty?
A- He told me to keep
quiet, sir.
Q- What were you. . . After that time after
he removed your panty and keep quiet, what did you feel?
A- “Masakit po”, sir.
Q- What do you mean?
A- “Yung mag-asawa po, yung titi po”, sir.
Q- What did he do with
his penis?
A- “Pinasok po sa akin,” sir.
Q- You said you fel[t]
pain[.] [I]n what part of your body did you feel that pain?
A- “Pepe ko po,” sir.
Q- What did he do after
he penetrated you?
A- Nothing else, sir
(shaking her head).[24]
AAA’s
testimony categorically established the fact of her defloration at the hands of
her father at that. Indeed, she positively identified appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime. She was only
ten (10) years old when the rape was committed.
It is inconceivable for a child to concoct a sordid tale of so serious a
crime as rape at the hands of a close kin, her father in this case, and subject
herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were
other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[25] Thus, it becomes implausible for AAA to make
up the rape story over her resentment caused by her father’s beatings.
The defense failed to dent even
slightly the clear and categorical evidence of the prosecution. We do find untenable appellant’s contention
that AAA’s testimony before the police was prodded by Sister Laura. There is no evidence on record for Sister
Laura to fabricate charges against appellant.
Appellant failed to substantiate his allegations during the cross-examination
that Sister Laura had wanted his children to stay with her at the Tahanan ng
Ama Retreat House.[26] Even assuming the same to be true, this fact
does not indicate any ulterior motive on the part of Sister Laura. If at all, it only proves that Sister Laura
was genuinely concerned for the lot of the children.
Appellant characterizes the testimony
of his brother Asencio corroborating his alibi as being clear, straightforward
and credible. Alibi is inherently a weak
defense. Where it is established only by
himself and by his relative, his denial of culpability does not deserve
consideration in the face of the affirmative testimony of a credible
prosecution witness.[27] The daily time record, which would have
supported the alibi of appellant, was not presented in court. This fact further created doubts on the
veracity of Asencio’s testimony.
Appellant’s
argument that rape could not have been committed due to the presence of AAA’s
siblings by her side is also bereft of merit.
Rape is not a respecter of place or time. It is not necessary that the
place where the rape is committed be isolated. There have been too many
instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and
audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side. [28] Rape is not rendered impossible simply
because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were
not awakened during its commission.[29]
It
can be gathered from the decision of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, that AAA came out with a credible testimony. Moreover, the persuasive impact of her
testimony remained unshaken despite the defense put up by appellant. Still, there are other pieces of evidence
that bolster the case of the prosecution.
The Rape Case Report prepared by Dr. Teresita Samadi-Denani of the
Q- When did you have a conversation with your siblings regarding what you said?
A- In the morning of March 24, sir.
Q- What
other things did you talk [about] on that day/occasion particularly [AAA]?
A- I told AAA that morning that I will be leaving because I can no longer injure [sic] the beating of my father and she told me that she would like to come with me, sir.
Q- Why did she like to go
with you?
A- [AAA] wanted to go with me because our father molested her, sir.
Q- And were you able to
know when your sister was molested by your father?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- And when was that?
A- She told me that she was
molested by our father the previous night of the morning, sir.[31]
Her act of immediately reporting the
crimes once the threat against her life had been lifted certainly adds to the
credibility of the account.[32]
The guilt of the accused having been
duly proven beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court
of Appeals, correctly found appellant guilty of raping his daughter. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code,
rape is punished with death when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
and the offender is a parent of the victim.
As a special qualifying circumstance
raising the penalty for rape to death, the minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender must be alleged in the criminal complaint or
information and proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself. Appellant maintains that the trial court
erred in appreciating the special qualifying circumstance of minority and
relationship for failure of the prosecution to present the birth certificate of
the victim. The Court of Appeals relied
on the admission made by appellant with respect to his relationship with AAA
and the latter’s age during pre-trial in affirming the trial court’s
conclusion. In the Pre-trial Order[33]
dated
1. x x x
2. that the private offended party [AAA] is the daughter of the
accused;
3. that the victim [AAA] is 10 years old as of today;
x x x x
During the direct examination, AAA
stated that she is 10 years old and alleged that her father raped her. In his direct examination, appellant also
affirmed the testimony of AAA on these points:
Q-
Do you have any children[,]
daughters or sons[,] Mr. Witness?
A-
Yes, sir[.] I have.
Q-
How many daughters and sons?
A-
Ten (10), sir.
Q-
How many girls and how many boys?
A-
Six (6) girls and four (4) boys.
Q-
How many of your children were
staying with you, Mr. Witness?
A-
Four, sir.
Q-
Who were they, Mr. Witness?
A-
[AAA] around 11 years old, [CCC]
around 8, [DDD] around 7 and [EEE,] around 15.[34]
The latest jurisprudence on the
matter was laid down in People v.
Quiachon,[35] where
the Court explicitly ruled that the imposition of the supreme penalty of death
is proper if the special
qualifying circumstances of the
victim's minority and her relationship to appellant were properly alleged in
the Information and their existence duly admitted by the defense on stipulation
of facts during pre-trial.
The
death penalty cannot however be imposed in view of the enactment of Republic
Act No. 9346. Accordingly, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua without
possibility of parole is hereby meted on appellant.
WHEREFORE,
the Decision dated P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages, is AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE
O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
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 |
(On Leave) ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
(On Official Leave) ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
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]Promulgated
on
[2]The
real name of the victim is withheld per Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 and R.A.
No. 9262. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[3]Records, pp. 10-11.
[19]People v. Dela Torre, 430 Phil. 420, 430 (2002) citing Heirs of Tito Rillorta v. Firme, 157 SCRA 518,
[21]People v. Almendral, 433 SCRA 440 citing
People v. Awing, G.R. Nos. 133919–20,
February 19, 2001, 352 SCRA 188, 204.
[28]People v. Manahan, 455 Phil. 658 (2003);
People v. Fucio, G.R. Nos. 151186-95,