EN BANC
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - ENRIQUE
CEBALLOS JR. y CABRALES, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 169642 Present: PUNO,
C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: September 14, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Enrique Ceballos Jr. y Cabrales[1] (appellant)
was charged with six counts of rape, five on complaint of his minor daughter
AAA, and one on complaint of another minor daughter BBB. The Informations were filed on
The accusatory portion of each of the informations follows:
Criminal
Case No. C-55119
That [in] December, 1997 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with his daughter one [AAA], 14 years old[2], against the latter’s will and without her consent, the rape was committed with grave abuse of authority.[3] (Underscoring supplied)
Criminal Case No. C-55120
That [in] January, 1998 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with his daughter one [AAA], 14 years old, against the latter’s will and without her consent, the rape was committed with grave abuse of authority.[4] (Underscoring supplied)
Criminal Case No. C-55121
That [in] February, 1998 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with his daughter one [AAA], 14 years old, against the latter’s will and without her consent, the rape was committed with grave abuse of authority.[5] (Underscoring supplied)
Criminal Case No. C-55122
That [in] March, 1998 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with his daughter one [AAA], 14 years old, against the latter’s will and without her consent, the rape was committed with grave abuse of authority.[6] (Underscoring supplied)
Criminal Case No. C-55123
That on or about 5th day of November, 1998 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with his daughter one [AAA], 14 years old, against the latter’s will and without her consent, the rape was committed with grave abuse of authority.[7] (Underscoring supplied)
Criminal Case No. C-57126
That on or about during the period from December 25, 1995 until July 16, 1998 in Caloocan City, Metro-Manila [sic] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the father of [BBB], a minor of 17 years old,[8] with lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, [u]nlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with one [BBB] against the latter’s will and without her consent.[9] (Underscoring in the original)
AAA’s birth certificate shows that she was born on
Culled from the evidence for the prosecution are the following respective
versions in the cases:
Criminal
Case No. C-55119:
One nighttime in December 1997, AAA and four of her siblings were
sleeping at the second floor of their house in
AAA did not report the incident as appellant had threatened that he would
kill the members of the family if she did. She had no opportunity to narrate
the incident to her older sisters because every time she was conversing with
them, appellant would send her away. And while she had the opportunity to
report to her classmates and teacher, she did not do so, apprehensive that they might tease her.[14]
Criminal
Case No. C-55120:
Also at nighttime sometime in January 1998, while AAA was sleeping with
her five siblings at the upper floor of their house, she was awakened as appellant
forcibly undressed her and again succeeded in inserting his penis inside her
vagina. She tried to resist appellant’s moves by boxing his chest, but to no
avail. And while she cried, appellant again
covered her mouth.[15]
Again, AAA did not narrate the incident to any of her siblings with whom
she often quarrelled in the discharge of household chores.[16]
Criminal
Case No. C-55121:
On the night of
She did not also report the incident because appellant had warned her against
doing so.[18]
Criminal
Case No. C-55122:
On
Every time appellant had sexual intercourse with AAA, he would be kind to
her the following morning; otherwise, she expected appellant to beat her buttocks
with a fiber glass object,[21] the same object which he was using to hit her
brother’s head.[22]
Asked by the defense counsel during cross-examination, on observing her to
be “aggressive” in answering the questions he was propounding, whether that was
“how [she] [had been] talking within the household,” AAA replied in the
negative, but explaining that her “aggressive” manner was reflective of her anger
at her father for the “ginawang kahayupan” to her and her sister BBB
− “Ginahasa niya po kaming dalawa.”[23]
Criminal
Case No. C-55123:
On
On
At the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) where AAA was subjected to
medico-legal examination, AAA informed the resident doctor on duty at the
Emergency Room that she was raped several times by appellant.[26]
Dr. Bernadette Madrid of the PGH Child Protection Unit, who conducted on
AAA general physical and genital examination with the use of a colposcope, an
apparatus that enlarges the view of one’s genitalia by 15 times and takes
pictures of it,[27] found a
deep cleft between 3 o’clock and 4 o’clock positions in AAA’s hymen[28]
and a healed laceration at her fossa navicularis or “part of the genitalia beside or before the hymen.”[29] In the Provisional Medical Certificate[30]
which she issued, Dr.
IMPRESSION
Patient with a statement made at the Caloocan Police Station
on
Criminal
Case No. C-57126:
On
BBB did not inform her mother CCC about the incident before she left for
After the rape on December 25, 1995, BBB’s travails continued as appellant
raped her on the average of ten times every month and every birthday of his on
July 15 except his birthday in 1998, she having allowed her boyfriend to sleep
in their house. The following day, July
16, however, appellant raped her.[35]
When BBB eventually learned that appellant had also raped her younger
sister AAA who even witnessed[36]
appellant having sexual intercourse with her (BBB) to thus prompt her to
instruct AAA not to tell anybody what she had witnessed, she broke her silence.[37]
While BBB was brought to a doctor for medical examination, she was no
longer examined as she was at that time already cohabiting with her boyfriend.[38]
By the account of CCC, mother of AAA and BBB, she left for Qatar on May 17, 1996 and returned
to the Philippines in November 1998; and while her husband was in jail, he sent
her and her children letters[39]
through his mother DDD asking for forgiveness.[40]
For the defense, appellant testified as did his mother DDD and sister
EEE.
Appellant declared that it was impossible for him to commit the acts
complained of as the family of his sister EEE was also living with them[41]
and there were many other people in the house.
With respect to the alleged rape of BBB on
Appellant also denied having asked his wife and children for forgiveness
bearing on the acts complained of. If he
had asked for forgiveness, it had to do with his being strict with them and it was
in fact on that account that AAA filed the charges against him.[43] As for BBB, he could not think of any reason
why she filed a case against him.[44]
Appellant’s mother DDD found it impossible too for appellant to rape his
daughters because of the presence of people in the house.[45] She surmised that CCC could have instigated
her daughters to file the charges against him in view of his objection to her
(CCC’s) going abroad.
DDD claimed that AAA and BBB in fact usually went out of the house to
avoid being scolded by appellant, adding that she herself usually got mad at the
two since they could no longer help in the discharge of household chores.[46]
Appellant’s sister EEE affirmed that her family used to live with appellant
and family during which she usually saw AAA and BBB being scolded by appellant.
She claimed that before CCC left for
By Decision[48]
of October 14, 2002, the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 128, found the
testimonies of AAA and BBB “straightforward, categorical and convincing” and
accordingly convicted appellant of rape in all the charges except that in Criminal
Case No. C-55119 where it convicted appellant only of acts of
lasciviousness. The decretal portion of the
trial court’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court hereby
finds accused Enrique Ceballos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Acts of
Lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. C-55119, hereby sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years
of prision correc[c]ional and for Criminal Cases Nos. C-55120, C-55121,
C-55122, C-55123 and C-57126, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt, for five (5) counts of consummated rape, hereby sentences
Enrique Ceballos to five (5) death by lethal injection. He is further adjudged
to indemnify [AAA] in the amount of [P]50,000.00 as moral damages and [P]50,000
as exemplary damages for count[s] of four (4) consummated rape. Further,
Enrique Ceballos is adjudged to indemnify [BBB] [P]50,000.00 as moral
damage[s] and [P]50,000.00 as exemplary damage[s][.]
The City Jail Warden of
Let the entire record of th[ese] case[s] be forwarded to the
Supreme Court for automatic review as mandated by law.[49]
(Italics supplied)
The records of the cases were forwarded to this Court for automatic
review where they were docketed as G.R. Nos. 155493-155498. Per this Court’s ruling in People v. Mateo,[50] however,
the cases were referred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and
disposition.[51]
By the assailed Decision[52]
of P75,000 from P50,000, and
the amount of exemplary damages in each rape case which it reduced to P25,000
from P50,000. Additionally, the
appellate court awarded the amount of P75,000 in each rape case as civil
indemnity.
In modifying the penalty for acts of lasciviousness, the appellate court
explained:
The penalty for acts of lasciviousness is prision correccional. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance alleged and proven in this case, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its medium period, i.e., from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, said penalty shall constitute the maximum term, while the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense, i.e., arresto mayor or 1 month and 1 day to 6 months. Appellant should, therefore, be sentenced to suffer the penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as maximum.[53] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
Thus the appellate court disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the P]75,000.00
and exemplary damages which is hereby reduced to [P]25,000.00, civil
indemnity in the amount of [P]75,000.00 is awarded to the victims, in
each of the five (5) counts of rape.[54]
(Emphasis and italics in the original)
The cases are now before this Court for final review and have been given
one docket number.
By Resolution of
In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is
almost always the single most important issue.[57]
If the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it
is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis.[58]
In its Decision, the trial court observed:
. . . Though inherently shy, [AAA and BBB] displayed an air of confidence and sincerity in their narration. Their testimony was straightforward, categorical and convincing. Showing no signs of remorse, they braved the embarrassment and stigma of a public trial, came forward and courageously revealed the dastardly acts of their own father. At some points during the taking of their testimony, when they were narrating the rape committed on their person by their own father, both cried. This emotional condition displayed by the sisters is evidence of the veracity of their claim. The Court sees no reason at all to doubt their narration of what happened during the instances they were defiled by the accused, and no reason at all why these two young sisters would impute so grave a crime as rape against their own father, if the same were not true.
Indeed, it would be the height of depravity for the two sisters who have no experience of sexual perversity to concoct a scenario that would lead their father on the death row and in the process, drag themselves and the rest of the their family to a lifetime of ridicule and shame.[59] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The observations of the trial court, which are substantiated by the records
of the cases, deserve the respect of appellate courts. Apropos
is the following observation of this Court in People v. Briones:[60]
.
. . [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. . . . That
she would accuse her own father of this heinous crime had she not been
aggrieved would be absurd.[61]
(Underscoring supplied)
Appellant’s argument that the acts complained of could not have been
committed due to the presence of other people fails. As repeatedly held by this Court, lust is no
respecter to time and place. The nearby presence of the relatives of the
victim,[62]
the cramped condition of the room, the presence of other people therein, or the
high risk of being caught, have been held as not sufficient and effective to
deter the commission of rape.[63]
As for appellant’s allegation that
AAA and BBB falsely charged him as he was strict and had had quarrels with his
wife CCC, the same was correctly brushed aside by the appellate court as “puerile
and . . . too flimsy to merit even scant consideration.” Indeed, People v. Bidoc[64]
teaches:
. . . [P]arental 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.[65]
(Underscoring supplied)
One of appellant’s letters, Exhibit “L,” dated
. . . Nalulungkot ako sa mga pangyayari sa ating
buhay.
in fact
strongly reflects his admission of guilt to thus negate his professed innocence.
The offenses of rape subject of Criminal Case Nos. C-55120, C-55121, C-55122 and C-55123 having been
committed in 1998, appellant should have been charged under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code.[67] Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353[68]
(“Anti-Rape Law of 1997”) introduced
Articles 266-A, 266-B, 266-C and 266-D on Rape, and effective
Since, as the Office of the Solicitor General observes, “the acts
constituting the crime of rape and its qualifying circumstances as averred in
the information in each of said cases, which were all filed under the then
Article 335[69] of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, are substantially the same as
those required to be stated under Articles 266-A, paragraph 1, and 266-B[70]
of the said Code,” appellant’s right to be informed of the charges against him
was not violated.[71]
Appellant’s conviction in Criminal Case No. C-55119, for acts of
lasciviousness,[72] is in
order. While under R.A. No. 8353, which was,
as reflected above, already in effect when the criminal act was committed in
December 1997, the act of inserting a finger into another’s genital is
penalized as rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code, the Information charged appellant with rape still under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
Thus, appellant cannot be convicted of rape by means of sexual assault
even if it was established that he inserted his finger into the vagina of AAA.
To do so would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of
the charge against him. It bears noting,
however, that the crime of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in
the crime of rape.[73]
The appellate court, however, erred in finding that no aggravating
circumstance was alleged and proven in the case for acts of
lasciviousness. Relationship, which was
alleged in the information and admitted by appellant,[74] is
under Article 15[75] of the
Revised Penal Code (alternative circumstances) aggravating in acts of
lasciviousness.[76]
Under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for acts of
lasciviousness is prision correccional. Appreciating relationship as an
aggravating circumstance and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant
should suffer an indeterminate prison term of
six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to six (6) years of
prision correccional as maximum.[77]
Further, the amount of P30,000 as moral damages may be awarded to the
victim.[78]
The award of exemplary damages in acts of lasciviousness is also
justified under Article 2230 of the Civil Code,[79] there
being an aggravating circumstance. This
Court finds the amount of P2,000 reasonable for the purpose.[80]
Going back to the charges for rape in Criminal Cases Nos. C-55120, C-55121, C-55122, C-55123 and
C-57126 in which appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is affirmed, in view
of the enactment of R.A. No. 9346, “An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,” the
death penalty can no longer be imposed. Appellant
must thus be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.[81]
WHEREFORE, the
assailed
In Criminal Case Nos. C-55120, C-55121, C-55122, C-55123 and C-57126, in lieu of the death penalty, appellant,
ENRIQUE CEBALLOS, JR. y CABRALES, is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to pay the victim AAA in each
of the first four cases and the victim BBB in the last case P75,000 as
moral damages, P25,000 as exemplary damages, and another P75,000
as civil indemnity.
In Criminal Case No. C-55119, appellant is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of Six (6) Months of arresto mayor as minimum, to Six (6) Years
of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay the victim AAA P30,000
as moral damages and P2,000 as exemplary damages.
No pronouncement as to costs.
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
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 |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
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] Also known as Alfredo Ceballos, Jr. y Cabrales; Junior; Rick; Ricky.
[2] Since, as reflected in the birth
certificate, AAA was born on
[3] Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Since, as the birth certificate
shows, BBB was born on
[9] Records, Vol. II, p. 27.
[10] Exhibit “K,” Certificate of Birth, records, Vol. I, p. 127.
[11] Exhibit “C,” Birth Certificate, records, Vol. I, p. 115.
[12] In her direct testimony, CCC stated
that she went to
[13] TSN,
[14] Q [Atty. Yap] : You have all the chance to tell to [sic] your teacher and to [sic] your classmates what happened to you of the abuse committed on January or December, prior to that?
A [AAA] : There was an opportunity to report to them but I did not report the matter to my teacher and to my classmates, sir.
Court- Why?
A: Because I was afraid, [Y]our Honor, and I
was ashamed that if my teacher and classmates will know
what happened to me, of course, they might tease (tukso) me. (TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] Q [Atty. Yap] But it is admitted that immediately after the abuse on January, 1998, you never complained to the members of the family living with you, is that correct?
A: We seldom understand each other because whenever we talk,
we are always in disagreement, sir. (HINDI PO KAMI NAG-UUSAP USAP SA BAHAY KASI
Court – Why were you always “[n]agsisinghalan”?
A: Because we do not know what we are going to do in the
household chores, [Y]our Honor. (DAHIL
PO SA HINDI PO KAMI NAGKAKAINTINDIHAN KUNG ANO PO IYONG GAWAIN SA BAHAY LAGI
(Uppercasing in the original.) x x x x
(TSN, October 12, 1999, p. 9-10.)
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
Q: And immediately after February, 1998, you said you were abused and you never complain also to your teacher and to your classmates?
A: Yes, sir, I did not report the incident to my teacher and classmates because my father told me not to do so. (OPO, HINDI PO AKO NAKAKAPAG-COMPLAIN DAHIL PO, HALIMBAWA NA LANG PO NAGKAROON AKO NG KASALANAN PO SA KANYA, HINDI NIYA PO AKO PAPASUKIN – ANG DAHILAN NIYA, HUWAG KANG PAPASOK, PAG PUMASOK KA SIGE, HUWAG KA NG UUWI DITO – IYAN ANG SINASABI PO NIYA SA AKIN.)
Court – Let her answer also in Tagalog be retained. x x x
(Uppercasing in the original) x x x x
[19] AAA was asked by the court to demonstrate how appellant was able to insert his penis while she was lying sideways. AAA answered:
[AAA] Like this sir, he was at my back and then
he pulled my thighs [sic] and
put [it] on top of his legs. (TSN, March 8, 1999)
[20] TSN,
[21] The fiber glass object was marked as
Exhibit “A,” TSN,
[22] TSN,
[23] TSN,
[24] TSN,
[25] Exhibit “B” and submarkings,
Records, Vol. I, pp. 112-113. In her Sworn Statement, AAA stated that she was raped
only four times: (1) January 1998; (2) February 1998; (3) March 1998, and (4)
x x x x
0.7 T: Isalaysay mo nga ang pangyayari[.]
S: Nung
November at December 1997, sinimulan na akong pag-hihipuan sa maseselang parte
ng aking katawan ng aking Papa. Ipinapasok niya ang kanyang kamay sa aking sa
suot kong damit at short. Nuong nga pong December 1997, ay ipinasok niya
ang kanyang finger sa aking ari. Tapos,
December 1997 din pon ng purwersahan niyang ipinapasok ang
kanyang ari sa aking ari pero hindi naman po niya naipasok. January 1998 po ng
una niya akong magahasa. Hinubaran niya ako ng suot kong short at saka niya
pinuwersang ipasok ang kanyang ari sa aking ari. Yung pangalawa, nuong Feb.
1998, mag-ba-valentine nuon, matapos kaming nag-tungo sa Tito ko sa
construction na kanyang pinapasukan at matapos lang kaming kumain at ng ako ay
natutulog na ay nagising na lang akong kinukurot ng aking tatay, tapos, ginalaw
na uli ako nga king tatay. Nuong Marso, 1998, yung pangatlo, mag-ga-graduation
nuon. Gabi nuon, tapos, nagising akong katabi ko na ang aking Papa. At tulad pa
rin ng una, pangalawa ay hinubaran niya ako nga king suot na short. [T]apos,
ginamit na naman niya ako. At nitong huling-huli,
[26] Exhibits “F,” “F-1,” “F-1-A” and “F-1-B,” records, Vol. I, pp. 121-123.
[27] Exhibit “G,” records, Vol. I, p. 124.
[28] Exhibit “G-1,” ibid; Exhibit “H,” id. at 125.
[29] Exhibit “G-2,” ibid; Exhibit “H,” ibid.
[30] Exhibit “H,” id. at 125.
[31] Exhibit “H-2,” ibid.
[32] TSN,
[33]
[34]
[35] Ibid.
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39] Exhibits “L,” “M,” “N,” “O,” “P,”
“Q,” “R,” records, Vol. I, pp. 128-141.
[40] TSN,
[41] At the ground level, according to AAA, lived her grandmother DDD and her uncles. (TSN, March 8, 1999, p. 9)
[42] TSN,
[43] TSN,
[44] TSN,
[45] TSN,
[46]
[47] TSN,
[48] Records, Vol. II, pp. 91-98.
[49]
[50] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[51] Resolution dated
[52] CA rollo, pp. 145-172. Penned by Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador with the concurrence of Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
[53] CA rollo, p. 170.
[54]
[55] Rollo, p. 29.
[56]
[57] People v. Fernandez, G.R. No.
172118,
[58] People v. Fernandez, supra; People v. Corpuz, supra; People v. Guambor, 465 Phil. 671, 678 (2004).
[59] Records, Vol. II, p. 97.
[60] People v. Briones, 439 Phil. 675 (2002).
[61] People v. Briones, supra at
685. Vide People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 171020,
[62] People v. Barcena, G.R. No.
168737,
[63] People v. Pangilinan, supra note 61.
[64] G.R. No. 169430,
[65]
[66] Records, Vol. I, p. 128.
[67] ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –
1. By a man who shall have 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 is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
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.
[68] “An Act Expanding The Definition Of The Crime Of Rape, Reclassifying The Same As A Crime Against Persons, Amending For The Purpose Act No. 3815, As Amended, Otherwise Known As The Revised Penal Code, And For Other Purposes.”
[69] 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.
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, step-parent, 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
[70] ART. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape
under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article 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 aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1. When 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.
x x x x
[71] CA rollo,
pp. 126-127. Retired Justice Florenz Regalado, in his book Criminal Law
Conspectus (2003),
p. 406, stressed:
4. R.A. 8353, “The Anti-Rape Law of 1997,” was subsequently
enacted and, after due publication, took effect on
[72] AAA testified as follows:
Q [Prosecutor]: You said that you felt his penis into your vagina. What did he do next when you felt his penis pointed to your vagina?
A [AAA]: When he was not able to insert his penis into my vagina, what he did was “fininger po niya ako.”
Q: And when he fingered you as you mentioned, what did you do next?
A : He held my breast, sir.
Q: What did he do when he held your breast?
A : He mashed it, sir.
Q: And then what did he do next when he mashed your breast?
A No more, sir, but after that, he slept.
(TSN, March 8, 1999, pp. 14-15)
[73] Vide People v. Mole, 462 Phil. 209, 222-223 (2003); People v. Aquino, 460 Phil. 666, 680-681 (2003); People v. Esperanza, 453 Phil. 54, 74 (2003); People v. Bon, 444 Phil. 571, 583 (2003).
[74] TSN,
[75] Art. 15. Their concept. – Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication, and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
x x x x
[76] People v. Orillosa, G.R. Nos.
148716-18,
[77] Vide People v. Orillosa,
supra; People v. Lilo, G.R. Nos. 140736-39,
[78] People v. Orillosa, supra; People v. Lilo, supra; People v. Solmoro, Jr. 441 Phil. 348, 361 (2002).
[79] ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
[80] Vide People v. Alcoreza, 419
Phil. 105 (2001).
[81] Vide People v. Bidoc,
supra note 64; People v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271,