THIRD DIVISION
|
people of the Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - sammy ramos y dalere, AccusedAppellant. |
|
G.R. No. 172470 Present: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J., Acting Chairperson, TINGA,* CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] dated
10 February 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00003 which
affirmed the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gubat, Sorsogon, Branch 54, finding appellant Sammy D. Ramos
guilty of four (4) counts of rape but acquitted him of the other 46 charges. Appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua
for each count and to pay the victim AAA[3]
the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as
moral damages, for every conviction.
Appellant was charged under Article
335(1) of the Revised Penal Code before the RTC with 50 counts of rape spanning
the period of
The four charges which are the
subject matter of this appeal were docketed as Criminal Cases No. 1770, 1771, 1772
and 1831. The four similarly-worded Informations, except for the dates of commission, contained
the following allegations, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 1770
That on or about the night of January18, 1992, at Barangay Cogon, Gubat, Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, through force and intimidation, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge
with his own 12-year old daughter, AAA against her will and without her
consent, to her damage and prejudice.[4]
The three other Informations
alleged that the rape was committed on
Upon arraignment on
From AAA’s testimony, the prosecution
was able to establish the following:
AAA was born out of wedlock on
On
On the night of
The following night,
The molestation continued nightly
from 21 January to
The last rape incident, which, as
mentioned earlier, occurred on
On
AAA explained that aside from fact
that she was afraid of the threat of the appellant, it took her some time to
leave appellant and to report the abuses done to her because she had no other
relatives in Sorsogon and that she wanted to finish
her schooling which was then in its final stage.[27]
The defense presented its only
witness, the appellant, who denied having committed the charges hurled against
him. He claimed that he came to Cogon, Gubat, Sorsogon, in 1991 to work with a construction company as
road roller operator. The victim, whom
he admitted to be his daughter, stayed with her in a bunk house provided for
them by his employer. He testified that
sometime in 1992, AAA, together with a friend, took his money which was kept
inside the bunk house and ran away from Cogon.[28] He reported the incident to the barangay captain of Cogon.
He looked for AAA in Abuyog, Irosin, Sorsogon and in
The RTC, in a decision dated
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the
accused Sammy Ramos y Dalere GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape on four (4) counts in Criminal Case Nos.
1770,1771,1772 and 1831, and hereby sentences him to RECLUSION PERPETUA for
each and every count of the crime committed, with all the accessory penalties
of the law; and to pay AAA the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00)
as civil indemnity and TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.00) for moral
damages, for each of the four felonies of rape, subject to the provisions of
Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code.
The other
cases against the accused as stated above, are hereby DISMISSED for failure of
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[30]
In its decision dated
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment is rendered
AFFIRMING the decision appealed from and DISMISSING the appeal.[31]
Hence, the instant recourse.
In his brief, the appellant assigns
the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MULTIPLE RAPE
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT PRIVATE COMPLAINANT HAD HER CLOTHES ON DURING THE
OCCURRENCE OF THE ALLEGED INCIDENTS.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
TIMID AND PASSIVE CONDUCT AND ACTUATION OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE SUPPOSED SEXUAL ASSAULT ON HER CAST SERIOUS DOUBT ON THE CRIMINAL
LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Appellant expresses a strong concern
over the victim’s account of the alleged rape incidents. He claims that the rapes could not have been
committed because the offended party had her clothes on all the time when the
said incidents took place. He likewise
points out that the victim’s timid and passive conduct during and after every
incident of defloration runs counter to the normal reaction of a rape victim
since it is unnatural for a victim to continue living with her tormentor and
not to extricate herself from said abusive environment. Moreover, he insists that his conviction of
four counts of rape is unwarranted because the victim merely gave general
statements that she was raped, but she failed to disclose sufficient details to
substantiate her allegations.
In determining the guilt or innocence
of the accused in cases of rape, the courts have been traditionally guided by
three settled principles, namely: (a) an accusation for rape is easy to make,
difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove; (b) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with utmost caution; and (c) the evidence of the prosecution must
stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.[32]
Since the crime of rape is
essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, hence, it is
usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus.[33] In its prosecution, therefore, the
credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue
to deal with.[34] If her testimony meets the test of
credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis thereof;
otherwise, he should be acquitted of the crime.[35]
In this case, upon assessing the
victim’s testimony, the RTC found her credible, thus:
In
the case at bar, AAA did not only say she had been raped, she described in detail how she had been sexually abused by
her own natural father and the testimony of the private complainant bears the
earmarks of truth. No woman especially
one who is of tender age would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts and thereafter permit herself to be subjected
to a public trial, if she is not motivated solely by the desire to have the
culprit punished.
x x x x
On the basis of substantial evidence of culpability
which the defense of denial and alibi failed to overcome, this Court is
persuaded into finding and holding, as it hereby finds and holds that on four (4)
occasions: (1) in the early morning of January 18, 1992; (2) in the evening of
January 19, 1992; (3) in the evening of January 20, 1992; and (4) in the
evening of March 28, 1992 in Cogon, Gubat, Sorsogon.[36]
This Court itself has assiduously
scrutinized the transcripts of stenographic notes of this case and like the
RTC, it finds the victim’s testimony of the incident forthright and
straightforward, reflective of an honest and realistic account of the tragedy
that befell her. She narrated the first and the second rape incidents in this
manner:
Q: Now, at
the initial stage of the hearing you mentioned that your stepmother by the name
of Maribel left your father in December 1991. After she left your father, who was with you
together with your father in Cogon?
A: Only
the two of us.
Q: Now,
you were then staying in that barracks you mentioned last time-the barracks of
the 642 Construction at Cogon?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Can you
still describe to us that barracks or your place of residence?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: How
many bedrooms were there in that barracks?
A: Two.
Q: Those
are bedrooms?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x
x
Q: After Maribel, your stepmother, had left, you and your father
were using that one room as your bedroom?
A: No,
sir. I was staying in one room and he was staying in the other room.
x x x
x
Q: While
you were alone in your room on
A: There
was.
Q: What
was it, AAA?
A: I was
touched “ginalaw”
by my Papa.
Q: When
you said “Ginalaw ako ng Papa ko,” what do you
mean, AAA?
A: He
abused me.
Q: In what
manner?
A: (At this juncture the witness is crying and
wiping her tears with her handkerchief.)
I cannot tell of any manner why somebody entered my room while I was
sleeping. And then, I sensed that
somebody was on top of me. I tried to
extricate myself but he was so strong.
He held my breasts with his two hands and then covered my mouth with a
blanket.
Q: And
after your mouth was covered by the blanket, what happened next?
A: He
told me that if I will tell somebody I would be killed.
Q: Have
you recognized that somebody who placed himself on top of you?
A: His
voice.
Q: And
whose voice was that?
A: That
of my Papa.
x x x x
Q: After
your father placed a blanket in your mouth, what did he do, if any?
A: His
organ was in me.
Q: In
going to bed that night of
A: A
duster and panty.
Q: You
said a while ago that your father inserted his organ, where was it inserted?
A: Into
my vagina.
x x x x
Q: You
said a while ago that your Papa was able to insert his organ in your
vagina. What did you do when your father
inserted his organ in your vagina?
A: I was
crying.
Q: Why
were you crying then? Or why did you
cry?
A: Because
he was doing that to me.
Q: And
when your father was doing this act to you, was your room where you were
situated not lighted with any kind of light for that matter?
A: There
was.
Q: Where
was the light situated?
A: Inside.
Q: What
room?
A: Both
rooms were lighted.
x x x x
Q: Was it
lighted when this thing was done to you by your Papa?
A: No.
sir.
Q: Do you
know who switched off that light?
A: Before
I went to sleep I usually switched off the light.
Q: So, we
are certain that at the time this thing was happening, the electric light was
off then?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: Do you
recall what hour in the night that this thing happened on
A: Early
morning.
Q: Why can
you say that it was early morning?
A: Because
after he used me he switched on the light and he switched on the radio to have
music. And in the course of the music I
heard the time.
Q: And
what time was it that you heard on the radio?
A: About
x x x x
Q: In the night of January 19, who was with
you in that barracks which you considered as your residence?
A: My
Papa.
Q: Do you
recall of any untoward incident again that happened in your person on the night
of January 19?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was that again?
A: He
again raped me.
Q: Why can
you say that he raped you again? What was done to your person?
A: He
repeated what he had done to me before.
Q: And
what did you do also after he was repeating the act he had done to you?
A: I was
fighting and crying.
Q: And
what did he do after he had done that thing to you again on the night of
January 19? What did he do next?
A: He
again told me not to tell anybody because he is going to kill me.[37]
The victim recounted the third rape
in this fashion:
Q: On
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Where
were you then situated?
A: Inside the house.
Q: What
were you doing on the night of
A: Sleeping.
Q: While
you were sleeping, do you recall of any untoward incident that happened to you
personally?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was that, AAA?
A: I was
abused by my father.
Q: When
you say abused, what do you mean?
A: My
father laid on top of me.
Q: And
what did you do next after laying on top of you?
A: I was
crying and I was defenseless because he was strong.
Q: Why did
you cry then?
A: Because
something had been done to me.
Q: Please
be candid and frank with us. What was done to you by accused Ramos?
A: I was
raped.
Q: And
what did you do when this accused raped you on the night of January 20?
A: I
could do nothing, except to obey because I was afraid.
Q: Before
he put himself on top of you, do you recall what he had done to you?
A: There
is.
Q: What
was that?
A: My
mouth was shut and then both of my hands were held.[38]
As to the fourth rape, the victim
testified:
Q: Now, if
you can still remember, Madam witness, when was it that he last raped you?
A:
x x x x
Q: And, according to you, March 28 was the
last time that your father raped you?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: When
was the graduation exercises in the elementary school where you enrolled in
1992?
A: The 28th.
x x x
x
Q: Alright,
you said that the graduation exercises was on
A: Yes,
sir.[39]
Q: x x x My question is, what time was
the graduation exercises held in that school?
A: In the
afternoon.
Q: Please
tell us whether your father, Sammy Ramos, attended the graduation exercises?
A: No,
sir.
Q: If any,
do you have some companion to attend the graduation exercises?
A: I
have.
Q: Please
tell us the name?
A: Deding.
Q: Who is
this Deding?
A: She is
the secretary of 642 Construction.
x x x x
Q: Do you
still recall what time was the closing exercises finished?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
time was it?
A:
Q: And
after
A: I was
accompanied back to Cogon.
Q: By
whom?
A: The
secretary of 642.
Q: Of
course you reached your place in Cogon in that barracks where you and your
father were residing?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
did you do next after reaching that place from your graduation?
A: We
ate.
Q: How
about Deding?
A: She
ate with us.
Q: And
after eating, where did she go, if any?
A: She
returned home at Gubat.
Q: And how
about you, what did you do next?
A: I was
left at the barracks.
Q: And
what did you do when you were left at the barracks?
A: I went
to sleep.
Q: By the
way, where was your father, Sammy Ramos, when you and Deding
were eating that night?
A: He was
at the barracks.
Q: Did he
eat with you?
A: He did
not.
Q: What
happened while you were sleeping that night, Madam witness?
A: I felt
that he was on top of me and he repeated his abusing.
Q: When
you said he, to whom do you refer?
A: My
father.
Q: And how
did he repeat the act against you?
A: He
placed his personal organ inside my personal organ.
Q: What
did you do when he was doing this act to you?
A: I was
crying but I could not fight because he was strong.[40]
From the foregoing, the prosecution
adequately established in graphic detail that during the incidents in question,
AAA stayed with the appellant in the barracks of the 642 Construction in Cogon,
Gubat, Sorsogon and that appellant
ravished his 13-year old daughter in four different dates, i.e., in the early morning of
Appellant’s assertion that the sexual
assault against the victim could not have been consummated because AAA was
wearing her underwear every time appellant attempted on her chastity is not
supported by evidence. During trial it
was revealed by the victim that in all those four rape incidents, appellant
removed her panty before inserting his penis and put it back after he satisfied
his filthy desire. This was clarified by
the victim when the trial court raised some clarificatory
questions on this matter, thus:
Court: (to
witness)
Q: Counsel
for the accused had been using the word intercourse, rape and sexual
intercourse and you were answering “yes”.
My question is: why is it that when you were asked by counsel for the
accused that while the accused was on top of you holding your hands and his two
feet over your two feet, your underwear were still intact, thereafter he left
you and you said “yes”. Do you mean to tell the Court that he left you without
doing anything against your feminity?
A: There
is.
Q: What was
that?
A: I was
abused.
Q: What do
you mean by “abused”?
A: His
own was placed inside me.
Q: But you
said your father left with your panty still intact. How could it be possible?
x x x x
A: After he used me he put on again my panty.
Q: You mean he removed your panty before he
used you and after using you he put it back, is that what you mean?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
that is being done by the accused every time he used you?
A: Yes, sir.[43] (Emphasis supplied.)
Appellant tries to discredit the
victim's testimony by questioning her deportment which was not that of an
“outraged woman robbed of her honor.” It should be borne in mind, in this
connection, that the victim was only a naive thirteen (13)-year old child when
the depredation happened to her. Since
childhood, she had been longing to experience the love and protection of a
father. When she finally found herself
under the refuge of her father, it brought the bliss of an answered
prayer. This idyllic experience,
however, remained a fleeting episode because the person who should shield her
from harm and evil was the very same person who wrought malady upon her. Such
must be a startling occurrence for her. Behavioral
psychology teaches that people react to similar situations dissimilarly.[44]
Their reactions to harrowing incidents may not be uniform.[45] AAA’s conduct of staying with her tormentor
and her failure to prevent the repetition of the rape incident should not be
taken against her. She was too disturbed
and too young to totally comprehend the consequences of the dastardly acts
inflicted on her by the appellant. Rape
victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature
individuals would when placed in such a situation.[46] It is not proper to judge the actions of
children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior
expected from adults under similar circumstances.[47] The range of emotions shown by rape victims
is yet to be captured even by calculus.[48] It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform
reactions from rape victims. Certainly, the Court has not laid down any rule on
how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been violated.[49] This experience is relative and may be dealt
with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her
credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed, different people act differently to a
given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of
behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or
frightful experience.[50] It would be insensitive to expect the victim
to act with equanimity and to have the courage and the intelligence to
disregard the threat made by the appellant. When a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she
cannot be expected to think and act coherently.
This is especially true in this case since AAA was repeatedly threatened
by appellant if ever she would tell anybody about the rape incidents. The threat instilled enormous fear in her such
that she failed to take advantage of any opportunity to escape from the
appellant. Also, as AAA explained, she withstood
her father’s lechery and stayed with him despite what he did because she wanted
to complete her studies until
As regards the initial delay of the
victim in reporting the rape incident, suffice it to state that the delay in
revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[51] It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal
for some time the assault on her virtue.[52] Her hesitation may be due to her youth, the
moral ascendancy of the ravisher, and the latter’s threats against her. In the
case at bar, the victim's fear of her father who had moral ascendancy over her,
was explicit. Such reaction is typical
of a thirteen-year-old girl and only strengthens her credibility.
Appellant’s allegation that the
complaints for rapes were prompted by the victim’s hatred of the appellant for
abandoning her is bereft of any basis. The victim even during her tender years
had been looking for her father. She was,
in fact, delighted when she saw her father for the first time in May of
1991. If AAA at all nurtured ill-will
against her father, it was because he, instead of acting as protector of his
daughter, defiled her. Assuming arguendo that AAA
harbored hatred against appellant, it would be unlikely for a 13-year old girl
to fabricate such story. This Court has
held that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full
credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would
concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and
thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed
against her.[53] It is highly improbable for an innocent girl,
who is very naïve to the things of this world, to fabricate a charge so
humiliating not only to herself but to her family. Moreover, it is doctrinally settled that
testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age are credible.[54] The revelation of an innocent child whose
chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of the complainant
to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a
public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint. [55]
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC,
as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the
evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant guilty of the charges. The Court has long adhered to the rule that
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial facts
and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the result of
the case.[56] In rape cases, the evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
judge whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the
judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if
they are telling the truth or not.[57] This deference to the trial court’s
appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent
with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of
credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[58] This is especially true when the factual
findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[59]
As to the penalty imposed, the RTC correctly
sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua for each count. Note that the rapes complained of in this
case took place on
The
RTC ordered the appellant to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 for
each count of rape as civil indemnity. In
accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, such award is in order.[61] However, the award of moral damages in the
amount of P25,000.00 for each count of rape is modified and increased to
P50,000.00 conformably with the recent pronouncement of the Court.[62]
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 10 February 2006, affirming the Decision
dated 30 August 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Gubat, Sorsogon, finding appellant
Sammy Ramos y Dalere GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of 4 counts of rape and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA for each count
and ordering him to pay the victim P50,000.00 for each count as civil
indemnity, is AFFIRMED. The award of moral damages for each of
the four rapes in favor of the victim is increased to P50,000.00.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
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.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting 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 Mario L Guariña III with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Santiago Javier Ranada, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-9.
[2] Penned by Judge Haile F. Frivaldo.
[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] CA rollo, p. 42.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Records, p. 60.
[9]
[10]
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13]
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22] TSN,
[23] TSN,
[24]
[25] TSN,
[26] TSN,
[27] TSN,
[28] TSN,
[29]
[30] Records, p. 324.
[31] Rollo, p. 8.
[32] People v. Orquina, 439 Phil. 359, 365-366 (2002).
[33] People v. Quijada, 378 Phil. 1040, 1047 (1999).
[34]
[35] People v. Babera, 388 Phil. 44, 53 (2000).
[36] Records, pp. 322-324.
[37] TSN,
[38] TSN,
[39] TSN,
[40] TSN,
[41] People v. Morales, 311 Phil. 279, 288 (1995).
[42] People v. Baccay, 348 Phil. 322, 327 (1998).
[43] TSN,
[44] People v. Buenviaje, 408 Phil. 342, 352 (2001).
[45]
[46] People v. Remoto, 314 Phil. 432, 444-445 (1995).
[47]
[48]
[49] People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 326 (2004).
[50]
[51] People v. Balmoria, 398 Phil. 669, 675 (2000).
[52]
[53] People v. Palaña, 429 Phil. 293, 303 (2002).
[54] People v. Hinto, 405 Phil. 683, 693 (2001).
[55]
[56] People v. Dagpin, 400 Phil. 728, 739 (2000).
[57] People v. Digma, 398 Phil. 1008, 1016 (2000).
[58] People v. Cula, 385 Phil. 742, 752 (2000).
[59] People v. Gallego, 453 Phil. 825, 849 (2003).
[60] The imposition of the Death Penalty
has been prohibited pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 entitled “An Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
[61] People
v. Calongui, G.R. No. 170566,
[62]