SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - LUSTRISIMO ARELLANO, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 176640 Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: August
22, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
On
Criminal Case No. 11724:
That in the year 1993 at Brgy. x x x, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], then a 7-year old minor, against her will.
That the aggravating circumstance of relationship is attendant in the commission of the offense, the accused being the father of the offended party.[1] (Underscoring supplied)
Criminal Case No. 11725:
That in or about August, 1994, at Brgy. xxx, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], then an 8-year-old minor, against her will.
That the aggravating circumstance of relationship is attendant in the commission of the offense, the accused being the father of the offended party.[2] (Underscoring supplied)
Criminal Case No. 11726:
That in the year of 1997 at Brgy. xxx, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd designs, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], then an 11-year old minor, against her will.
That the aggravating circumstance of relationship is attendant to the commission of the offense, the accused being the father of the offended party.[3]
Criminal Case No. 11727:
That in or about January, 2000 at Brgy. xxx, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd designs, by means of force, threat, and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA], then a 13-year old minor, against her will.
That the aggravating circumstance of relationship is attendant in the commission of the offense, the accused being the father of the offended party.[4]
From the account of the private
complainant AAA,[5] the
following are gathered:
Sometime in 1993, while AAA, then
seven years old, was left at home with her father-herein appellant, he carried
her to a room in the house where he pulled down her underwear and undressed
himself. He then forced her to lie down,
kissed her breasts, and placed his penis into her sex organ, causing her to cry
as she was in pain. She did not,
however, disclose to anyone what appellant did to her because he had threatened
to kill her mother if she did.
Sometime in August 1994, while the
then eight year old AAA was again left alone at home with appellant, he
inserted his hand inside her underwear, and touched her sex organ. He then undressed her, placed himself on top
of her, and put his penis into her sex organ.
Despite her pleas, appellant was not restrained. Again she did not disclose to anyone what appellant
did to her under the same threat made by him.
Sometime in 1997, AAA, then 11 years
old, was still again left alone at home with appellant. Anticipating that appellant might again do what
he had previously done to her, she hid inside the bathroom, but appellant
pursued her and once there he rubbed his penis against her sex organ. He then brought her to, and forced her to lie
down on a bed and then inserted his penis into her sex organ, in the course of
which something came out of appellant’s penis which he wiped with a rug. She did not also disclose what appellant did
to her under similar threats made by appellant.
Sometime in January 2000, AAA, then
13 years old and again left alone at home with appellant, the latter touched
her breasts, made her lie down on his bed, and as appellant was consummating
the sexual act, he withdrew his penis on hearing someone knock at the door, put
on his short pants as she did hers. Her
elder brother had arrived and on seeing her crying, he inquired why, but she
kept mum. Later that day, however, when
her mother, a laundrywoman, arrived home, she related all the incidents because
she was “already hirap na hirap.”[6]
To prove that AAA was below 12 years
old at the time of the occurrence of the first, second, and third offenses and
that appellant is her biological father,[7]
the prosecution presented AAA’s birth certificate.[8]
At the witness stand, Dr. Melodee
Mercado (Dr. Mercado) who medically examined AAA[9]
opined that her findings after her examination of AAA, viz:
EXTERNAL
GENITALIA:
INTERNAL EXAMINATION: Admits 1 finger with ease, 2 fingers with slight difficulty.
x x x x,[10]
could have resulted from
penile penetration.[11]
Also at the witness stand, AAA’s
eldest sister BBB related[12]
that when AAA told her about the rape incidents, she realized that like her,
AAA was also being raped by appellant, drawing her (BBB) to file her own rape
charge against him which was raffled to Branch 42 of the RTC of Batangas City.
Denying the charges, appellant
surmised that AAA filed the cases against him at BBB’s instigation because he
was very strict with them and did not allow BBB to have a boyfriend as she was
still studying.[13]
Branch 1 of the RTC of Batangas City,
finding the positive testimony of AAA more credible than the denial of appellant,
convicted him of all four charges, aggravated by relationship, by Consolidated
Decision[14] of
WHEREFORE, the accused, LUSTRISIMO ARELLANO y ESPIRITU, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of THREE (3) COUNTS OF AGGRAVATED STATUTORY RAPE and ONE (1) COUNT OF AGGRAVATED RAPE under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death for each one of the charges in these four (4) cases, with costs. He is further ordered to indemnify [AAA] with the sum of P50,000.00 for each of the four offenses or a total of P200,000.00 as moral damages.
Considering
that the capital punishment in these cases is imposed on the accused, their
records are hereby directed to be forwarded immediately to the Supreme Court
for automatic review under the law, and the accused is remanded to the New
Bilibid Prisons in
SO ORDERED.[15] (Underscoring supplied)
By Decision[16]
of P75,000 and P25,000 in each case representing civil
indemnity and exemplary damages, respectively.
Thus it disposed:
WHEREFORE,
the consolidated judgment of conviction in Criminal Cases
(1) In Criminal Case No. 11724, the accused-appellant Lustrisimo E. Arellano is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim [AAA], in addition to the award of moral damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
(2)
In Criminal Cases
Hence, the present appeal.
The Office of the Solicitor General
and appellant have manifested that their arguments were already exhaustively
discussed in the respective briefs they filed before the Court of Appeals,[19]
hence, they would no longer file Supplemental Briefs.
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Indeed, AAA’s delay in filing the
cases against appellant does not, in light of the attendant facts and
circumstances, detract from her credibility. Delay in reporting a rape incident
renders the charge doubtful only if the delay is unreasonable and unexplained.[20]
In the case of AAA who was only seven
years old when the first rape took place and still a minor at the time the
fourth rape occurred, her explanation that appellant threatened to kill her
mother if she disclosed what he did to her, coupled with the fact that
appellant is her own father who exercises moral ascendancy over her, reasonably
justifies the delay.
As in most criminal cases, decision thereof
hinges on credibility – of witness and of testimony. This Court appreciates no reason to doubt AAA’s
credibility and that of her testimony vis-à-vis
the findings of Dr. Mercado.[21] Appellant’s bare denial of the charges fails
to overcome the evidence against him.[22]
In Criminal Case Nos. 11724, 11725,
11726, the elements of statutory rape as defined by Article 266-A (1) (d) of
the Revised Penal Code, which provides:
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 machinations or grave abuse of authority;
d)
When the offended party is under
twelve (12) years old of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present. (Underscoring supplied)
x x x x,
have been established by
the prosecution. And so have the
elements of simple rape in Criminal Case No. 11727. For in a rape committed by a father against
his daughter, his moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes
for violence or intimidation,[23]
hence, evidence thereof is unnecessary to secure his conviction.[24]
The appellate
court’s Decision with modification is in order, except with respect to 1) its affirmance of the trial court’s award of
moral damages in the amount of P50,000 in Criminal Case Nos. 11725,
11726, and 11727, which amount must be increased to P75,000 following
current jurisprudence[25]; and 2)
its award of P75,000 as civil indemnity in Criminal Case No.
11724, which must be reduced to P50,000.
Following
People v. dela Cruz,[26] P75,000
civil indemnity and P75,000 moral damages in rape cases are awarded only
if they are classified as heinous. At
the time the rape in Criminal Case No. 11724 took place in 1993, R.A. No. 7659,
“AN ACT TO IMPOSE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT
PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES,” which was approved on December 13, 1993 and was to become
effective fifteen days after its publication in two national newspapers of
general circulations, was not yet effective.[27]
With
regard to Criminal Case Nos. 11725, 11726, and 11727, the award of P75,000
civil indemnity and moral damages of P75,000 is in order even if the
penalty in each case has been modified to reclusion
perpetua, qualified rape having remained classified as heinous.[28]
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the
Court of Appeals dated P50,000
moral damages in Criminal Cases Nos.
11725, 11726, and 11727 which it
affirmed is increased to P75,000, and the civil indemnity and moral damages in
Civil Case No. 11724 are both reduced to P50,000.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION
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
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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
[1] Records (Criminal Case No. 11724), p. 1.
[2] Records (Criminal Case No. 11725), p. 1.
[3] Records (Criminal Case No. 11726), p. 1.
[4] Records (Criminal Case No. 11727), p. 1.
[5] TSN,
[6] TSN,
[7] Records (Criminal Case No. 11724), pp. 65, 71.
[8] Exhibit “B,”
[9] TSN,
[10] Exhibit “C-1,” records (Criminal Case No. 11724), p. 68.
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] Records (Criminal Case No. 11724), pp. 93-99.
[15]
[16] Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice
Vicente S.E. Veloso, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. and Amelita G. Tolentino.
CA rollo, pp. 95-117.
[17] G.R. No. 147678-87,
[18] CA rollo,
pp. 115-116.
[19] Rollo, pp. 27-33.
[20] Vide
People v. Audine, G.R. No.
168649,
[21] Vide
People v. Bidoc, G.R. No. 169430,
[22]
[23] Vide
People v. Matrimonio, G.R. No. 82223-24,
[24] People v. Servano, 454 Phil. 256, 282
(2003).
[25] Vide
People v. Audine, G.R. No. 168649,
[26] 529 SCRA 109, 188 (2007).
[27] Footnote 35 of the Court of Appeals July 31, 2006 Decision reads:
Although the
rape was committed sometime in 1993, the possibility that it was committed on
December 31, 1993 is very remote since complainant [AAA] stated in her
“Salaysay” given at the Police Station of Batangas City that the rape happened
“Noon pong ako ay Grade 1, 1993 magbabakasyon napo noon x x x,” which means
that the crime could have happened near the end of the school year
1992-1993. See Exh. A, p. 8, CA rollo, pp. 95, 113.
[28] Vide
People v. Salome, G.R. No. 169077,