SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
- versus - Chairperson,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
JOSE HENRY ROBLES y NUDO,
Appellant. Promulgated:
March 28, 2008
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
Fifty-four (54) informations[1]
for qualified rape[2] accusing
appellant Jose Henry Robles y
Nudo of raping
his fourteen (14)-year old niece, AAA,[3] were
filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The appellant pleaded not guilty to
all the charges against him during the arraignment. During the pre-trial, the
parties stipulated that the appellant is an uncle of AAA, he being the brother
of the victim’s mother; and that the appellant and the victim lived in
different houses within the same compound.[6]
The prosecution presented the victim,
AAA, and her mother, BBB[7] as
witnesses. AAA testified that on
AAA testified that she was first raped
by appellant on
After he had finished, the appellant
put his briefs on, and told her to put on her clothes and not to tell anyone
about what had happened. AAA rushed to dress up and just said yes to her uncle.
Thereafter, she locked herself in the bathroom and took a bath. She had
difficulty standing up, and felt pain when urinating as if there was a wound.
Blood oozed from her private part and it hurt when she washed it. This was the first
time she had sex with a man, and she was just 14 years old then.[11]
AAA testified that after the
incident, she was not allowed by the appellant to go out alone; he followed her
to school and on her way home, which made her afraid to report the incident to
her teachers. He would also lurk in the school premises, and would follow her on
her way home after school on his bike.[12]
AAA also testified that appellant
repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her everyday since the first rape on
August 1 up to August 27 of 2002. She could not resist because the appellant
threatened to kill her and her mother. She was being watched when she went to
school and on her way home. After school, she went straight to appellant’s
house because she had no other place to go. She was shy to ask her uncle CCC to
accommodate her in his house because her mother was already staying with him.[13] Appellant
would not allow AAA to talk with her mother though the latter stayed in the adjoining
house.[14]
She seldom talked with her mother when she was staying with appellant.[15]
DDD,[16]
the common-law wife of AAA’s brother who stayed for two days at appellant’s
house that August, noticed that AAA was being treated by appellant as his wife.
Appellant would always want AAA to be at his side and to wash his clothes. DDD
confronted AAA about appellant’s treatment of her, and was told of the series
of rapes. DDD told AAA’s sister about the rape and the latter was the one who
relayed the news to their mother, BBB, on
P/Sr.
Inspector Pierre Paul Carpio conducted a medico-legal
examination on AAA. His findings are contained in his Medico-Legal Report No.
M-2528-02,[18] which the
defense admitted.[19]
The defense presented appellant as
its sole witness. He denied the charges of rape made against him by AAA. He
testified that AAA never stayed with him at his house, and that it was only
AAA’s siblings who had ever stayed with him. He admitted that while it is true
that the house of his sister in Floodway was flooded, AAA actually stayed with
the daughter-in-law of BBB and that the latter stayed with CCC at the adjacent
house. He further claimed that from June to November 2002, he was renovating his
house and he enlisted the help of Roger Fuentes, Dominador
Sabas, Crispin Salisa,
Sonny, and a certain Kalbo. Roger Fuentes, along with
Sonny and Kalbo, would usually report to work at
around
The parties stipulated that the
defense witness Roger Fuentes, if called to the witness stand, would
corroborate the testimony of appellant that the former was at the latter’s
house doing carpentry work during one of the incidents complained of.[21]
In its Decision dated
Appellant appealed[23]
the case to the Court of Appeals and assigned two errors before it which are
both factual in nature, to wit: (1) the trial court gravely erred in giving
full weight and credence to the testimony of private complainant, and; (2) the
trial court gravely erred in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged despite the patent weakness of the prosecution’s evidence.[24]
The appellate court affirmed the
decision of the trial court,[25]
holding that there was no reason to deviate from the trial court’s finding that
AAA was raped on
There is no cogent reason to disturb
the finding of guilt made by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The
issues raised by appellant involve weighing of evidence already passed upon by
the trial court and the appellate court. The age-old rule is that the task of
assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses in the stand and weighing
their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms its first-hand
impressions as a witness testifies before it. It is also axiomatic that
positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.[27]
Our courts have been traditionally
guided by three settled principles in the prosecution of the crime of rape: (1)
an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more
difficult to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and (3)
the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[28] In
a prosecution for rape, the complainant’s candor is the single most important
issue. If a
complainant’s testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be
convicted on the sole basis thereof. [29]
We have thoroughly examined AAA’s
testimony and find nothing that would cast doubt as to the credibility of her account
of the first rape. AAA, who was only 14 years old at the time of the occurrence
of the crime, clearly and candidly testified how she was raped on
Well-established is the rule that
testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and
credit.[32]
It bears emphasis that the
victim was only 14 years old when she was raped. In a litany of cases, we have
applied the well-settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor,
says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove
that rape was committed.[33]
Courts usually give greater
weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially
a minor, particularly in cases of incestuous rape, because no woman would be
willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and
dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice
and to have the offender apprehended and punished.[34]
The appellant tried to show
reasonable doubt on his guilt by harping on minor factual matters and seeming
inconsistencies. The first inconsistency arose from AAA’s testimony during
cross-examination that the was raped in the morning of
The Court has ruled on numerous occasions
that minor inconsistencies in rape cases will not necessarily derail the
testimony of the offended party because rape victims cannot be expected to be
errorless in the recount of details of a clearly harrowing experience.[35]
And far from detracting from
the veracity of the rape victim’s testimony, such minor inconsistencies in fact
tend to bolster it.[36]
AAA could not be faulted if she could not consistently recall whether she was
raped in the morning or in the afternoon of
In contrast to the clear and
categorical declarations of AAA, appellant merely raised denial and alibi as
his defenses. According to appellant, AAA never stayed in his house and that it
was her other siblings who stayed with him on different occasions. Appellant
claimed that it was impossible for him to commit rape since there were many
people in the house because it was undergoing repair and renovation, and that
he was bringing his son to school every morning. Appellant’s denial and alibi, which are merely
self-serving pieces of evidence, cannot prevail over the positive, consistent
and straightforward testimony of AAA. We have consistently looked upon the
defense of alibi with suspicion and received it with caution not only because
it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily
fabricated. Unless
supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the
positive declarations of AAA who, in a simple and straightforward manner,
convincingly identified the appellant as the defiler of her chastity.[37]
Appellant’s claim that AAA never
stayed in his house was not corroborated. He did not also present any witness
who will corroborate that he was somewhere else or with somebody else when the
crime was being committed. A mere denial like alibi is inherently a weak defense and constitutes
self-serving negative
evidence which can not be
accorded greater evidentiary weight than
the declaration of credible witnesses
who testify on positive matters.[38]
Appellant was not able to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at
the locus criminis.
Regarding appellant’s bid to
capitalize on his acquittal by the trial court of the other 53 charges of rape,
it suffices to reproduce the appellate court’s short shrift of the desperate
ploy:
The
appellant likewise banked on the trial court’s ruling in his favor on the
remaining fifty three (53) cases of rape against him filed by complainant [ AAA
], and asked that the same should be applied to the one case where he was
convicted of the charge. He argued that the trial court did not find that [ AAA
] was raped under those circumstances as she could have reported the alleged
rape to her relatives or teachers. We, however, disagree. If not for double
jeopardy, appellant could have been convicted of more than one rape. However,
he was already acquitted for Criminal Case Nos. 124645-H to 124699-H and this
Court cannot rule on those cases anymore. The trial court’s judgment did not
negate the presence of sexual acts. x x x Clearly, the trial
court gave credence to the accused’s (sic) claim that
there was indeed sexual intercourse. However, it only considered the first
instance of the sexual intercourse as having committed with intimidation. The
acquittal therefore of the succeeding criminal charges of rape was decided by
the trial court differently and its ratio could not apply to the first charge
of rape.[39]
In addition to the trial court’s
award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as
moral damages to AAA, she is also entitled to another P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages. Relationship in this case serves to justify the award of
exemplary damages.[40]
WHEREFORE, the appeal interposed by
the appellant is DISMISSED. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01489 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the appellant is ordered to pay AAA
(t0 be identified in the Informations in this case) another
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages .
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
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]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
[3]The
real name of the victim is withheld to protect her privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto,
G.R. No. 167693,
[5]The accusatory portion of the informations commonly read:
On or about [ date ], in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his niece, (AAA), a 14-year old minor, against her will and consent.
Contrary to law.
[6]Records, p. 49.
[7]Supra, note 3.
[8]
[18]Records, p. 122. The report states that:
x x x x
Hymen:
shallow healed laceration at 7 &
x x x x
Conclusion: Subject is in non-virgin state physically. There are no external signs of application of any form of trauma.
[19]Records,
pp. 99-100. TSN,
[22]
WHEREFORE,
in Criminal Case No. 124644-H, (A)ccused JOSE HENRY
ROBLES y NUDO is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape defined and penalized under Art. 266-A 1)a) in relation to Art. 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code, and, there being no aggravating circumstance, is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to pay the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, and another P50,000.00 for moral damages, both at the legal
rate of interest per annum until fully paid, and to pay the costs. In Criminal
Cases Nos. 124645-H to 124699-H, he is ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.
[24]CA rollo, p. 42.
[25]
WHEREFORE,
the assailed
SO ORDERED.
[28]People
v. De Guzman y Pascual, G.R. No. 124368, 8 June
2000, 333 SCRA 269, 279. Citing People v.
Abad, 268 SCRA 246 (1997).
[32]People
v. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 140333-34,
[33]
[34]
[38]
[39]CA rollo, pp. 125-126.