FIRST
DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 180920
Appellee,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson,
- v e
r s u s - CARPIO,
CORONA,
AZCUNA and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
EDGARDO Z. ANTONIO,
Appellant.
Promulgated:
March
27, 2008
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O
L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
This is an appeal of the August 10,
2007 decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01141 affirming with
modification the decision of the trial court which found appellant Edgardo Z.
Antonio guilty of the crime of rape.
Appellant was charged in the Regional
Trial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branch 96 under the following information:
That
on or about the 26th day of November 2002 at Brgy. ZZZ, Baler,
Aurora, said accused Edgardo Z. Antonio by means of intimidation, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of a minor
six years of age[,] AAA, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment, appellant initially
pleaded guilty to the crime of simple rape. Subsequently, however, he later withdrew
his plea of guilt and claimed his innocence of the offense charged.
At the pre-trial conference, the
parties stipulated that AAA was six years old at the time of the alleged
incident.
The prosecution established the
following: Appellant is a brother of AAA’s grandfather and she fondly called
him “Kuya Eddie.” On November 26, 2002, AAA was celebrating her sixth birthday
and playing with her friends when appellant arrived at around 2:00 p.m.
Appellant called AAA and asked her to accompany him to a nearby fishpond to
gather shells. One of AAA’s friends told him there were no shells in the
fishpond but appellant nevertheless prevailed upon her to go with him.
On arriving at the fishpond,
appellant told AAA to lie down. He forcibly removed her panty, took off his
shorts, mounted her and had carnal knowledge of her.
In defense, appellant denied the
accusation against him. He claimed that, on the day of the alleged incident, he
did his usual chore of driving a tricycle until around noon when he went to the
house of a niece in Brgy. Ipil, Dipaculao, Aurora. There, he drank gin with
some friends until around 3:30 in the afternoon. Thereafter, he cleaned the
tricycle and returned it to its operator-owner at around 6:00 p.m. He theorized
that he was implicated in the crime because AAA’s parents were mad at him as he
had refused to lend them money and to sell them his cellular phone at a low
price.
After evaluating the evidence of the
parties, the trial court sustained the positive identification and
straightforward testimony of AAA over appellant’s denial and alibi:[2]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Edgardo
Z. Antonio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay victim AAA the
amount of Php 75,000.00 by way of civil liability.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The case was elevated to this Court on
automatic appeal but was remanded to the
Court of Appeals in accordance with
People v. Mateo.[4]
The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court with modification.[5] Pursuant
to Republic Act (RA) 9346,[6] it
reduced the imposed penalty from death to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole. Invoking RA 9346, it also lowered the civil indemnity
from P75,000 to P50,000. Moreover, in accordance with prevailing
jurisprudence, it awarded P50,000 moral damages to the offended party. Considering
that the crime was aggravated by AAA’s minority, exemplary damages of P25,000
were also granted. The dispositive portion of the decision read:
WHEREFORE, Decision of conviction dated 2 April 2004
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora, Branch 96 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION in that the accused-appellant Edgardo Z. Antonio is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
AAA civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00; moral damages in the
amount of P50,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[7]
After appellant, through the Public
Attorney’s Office, filed a timely notice of appeal, the Court of Appeals
forwarded the records of the case to this Court.
We deny the appeal.
Both the trial and appellate courts gave
credence to the testimony of AAA. She categorically pointed to appellant as the
one who violated her. In connection with the crime, she candidly testified on
what appellant did to her and the details thereof. For this reason, both the
trial and appellate courts found that appellant’s guilt for the crime of
qualified rape (that is, rape qualified by any of the circumstances under which
the death penalty could have been imposed had not RA 9346 prohibited it)[8] was sufficiently
established beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds no compelling reason to rule
otherwise.
The Court of Appeals correctly
reduced the penalty imposed on appellant from death to reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole in accordance with RA 9346. However, it erred in
lowering the civil indemnity from P75,000 to P50,000 purportedly
in accordance with the same law. The law only prohibited the imposition of the
death penalty but did not affect the corresponding pecuniary or civil
liabilities. In People v. Bejic,[9] the
penalty imposed on the accused who was convicted of qualified rape was
downgraded from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole under RA 9346. Discussing the corresponding liability for civil
indemnity, the Court ruled:
The award of
civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is the correct amount to be
awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition
of the death penalty.
The award of moral damages should therefore
be increased to P75,000 following Bejic.[10]
Considering the minority of AAA, the grant of P25,000 exemplary damages
was justified.[11]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED.
The August 10, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
01141 finding appellant Edgardo Z. Antonio guilty of the crime of qualified
rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
without eligibility for parole is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that he is ordered to pay the offended party P75,000 civil indemnity, P75,000
moral damages and P25,000 exemplary damages.
Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify
that the conclusions in the above resolution had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Romeo F. Barza of the Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 3-17.
[2] Decision dated April 2, 2004. Penned by Judge Corazen D. Soluren. Court of Appeals Records, pp. 24-31.
[3] Id.
[4] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 04 July 2004, 433 SCRA 658.
[5] Supra note 1.
[6] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
[7] Supra note 1.
[8] In this connection, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 266-B. Penalties. – x x x x x 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:
x x x x x x x x x
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old.
x x x x x x x x x
[9] G.R. No. 174060, 25 June
2007.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.