FIRST
DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Acting Chairperson,*
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,**
-
versus - CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,***
and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
RICARDO TALAN y DOE Promulgated:
@ CARDING,
Appellant. November 14, 2008
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the 30 November
2006 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00410 affirming the 4 November
2004 Joint Judgment[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Judicial Region V, Branch 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case Nos. L-3373
and L-3599. The trial court found Ricardo Talan y Doe alias Carding (Talan)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of forcible abduction with rape.
The Facts
AAA was born on
On
On
On
On
On
On
In an Information
dated
That on or about 8:00 o’clock
p.m. of May 30, 2000, at Barangay Poblacion,
Zone 2, Del Gallego, Camarines
Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, abduct [AAA], his fifteen (15) year old niece,
against her will and without her consent by forcibly taking her to San Lorenzo
Ruiz, Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte, and thereat on
June 1, 2000 at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, with force, violence and
intimidation and while armed with a knife succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with aforesaid victim against her will and without her consent to
her damage and prejudice.[3]
In another
Information dated
That on or
before
Talan pleaded
not guilty to both charges. According to
him, (1) he was cutting and gathering bamboos with his nephew in Barangay Pinagdapian on
The
In its
WHEREFORE, the
prosecution having duly proved the guilt of the accused in these two cases for
forcible abduction with rape, this court finds accused RICARDO TALAN y DOE
Alias “Carding” GUILTY of the crimes as charged and hereby imposes against
said accused the supreme penalty of DEATH in Criminal Case No. L-3373 and the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in Criminal
Case No. L-3599 and in line with recent jurisprudence where the death
penalty is imposed he is hereby ordered to indemnify the victim [AAA], the
amount of Seventy[-]Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00)
as civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. L-3373 and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), as civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. L-3599 and
the further sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)
as moral damages in these two cases.[5]
On appeal, Talan
claimed that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of two counts of forcible abduction with rape: (1) the trial court relied
solely on AAA’s testimony as the basis for its judgment; (2) that AAA did not
cry for help while Talan was bringing her to Santa
Elena, Camarines Norte, was improbable; and (3)
denial was a valid defense. Talan also claimed that, assuming that he was indeed guilty
of the charges, the trial court erred
in considering the qualifying circumstance of relationship in Criminal
Case No. L-3373.
The Court
of Appeals’ Ruling
In its
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, herein appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION, the penalty of Death imposed by the court a quo
in Criminal Case No. L-3373, is reduced to Reclusion
Perpetua.
Likewise, the civil indemnity to be awarded to the
Victim in Criminal Case No. L-3373 is hereby reduced to Fifty
Thousand (Php 50,000.00) Pesos.[6]
Hence, this appeal.
The Court’s
Ruling
An appeal in a criminal case opens the
entire case for review. The Court can
correct errors unassigned in the appeal.[7]
The Court finds Talan
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape. Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime
of rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim.[8] Based on the records, the real objective of Talan was to rape AAA when he brought her to the place with
banana trees and to Santa Elena, Camarines Norte.
Talan claimed
that the lower courts erred in relying solely on AAA’s testimony. The Court is not impressed. In rape cases, the credibility of the
victim’s testimony is almost always the single most important factor. When the victim’s testimony is credible, it
may be the sole basis for the accused’s conviction.[9]
The evaluation of the credibility of
the witnesses’ testimonies is a matter best left to the trial court because it
has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the
trial. The Court accords great respect
to the trial court’s findings, unless the trial court overlooked or
misconstrued substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the
case.[10]
In the present case, the trial court
found AAA’s testimony credible. The
trial court held that, “Evaluating the evidence presented both by the
prosecution and the defense, this court gives more credence to the testimony of
the prosecution witnesses as against the alibi and denial posited by the
accused.” The trial court added that,
“This court x x x noted
that when [AAA] was describing how accused raped her she cried for at least two
times.”
Indeed, the Court finds AAA’s testimony
convincing:
Q: How did you know that your uncle were [sic] forcibly removing your T-shirt?
A: I was awaken [sic] and I looked at him.
Q: Now, when you looked at him and when you said he was forcibly removing your T-shirt, what did you do?
A: I was crying.
Q: Why were you crying?
A: Because he poked a knife on my neck.
x x x x
Q: Now, after this accused able [sic] to remove your T-shirt, what did the accused do next, if any?
A: He was forcibly removing my short [sic] and underwear.
Q: And while he was according to you forcibly removing your short [sic] and underwear, what were you doing also?
A: I was crying.
x x x x
Q: After he removed your short [sic] and panty, what did the accused do next?
A: He also removed his underwear.
x x x x
Q: After he was removing [sic] his underwear and you said he was already naked, what did the accused do next?
A: He forcibly opened my two (2) legs.
x x x x
Q: And what was your position as well as the accused when he forcibly opening [sic] your legs?
A: I was lying on my back.
Q: What about him, what was his position to you [sic]?
A: He was on top of me.
Q: Now, after he opened your legs and according to you he forcibly opened your legs, what did the accused do next, if any?
A: He was trying to insert his penis into my vagina.
INTERPRETER: Witness is demonstrating by making push and pull movements.
x x x x
Q: And what did you feel if any when he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A: I felt pain.
Q: What were you doing while he was inserting his penis and making push and pull movements on top of you?
A: I was crying.
Q: Why were you crying?
A: I am afraid, sir.[11]
x x x x
Q: What did you feel when you were being told to undress yourself?
A: He told me if I will not undress he will kill me including my parents and my siblings.
Q: Did you undress after you were threatened that way?
A: Yes, sir, because of great fear.
Q: What happened after you undressed yourself?
A: He made me lie on the ground, sir.
x x x x
Q: When you were made to lie down, what happened next?
A: He told me that there will be three (3) positions to be made.
x x x x
Q: What happened after that?
A: He kissed my lips and my breast, sir.
Q: What else happened?
A: He also kissed my vagina.
Q: So after that what happened next?
A: He keeps [sic] on touching my private parts and he repeatedly kissed my private parts and when he kissed my lips he inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A: Painful.
Q: After fifteen (15) minutes, what happened next?
A: He told me that we will be changed [sic] position, the side position, sir, but I did not agree with him, so, he chose to do the previous position.
Q: You said that he was on top of you for about fifteen (15) minutes, after fifteen (15) minutes what did he do?
A: He rested for a while.
Q: For how long?
A: About five (5) minutes.
Q: And after that, that was the time when he told you that he wanted to do the side position?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So what did he do on the second time?
A: Same with the previous position, sir.
Q: And how long was he on top of you?
A: Also 10 to 15 minutes, sir.
Q: After that what did he do?
A: He told me that it is already finished and he told me that I should not be fear [sic] what had happened to us and he keeps [sic] on threatening me that he will kill me.
Q: How many times were you raped on May 17?
A: For two (2) times.[12]
Moreover, AAA’s testimony is consistent
with the medical findings. When the
testimony of the victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient
basis exists for the conclusion that the crime was committed.[13] In the medical certificate she prepared, Dr. Adalid found “incomplete healed, hymenal
laceration at
Q: Now, in this Exhibit A there are findings, will you please read the findings and explain to us in layman’s language the meaning of this medical findings?
A: I have here my medical
findings for the patient, Positive incomplete
healed, hymenal laceration at
Q: What could have been the cause of this particular finding on [AAA]?
A: The possible cause of this particular laceration could have been a solid or hard object was inserted to the vagina of the victim.
Q: For instance, an erected [sic] penis inserted on [sic] the vagina during sexual intercourse could cause this laceration?
A: Yes, that might cause the
laceration.[14]
Talan claimed
that it was improbable that he forced AAA to go with him because AAA did not
cry for help while he was bringing her to Santa Elena, Camarines
Norte. The Court is not impressed. It is
not improbable because Talan threatened AAA that if
she cried for help, he would kill her.
The intimidation prevented AAA from crying for help.[15] Moreover, AAA was a minor and Talan exercised moral ascendancy over her, being her
uncle. During the trial, AAA testified:
Q: Did it not occur to [sic] your mind to shout when he dragged you by the arm?
A: No, sir.
Q: Tell us why?
A: Because he often threatened me not to shout because the persons who wants [sic] to kill me were in our house.
x x x x
Q: And did it not occur to [sic] your mind to tell the tricycle driver about what happened to you?
A: No, sir, because he keeps on looking at me as if he is telling me not to tell anybody of what happened to us.
x x x x
Q: Why did you board that bus going to Tabogon together with the accused?
A: In order that the persons who wants [sic] to kill me will not be able to track us.[16]
x x x x
Q: While you were being dragged to the other side of the highway did you not plead to the accused not to drag you?
A: I pleaded to the accused and he said that he should bring me back to our house.
Q: On [sic] top of your voice when you pleaded to him to bring you back to your house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: But no one helped you, is that correct?
A: Yes, because there were no people around.
x x x x
Q: Did you not tell the trimobile driver that you were being forced by the accused in going to Tagkawayan, Quezon?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: While on board the trimobile did you not talk to each other?
A: While on board the trimobile, he told me that I should not talk, particularly that I should not report to the trimobile driver, because if I should do so he will kill me.[17]
x x x x
Q: Did you not talk to the passengers in the bus while you were inside the bus?
A: No, because we have no seatmates.
Q: Did you not approach any passengers and tell them about your problem with respect to this alleged incident?
A: No, because at that time the accused does [sic] not want me to talk to anybody inside the bus, because if I should talk to them he will be the one to kill me.[18]
Talan claimed
that denial is a valid defense. The
Court is not impressed. Denial as a
defense is inherently weak and deserves scant consideration. It cannot prevail over the victim’s positive
identification of the accused.[19] During the trial, AAA positively identified Talan:
Q: Now, tell us, do you know a certain Ricardo Talan alias “Carding?”
A: He is my uncle.
Q: Why he became [sic] your uncle?
A: He is the brother of my mother.
Q: And how do you call this Ricardo Talan?
A: Tiyo.
Q: Tiyo what?
A: Tiyo Carding.
Q: Tell us, is he the same Ricardo Talan alias “Carding,” the accused in this case?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please tell us if the accused is in court?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please point to him.
INTERPRETER: Witness is pointing to a man seated inside the courtroom and when he was asked to identify his name responded [sic] by the name of Ricardo
Talan.
Q: Do you know that you are charging your uncle a very serious offense?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, if your uncle will be convicted he could be sentenced for life imprisonment or death?
A: Yes, sir.[20]
Talan claimed
that the qualifying circumstance of relationship should not be considered in
Criminal Case No. L-3373. The Court agrees. The qualifying circumstance of relationship
must be specifically alleged in the information — the information must clearly
state that “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.”[21] In People v. Ibarrientos,[22] the
Court held that:
The allegation in the information x x x that the appellant is an uncle of the victim is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. We have previously ruled, and now we reiterate, that it is necessary to spell out in the Information for rape that the accused is a “relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity” as stated in Article 266-B. Without such averment, the Information x x x falls short of the statutory requirement for the imposition of capital punishment on the offender. Factual allegations in the information do not need to be referred to as “qualifying circumstances,” in order to appreciate them as such and raise the penalty. However, these factual allegations must be specified completely, in order to fully inform the accused of the circumstances which warrant the imposition of a higher offense. Otherwise, such circumstances cannot be appreciated to qualify the offense.
In the present case,
the information in Criminal Case No. L-3373 merely states that Talan abducted and raped his “niece” without specifying
that Talan is a relative of the victim within the
third degree of consanguinity. In any event, the penalty for simple rape is
still reclusion perpetua.[23]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS
the 30 November 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
00410 with the MODIFICATION that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of two counts of simple rape.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
RENATO C.
CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting
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.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 534.
** Designated member per Special Order No. 535.
*** Designated member per Special Order No. 535.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-27. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Fernanda Lampas-Peralta concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 12-26. Penned by Judge Irma Isidora M. Boncodin.
[3] CA rollo, p. 12.
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo, pp. 26-27.
[7] People v. Montinola, G.R. No. 178061,
[8] Garces v. People, G.R. No. 173858, 17 July 2007, 527 SCRA 827; People v. Muros, 467 Phil. 474 (2004).
[9] People v. Abulon, G.R. No. 174473, 17 August 2007, 530 SCRA 675.
[10] People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 176060, 5 October 2007, 535 SCRA 159.
[11]
[12]
[13] People
v. Muros, supra note 8.
[14]
[15] People v. Muros, supra note 8.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 168.
[20]
[21] Revised Penal Code, Art. 266-B.
[22] G.R. Nos. 148063-64, 17 June 2004, 432
SCRA 424.
[23] See note 21.