Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
BRION, JJ.
FIDEL CANETE, Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
November
7, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the
November 20, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01230
which affirmed the May 26, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 85 in Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case Nos. 2557-M-2001 to 2562-M-2001.
The RTC found accused-appellant Fidel Canete guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
six (6) counts of simple rape.
The Facts
Except for the dates and
times of the admission of the offense, the six Informations filed against
accused-appellant contain the same accusatory portion as the first Information
(Criminal Case No. 2557-M-2001), as follows:
That in or about the year 1994, in the municipality of BBB,[1]
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, being the uncle of the offended party, AAA, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and
intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of the said AAA, then
9 years old, against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law.[2]
At his arraignment, accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
During trial, the
prosecution presented AAA as its sole witness. The defense likewise presented
only one witness, accused-appellant.
The following are the events
that transpired according to the prosecution:
Sometime in June 1994, at
around
AAA subsequently went to
her neighbor Rose’s house. She cried upon seeing Rose. When probed about her
tears, she merely said she was scolded by her grandmother as she was warned by
accused-appellant not to tell anyone of the rape incident. She left Rose’s house after two hours. When
she arrived home, she saw accused-appellant and her grandmother, who ordered
her to cook. She did not recount her ordeal to her grandmother for fear she
might receive a spanking.[3]
Three days later,
accused-appellant again raped AAA, this time at their house while her
grandmother and sister were asleep. That evening, AAA felt accused-appellant
lay down beside her. She became frightened and unsuccessfully tried to rouse
her grandmother from sleep. Accused-appellant pinned her down when she tried to
stand up. He embraced her and held her legs and stomach. When AAA tried to
resist, he punched her arm. He then undressed her, took off his shorts, and
inserted his penis inside her vagina. She did not shout as accused-appellant
threatened to kill her if she revealed what he was doing to her.
Accused-appellant then slept next to AAA. AAA again tried to wake her
grandmother up but she was sound asleep. AAA then cried herself to sleep in her
frustration.[4]
On
AAA did not see
accused-appellant again until January 1996, the period of which AAA remembered clearly
as it is the month when the town fiesta
is celebrated. During this period, accused-appellant was on a one-month
vacation from work. One night, her grandmother visited her daughter-in-law who
had just given birth. AAA, her sister, and accused-appellant were the only ones
home. At around
Another rape incident
occurred in August 1997. AAA and her
sister were in bed by
Sometime in November
1998, accused-appellant sexually abused AAA once again. At around
Two more rapes were
committed by accused-appellant sometime in 1999. Accused-appellant followed AAA
to her home following a house blessing at their neighbor’s place. He pulled her
and warned her that something would happen to her if she resisted his advances.
He then satisfied his urge while AAA was crying.
By June 1999, AAA had
moved to a house of a councilor in Barangay
CCC, BBB, Bulacan. While she was visiting her sister at their old house,
accused-appellant went inside the room where she and her sister were sleeping. He
laid down next to her and undressed her. He inserted his penis into her sexual
organ. He told her not to make any noise when she started crying.[13]
The next morning, AAA
divulged to her friend, Daisy Manlapit, the sexual abuse to which she had been
subjected. Daisy advised her to ask barangay
officials for help. She told the councilor about her ordeal. Accompanied by her
friend, Rose, AAA executed an affidavit at the barangay narrating the rape incidents.[14]
As the lone defense
witness, accused-appellant denied all the charges hurled at him. His testimony
was summarized by the trial court as follows:
x x x He
testified that in 1994, he was living with his employer Councilor Lucas in Sto.
Niño, Meycauayan, Bulacan; that he stayed with his employer from 1994 to
1995; that his brother Rollie lives in Meycauayan and was then residing in the house
of Captain Javier; that before 1994, he lived in Marilao for six (6) years;
that he knew AAA because she was staying in [B]arangay CCC, BBB, Bulacan where
he saw her; that the reason why he was detained was because he was implicated
by his brother x x x in this case; he does not know why he was implicated by
his brother but [the latter] drove away AAA and after that she worked as a maid
in Councilor Lucas’ house.[15]
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused
Fidel Canete GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of Simple Rape
defined and penalized under Art. 226B of the Revised Penal Code as amended and
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in each of the
six (6) Informations filed against him. Accused is also ordered to pay private
complainant [AAA], in each case, civil indemnity ex-delicto of P50,000.00,
exemplary damages of P25,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Accused-appellant
appealed the adverse decision. In his appeal before the CA, he claimed that the
RTC erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as AAA’s testimony was
doubtful.
On
(1) AAA had positively and categorically identified
accused-appellant as her rapist. Her testimony on the rape incident was consistent
and replete with details;
(2) Even without a deadly weapon, accused-appellant was
able to intimidate AAA into submission by his moral ascendancy over her as her
uncle;
(3) The allegation that AAA’s father is falsely implicating
accused-appellant is undeserving of consideration. No father would stoop so low
as to subject his daughter to the trauma and embarrassment of a public trial.
Moreover, family resentment, revenge, or feud has not swayed the Court from
giving full credence to a rape victim’s testimony;
(4) Accused-appellant failed to show evidence of his
non-culpability of the charges against him. He was unable to prove that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the places where the crimes were
committed. No one corroborated his alibi to prove his assertion that he was not
living in the same house with AAA from 1994 to 1995;
(5) The argument that no rape could have taken place while
AAA was sleeping in the same room with her grandmother and sister is not
convincing as it has been held that lust is no respecter of time and place;
(6) The prosecution failed to prove the minority of AAA and
her relationship with accused-appellant in the informations. Accused-appellant
was thus correctly convicted of simple rape; and
(7) The award of exemplary damages must be deleted in view
of the absence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship.
The CA disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated
SO
ORDERED.[17]
On
Accused-appellant presents a lone issue for this Court’s
consideration:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE
We find no merit in the appeal.
Accused-appellant
advances the theory of the improbability of the rape incidents having occurred
based on certain details in the victim’s testimony. He wonders how it was
possible for the offenses to have transpired when the victim’s relatives were
in the same room. He likewise avers that
the victim should have cried out for help while she was being raped. He argues
that there was no proof that he could inflict immediate harm on AAA as he
supposedly did not have a deadly weapon during the rape incidents.
Accused-appellant’s
exculpatory allegations do not merit concurrence. Rape has been known to be
committed not only in seclusion but in public places, inside an occupied house,
or even where there are other people around.[18] We
have accordingly ruled that rape is not a respecter of people, time, or place.[19]
It is not improbable that accused-appellant was able to succumb to his lechery while
AAA’s grandmother and sister were sound asleep.
Moreover, AAA testified that accused-appellant warned her not to tell
anyone of the sexual abuse or else he would kill her. It is not unnatural then for AAA to have kept
silent during the rape for fear for her personal safety. The failure of the
victim to shout for help does not negate the commission of rape.[20]
On the alleged impossibility of inflicting immediate harm
on AAA since accused-appellant had no deadly weapon at the time of the rape
incidents, we held in People v. Santos that
it is common for a young victim of tender age to be fearful in the face of the
mildest threat against her life.[21] Although not alleged in the informations, the
moral ascendancy of accused-appellant over his victim as her uncle was more
than sufficient to cow her into submission, even without use of a deadly
weapon.
Given the previous discussion, we find no reason to reverse
the findings of the trial and appellate courts which gave full credence to
AAA’s testimony.
We
likewise uphold the award of damages. Jurisprudence holds that for the special
circumstances of minority and relationship to be appreciated between the victim
and the accused as her uncle, as here, within the third civil degree, this must
be particularly alleged in the Information.[22] Moreover, although minority was sufficiently
alleged, the circumstance was not proved or established by the prosecution
apart from AAA’s testimony on the date she was born.[23] As
we have previously held, the circumstances that qualify a crime should be
proved beyond reasonable doubt just as the crime itself.[24] Since qualified rape was not sufficiently
alleged in the Informations against accused-appellant, the award of PhP 50,000 only
as civil indemnity for each count of simple rape is warranted. The award of PhP
50,000 as moral damages is sustained as it is awarded without need of proof of
mental anguish or moral suffering.[25] The
deletion of exemplary damages is also correct as it cannot be awarded as part
of the civil liability since the crime was not committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances.[26]
WHEREFORE, the
appeal is DISMISSED. The November 20, 2007 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01230 finding accused-appellant
guilty of six (6) counts of simple rape is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
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.
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]
The victim’s real name and other personal circumstances are withheld to protect
her privacy pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act) and People v.
Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[2] Rollo, p. 3.
[3]
[4]
[5]
TSN,
[6]
[7] Rollo, pp. 5-6.
[8] TSN, supra note 5, at 31-32.
[9] Rollo, p. 6.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] CA rollo, pp. 22-23.
[17] Rollo, p. 19. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso.
[22] People v. Malicsi, G.R. No. 175833, January 29, 2008, 543 SCRA 93, 103; citing People v. Sabredo, 387 Phil. 682, 692 (2000).
[23] Rollo, p. 18.
[24] People v. Espino, G.R. No. 176742, June 17,
2008.
[25] People v. Astrologo, G.R. No. 169873,
[26] People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224,