THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - ARMANDO FERASOL, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 185004
Present: CARPIO MORALES, J.,* CHICO-NAZARIO,**
Acting Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August
25, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00344 which affirmed with
modification the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato finding appellant
Armando Ferasol guilty of Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code.
The
facts as summarized by the CA:
In an Information dated February 9, 2002, [appellant]
was charged with the crime of Rape (Statutory) allegedly committed against AAA,
viz.:
“That
on or about the 31st day of August, 2001, in the morning thereof, in
the house of the above-named [appellant] located at xxx, xxx, Province of South
Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named [appellant] did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of force, threats and intimidation and with lewd designs,
have carnal knowledge of AAA,[3]
nine (9) years old and his niece, against the will and consent of the said
victim.”
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon
his arraignment on May 28, 2002, [appellant] pleaded “Not Guilty” to the crime
charged. x x x.
Version of the Prosecution
x
x x x
On
August 8, 2001, around 8 o’clock in the morning, [nine]-year old AAA was
sweeping the yard of their home in xxx, xxx,
Appellant
Armando Ferasol, AAA’s uncle, whose house was located just 10 meters away from
AAA’s house, called AAA to come over to his house. Unsuspecting, AAA heeded her
uncle’s command. After AAA entered appellant’s house, appellant removed her
short pants. Immediately, appellant inserted his penis inside the young girl’s
vagina. After consummating the sexual intercourse, appellant sent AAA back
home. He threatened her that he would kill her parents, her brother and sister
as well as herself if she told anyone regarding the incident. Fearful for their
lives, AAA at first kept appellant’s abuse to herself.
Appellant
had earlier been abusing AAA, who was already in her fourth grade, since she
was in Grade 3. The child, however, did not tell anyone regarding appellant’s repeated
sexual assaults.
BBB
went back to their house around 1 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day.
Around 4:30 in that afternoon, BBB saw AAA arrive from school, looking weak and
clutching at her groin. The following day, September 1, 2001, AAA’s teacher,
Mrs. Luz Puyonan, sent a note to BBB, informing her that she would like to talk
to her on September 3, 2001. On September 3, 2001, Mrs. Luz Puyonan told BBB
that she had a suspicion that AAA had been sexually abused. She advised BBB to
see a doctor who could examine AAA. Forthwith, BBB brought AAA to Dr. Evelyn
Diosana, the Municipal Health Officer of xxx. In the course of her examination,
AAA revealed to Dr. Diosana that appellant had been abusing her. x x x.
Version of the Defense
Invoking
the defense of denial and alibi, [appellant] testified that on August 31, 2001,
he was at Sitio Lubo, Barangay Ned, P15,000.00. From the proceeds, Rafael Haudar loaned [appellant]
P4,000.00. Immediately on the next day, September 1, 2001, [appellant]
went home.
Rafael
Haudar, himself, corroborated [appellant’s] claim. He attested that [appellant]
stayed in his place in Sitio Lubo from August 28 to September 1, 2001. He also
testified that [appellant] helped him in drying his corn and [appellant]
borrowed from him P4,000.00.[4]
After
trial, the RTC found appellant guilty as charged and disposed, as follows:
WHEREFORE,
considering the above premises, the court finds the appellant Armando Ferasol, GUILTY of the crime of Statutory Rape.
Following
then the above-quoted provision of the law, the court hereby imposes against
the appellant the extreme penalty of DEATH.
The
[appellant] is likewise ordered to pay his victim, AAA, the amounts of PH50,000.00
as moral damages; PH50,000.00 as exemplary damages and PH30,000.00 as
restitution for the payment of attorney’s fees.
The
Clerk of Court of this court then is hereby directed to immediately forward the
record of this case to the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City for the
automatic review by said appellate court of this decision/judgment.
SO
ORDERED.[5]
As
previously adverted to, the CA, on appeal, affirmed the RTC’s decision with
modification:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 26, 11th Judicial Region, Surallah, South
Cotabato, in Criminal Case No. 3008-N, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. [Appellant] Armando Ferasol is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no possibility of parole for the crime of rape
committed against AAA. He is also hereby ORDERED
to indemnify AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00
as civil indemnity. Furthermore, the award of P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages and P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees are DELETED for lack of factual and legal basis. With costs.[6]
Appellant
filed a notice of appeal and is now before us insisting on his innocence and
beseeching the reversal of the lower courts’ finding of guilt.
We
abide by the identical conclusion of the lower courts that appellant raped AAA.
In
the review of rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an
accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but
more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in
view of the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3)
the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot
be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[7]
Ultimately, in a prosecution for rape, the complainant's credibility becomes
the single most important issue.[8]
A perusal of AAA’s testimony leads us
to the inevitable conclusion that appellant indeed raped her. AAA’s testimony,
although interspersed with minor lapses, did not waiver even on
cross-examination:
Q: You said earlier that you were called by
your Papang Armando for (sic) to enter their house. Did you actually enter
their house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Once inside, what happened next, AAA?
A: He let me enter their room and he used
me.
Q: When you said “he used me,” what do you
mean by that?
A: He removed my shorts and he entered his
penis into my vagina.
Q: For how long did he insert his penis
into your vagina?
A: For not so long.
Q: Was that the first time that your Papang
Armando Ferasol inserted his penis into your vagina?
A: No, sir, that was not the first time.
Q: Why?
A: Because he has been using me since I was
in Grade III.
Q: Why, as of August 31, 2001, in what
grade were you?
A: I was in Grade IV.
Q: After he used you, and what happened
next, AAA?
A: He sent me home and threatened me not to
tell it.
Q: And what was the threat you are
particularly referring to.
A: He threatened to kill me including my
parents, my brothers and sisters.
Q: Because of the threat, AAA, what did you
feel?
A: I was afraid.
Q: And because you were afraid, did you
actually comply with the threat of your Papang Armando Ferasol not to tell it
to anybody?
A: At first I did not tell it anybody, but
when I and my mother went to Dr. Diosana, I told the truth to Dr. Diosana.
Q: The truth about what?
A: That I was used by Armando Ferasol.
Q: And when was that when you were brought
to Dr. Diosana and when you told the truth?
A: That was on September 2, 2001.
Q: [Who were you with] when you told the
truth to Dr. Diosana?
A: I was with my mother.
x x x x
Q: When you were sent home by your Uncle
Armando, you went straight to your house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You continued your work, sweeping in
your yard?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You continued your house chores as if
nothing happened?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In fact, when your mother arrived from
xxx, you acted as if nothing happened?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Because,
actually, there is nothing that
happened? (sic)
A: There was. (sic)[9]
In
connection with the minor inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony which appellant
harps on, we completely agree with the following disquisition of the appellate
court:
It
bears emphasis that AAA was only 11 years old at the time she testified before
the trial court. She was only 9 years old when [appellant] started raping her.
A child witness could not be expected to give a precise response to every
question posed to her. Her failure to give an answer to the point as to be free
of any minor inconsistencies is understandable and does not make her a witness
less worthy of belief. It is not unnatural for a rape victim, especially one
who is of tender age, to make discrepant statements. But, so long as the
testimony is consistent on material points, slightly conflicting statements
will not undermine the witness’ credibility or the veracity of her testimony.
They in fact tend to buttress, rather than impair, her credibility as they
erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Inconsistencies and discrepancies
as to minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be
considered grounds for acquittal.
x
x x. Although AAA’s testimony is not perfect in details, it bore the earmarks
of truth. We find that she was unwavering and consistent. She never hesitated
in testifying that it was her uncle who raped her. She may have confused
certain minor details such as whether she was left alone in the house or had
other companions, whether her aunt Maribel Ferasol went to the market or to the
poblacion as testified by BBB, whether she attended school on the day of the
rape incident or not, but she was consistent in her statements identifying [appellant]
as the rapist. But the said variances focused more on her account of the events
immediately prior to and following the rape than her narration of the
commission of the crime itself. After all, AAA was but a little girl of nine
(9) when her ordeal began and eleven (11) when she took the witness stand. It
should be understandable that the young victim would more likely wish to forget
rather than to remember the sordid details of the outrage that claimed her
innocence.[10]
However,
as regards the civil liability of appellant, we increase the appellate court’s
award of civil indemnity to P75,000.00. We likewise increase the grant
of moral damages to P75,000.00, without need of proof, and additionally
award P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional
Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 3008-N and the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00344 are AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION. Appellant
Armando Ferasol is SENTENCED to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
with no possibility of parole and to pay the victim, AAA, the amounts of P75,000.00
as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and the further sum of P30,000.00
as exemplary damages plus costs.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice Acting Chairperson |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 679 dated August 3, 2009.
** In lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 678 dated August 3, 2009.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Mario V. Lopez, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-24.
[2] Penned by Judge Roberto L. Ayco, CA rollo, pp. 40-64.
[3] The real name of the victim is withheld as per Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[4] Rollo, pp. 5-8. (Citations omitted.)
[5] CA rollo, pp. 63-64.
[6] Rollo, p. 24.
[7] People v. Brondial, G.R. No. 135517, October 18, 2000, 343 SCRA 600; People v. Baygar, G.R. No. 132238, November 17, 1999, 318 SCRA 358; People v. Sta. Ana, G.R. Nos. 115657-59, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 188; People v. Auxtero, G.R. No. 118314, April 15, 1998, 289 SCRA 75; People v. Balmoria, G.R. Nos. 120620-21, March 20, 1998, 287 SCRA 687; People v. Barrientos, G.R. No. 119835, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 221; People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, January 22, 1998, 284 SCRA 590.
[8] People v. Abellano, G.R. No. 169061, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 388.
[9] Rollo, pp. 15-16.
[10] Rollo, pp. 17-18.