THIRD DIVISION
|
people of the Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - bienvenido
lazaro @ Bening,
Accused -Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186379 Present: CARPIO
MORALES,* J., CHICO-NAZARIO,** Acting Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August 19, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] dated
14 August 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02381, which
affirmed with modification the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82, finding appellant
Bienvenido Lazaro alias Benny (Bienvenido)
guilty of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. OD-875.
Bienvenido was charged before the RTC
with the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. The accusatory portion of the Complaint reads:
That on or about the 31st day of August,
1995 at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning, in Barangay XXX, Municipality of
Odiongan, Province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd design, did then and there
willfully and feloniously take by force and abduct the undersigned offended
party by then and there taking and bringing her to the house of said accused,
against her consent and by means of violence, and had carnal knowledge with
her, against the latter’s will.[3]
Upon arraignment on
The evidence of the prosecution, as gathered
from the testimonies of the victim AAA[5],
the victim’s uncle BBB, and Dr. Aida Dusaban Atienza, the government physician
who examined AAA, are as follows:
AAA, an eleven-year-old girl, was
born on
The defense interposed the defense of
denial and alibi and presented the testimonies of Bienvenido and his niece,
Yolanda Forcadas.
Bienvenido denied molesting AAA. He said that at
At around
However, on re-direct examination, Bienvenido
made another declaration that at around
For her part, Yolanda Forcadas
testified that on
The RTC, in a decision dated P50,000.00
and to pay the costs. The decretal
portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused BIENVENIDO
LAZARO is hereby found GUILTY of rape and is hereby meted the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify
the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.
Accused is entitled to full time of his preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.[10]
Bienvenido appealed the judgment of
conviction to the Court of Appeals. In
its decision dated P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, the Court of Appeals
ordered Bienvenido to pay the victim P75,000.00 as moral damages, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the
assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 82, in Odiongan, Romblon
in Crim. Case No. OD-875, finding accused-appellant Bienvenido Lazaro guilty of
the crime of rape and imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is further ordered to pay
the victim P75,000.00 as moral damages.[11]
Hence, the instant recourse.
Bienvenido claims that it was witness
BBB, the victim’s uncle, who initiated the filing of the criminal complaint
against him. Since Article 344[12]
of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110[13]
of the Revised Rules of Court require that the right to file an action be given
to the parents, grandparents or guardians of the minor, the filing by BBB of
the complaint renders the same defective.
In a bid to be exculpated from the
charge, Bienvenido contends that AAA’s testimony had material inconsistency as
to the date of the commission, since at one point AAA declared that the rape
happened on
In determining the guilt or innocence
of the accused in cases of rape, the courts have been traditionally guided by
three settled principles, namely: (a) an accusation for rape is easy to make,
difficult to prove, and even more difficult to disprove; (b) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with utmost caution; and (c) the evidence of the prosecution must
stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.[14]
Since the crime of rape is
essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually
only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus.[15] In its prosecution, therefore, the
credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue
to deal with.[16] If her testimony meets the test of
credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis thereof;
otherwise, he should be acquitted of the crime.[17]
In this case, upon assessing the
victim’s testimony, the RTC found her credible, thus:
There
is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why the victim in
the case would testify falsely against the accused or falsely implicate him in
a heinous crime.
x x x
x
The
laceration on the vagina of the girl who was examined weeks after the incident
by Dra. Atienza is indicative of some object having entered it. Adding to this
is the testimony of AAA that accused rode on her body and made a “pull and push
movement.”[18]
This Court itself has diligently pored
over the transcripts of stenographic notes of this case and, like the RTC, it
finds the victim’s testimony on the incident forthright or straightforward, consistent
with an honest and realistic account of the tragedy that befell her. She
narrated the incident and the circumstances immediately after it in this
manner:
Q: Upon
arriving in his house, where did he bring you?
A: In the
upper part of his house.
Q: Upon
reaching there, what did he do to you?
A: He took
off my panty.
Q: After
he took off your panty, what did he do to you?
A: He made
me lie down.
Q: Face up
or face down?
A: Face
up.
Q: Where
did you lie down?
A: On the
floor.
Q: After
making you lie down on the floor of his house, what did the accused do?
A: He took
off his pants.
Q: After
taking off his pants, what did he do to you?
A: He put
his penis in my vagina.
Q: How did
you feel when his penis was placed in your vagina?
A: It was
painful.
Q: After
placing his penis to your vagina, what did the accused do?
A: He made
the push and pull movement.
Q: How
long is this push and pull movement last?
A: About
two minutes.
Q: After
that push and pull movement, what did the accused do?
A: He
stood up.
Q: And
what did he do since he had taken off his pants?
A: He put
on his pants.
Q: According
to you, your panty was taken off by the accused, what did you do after that
push and pull?
A: I put
on my panty.
Q: After
putting on your panty, what did the accused tell you, if any?
A: Don’t
tell anybody, if you tell I will kill you.
Q: After
warning you not to tell anybody otherwise you will be killed, what did you do?
A: I
cried.
x x x x
Q: On
A: In
their house.
Q: Did you
see him?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: When
you saw your uncle on that date, what if any transpired between you and your
uncle?
A: He
asked me why I am lonely and weak.
Q: What
did you answer him?
A: I
relayed the incident.
Q: That
incident of
Q: Yes,
sir. [19]
On cross examination, AAA held fast
to her declaration that she was molested by Bienvenido, thus:
Q: During this
time your Lolo Bening was giving you money x x x?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: Now,
you were telling us that when your panty was taken off by your Lolo Bening, you
were made to lie down on the floor, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And
there, he immediately also took off his pants and ride over you for a period of
two minutes?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: This
was all he did to you?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: He was
making the push and pull movement on your body at the same time holding your both
hands with his both hands also, is that correct?
A: Yes,
sir.[20]
From the foregoing, the prosecution satisfactorily
established in vivid detail that during the incident in question, Bienvenido,
whom AAA called Lolo, enticed her with
monetary favor to go with him to his house. Unaware of the plot hatched by the
person she treated as a grandfather and at some point a provider, AAA went
along with him. Taking advantage of the
trust and the tender age of AAA, Bienvenido was able to consummate his evil
design. Ignorant of the ways of men, AAA
did not protest or agree to the sexual advances of the malefactor. As Bienvenido inserted his penis and made a
push and pull movement, AAA could only feel the pain of the insertion, not
knowing that molestation had more far-reaching consequences on her emotional
growth and social development.
Although the evidence is bereft of
any indication that AAA, 11 years old during the incident, was coerced by the
perpetrator, this fact cannot be utilized by the latter. This Court has held that if the woman is under
twelve (12) years of age, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial, not
only because force is not an element of statutory rape, but also because the
absence of free consent is presumed when the woman is below 12 years old.[21] The two elements of statutory rape are: (1)
that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was
below 12 years of age.[22] Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old
is always rape.[23]
Medical findings revealed that the
victim’s vagina had old lacerations that were consistent with her claim that
she was molested. Against the damning
evidence adduced by the prosecution, what appellant could only muster is a
barefaced denial. Unfortunately for him,
his defense is much too flaccid to stay firm against the weighty evidence for
the prosecution. Denial, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and
self-serving evidence, which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given
greater evidentiary value over the testimonies of credible witnesses who
testify on affirmative matters.[24] Between the self-serving testimony of Bienvenido
and the positive declaration of the victim, the latter deserves greater
credence.[25]
Also unavailing is Bienvenido’s
insinuation that it was a certain Felmor Perater, Jr. who might have violated
AAA’s womanhood and not he. Again, this was simply a futile attempt on the part
of the accused, unsubstantiated by any thread of evidence, to extricate himself
from the charge. His differing
declarations on this matter (at one point, he said AAA and Felmor were just
embracing each other, then at another he said the two were engaged in sexual
intercourse) expose the fallacy of his claim of innocence.
Bienvenido’s defense of alibi cannot
be believed. For the defense of alibi to
prosper, the following must be established:
(a) the presence of the accused-appellant in another place at the time
of the commission of the offense; and (b) the physical impossibility for him to
be at the scene of the crime.[26] Bienvenido testified that he was in the same barangay when the incident took place. This testimony destroys his alibi. Assuming arguendo
that Bienvenido was in Barangay Poctoy, a neighboring barangay, when the questioned event took place, still there is a
great possibility that he could have traveled from there to the locus criminis in no time. Thus, his defense of alibi cannot prosper.
Although AAA reported the incident to
her uncle only on
We go now to the allegation that the
complaint filed was defective.
The pertinent laws existing at the
time the crime was committed in 1995 were Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code
(prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 835319, otherwise known as “The
Anti-Rape Law of 1997,” which took effect on
As to Bienvenido’s claim that AAA’s
testimony was riddled with material inconsistencies, since she gave varying
dates of the commission of the crime, the same cannot be taken in his favor.
Firstly, the exact date of the
commission of rape is not material. In
rape cases, the time of commission of the crime is not a material ingredient of
the offense.[33] In this connection, this Court also ruled
that in rape cases, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates,
number of times, and manner in which they were violated. In the same vein, to be material,
discrepancies in the testimony of the victim should refer to significant facts that
are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to mere details
that are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of its
commission in a case of rape.[34]
Secondly, the mention of
PROS. VICTORIANO ON DIRECT EXAMINATION:
x x x x
Q: On
A: I was
going to school.[35]
Later, the public prosecutor
corrected himself by saying:
Q: Did you
reveal to your aunt what was done to you by the accused?
A: No,
sir.
x x x x
Q: When
you saw your uncle on that date, what if any transpired between you and your
uncle?
A: He
asked me why I am lonely and weak.
Q: What
did you answer him?
A: I
relayed the incident.
Q: That
incident of
A: Yes,
sir.[36] (Emphasis supplied.)
The rest of the transcript of records
referred to
Q: Now,
you were telling us that when your panty was taken off by your Lolo Bening, you
were made to lie down on the floor, is that correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
there, he immediately also took off his pants and ride over you for a period of
two minutes?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: This
was all that he did to you?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: He was
making the push and pull movement on your body at the same time holding your both
hands with his both hands also, is that correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: His
hand therefore was not able to hold your vagina because he was holding your both
hands while making the push and pull movement?
A: It was
held by him.
Q: When
did he hold your vagina?
A: On
August 31.[37] (Emphasis supplied.)
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC,
as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the
evidence of the prosecution and finding appellant Bienvenido guilty of the
charge. The Court has long adhered to
the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies are accorded great respect, unless the trial court overlooked
substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially
affect the result of the case.[38] In rape cases, the evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect, because the
judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if
they are telling the truth or not.[39] This deference to the trial court’s
appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent
with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of
credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused.[40] This is especially true when the factual
findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court.[41]
As to the penalty imposed, the RTC correctly
sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua.
Statutory rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Since there was no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance attendant to the crime, reclusion
perpetua is the proper penalty.
Also
affirmed is the award of the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, the
same being in conformity with the recent jurisprudence. [42]
However, the Court of Appeals’ award of moral damages in the amount of P75,000
must be modified to P50,000.00. In
People v. Sambrano,[43]
the Court decreed that the award of P75,000 as moral damages is only
warranted when the rape is perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying
aggravating circumstances that require the imposition of the death penalty.
The instant case involves a simple rape. Hence, the amount of P50,000.00 as
moral damages is in order.
WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 14 August
2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02381, finding Bienvenido Lazaro a.k.a. Bening GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt on one
count of statutory rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and ordering him to pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
damages is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice Acting Chairperson |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision 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
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 were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* Per
Special Order No. 679 dated
** Per
Special Order No. 681 dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-19.
[2] Penned by Judge Francisco F. Fanlo, Jr.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4]
[5] Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victim’s privacy.
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] CA rollo, p. 134.
[11] Rollo, p. 184.
[12] Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. -
x x x x
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape, or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case may be.
[13] Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. – x x x.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case may be. In case the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she could file the complaint and has no known parents, grandparents, or guardian, the State shall initiate the criminal action in her behalf.
The offended party, even if she were a minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution for the above offenses, independently of her parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. Where the offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents, grandparents or guardian may file the same. The right to file the action granted to the parents, grandparents or guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively in the order herein provided, except as stated in the immediately preceding paragraph.
[14] People v. Orquina, 439 Phil. 359, 365-366 (2002).
[15] People v. Gabawa, 446 Phil. 616, 625 (2003).
[16] People v. Quijada, 378 Phil. 1040, 1047 (1999).
[17] People v. Babera, 388 Phil. 44, 53 (2000).
[18] CA rollo, p. 134.
[19] TSN,
[20]
[21] People v. Somodio, 427 Phil. 363, 376 (2002).
[22]
[23]
[24] People v. Morales, 311 Phil. 279, 289 (1995).
[25] People v. Baccay, 348 Phil. 322, 327 (1998).
[26] People
v. Penillos, G.R. No. 65673,
[27]
[28] People v. Remoto, 314 Phil. 432, 450 (1995).
[29]
[30]
[31] People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 328 (2004).
[32]
[33] People v. Gopio, 400 Phil. 217, 242 (2000).
[34] People v. Pambid, 384 Phil. 702, 727 (2000).
[35] TSN,
[36]
[37]
[38] People v. Dagpin, 400 Phil. 728, 736 (2000).
[39] People v. Digma, 398 Phil. 1008, 1023 (2000).
[40] People v. Cula, 385 Phil. 742, 752 (2000).
[41] People v. Gallego, 453 Phil. 825, 846 (2003).
[42] People
v. Calongui, G.R. No. 170566,
[43] 446 Phil. 145, 161 (2003).