THE PEOPLE OF THE
|
G.R. No. 179946
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION,
ABAD,
JJ.
Promulgated: December 23, 2009 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
This is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court[2] (RTC) finding Quirino Cabral y Valencia (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of qualified rape committed against his minor daughter (complainant).
The Antecedents
The accused-appellant
was charged with five (5) counts of rape committed within the period December
1995 to
The complainant related that in these incidents, she would be awakened in the middle of her sleep with the accused-appellant touching and stroking her thighs. The accused-appellant would undress her, and, after also undressing himself, would insert his organ into her organ. The complainant also related that she would cry and kick the accused-appellant during the sexual act.
The accused-appellant denied the charges against him and claimed that it was impossible for him to commit the rapes, considering that his work schedules as a tricycle driver and as a fisherman compelled him to work at nighttime. The accused-appellant imputed ill-motive on his wife and the complainant. He claimed that the complainant begrudged him for disciplining her; his wife wanted to replace him with another man.
The RTC
Ruling
The RTC acquitted the accused-appellant of one (1) count of rape, but convicted him of the four (4) counts charged, and imposed the penalty of death – the penalty qualified rape carries. The trial court relied on the complainant’s testimony which it described as “innocent,” “straightforward,” and an “unflinching narration on how she was molested.” The RTC also ruled that the age of the complainant rendered it highly improbable for her to fabricate stories of her defloration.
The RTC rejected the accused-appellant’s alibi for his failure to show that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the rapes. The RTC also rejected the claim that the small size of their dwelling rendered the commission of the rapes impossible; it recognized that lust is no respecter of time and place. Finally, the RTC noted that the accused-appellant’s plea for forgiveness from his wife indicated his guilt.
The CA Ruling
The CA on appeal affirmed the RTC’s findings. The CA, however, acquitted the accused-appellant of one (1) count of rape for lack of evidence showing penile penetration. The dispositive portion of the CA decision decreed:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered,
the assailed Decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 15-99, 16-99 and 17-99 are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant’s sentence is REDUCED to reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay private
complainant in Criminal Case Nos. 15-99, 16-99 and 17-99 P50,000.00
for moral damages, P75,000.00 for civil indemnity and P20,000.00 for exemplary
damages in each criminal case.
For insufficiency of evidence and for failure of the prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 18-99.
Costs
against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The Issue
The lone issue raised on appeal is the failure of the courts to appreciate the doubtful testimony of the complainant, considering her failure to shout for help and the improbability that the rapes could have been committed in a 3 x 4-meter house in the presence of other people.
The Court’s Ruling
We affirm the accused-appellant’s conviction after due
consideration of the records and the evidence.
The rule is well-settled that when the decision hinges
on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial
court’s observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded
finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and
substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of
the case.[4]
We find no reason to
deviate from the general rule under the circumstances of this case.
First,
the testimony of the complainant on the elements constituting the crime of rape
as committed on three separate occasions through force and intimidation was
clear, categorical, and positive. In the absence of corroboration, the
ill-motive imputed by the accused-appellant against his wife and against the
victim deserves scant consideration.
We also take
into account the seriousness of the present charges of incestuous rapes
committed by a father against his daughter. No woman in her right mind, especially
a young girl, would fabricate charges of this nature and severity.
Second,
the physical evidence showing old lacerations on the complainant’s hymen
corroborates her testimony that she had been sexually assaulted.
Third,
the failure of the complainant to shout for help during the rapes is explained
by the balisong the accused-appellant
poked at the complainant’s neck. The evidence also shows that the accused-appellant
instilled fear on his daughter through the threat to kill her and the rest of
the family members if she did not submit to his demands.
Fourth,
the close physical proximity of other relatives at the scene of the rape does
not negate the commission of the crime. In People v. Cura,[5]
we emphasized that rape can be committed even in
places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school
premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same
room where other members of the family are also sleeping.[6] It is not impossible or incredible for the
members of the victim’s family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened
while a sexual assault is being committed.[7] Lust is no respecter of time and place;[8] neither is it deterred by
age nor relationship.[9]
Fifth, the accused-appellant’s
defenses of denial and alibi lack merit. His denial lacked corroboration. His
alibi, on the other hand, did not foreclose the commission of the rapes. His
alibi was in fact directly contradicted by the complainant who unequivocally and
positively identified him as the one who sexually molested her on the three
occasions charged.
The
qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority between
the complainant and the accused-appellant had adequately been proven by the
complainant’s presented Birth Certificate showing
The CA correctly reduced the death penalty to reclusion
perpetua for each count of rape pursuant to Section 3[13]
of Republic Act No. 9346.[14]
The same section, however, imposes the condition that the accused cannot be
eligible for parole. A modification of
the civil liability awarded is in order, pursuant to the ruling in People v. Mariano.[15]
For the commission of
qualified rape, the accused-appellant is liable to pay the complainant P75,000.00 as civil indemnity;
P75,000.00 as moral damages;
and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in each case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the decision dated P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity; (2) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages in each count of the rapes.
SO
ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice Chairperson |
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO
A. ABAD
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
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Dated
[2]
Dated
[3]
[4] People v. Espino, Jr., G.R.
No. 176742,
[5] 310 Phil 237 (1995).
[6]
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] People v. De Guzman, 423 Phil 313, 317 (2001).
[10] Records, p. 141; People v. Canoy, 459 Phil 933, 946 (2003).
[11]
[12] People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 173471,
[13] Section 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
[14]
An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
[15] G.R.
No. 168693,