THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, -
versus – FELIX PALGAN, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 186234 Present: Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, PERALTA,
and Promulgated: December
21, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
R E S O L U T I O N
NACHURA, J.:
For final review by the Court is the
trial court’s conviction of appellant Felix Palgan for rape. In the October 29, 2008 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00169, the appellate court affirmed
with modification the June 24, 2002 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Kidapawan City, Cotabato in Criminal
Case Nos. 191-98 and 214-98.
Angelina
Palgan and appellant Felix Palgan were married on January 31, 1984. Out of their marriage, they begot three
children, namely: Abner, Rene and Fe. Before
their marriage, Angelina had a daughter named AAA by a man named “Jun,” whose
surname she could no longer recall.
On March 16, 1997, at around seven o’clock
in the evening, AAA, then fourteen (14) years old, was ordered by appellant to
go to the rubber plantation, which was about forty (40) meters from their
house, both of which places were located in Old Bulatukan, Makilala,
Cotabato. At the plantation, appellant
inquired if AAA was mad at him, because he learned that she was spreading
stories that he was not her father. When
she denied this, appellant got angry and removed her dress and panty, laid her down
and mounted her. He then undressed
himself, held his penis and forcibly inserted it into her vagina. AAA cried and told appellant that it was
painful. AAA testified that, after about
ten (10) minutes of the push and pull movement, appellant shivered, and that
some substance spilled onto her thighs. She
did not tell anyone about the incident because appellant threatened her.
On September 9, 1997, at around eight
o’clock in the evening, while her mother was away, AAA testified that she was
sleeping on the bed, while her three (3) siblings lay on the floor; that appellant
woke her up and told her to transfer to the floor, which she obeyed; that he
turned the lights off and then touched her cheeks and breasts; that he removed her
shorts and panty, while he raised her shirt up to her armpits; and that he
removed his shorts and brief, took hold of his penis, and inserted it into her
vagina. AAA stated that appellant did
the push and pull movement for about ten (10) minutes. Afterwards, she observed that appellant had a
chilling motion and that she felt a slippery substance spill onto her
thighs. Appellant then put on his
clothes.
AAA kept quiet about the incident
until her mother, Angelina, discovered a letter in the former’s bag. The letter contained the phrase “he will get angry if I will not let him to
(sic) touch my body.” Angelina caused AAA to reveal that the latter was
raped by appellant.
On September 12, 1997, Angelina and AAA
reported appellant’s acts to the Makilala Police Station.
On the same date, AAA was examined by
Dr. Wilson Solis, Municipal Health Officer of Makilala, Cotabato. The internal examination of AAA revealed: “admits middle finger with ease; index and
middle finger with slight difficulty; vaginal wall is laxed (sic), not tense; and
cervix is firm and non-tender. Laxity of the vaginal wall could be due to
repeated manipulation or entry of a foreign body (e.g. glans penis).”
Consequently, two Informations for
rape were filed as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 214-98
That on September 9, 1997, in the
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 191-98
That on March 16, 1997, in the
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Appellant denied having sexual intercourse with AAA on
March 16, 1997, because he was at Sandique Rubber Plantation which was more
than one (1) kilometer away from their house in Old Bulatukan, Makilala,
Cotabato. He also maintained that on
September 9, 1997, when he arrived home, his wife was not there since she had
gone to Toril,
After
trial on the merits, the RTC rendered the June 24, 2002 Decision,[5]
convicting appellant of two (2) counts of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 191-98 and
214-98, and imposing the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count. The RTC
further ordered appellant to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.[6]
On
review, the appellate court affirmed with modification the ruling of the trial
court as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Judgment of
the court a quo finding appellant Felix
Palgan guilty for two (2) counts of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each count of Rape, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that appellant is to pay private
complainant, Michelle Palgan, P50,000.00 as Civil Indemnity for each
count of Rape, or a total of P100,000.00, and, P50,000.00 as
Moral Damages.
SO ORDERED.[7]
The case having been elevated to this Court, we now finally
review the trial and the appellate courts’ findings.
We affirm the conviction of appellant Palgan for two counts
of rape.
Three principles guide the courts in resolving rape cases:
(1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove
but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view
of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are
usually involved, the testimony of complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.[8]
The determination
of guilt of appellant depends primarily on the credibility of a victim. Her
testimony alone, if credible, would render
appellant’s conviction inevitable.
The rule is settled that the trial
court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses and of their testimonies are
entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, in the
absence of any clear showing that the court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected
the result of the case. This is because
the trial court, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed
their behavior and manner of testifying, is in a better position to decide the
question of credibility.[9]
In the case at bar, the trial court gave full
weight and credence to AAA’s testimony that appellant raped her on two
occasions. AAA testified in a clear, spontaneous
and candid manner; she positively identified
appellant as the person who raped her; and she stated that she was
unable to resist appellant because he was angry and strong.
AAA’s failure to resist or to cry for
help during those times that she was raped cannot be taken against her. Verily, when threat, intimidation and fear
are employed, as was done here by appellant, there is no need to establish
physical resistance. Certainly, an
added reason for her failure was her stepfather’s dominance over her. In rape committed by a father against his daughter,
the father’s moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitute for
violence and intimidation. The foregoing
principle applies in the case of a sexual assault of a stepdaughter by her
stepfather and of a goddaughter by a godfather in the sacrament of
confirmation.[10]
Moreover, no woman, especially one of
tender age like AAA, would concoct a rape complaint and would, at the same time,
allow a gynecological examination on herself, as well as subject herself to a
public trial if she were not motivated by the desire to have her offender
apprehended and punished.[11]
Appellant alleged that his wife
instigated AAA’s filing of the two rape charges against him because of his
adamant refusal to heed his wife’s request to sell his 2½-hectare farm land. However, such ill motive imputed to
appellant’s wife is too flimsy. This is
especially so, considering that it is unnatural for appellant’s wife to use her
daughter as an engine of malice, as no mother would stoop down so low as to
subject her own daughter to the hardships and shame concomitant to a
prosecution for rape, just to assuage the mother’s own hurt feelings. Furthermore, appellant’s wife would not have
dared encourage her daughter to publicly expose the dishonor of the family,
unless the crime was, in fact, committed.
On the other hand, appellant’s
defenses of denial and alibi that he was not in the place where the crimes were
allegedly committed are inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive
and categorical testimony of AAA that appellant forcibly had carnal knowledge
of her on two occasions.
Hence, the court a quo correctly convicted appellant of two counts of rape under
Article 266-A(1-a) of the Revised Penal Code for having carnal knowledge of AAA
through force, threat and intimidation.
Accordingly,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua was
properly meted out for each count of rape, pursuant to Article 266-B, paragraph
1 of the Revised Penal Code.
The
appellate court correctly ruled when it modified the amount of civil indemnity
that the lower court awarded to AAA. The
amount of P50,000.00 should have been given for each count of rape, or a
total of P100,000.00, as civil indemnity, which is actually in the
nature of actual or compensatory damages, and mandatory upon the finding of the
fact of rape.[12]
It,
however, erred when it only awarded P50,000.00 in moral damages. The amount of P50,000.00 should have
been given for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00, in
accordance with current jurisprudence,
which amount is automatically granted in a rape case without need of
further proof other than the fact of its commission. For it is assumed that a rape victim has
actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[13]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the October
29, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00169 is AFFIRMED WITH THE MODIFICATION that the
award for Moral Damages is increased to P100,000.00, or P50,000.00
for each count of rape.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
MARIANO C.
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
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 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 per Special Order No. 805 dated December 4, 2009.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Ruben C. Ayson, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 112-120.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision reads:
Prescinding from the foregoing considerations, the
accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape,
particularly found in Criminal Case Nos. 191-98 and 214-98, thus, he is meted
the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and to pay the victim the
amount of Fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as indemnity for rape and Fifty
thousand (P50,000.00) pesos for moral damages.
SO
ORDERED. (
[7] CA rollo, p. 119.
[8] People v. Glivano, G.R. No. 177565, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 656, 662; citing People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 318 (2004).
[9] People v. Pacina, G.R. No. 123150, August 16, 2000, 338 SCRA 195, 207.
[10] People v. Casil, 311 Phil. 300, 309 (1995).
[11] People v. Abad, 335 Phil. 712, 722 (1997).
[12] People v. Molleda, 463 Phil. 461, 471 (2003).
[13] People v. Codilan, G.R. No. 177144, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 623, 636.