PEOPLE OF THE
|
G.R. No. 174065
Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, carpio MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ. Promulgated: February 18, 2009 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O
N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION,
J.: |
|
|
|
|
We review in this petition for review on certiorari[1]
the decision (dated
Canares
was charged in two separate Informations for rape and attempted rape in
relation with Republic Act No. 7610 (the Child Abuse Law). These Informations
respectively state:
Criminal
Case No. TG-3255-99
That sometimes (sic) between
the year 1992 to 1995 at Barangay Sabutan, Municipality of Silang, Province of
Cavite, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd designs, by means of force, violence and intimidation and
taking advantage of his superior strength over the person of the victim who was
then nine (9) years old, did, then and there, willfully (sic), unlawfully and
feloniously, have carnal knowledge of one AAA[4],
against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
Criminal
Case No. SC-3261-00
That
on or about the 25th day of March, 1999, at Brgy. Sabutan,
Municipality of Silang, Province of Cavite, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs by means of force,
violence and intimidation and taking advantage of his superior strength over
the person of the victim who was sixteen (16) years old, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attempt to have carnal knowledge of one
AAA, against her will and consent, the above-named accused, having thus
commenced the commission of the crime of Rape directly by overt acts but which
nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes other than accused own
spontaneous desistance, that is, by reason of the timely arrival of BBB who hit
the head of herein accused with a base (sic) thereby preventing him from
further consummating the crime, to the damage and prejudice of said AAA.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
Canares, with the assistance of
counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to both charges.[7]
The trial court ordered a joint trial since the same parties and similar
subject matters and antecedent events were involved. At pre-trial, the parties made
no admission or stipulation of facts.[8]
The prosecution marked its documentary evidence with the reservation to present
additional evidence in the course of the trial.[9]
The defense did not mark any documentary evidence.
At the trial proper, the
prosecution presented the following as witnesses: AAA (the alleged victim), BBB
(the victim’s aunt), and Dr. Bernadette Madrid (the Director of the Philippine
General Hospital [PGH] Child Protection Unit). The defense relied on the sole testimony of
Canares who simply denied any sexual intercourse with AAA.
The Background
Facts & Developments
AAA
was born on
Canares
allegedly repeated the sexual abuse more than ten times between the first
incident in 1992 and 1995. He stopped
from 1996-1999.[11] AAA
attributed the gap to the lack of opportunity on Canares’ part; her uncle was
then always at home.[12]
Canares also began working as a tricycle driver and subsequently went to the
province where he temporarily stayed.[13] Except for the sexual abuse in 1992, AAA
could no longer remember the details of the other incidents. She was certain, however, that there was penile
penetration in every incident.[14]
The last incident that
immediately gave rise to the present charges occurred on
On
Canares
denied the accusations against him.[19]
He claimed that the charges were filed against him at the instance of AAA’s
grandmother and uncle because of the nonpayment of his salary as a farm hand
and as a tricycle driver. AAA’s uncle also allegedly failed to pay him a
previous loan of P10,000.[20]
He also claimed that it was impossible
for him to rape AAA because she came to live at her grandmother’s house only in
1997.[21]
He argued that the rape could not have possibly occurred considering the number
of people staying in the house; a shout from someone being assaulted could
easily be heard in the house.[22]
The RTC gave greater credence
to the prosecution’s evidence, particularly, the testimony of AAA which it
found to be straightforward, truthful, and convincing.[23]
The trial court observed that AAA’s young age and gender rendered it unlikely that
she would concoct a story of defloration that would subject her to public trial
and ridicule.[24] At
the same time, the RTC rejected Canares’ unsubstantiated denial and held that
it cannot prevail over credible positive testimony.[25]
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
finding the guilt of the accused ROLLY CANARES Y ALMARANES to be beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of
RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused is also ordered to indemnify
the victim Catherine Amodente the sum of Php100,000.00 as moral damages. Costs
against the accused.
SO ORDERED.[26]
The RTC acquitted Canares of the crime of attempted
rape for the prosecution’s failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt:
…From the preponderance
of evidence presented, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused
in this case beyond reasonable doubt. The court therefore ACQUITS the accused
Rolly Canares of the crime of “Attempted Rape” and the case against him is
DISMISSED.[27]
The
CA affirmed with modification Canares’ rape conviction, ruling as follows:[28]
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated
SO ORDERED.[29]
In his Appeal Brief,[30]
Canares raises the lone issue:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
Canares
contends that he should not have been convicted of rape because the Information
was defective: it failed to specify with certainty when the alleged rape was
committed. He argues that the allegation that the rape was committed “sometime between the year 1992 to 1995”
is very broad, considering particularly AAA’s testimony that she was raped more
than 10 times. He posits that since the specific incident of rape for which he
was convicted is uncertain, the doubt should be resolved in favor of his acquittal.
In
their Brief,[31]
the People maintain that Canares’ rape conviction is backed by the evidence on record.
The argument that the Information was defective should also fail because the
allegation of the exact date and time of the rape is not a material point in
charging the accused of rape. In any case, this alleged defect was cured when
AAA testified that Canares raped her “in one
evening of 1992.”[32]
The Court’s Ruling
We
find no reason to overturn the conviction of Canares and hereby confirm his
guilt for the crime of statutory rape committed against AAA sometime in 1992.
The Procedural Issue
The
argument that the Information in Criminal Case No. TG-3255-99 is
defective for the prosecution’s failure to allege the date and time of the rape
is far from novel. We have repeatedly met and debunked
this line of argument in rape cases.
An
information, under Section 6, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, is deemed sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of
the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. Section 11 of the
same Rule also provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or
information the precise date the offense was committed except when the date of
commission is a material element of the offense. The offense may thus be
alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date
of its commission. At the minimum, an
indictment must contain all the essential elements of the offense charged to
enable the accused to properly meet the charge and duly prepare for his
defense.[33]
Following
these principles, we held in People v.
Bugayong[34] that
when the time given in the information is not the essence of the offense, such time
does not need to be proven as alleged; the complaint will be sustained if the
proof shows that the offense was committed at any time within the period of the
statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action. We again
emphasized this doctrine in the case of People v. Rafon,[35] when we held it
unnecessary to state in the information the precise date when the offense was
committed, except when it is an essential element of the offense.
People v. Lizada, [36] specifically involving the charge of rape, followed the
above general principle; we stated that an information for rape is not rendered
defective for failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed. The reason for this is plain: the precise date
of the commission
of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.[37] The gravamen of the
crime of rape is carnal knowledge of the woman under any of the circumstances
provided by law.[38]
Thus,
we have ruled that allegations of rape in the information committed, “sometime
in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,”[39]
“on or about and sometime in the year 1988,”[40]
or “from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,”[41]
“sometime in the year 1982 and dates subsequent thereto,” and “sometime in the
year 1995 and subsequent thereto,”[42]
all constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11 of Rule 110. In People v. Salalima, we also ruled that
the allegation that the sexual assaults were committed, “sometime during the
month of March 1996 or thereabout,” or “sometime during the month of April 1996
or thereabout,” and also, “sometime during the month of May 1996 or thereabout”
substantially informed the accused of the crimes charged since all the elements
of rape were stated in the informations. [43]
The situation in the present
case can be directly compared with People
v. Bugayong[44] where the information charged that the accused committed
multiple rapes “before and until
In this regard, AAA
unequivocally and repeatedly stated that the first sexual intercourse Canares
had with her occurred sometime in 1992.[46] Following Bugayong,
this statement removes from Canares any reason to complain that he was not
adequately informed of the charge against him before he was arraigned. The Information referred to a rape that
started in 1992 and this first incident was sufficiently narrated in AAA’s
statements before and after arraignment. Canares never raised this argument in
any motion filed with the trial court before his arraignment. He likewise fully
participated in the trial on the merits without raising this argument; he
cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and formally objected to the
prosecution’s offer of evidence. Raised
for the first time in this appeal, we can only label the argument as a
desperation move that is too late in the day for the defense to make.[47]
We add that while AAA
testified that Canares had raped her more than 10 times, Canares was not
charged for all ten rapes. The
Information only sought to hold him liable for a single count of rape committed
“sometime between 1992 to 1995.” The Information is very specific, too, that
the victim was then nine (9) years old so that the rape referred to was the
incident on or about 1992, given that AAA was born in September 1982. In her Sinumpaang Salaysay that became the
basis for the Information,[48] AAA clearly stated that
Canares raped her when she was 9 years old, but did not report it to her
parents because she was scared.[49] (AAA would have been 9
years old if the rape occurred before September 8, 1992.) At the trial, on the other hand,
AAA was firm and categorical about the fact of rape and of Canares’ identity as
the perpetrator.[50] Thus, AAA clearly referred to the first
incident of rape that happened around
In any event, even if the information failed to
allege with certainty the time of the commission of the rapes, the defect, if
any, was cured by the evidence presented during the trial and any objection
based on this ground must be deemed waived as a result of accused-appellant’s
failure to object before arraignment.[54]
Substantive Issue
Statutory rape is committed by sexual
intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent to the
act or lack of it.[55] Proof of force, intimidation or consent is
unnecessary; force is not an element of statutory rape and the absence
of free consent is conclusively presumed when the complainant is below the age
of twelve.[56]
The law presumes that a woman below this age does not possess discernment and is
incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.[57]
To convict an accused of the crime
of statutory rape, the prosecution
must prove: first, the age of the
complainant; second, the identity of
the accused; and last but not the least,
the carnal knowledge between the accused and the complainant.[58]
The first and second elements
have been established by the presentation of a Certification from the Office of
the Municipal Civil Registrar of Silang,
Carnal knowledge is proven by
proof of the entry or introduction of the male organ into the female organ; the
“touching” or “entry” of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum
of the victim’s genitalia constitutes consummated rape.[61]
The prosecution proved this element when AAA narrated during the trial the
details of her rape, committed sometime in 1992, as follows:
Q: What did he do exactly to you?
A: He
touched my breasts and he inserted his private organ into mine, sir.
Q: Was
he able to insert his organ into yours?
A: Yes,
sir.
FISCAL
VELASCO, JR.:
Q:
Considering, as you said, that (sic) was the first time, how did you feel?
WITNESS:
A: It was painful, sir.[62]
x x x
x x x
COURT:
…
Q: How many times were
you abused on that evening?
WITNESS:
A: Once, your Honor.
Q: Was he able to penetrate your private organ on
that first night?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You mean he was able
to insert his penis into your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.[63]
Parenthetically, the pain that AAA said she
suffered is, in itself, an indicator of the commission of rape. We so held in People v. Tampos[64] and People v. Borromeo.[65] There is the added element, too, that AAA’s testimony is supported by physical and supporting
testimonial evidence. There was the
healed laceration found in her hymen which is remarkably compatible with her claim
of sexual molestation. Dr.
Both
the RTC and CA found the above testimony straightforward,
truthful and convincing.[67] AAA’s identification of
Canares as the culprit was positive,
categorical and consistent and devoid
of any showing of ill-motive on her part.[68] We find no reason to disturb these findings. Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a female
victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, because no woman would willingly
undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of
exposing her own degradation except to condemn the injustice done and to secure
the offender’s apprehension and punishment.[69] Testimonies of youthful rape victims are, as
a general rule, given full faith and credit, considering that when a girl says
she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
was indeed committed.[70] In this case, she
could not have come up with a detailed narration of what she suffered if the
rape, in fact, did not really happen.
Canares mainly interposed
the defense of denial, an inherently weak defense that must be buttressed by
strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[71] As negative evidence, it pales in comparison
with a positive testimony that asserts the commission of a crime and the
identification of the accused as its culprit. We find that the facts in this
case do not present any exceptional circumstance warranting a deviation from
these established rules.
Canares likewise claimed
before the RTC that the rape as alleged did not take place since AAA was not
living at her grandmother’s house from 1992 up to 1995. We find this argument untenable.
AAA refuted this claim during her direct examination when she stated that she
was already living at her grandmother’s house as early as 1991.[72] The defense utterly
failed to disprove this testimony when AAA was cross-examined. Canares, for his
part, made inconsistent statements about this claim during his own
cross-examination. Under this
evidentiary situation, we give weight to what AAA had declared.
A last defense was the
imputation of ill motives on AAA by making it appear that the criminal cases
were filed for monetary reasons. We find this argument contrary to human
experience. We find it inconceivable that
a child’s future and a family’s reputation would be placed at risk and
exposed to possible humiliation and dishonor for the trifling reasons Canares
gave. If Canares had not really been paid his salaries, then he, not AAA and
her family, would have the motivation to carry a grudge. Furthermore, the
imputation lacks corroboration as it is supported only by Canares’ self-serving
testimony. For these reasons, it does
not merit any evidentiary value.
The Penalty
The Information for statutory rape immediately tells us that the crime
charged was committed prior to the passage of the law imposing death for rape
cases[73]
and the new rape law.[74]
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the law then in place, provided:
Article
335. When and how rape is committed. ─ Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age …
The
crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
x x x
Considering that AAA’s
minority was sufficiently alleged and
proven during trial without objection on the part of the defense, both the RTC
and CA correctly imposed the proper penalty of reclusion perpetua.
We affirm the awards
of civil indemnity and moral damages the lower courts imposed. These awards are consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence.[75]
Civil indemnity is
awarded on the finding that rape was committed.[76]
Similarly, moral damages are awarded to rape complainants without need of
pleading or proof of their basis; it is assumed that a rape complainant
actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to this award.[77]
In addition, we
also award exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000. The award of
exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who
abuse and corrupt the youth.[78] The commission of the
crime in AAA’s grandmother’s dwelling, although not alleged in the Information
(as now required by Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure[79]), was duly proven and can
also serve as basis for the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of
the Civil Code as we ruled in People v. Blancaflor[80]
and People v. Catubig.[81] We
held in Catubig that the retroactive application of procedural rules
cannot adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have
become vested prior to its effectivity.[82] We reiterated this
doctrine in People v. Victor[83]
and People v. Legaspi.[84]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
hereby AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the decision dated P25,000 as exemplary damages
to AAA.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo,
pp. 3-11; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate
Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas,
concurring.
[3] CA Rollo, pp. 17-27; penned by Hon.
Alfonso S. Garcia.
[4] The real name of the victim as well as
those of her immediate family members is withheld per Republic Act (R.A.) No.
7610 (An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes) and R.A.
No. 9262 (An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing
for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for
Other Purposes).
[5] I
Records, p. 1.
[6] II
Records, p. 1.
[7] I
Records, p. 30.
[8] I
Records, pp. 33-34.
[9] Order dated
[10] I
Records, pp. 7-8; TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
[13] Ibid.
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] Provisional
Medical Certificate; I Records, pp. 7-8.
[18] Conducted by Hon.
Ma. Victoria N. Cupin-Tesorero, the presiding
judge of the Second Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Silang-Amadeo,
[19] TSN,
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] CA
Rollo, p. 25.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] Previously,
we transferred the initial review of the case to the CA via Resolution dated
[29] Rollo, p. 11.
[30] CA
Rollo, pp. 54-65.
[31]
[32]
[33] Pamaran,
The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure Annotated, 67 [2001 ed.].
[34] G.R. No. 126518,
[35] G.R. No. 169059,
[36] G.R. Nos. 143468-71,
[37] Ibid.
See People v. Gianan, G.R. Nos. 135288-93, September 15, 2000, 340 SCRA 481,
486; People v. Salalima, G.R. Nos. 137969-71, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 192, 201; People v. Escaño, G.R. Nos. 140218-23, February 13, 2002, 376 SCRA
670, 686; People v. Rafon, supra
note 35, pp. 380-381; and People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 167756, April
9, 2008, 551 SCRA 16, 28.
[38] Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
before its amendment.
[39] People v. Magbanua, G.R. No.
128888,
[40] People v.
[41] People v. Garcia, G.R. No.
120093,
[42] People v. Espejon, G.R. No.
134767,
[43] Supra
note 37, p. 202.
[44] Supra
note 34, p. 541.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Sinumpaang
Salaysay, Preliminary Examination dated
[47] People v. Nazareno, supra note 37, p. 30.
[48] Dated
[49]
Records, p. 6.
[50] TSN,
[51]
[52] Supra note 37.
[53]
CA Rollo, p. 92.
[54] Supra
note 52, p. 487.
[55] People
v. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos.
132875-76,
[56] People
v. Escultor, G.R. Nos.
149366-67,
[57] People v. Jalosjos, supra note 55, p. 219.
[58] People v. Mingming, G.R. No. 174195,
[59] I
Records, p. 10.
[60] Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated
[61]
People v. Aguiluz, G.R. No. 133480,
[62] TSN,
[63]
[64]
G.R. No. 142740,
[65]
G.R. No. 150501
[66] TSN,
[67] CA
Rollo, pp. 25-26; and rollo, pp. 7-8.
[68]
[69] People
v. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 140333-34,
[70] People
v. Pacheco, G.R. No. 142887,
[71] People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 135027,
[72] TSN,
[73] Republic
Act No. 7659 took effect on
[74] Republic
Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 took effect on
[75] People v. Codilan. G.R. No. 177144, July 23, 2008; People v. Custodio, G.R. No. 176062, July 4, 2008, People v. Moriño, G.R. No. 176265, April 30, 2008; People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 333, 352; People v. Limos, G.R. Nos. 122114-17, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 183, 205.
[76] People v. Jalosjos, supra note 55, p. 220.
[77] People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168,
[78] People v. Pacheco, supra. note 70, p. 178.
[79] Sec.
8. Designation of the offense.
- The complaint or information shall
state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing it.
Sec. 9. Cause
of the accusations. - The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must
be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language
used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding
to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
[80]
G.R. No. 130586,
[81]
G.R. No. 137842,
[82]
[83]
G.R. No. 127904,
[84] G.R. No. 137283,