Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
THE PEOPLE OF THE
|
|
G.R. No. 174484 |
|
|
|
|
|
Appellee, |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUNO, C.J., |
|
|
|
QUISUMBING, |
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, |
|
|
|
CARPIO, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CARPIO MORALES, |
|
- versus - |
|
TINGA, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
VELASCO, Jr., |
|
|
|
NACHURA, |
|
|
|
REYES, |
|
|
|
DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
BRION, and |
|
|
|
PERALTA, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
FELIX ORTOA y
OBIA, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Appellant. |
|
February 23, 2009 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) dated
The facts of the case are as follows:
AAA[3] is the
eldest while BBB is the second among eight children of common-law spouses Felix
Ortoa (appellant) and CCC.
In 1991, when AAA was only three years
old, appellant started sexually molesting her each time her mother was at work.
Appellant undressed her and ordered her to lie down on the wooden bed. He then inserted his finger into her vagina
causing her to cry, as she felt pain. AAA
did not narrate any of these incidents to anyone, as she thought that she and
appellant were just playing games.[4]
In 1994, when AAA reached the age of six,
appellant started having sexual intercourse with her. Whenever CCC was at work, he would put AAA's
siblings to sleep. Once AAA's siblings are asleep, appellant would close the
door and windows. He would undress AAA,
insert his penis into her vagina and make push and pull movements. Appellant would only stop after he ejected a
sticky white substance from his organ. AAA cried each time she was violated, but she
never attempted to report these incidents to anyone, because she did not know
that what her father was doing to her was a crime. Appellant repeatedly had carnal knowledge of
AAA, and it was only when the latter reached the age of 12 that she realized
that she was being sexually abused.[5]
In December 1999, AAA experienced
profuse bleeding (dinugo) which lasted for several days. It was during this incident that she confessed
to her mother that she was being sexually abused by appellant.[6] CCC confronted appellant, but did not file a
complaint against him.[7]
The last time that appellant had sexual
intercourse with AAA was on
As to BBB, appellant started sexually
abusing her when she was eight years old.
Everytime she and her father were left inside their house, the latter
would close the door, undress her, partially insert his penis into her vagina
and slide it into her labia.[9]
Sometime in October 2000, she was
summoned by appellant and was told to close the windows and the door of their
house. Thereafter, appellant told her to
lie down on their wooden bed. At that
time, her mother was at work while her older sister, AAA, went to school. BBB's younger siblings were at home with her
and appellant. When BBB was already
lying on the bed, appellant directed her to remove her underwear. Appellant then went on top of her, placed his
left knee on her right thigh, pulled his short pants and briefs down to his
knees and inserted his erect penis into her vagina. BBB felt pain and cried quietly. Appellant did push and pull movements. After emitting a sticky white substance from
his penis, appellant lay down beside BBB and told her not to tell anybody about
what he did, otherwise he would hit her. BBB then stood up and started to prepare her
things, as she was about to go to school.[10]
On
On
Subsequently, three separate Informations[15]
which were all dated
In Criminal Case No. MC01-386-FC-H:
That sometime in
1994, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs and by
means of force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge, with her [sic] own daughter one [AAA], a
minor (6 years old), against her will and consent, thus debasing and/or
demeaning the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[16]
In Criminal Case No. MC01-387-FC-H:
That sometime in
October 2000, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
designs and by means of force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge, with her [sic] own daughter
one [BBB], a minor (9 years old), against her will and consent, thus debasing
and/or demeaning the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[17]
In Criminal Case No. MC01-388-FC:
That sometime in
1991, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs did, then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness
with her [sic] own daughter one [AAA], a minor, three (3) years old girl, by
then and there inserting his finger to the vagina of the victim, against the
latter's will and consent. Thus debasing and/or demeaning the intrinsic worth
and dignity of the child as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[18]
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.[19]
Pre-trial conference followed. Thereafter, trial ensued.
On
WHEREFORE, finding
accused FELIX ORTOA y OBIA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for two counts
of RAPE and for ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
following penalty.
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.
MC01-386-FC-H:
The supreme penalty of
DEATH; and to pay
[AAA] P75,000.00 as indemnity; and P50,000.00
as moral damages.
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.
MC01-387-FC-H
The supreme penalty of
DEATH; and to pay
[BBB] P75,000.00 as indemnity; and P50,000.00
as moral damages.
IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.
MC01-388-FC
The penalty of Indeterminate Sentence of RECLUSION
TEMPORAL MEDIUM or imprisonment of sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and
eleven (11) days, as minimum to eighteen (18) years, two (2) months and twenty
(20) days, as maximum;
And to pay
BBB [sic][21] P50,000.00
as moral damages.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to
prepare the mittimus and to transmit the complete records of this case to the
Honorable Supreme Court for automatic review.
SO ORDERED.[22]
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on
In its Resolution dated
After a review of the cases, the CA rendered its decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the P25,000.00 to [AAA] and P25,000.00 to
[BBB].
Regarding Criminal
Case No. MC01-388-FC, the judgment of conviction for acts of lasciviousness is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION, in that the accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to
an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor,
as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum, and to
pay the victim, [AAA] P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Let the entire
records of this case be elevated to the Supreme Court for its review, pursuant
to A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC (Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
to Govern Death Penalty Cases) which took effect on
SO ORDERED.[27]
The case was then elevated to this Court for review.
Appellant's Assignment of Errors in his
Brief is as follows:
I
THE TRIAL
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY IN CRIMINAL CASE
NO. MC01-387-FC-H WHEN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PROVES OTHERWISE.
II
THE COURT A
QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE VERSION OF THE DEFENSE.[28]
The Court finds appellant's contentions untenable.
To determine the innocence or guilt of
the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three well-entrenched
principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the
accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused,
though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things,
only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of
the complainant should be scrutinized with great 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.[29]
Accordingly, in resolving rape cases,
primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[30] The settled rule is that the trial court’s
conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally
accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there
appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which
the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered,
would alter the result of the case.[31]
Having seen and heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial
court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility.[32] Findings of the trial court on such matters
are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or
misinterpreted.[33]
No such facts or circumstances exist in
the present case.
Both the RTC and the CA are in agreement that AAA and BBB were
categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, convincing, clear and candid in
their testimonies that their father raped them. The same is true with respect to AAA's
testimony that appellant committed acts of lasciviousness against her.
Appellant contends that the probable reason why private complainants and
their mother filed criminal complaints is that they bore grudges against him
for bringing problems to their family, particularly because of his having
sexual relations with a woman other than his wife and for inflicting harm on
AAA as a means of imposing discipline upon her because appellant caught her
having sexual intercourse with her boyfriend.[34]
Appellant's claim deserves scant consideration. The Court finds it incredible for private
complainants and their mother to trump up charges of rape and acts of
lasciviousness against appellant because they wanted to exact revenge on him
for the simple reason that he caused them problems. No woman would cry rape, allow an examination
of her private parts, subject herself to humiliation, go through the rigors of
public trial and taint her good name if her claim were not true.[35] Both AAA and BBB testified that
they were
aware that if their father would be found guilty
as charged, he would suffer the penalty of death.[36]
It takes a certain amount of psychological
depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which could cause the
loss of
life of her own father and drag the rest of the family, including herself, to a
lifetime of shame.[37]
Moreover,
CCC would not allow her children to be exposed to a public trial,
if the charges she made were not true. No mother would consider subjecting her own
daughters to the shame, humiliation, disgrace, exposure, anxiety and
tribulation attendant to a public trial for rape -- which in all
likelihood would result in the incarceration, if not death, of the father of
her children for the rest of his life -- if she were not motivated
solely by the desire to have the person responsible for the defloration of her
daughters apprehended and punished.[38] In fact, when asked how she felt upon learning
that it was her husband who molested their daughters, CCC testified that she
was furious.[39]
The Court is not persuaded by appellant's arguments that it is
inconceivable for AAA to only report her rape and molestation to the
authorities when she was already 13 years old, considering that she claimed
that appellant started to sexually assault her when she was only 3 years old;
that her natural reaction would be to tell her ordeal to her mother right away;
that if complainants really wanted to protect themselves, it was
uncharacteristic for them not to tell their molestation to anyone as there was
no threat to their lives, nor was there anything that would have prevented them
from divulging their sufferings.
The settled rule is that not all rape victims can be expected to act
conformably to the usual expectations of everyone else; and that different and
varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in
confronting, an aberrant episode.[40]
It is well-settled that different people
react differently to a given situation or type of situation.[41]
There is no standard form of reaction
for a woman when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as a sexual
assault.[42]
The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable,
and people react differently some may shout, some may faint, and some may be
shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion.[43]
However, any of these conducts does not
impair the credibility of a rape victim.
Furthermore, the Court has held in a line of cases that long silence and
delay in reporting the crime of rape have not
always been construed as indications of a false accusation.[44] This principle applies with greater force where, as in this case, the
victims were of tender age at the time of the rape incidents and were therefore
susceptible to intimidation and threats of physical harm, especially from a
close relative.[45]
Contrary to appellant's claim that the
victims were not threatened, AAA testified that everytime appellant raped her
and she tried to shout, the former spanked her;[46] that
she developed a feeling of fear every time her father was around.[47] Furthermore, AAA's failure to immediately
inform anyone of her ordeal in the hands of her father was understandable,
considering that at her very tender age she had as yet no idea that what
appellant was doing to her was a crime. As
testified to by AAA, it was only when she was 12 years old that she came to
understand that she was being sexually abused by her father.[48] BBB testified, on the other hand, that
appellant told her not to tell anybody about what he did to her; otherwise, he
would hit her.[49]
With
respect to CCC, she sufficiently explained that her delay in reporting the
sexual abuses committed by appellant against their two daughters was due to the
fact that she and their children were dependent upon appellant for support, and that she could
not raise their children on her own; that she finally mustered enough courage
to file a complaint against appellant, because she
felt that she had no other choice and she also wanted said abuses to stop.[50]
The Court is not persuaded by appellant's contention that BBB was never
sexually abused because the medico-legal findings showed that she was still in
a virgin state when she was examined.
The medico-legal expert who examined BBB
testified that it was possible for a male organ to penetrate the labia
minora and leave the hymen still intact.[51] Moreover, the Court has ruled in a number of
cases that the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse.[52]
A freshly broken hymen
is not an essential element of rape.[53]
Even the fact that the
hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the
possibility of rape.[54]
Research in medicine even points out that
negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn
despite repeated coitus.[55]
In any case, for rape
to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary.[56]
Penile invasion necessarily entails
contact with the labia.[57] It suffices that there is proof of the
entrance of the male organ into the labia
of the pudendum of the female
organ.[58]
Penetration of the penis by entry into
the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is
enough to justify a conviction for rape.[59]
In the present
case, BBB categorically testified that appellant initially slid his penis into
her labia but later on directly inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her
to feel pain.
It is wrong for
appellant to contend that BBB simply claimed that she was raped “without even a
modicum of details how the act was done.” BBB's testimony specified the acts committed
by appellant when he violated her in October 2000, to wit:
Q: Could you tell us how did this rape
incident happen on [sic] October 2000?
A: He called me and he told me to close
the door and the windows.
Q: You are referring to whom?
A: My father.
Q: After telling you to close the
windows and the door, what happened
next [BBB]?
A: He called me and he made me lie down
on the wooden bed.
Q: Where did this happen [BBB]?
A: In our house.
Q: Would you say that this happen [sic]
in your room?
A: No sir, in our house.
Q: How many rooms are there in your
house?
A: Only one (1) sir.
Q: Who were present when your father
called you and made you lie on the bed after closing the windows and the door?
A: My siblings.
Q: Could you tell us the names of your
siblings?
A: Christian, Kristel, J.R. and myself.
Q: What happened to your mother, where
is [sic] she at that time?
A: She's at work.
Q: What about your older sister, where
was she at that time?
A: She went to school.
Q: While you were lying on the wooden
bed, could you tell us what happened?
A: He made me remove my panty at “tinandayan
po niya ako”.
Q: What were you wearing at that time?
A: I was wearing a duster.
Q: Could you please (s)how that [sic] “tinandayan”
was?
A: While I was lying on the wooden bed
after removing my panty, my Papa Felix Ortoa went to [sic] top of me “tinandayan
po nya ako” (at this juncture, the witness demonstrated how “tinandayan”
is and at that point, the witness demonstrated that the left knee of her father
was on top of her right thigh while the left knee was atop the wooden bed and
it was at the said instance that the father inserted his penis to her vagina,
at this juncture, using the Court herself as reference reacted the part of
[BBB] and [BBB] herself was the one who acted as Felix Ortoa.
Court:
Any other fiscal?
Prosecutor Laron:
While your father was on top of
you, what was he wearing at that time [AAA]?
Witness:
He simply pulled down his shorts
and brief up [sic] to his knee and he inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q: Are you sure that his penis was
inserted into your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why are you so sure that his penis
was already inserted to your vagina?
A: It was painful.
Q: Because of that pain, what did you
do Miss Witness?
A: I cried secretly.
Q: What happened next after your
father's penis was in your vagina?
A: He finished, sir.
Prosecutor Laron:
What does it mean when you say
he's finished?
Witness:
He was finished raping me. After
he raped me, which means that he had already emitted a white sticky substance
and he separated his body from my body.
Q: Where did you see that white sticky
substance?
A: In my father's penis and in my
vagina.
Q: Could you tell us [BBB] how long did
it take from the time that he inserted his penis to your vagina up to the time
he emitted this white sticky substance from his penis?
A: I cannot remember but it took a
little while after the sticky substance was emitted from his penis.
Q: Could you tell us what else did your
father do between that time that he inserted his penis to your vagina up to the
time he emitted that white sticky
substance from his penis?
A: None, sir.
Q: Was he not moving his body while on
top of you?
A: He was doing the push and pull
action (the witness was demonstrating how it was done by the father)
Q: Could you tell us what happened
after you saw that white sticky substance from his penis and you also saw from
your vagina?
A: My father removed his penis
thereafter.[60]
With respect to the criminal
offense of acts of lasciviousness, the elements of the crime as defined and
penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:
(1) That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) That it is done under any of the
following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived
of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
or
c. When the offended party is under 12
years of age; and
(3) That
the offended party is another person of either sex.[61]
In the instant
case, AAA testified how she was molested by appellant when she was between the
ages of three and six years, to wit:
FISCAL LARON:
Let us first go to your
testimony that [sic] what he did to you [AAA]?
WITNESS:
When I was three (3) years old,
each time my mother was not around and only us who were left behind my father
would asked [sic] me to undress.
FISCAL LARON:
Did you comply?
WITNESS:
Yes.
FISCAL LARON:
After undressing what happen [sic]
next?
WITNESS:
He inserted his finger into my
vagina.
FISCAL LARON:
You are referring to who Madam
witness?
WITNESS:
My father Felix Ortoa.
FISCAL LARON:
And could you still recall how
many times he did it to you?
WITNESS:
Several times.
FISCAL LARON:
How do you feel when he inserted
he's [sic] finger into your vagina.
WITNESS:
Painful.
FISCAL LARON:
What part of your body is
painful?
WITNESS:
My vagina.
FISCAL LARON:
You also stated that he did this
several times in each occasion could you still recall how long did it take your
father to insert? [sic]
WITNESS:
I cannot recall how long he did
it.
FISCAL LARON:
And once he's [sic] finger in
your vagina, what is he doing then?
WITNESS:
He's just sitting.
COURT:
What about you, where were you?
WITNESS:
While I was lying on our wooden
bed.
FISCAL LARON:
You stated that it was very
painful, you would not cry, that result of that finger that have inserted into
your vagina. [sic]
WITNESS:
I was crying.
FISCAL LARON:
Did you not shout?
COURT:
Your manifestation Fiscal, how
old is your client?
FISCAL LARON:
Your honor, the victim is 14
years old.
COURT:
At the time that incident took
place?
FISCAL LARON
At the time the incident took
place, that she was that started when she was three (3) years old. [sic]
COURT:
Now she's 14 years old, what is
your manifestation?
FISCAL LARON:
May we request your honor that
she be allowed to asked leading questions? [sic]
COURT:
Considering her minority and the
sensitivity of the question asked and the gravity of the offense, we allowed he
could asked leading questions. [sic]
FISCAL LARON:
Madam witness, did you not try
or asked for help, while it is in pain? [sic]
WITNESS:
I did not shout, I was just
crying.
FISCAL LARON:
When he was doing that, while
his finger was inserted into your vagina are there other persons inside the
room?
WITNESS:
There were no other persons, we
were usually alone.
FISCAL LARON:
Where is your mother while doing
this? [sic]
WITNESS:
My mother was at work.
FISCAL LARON:
Until when did your father do
this thing, like inserting his finger into your vagina.
WITNESS:
While I was three (3) years old,
he inserting his finger, but when I was six (6) years old, he then started to insert his
penis into my vagina. [sic][62]
It is settled
that in cases of acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended
party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.[63]
Such are the testimonies of victims who
are young, immature, and have no motive to falsely testify against the accused,
as in the instant case.[64]
Against the
overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, appellant merely interposed the
defense of denial. Categorical and
consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the
part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of
denial.[65]
As earlier discussed, there is no
showing of any improper motive on the part of the victims to testify falsely
against the accused or to implicate him falsely in the commission of the crime;
hence, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and that
their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credence. Accordingly, appellant's weak defense of
denial cannot prosper.
As to the penalty imposed in Criminal
Case No. MC01-386-FC-H, the prevailing law at the time the crime was committed
in 1994 was still Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 6(1) of
which provides as follows:
x x x x
The death penalty shall also be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years
of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim.
x x x x
On
x x x x
The death penalty shall be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years
of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim:
x x x x
Thus, appellant was correctly sentenced
to death, as the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship
were properly alleged in the information and proved during trial by the
testimonies of the complainants,[66] their
mother[67] and the
appellant himself.[68] They were also supported by copies of the
birth certificates of complainants.[69]
However, in view of the enactment of
R.A. No. 9346[70]
on
The Court finds no error in the penalty imposed by the CA for the acts
of lasciviousness committed by appellant against AAA. The CA correctly ruled that the applicable law
at the time the crime was committed in 1991 was Article 336 of the Revised
Penal Code and not R.A. No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, which was
approved only on
Exemplary damage was correctly awarded by the CA, given the presence of
the qualifying aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship.[72]
However, the
award of exemplary damage with respect to AAA as victim of acts of
lasciviousness is reduced to P2,0000.00 in accordance with
jurisprudence.[73]
In
addition, AAA is also entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000.00
for acts of lasciviousness committed against her.[74]
The award of moral damages with respect to AAA and BBB as rape victims
is increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence,[75] while the
award of moral damages with respect to AAA as victim of acts of lasciviousness
is reduced to P30,000.00, also in consonance with jurisprudence.[76]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
In Criminal Case Nos. MC01-386-FC-H and MC01-387-FC-H, appellant is sentenced to suffer, in lieu of death, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole; the award of moral damages to AAA and BBB as victims of rape is
increased to P75,000.00 each.
In Criminal Case No. MC01-388-FC,
appellant is ordered to pay AAA the amount of P20,000.00 as civil
indemnity for the acts of lasciviousness committed against her; the award to AAA of moral damages is reduced
to P30,000.00, and exemplary damages, to P2,0000.00.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
(On official leave)
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate
Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
(On
official leave)
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
(On official leave)
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
(No part)
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
[1] Penned
by Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with the concurrence of Justices Amelita G.
Tolentino and Fernanda Lampas Peralta; CA rollo, p. 193.
[2] Referred
to as “Ortua” in some parts of the records.
[3] Consistent
with Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
of 2004), the real names of the rape victims in this case are withheld and,
instead, fictitious initials are used to represent them. Also, the personal
circumstances of the victims or any other information tending to establish or
compromise their identity, as well as those of their immediate family or
household members, are not disclosed in this decision; People v.
Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[4] TSN,
[5]
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10]
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN
[13]
[14]
[15] Another
criminal information for rape was filed against appellant involving the
incident that happened between him and AAA on
[16] Records,
p. 1.
[17] Records,
p. 19.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Should
be “AAA”.
[22] Records, pp. 246-247.
[23]
[24]
[25] CA
rollo, p. 190.
[26] G.R.
Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[27] CA
rollo, pp. 220-221.
[28]
[29] People
v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 171020,
[30] People
v. Noveras, G.R. No. 171349,
[31]
Id.
[32] People
v. Balonzo, G.R. No. 176153,
[33] People
v. Hermocilla, G.R. No. 175830,
[34] TSN,
[35] People
v. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 126538-39,
[36] TSN,
April 29, 2002, p. 60; TSN, May 27, 2002, p. 18.
[37] People
v. Brondial, G.R. No. 135517,
[38] People
v. Alimon, G.R. No. 87758,
[39] TSN,
August 15, 2002, pp. 33-34.
[40] People
v. San Antonio, Jr., G.R. No. 176633,
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[44] People
v. Mangubat, G.R. No. 172068, August 7, 2007, 529 SCRA 377, 392-393; People
v. Senieres, G.R. No. 172226, March
23, 2007, 519 SCRA 13; People v. Suarez, G.R. Nos. 153573-76, April 15,
2005, 456 SCRA 333, 346; People v. Ballester, G.R. No. 152279, January
20, 2004, 420 SCRA 379, 384.
[45] Id.
[46] TSN,
April 29, 2002, p. 49.
[47]
[48] TSN,
[49] TSN,
May 27, 2002, p. 9.
[50] TSN,
August 15, 2002, pp. 32-33.
[51] TSN,
September 12, 2002, p. 44.
[52] People
v. Operario, G.R. No. 146590,
[53] Id.
[54] Id.
[55] People
v. Basite, G.R. No. 150382,
[56] People
v. Operario, supra note 52.
[57] People
v. Operario, supra note 52.
[58] Id.
[59] Id.
[60] TSN,
May 27, 2002, pp. 5-8.
[61] Cabila
v. People, G.R. No. 173491,
[62] TSN,
April 29, 2002, pp. 5-9.
[63] People
v. Bon, G.R. No. 149199,
[64] Id.
[65] People
v. Quezada, G.R. Nos. 135557-58,
[66] TSN,
April 29, 2002, pp. 1-4; TSN, May 27, 2002, pp. 2-3, 17-18.
[67] TSN,
August 15, 2002, pp. 2-3.
[68] TSN,
March 17, 2003, pp. 2-3.
[69] Exhibits
“F” and “H,” pp. 141 and 144, original records.
[70] “An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”
[71] People
v. Ibañez, G.R. No. 174656,
[72] Article
2230, Civil Code; People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 169643, April 13, 2007,
521 SCRA 236, 253; People v. Gloria, G.R. No. 168476, September 27,
2006, 503 SCRA 742, 756.
[73] People
v. Ceballos, Jr., G.R. No. 169642,
[74] People
v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 176265,
[75] People
v. Ibañez, supra note 71; People v. Villanueva, supra note 72.
[76] People
v. Gabaldon, G.R. No. 174472,