PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - RESTITUTO C. VALENZUELA,
Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 182057
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairman, carpio MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and
BRION,
JJ. Promulgated: February 6, 2009 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C
I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
This is an appeal from the
ANTECEDENT FACTS
The
prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with the crime of rape under
two (2) Informations that read:
Criminal
Case No. 8880
That sometime in the year of 1994, and dates
subsequent thereto, at Brgy. Concepcion, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of
Masbate, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with deliberate intent and with lewd design, by means of
force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with his daughter, [AAA],[3] then a
nine-year old girl, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW[4]
Criminal
Case No. 8881
That sometime in the month of December, 1997,
at Brgy. Concepcion, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Philippines,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with
deliberate intent and with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with
his daughter, [AAA], a twelve-year-old girl, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
The
appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. The prosecution presented the
following witnesses in the trial on the merits that followed: AAA; Dr. Marilou
A. Hernandez (Dr. Hernandez); and
BBB. The appellant took the witness stand for the defense.
The
RTC summarized AAA’s testimony regarding the 1994 rape as follows:
Sometime in the year 1994 at about
x x x [Footnotes
referring to the pertinent parts of the record supplied]
AAA further testified that the
appellant repeatedly raped her from 1994 to 1998, the last incident being in
January 1998.[9] She gave birth on
Dr. Hernandez, the Municipal Health
Officer of Aroroy,
According to Dr. Hernandez, she did
not find any laceration or injuries on AAA’s private part. She attributed the absence
of injury to lapse of time; whatever injury there was had healed since the last
rape incident happened way back in December 1997.[12]
BBB, the mother of AAA, testified
that the appellant is her common-law husband, and that AAA is their eldest
daughter. She recalled that on
At BBB’s instructions, the sexual
abuse was reported to the police, leading to the appellant’s arrest.[14]
The appellant was the sole defense
witness and gave a different version of the events which the RTC summarized as
follows:
Accused Restituto
Valenzuela claimed that BBB is his common-law wife. They lived together as
husband and wife for quite a long time already. He forgot the date when they
started living together as husband and wife. Nor does he know exactly how many
years they have lived together. But he is aware that they have eight children.
The complainant AAA is his daughter with BBB.[15]
He denied the charges
that he raped his own daughter, AAA. The two charges of rape allegedly
committed in 1994 and 1997 against his own daughter, AAA, was [sic] all fabricated by his
brother-in-law, DDD. The latter was then mad at him because in one instance
there was a trouble in the store where he was then drinking and said brother in
law was there and he was able to club DDD. The latter insinuated AAA to file
these two cases of rape against him, her own father. That his own daughter had
been persuaded by his brother-in-law to file these two charges of rape against
him. He was also aware that AAA delivered a child and he had been pointed to be
the father of the child. The said accused denied having raped his own daughter,
AAA. He claimed that he had not done everything [sic] that his own daughter had charged against him thru the
insinuations of the material uncle of said AAA.[16] [Footnotes referring to the pertinent parts
of the record supplied]
The
RTC convicted the appellant on two (2) counts of qualified rape in its decision
of
WHEREFORE, having been found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape, accused RESTITUTO VALENZUELA y CENTENO is
hereby sentenced to suffer the capital penalty of DEATH by lethal injection in both Criminal Cases Nos. 8880 and
8881, to indemnify the victim AAA the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php50,000.00); to pay the said victim the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(Php75,000.00) as for moral damages; and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
SO
ORDERED.[17] [Emphasis in the original]
The
appellant appealed the RTC decision to the CA under docket number CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 01784. The CA affirmed the RTC decision with the following modifications:
(a) the penalty of death was reduced to reclusion
perpetua; (b) the award of civil indemnity was increased to P75,000.00;
and (c) the award of moral damages was reduced to P50,000.00.[18]
The
appellant contends in his Brief that the RTC erred in finding him guilty of the
crimes charged as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.[19]
THE COURT’S RULING
We
resolve to deny the appeal in Criminal Case No. 8880 and to grant
the appeal in Criminal Case No. 8881.
I.
Criminal Case No. 8880
Sufficiency of the
Prosecution Evidence
Rape
is defined and penalized under Article 335[20]
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,[21]
which provides:
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
or is demented.
x x x
Rape
under paragraph 3 of this article is termed statutory
rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing
rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal
knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force,
intimidation, and physical evidence of injury are immaterial; the only subject
of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.[22]
The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on
account of her tender years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of her
presumed incapacity to discern evil from good.[23]
AAA,
while recounting her ordeal, positively identified the appellant as the perpetrator;
she never wavered in this identification. To directly quote from the records:
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR ERNESTO M. SULAT, JR.:
Q: Do you recall any having experienced any
unusual incident with
your father
when you are just nine (9) years of age?
[AAA]:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you tell the Court what happened?
A: In
1994, I was raped by my father.
COURT:
Q: How did it happen?
A: When my mother was not around.
x x x
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR SULAT. JR.:
Q: And what happened when you were told by
your father to
get inside the room?
A: Then there I was raped by him.
COURT:
How
did it happen?
A: He forced me and he undressed me.
COURT:
Proceed.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR SULAT. JR.:
Q: Can you tell the Court, what happened
next?
[AAA]:
A: When my father undressed me, he sucked
my breast.
COURT:
You mean to say, at the age of nine (9) your
breast is [sic] already developed?
A: No, not yet, but there is [sic] already small breast.
Q: Then what happened after that?
A: He kept on kissing me, in my whole
body.
Q: In that instance, what did you do?
A: I tried to struggle.
COURT:
Proceed.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR SULAT. JR.:
Q: You said, you were undressed by your
father, what portion of your
dress [was]
taken off?
[AAA]:
A: He removed my short [sic].
Q: Only your short [sic]?
A: And also my panty.
Q: How about your upper garments?
A: He just raised it.
Q: After you were undressed, suck with [sic] your father, what did he do of [sic] the other part of your body?
A: Then
he fingered my vagina.
Q: And after that, what did your father do?
A:
Then he inserted his penis into my vagina.
COURT:
How
did you feel?
A:
I felt pain.
COURT:
Proceed.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR SULAT. JR.:
Q: You felt pain, where?
[AAA]:
A: In my vagina.
Q: Why
were you so sure that it was the penis of your father [that] penetrated in your
vagina?
A: Because
I feel [sic] it.
COURT:
Which is bigger, the sex organ of
your father or his finger?
A: The penis.
Q: So, that is why you concluded that it
was the penis which inserted [sic] to your vagina?
A: Yes, ma’am.
COURT:
Proceed.
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR SULAT. JR.:
Q: During that time that your father’s sex
organ [was] inside you, what was
your position with regard to your father?
[AAA]:
A: I was lying flat and my hands was
raised up.
COURT:
You
were lying down facing up, is that what you mean?
A: Yes, ma’am.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR SULAT. JR.:
Q: How long did [sic] your father sex organ inside you?
A:
I cannot estimate.
COURT:
Q: What was the position of your father?
[AAA]:
A: He was on top of me.
Q: Was he dressed or naked?
A: He just pulled down his dress.
Q: How about his brief?
A: He pulled down to his knees.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR SULAT. JR.:
Q: And what happened thereafter?
[AAA]:
A: Then he made pumping motion on me.
Q:
What were you doing while your
father made pumping motion?
A: I cried.
Q: Then what happened thereafter?
A: After that he stood up and he let me
stood [sic] up also.
Q: What did he tell you, if any?
A: He warned me not to tell to anybody or
else he will harm me.
Q: What did you notice with your sex organ
after that?
A: There is [sic] blood coming out.
x x x [24] [Emphasis ours]
Thus, not only did AAA identify his father as her rapist, but she also
recounted the rape in detail, particularly how the sexual intercourse took
place.
In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on
the testimony of the victim, provided the testimony is credible, natural,
convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[25] Our examination of the records shows no indication
that we should view AAA’s testimony in a suspicious light. Her account of her harrowing experience was
candid and straightforward. She remained
resolute and unswerving even on cross-examination.[26]
To our mind, her testimony deserves full
faith and credit.
In considering AAA’s testimony, we particularly took into
account her relationship with the person who sexually violated her. We find it highly unlikely that AAA would
fabricate an accusation of rape against her own father in view of the
seriousness of the charge and the social stigma that marks a woman sexually
abused by her own kin. Thus, in our
view, no less than evidence of the highest order is required to refute the
testimony of AAA and hold it unworthy of belief.
In
People v. Bon, we held:
Besides,
no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration,
allow an examination of her private parts, and subject
herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth been a victim of
rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.
Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since
when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says
in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been
committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.
The weight of such testimonies may be countered by physical evidence to the contrary,
or indubitable proof that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the absence of such countervailing proof, these
testimonies shall be accorded utmost value.[27]
A
major point in the appellant’s case is the lack of laceration or injury in
AAA’s private part indicating that she had been forcibly violated. Dr. Hernandez, however, duly explained that
the absence of any laceration or injury is due to the time that has lapsed
since the rape charged took place; any injury sustained would have been healed
since the rape alleged in Criminal Case No. 8880 was committed in 1994, while the
medical examination took place on August 7, 1998 (or four [4] years later). In
any case, we have held in several cases that the absence of fresh lacerations
does not preclude the finding of rape, as neither hymenal
rupture, vaginal laceration or genital injury is an element of the crime of
rape. Their absence does not negate a
finding of forced sexual coitus.[28] In the present case where statutory rape is charged, force is not
even an element that must be proven.[29]
The Appellant’s Defenses
The
appellant denied having raped AAA, insisting that AAA only filed her complaint
at the instigation of his brother-in-law, DDD, who was mad at him; he had struck
his brother-in-law at one time when they had an altercation.
Denial,
as a defense, is an inherently weak defense. It cannot prevail over positive
identifications, unless supported by strong evidence of lack of guilt.[30] In the context of this case, the appellant’s mere
denial, unsupported by any other evidence, cannot overcome the child-victim’s positive
declaration on the identity and involvement of the appellant in the crime
attributed to him.[31]
In
addition, we find the appellant’s allegation that AAA only complained at DDD’s
instigation, to be flimsy. Under the appellant’s own admission that he had a
harmonious relationship with AAA who grew up with him, we find it illogical and
beyond the limit of believability that an uncle could prevail upon her to
concoct a story and impute a bestial act against her very own father.
The Proper Penalty
The RTC found the appellant guilty of qualified rape under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and imposed on him the death penalty. The legal basis for the conviction assumes
special significance because R.A. No. 8353 took effect
only on
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 [Emphasis ours]
As shown
by her Certificate of Live Birth, AAA was born on
The evidence on record
shows that the appellant was the common-law husband of the
victim’s mother, BBB, at the time the rape was committed. However, this circumstance was not alleged in the Information. Hence,
the common-law relationship cannot be appreciated as a special circumstance to
qualify the crime even if it was duly proven at the trial; otherwise, the
appellant would be deprived of his right to be informed beforehand of the
charge against him.[32]
We note too that to be
appreciated as a special qualifying circumstance, minority and the special
relationship must both be pleaded and proven. In other words, in the absence of one or the
other or in the absence of the appropriate allegation in the Information and
proof, no special qualifying circumstance exists under Article 335. So it is with this case. With the required
relationship unavailable because of the prosecution’s failure to allege
relationship in the Information, no special qualifying circumstance under
Article 335 can be recognized and the death penalty cannot be imposed.[33]
The RTC thus erred in imposing the death penalty on the appellant.
The CA similarly erred
when it concurred with the imposition of the penalty of death on the appellant
based on the concurrence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship, although it imposed the reclusion
perpetua in light of R.A. No. 9346, entitled an “An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines” enacted on June 30, 2006. While the resulting penalty of reclusion perpetua is correct,
the basis should be Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code,[34]
not R.A. No. 9346. The conviction under Article 335 should be
based on the circumstance that the victim was below 12 years of age at the time
of the rape. The proper term for the offense should be statutory rape, not qualified rape that is based on the qualifying circumstances of age and
relationship.
The
Proper Indemnity
The award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is
mandatory upon the finding that rape took place.[35]
The imposable indemnity is P75,000.00 if the death penalty is imposed,
and P50,000.00 if the penalty is reclusion
perpetua. Since the latter is the
proper penalty, only P50,000.00 should be imposed as civil indemnity.
Moral damages – awarded to rape victims without need of
proof other than the fact of rape under the assumption that the victim suffered
moral injuries from the experience she underwent – finds full justification in
this case. This award is separate and distinct from the awarded civil indemnity.[36]
In light of current jurisprudence, we affirm the award of P50,000.00 as
moral damages.[37]
Finally, exemplary
damages in the sum of P25,000.00 are likewise imposed
on the appellant by way of example to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies
and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing their
daughters.[38]
II.
Criminal Case No. 8881
The appellant claims with respect to Criminal Case No. 8881 that his
conviction was not supported by evidence.
We agree.
The Information in Criminal Case No. 8881 alleged that the appellant had
carnal knowledge with AAA on December 1997. For precision and clarity, we
reproduce hereunder AAA’s testimony on the incident:
x x x x
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR ERNESTO M. SULAT, JR.:
Q: Until you reached this age nothing
happened?
[AAA]:
A: There is [sic].
Q: Then tell to this Court what happened.
A: He repeated again [sic]. He raped me.
COURT:
How
many times?
A: Many times.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR SULAT, JR.:
Q: Can you count in [sic] your
finger for how many?
A: I cannot remember.
COURT:
Meaning
to say, you were made sex slave by your father?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And when was the last time, if you can
still remember?
A: On [sic] January 1998.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR SULAT, JR.:
Q: You said, in your affidavit the last
time was on [sic]
x
x x
A: On [sic]
January 1998.
COURT:
There was already a statement that she cannot
understand but she can narrate the time that she can remember.
Q: You cannot remember the exact date?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: How did that happen?
A: He did the same thing to me.
Q: Who undressed you at the last time of
incident [sic]?
A: He was [sic].
Q: Doing all those incidents he did not
threaten you but he just made sexual intercourse against your will?
A: He threatened me.
Q: How did he threaten you?
A: Not to tell to anybody.
Q: On [sic] January 1998, where was your mother
then?
A: She went for weeding. [39]
Each and every charge of
rape is a separate and distinct crime that the law requires
to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[40] The prosecution’s evidence must pass the exacting test of moral certainty that the law
demands and the rules require to satisfy the burden of overcoming the appellant’s
presumption of innocence.[41]
We find AAA’s testimony
in this second charge of rape to be overly
generalized; it lacks specific
details on how the rape was committed. Her bare statement that the appellant
undressed her and repeated what he had done to her the first time is inadequate
to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
a succeeding rape took place. The testimony should have mentioned, at the very
least, that the appellant’s organ touched the victim’s private part. This,
among others, is the fact in issue that the prosecution must demonstrate in sufficient
detail and which this Court must pass upon based on the evidence presented.
Whether the facts alleged and proven constitute the crime of rape is a legal
conclusion for this Court to make. Lacking
in these details, we cannot conclude that the victim’s testimony constitutes
proof beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the
(a) the appellant is found GUILTY of statutory
rape in Criminal Case No. 8880;
(b) civil indemnity is REDUCED to P50,000.00;
(c) the appellant is ORDERED
to PAY the victim the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(d) the appellant is ACQUITTED in Criminal
Case No. 8881.
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] Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, and concurred in by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam; rollo, pp. 3-20.
[2] Penned by Judge Jacinta B. Tambago; CA rollo, pp. 10-14.
[3] This appellation is pursuant to our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, in G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, wherein this Court has resolved to withhold the real name of the victim-survivor and to use fictitious initials instead to represent her in its decisions. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed.
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5] Records, Vol.II, p. 1.
[6] TSN,
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13] TSN,
[14]
[15] TSN,
[16]
[17] CA rollo, p. 14.
[18] CA decision of
[19] CA rollo, pp. 28-36.
[20] The crime subject of Criminal Case No. 8880 was committed in 1994, or before Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, was repealed by Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997).
[21] Amended by Republic Act No. 7659, entitled An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Heinous Crimes Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Laws, and for Other Purposes, which took effect on December 31, 1993.
[22] People
v. Pancho, G.R. Nos. 136592-93,
[23] People
v. Natan, G.R. No. 181086,
[24] TSN,
[25] People
v. Glivano, G.R. No. 177565,
[26] See People
v. Zamoraga, G.R. No. 178066,
[27] G.R. No. 166401,
[28] See People
v. Pancho, G.R. Nos. 136592-93,
[29] See People v. Escultos, G.R. Nos.
149366-67,
[30] People
v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90,
[31] People
v. Olaybar, G.R. Nos. 150630,
[32] People
v. Negosa, G.R. No. 142856-57,
[33] People
v. Miclat, Jr., G.R. No. 137024,
[34] ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances.
x x x
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
[35] People v. Natan, supra note 23.
[36] People
v. Jacob, G.R. No. 177151,
[37] People
v. Lizano, G.R. No.174470,
[38] People
v. Gregorio, Jr., G.R. No. 174474,
[39] TSN,
[40] See People
v. Tabio, G.R. No. 179477,
[41] See People
v. Fernandez, G.R. Nos. 139341-45,