PEOPLE
OF THE
|
G.R. No. 169878
Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, carpio-morales, *CHICO-NAZARIO,
**LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: July 7, 2009 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
We review on appeal the decision[1] and resolution[2] of the
Court of Appeals (CA)[3] which
affirmed with modification the conviction of accused-appellant Jesus Obero (accused-appellant) for two counts of
rape.[4] The
dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
assailed Decision promulgated on 29 September 1998 of the Regional Trial Court
of Morong, Rizal, Branch 79 convicting appellant Jesus Obero of two (2) counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in Crim. Case No. 2727-M, and the same
penalty also in Crim. Case No. 2728 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that the appellant is ordered to pay the victim AAA[5] the amount of Php 50,000.00 by way of
moral damages for each count of rape, in addition to the award of Php 50,000.00
by way of civil indemnity for each count of rape.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The
accused-appellant’s conviction arose from two (2) of the eight (8) Informations
charging him with rape of a minor allegedly committed from September 1996 to
November 1996. The accusatory portions
of these Informations were similarly worded, as follows:
x
x x the above-named accused, with lewd designs and by means of force, violence
and intimidation did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of the complainant, said AAA, fifteen (15) year old girl,
against the latter’s will and consent x x x
The accused-appellant pleaded not
guilty to all charges; the 8 cases were subsequently consolidated and jointly
tried by agreement of the parties. Along with the documentary evidence,[7]
the prosecution presented four (4)
witnesses to establish its case; the defense presented 8 witnesses.[8]
The
prosecution’s evidence showed that on 8 separate occasions while AAA was
outside her house, the accused-appellant grabbed her and pulled her into his
house. The accused-appellant then succeeded in having sexual intercourse with AAA
against her will.
The medical examination thereafter conducted on AAA showed
physical evidence consistent with her claim of sexual abuse – the presence
of old lacerations located at the
The
accused-appellant denied having sexual relations with AAA and claimed
that the alleged rapes were very unlikely; he worked as a tricycle driver at those
times the rapes allegedly occurred and his youngest child was also at home
during noontime.[11] He averred that AAA’s
complaints were instigated by her family.[12] The accused-appellant further related that AAA
was not in Balante, Morong, Rizal in September 1996; he did not know where she
was at that time.[13]
To back the accused-appellant’s claims, the defense presented Isaias Alex (Isaias),[14] Nelia C. Garrovillas (Nelia),[15] Julieta Beringuel,[16] Teodoro Trinidad, [17] Maria Adela T. Obero[18] and Mara Jessy T. Obero.[19] Isaias and Nelia, however, related that AAA was employed as a nanny in Lagundi, Morong, Rizal only during the last week of September 1996.[20]
SPO3 Danilo Pabularcon (SPO3 Pabularcon),[21]
the police officer who investigated AAA, stated that he conducted the
investigation in a normal manner using Tagalog, which AAA spoke and understood,
and it did not take long for her to answer the questions.[22]
He had also asked AAA to read her written statement before she signed it.[23] SPO3 Pabularcon testified that except for the
facts stated in AAA’s written statement which he prepared, he no longer had any
recollection of how long it took AAA to supply the dates of the rapes.[24]
On September 29, 1998, the Regional
Trial Court[25] (RTC), Branch 79, Morong, Rizal convicted
the accused-appellant for the first and fourth rapes committed in September
1996, while he was acquitted with respect to the other rapes where the evidence
was found to be inadequate and grossly
inefficient.[26] The
decretal portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, accused Jesus Obero is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in Criminal Case No. 2728 and the same
penalty also in Criminal Case No. 2727; to indemnify AAA the amount of P50,000.00
in each case by way of civil indemnity.
SO ORDERED.[27]
On appeal to the CA, accused-appellant
assigned these errors committed by the RTC:
1.
THE TRIAL COURT LEGALLY ERRED IN NOT
HOLDING THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER CRIM. CASE NO. 2728-M AND CRIM. CASE
NO. 2727-M FOR WANT OF A VALID COMPLAINT DULY SIGNED BY THE COMPLAINING WITNESS
FOR THE SAID CHARGES;
2.
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
CONVICTING APPELLANT OF TWO RAPES WHICH NEVER EXISTED;
3.
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINING WITNESS AAA DESPITE HER LACK OF
APPRECIATION OF THE SOLEMNITY OF AN OATH;
4.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A SERIOUS
ERROR IN HOLDING THAT WHATEVER LAPSES IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINING
WITNESS WAS UNDERSTANDABLE SINCE SHE WAS UNSCHOOLED AND ILLITERATE;
5.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO
REJECT THE TESTIMONY OF AAA DUE TO ITS GROSS IMPROBABILITIES AND FOR BEING
CONTRARY TO THE COMMON EXPERIENCE OF MANKIND;
6.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF AAA DESPITE ITS BEING RIDDLED WITH NUMEROUS
CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES ON HIGHLY MATERIAL POINTS; and
7.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A SERIOUS
ERROR IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT.[28]
The CA turned
down these arguments and affirmed his conviction for the two (2) counts of rape.
The Issue
The
core issue is whether there is sufficient and competent evidence to support the
accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the two counts of rape. The
accused-appellant contends that he cannot be held liable on the basis of the procedural
and substantive grounds listed above.[29]
He focuses mainly on the alleged
deprivation of his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against
him arising from the defects in both the sworn complaint and the two Informations
on the discrepancy of the dates when the two rapes were committed. On the one hand, he was being held accountable
under the sworn complaint for rapes allegedly committed within the period of October
1996 to
He
also asserts the untrustworthiness of AAA’s testimony because it was riddled
with contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities; AAA, too, admitted that
she did understand the meaning of the oath she took.
Our
Ruling
We
dismiss this appeal considering the supervening events in this case which made the
conviction of the accused-appellant final and executory. We do so after
closely examining the records of the case and after finding that, as above
narrated, the lower courts are correct in their conclusions and that no reason
exists for us to disturb their rulings.
A look into the records reveals that in
assailing the CA judgment of conviction before this Court, the accused-appellant,
through his counsel, Atty. Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. (Atty. Saladero), availed of two modes of review. The first one was by filing a motion for
extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari (docketed as G.R. No. 169249) under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the CA resolution. The second
one was by appealing the CA decision and resolution (previously docketed as
G.R. Nos. 138684-91) pursuant to Section 3 (c), Rule 122 of the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, within the same day the motion for extension of
time to file a petition for review on certiorari
was filed.
In G.R. No. 169249, we granted, through our
Third Division, the accused-appellant and counsel’s motion for extension of
time to file a petition for review on certiorari.
Subsequently, we declared the case
closed and terminated in a Minute Resolution
dated
… the Court RESOLVES to INFORM the Court of Appeals and the
parties that no petition has been filed in this case and that the judgment
sought to be reviewed has now become final and executory, and to DECLARE this case CLOSED and TERMINATED.
A
copy of this Minute Resolution was
received by Atty. Saladero on April 17, 2006. On
Subsequently,
Atty. Saladero filed a Manifestation and Motion (With Profuse Apologies) to set
aside this Entry of Judgment on the ground of the lapses he had committed in
handling his client’s appeal.[30]
On
As matters now
stand, the CA judgment affirming the accused-appellant’s conviction for two
counts of rape is already final and executory.
In light of this development, we can no longer disturb the assailed CA
decision and resolution presently before us following the principle of immutability
of judgments: once a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes unalterable and can no longer be modified nor reversed even to
correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law.[31]
We are compelled therefore to dismiss the present appeal.[32]
This conclusion is doubly strengthened by our finding that no compelling reason
exists to disturb the assailed rulings.
WHEREFORE, in
light of the foregoing, we hereby DISMISS the present appeal by
accused-appellant Jesus Obero from the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
|
WE CONCUR: LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Associate Justice |
MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
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
* Designated additional Member of the Second
Division effective
** Designated
additional Member of the Second Division effective
[1] Dated
[2] Dated
[3] Penned by Associate Justice
Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, and concurred in by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes,
Jr. and Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a Member of this Court).
[4] The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R.
CR No. 00005.
[5] 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 therefor, and for Other Purposes).
[6] Rollo, pp. 54-55.
[7] The prosecution presented the following exhibits: (1)
Memorandum/Request dated
On the part of the defense: (1)Brief History
of the Case (Exhibit “1” with submarkings); (2) Sinumpaang Salaysay of
AAA (Exhibit “2” with submarkings); (3) Affidavit of AAA (Exhibit “3” with
submarkings); (4) Photographs of the door, lock of the door and cement wall
(Exhibits “4” and “5” with submarkings); (5) Salaysay of Isaias Alex
(Exhibit “6” with submarkings); (6) Handwritten statement of Isaias Alex
(Exhibit “7” with submarkings); (7) Sinumpaang Kontra-Salaysay of Jesus
Obero (Exhibit “8” with submarkings); (8) Minutes of Pre-investigation (Exhibit
“9”); and (9) Police Blotter Entry No. 12-11-96-2230OH.
[8]
The prosecution presented the
following witnesses: (1) AAA; (2) Marilena Alex, (3) Dr. Anthony Joselito
Llamas, and (4) Daniel Razo. In turn, the defense presented the following
witnesses: (1) the accused-appellant; (2) SPO2 Danilo Pabularcon; (3) Nelia
Garrovillas; (4) Ma. Adela T. Obero; (5) Julieta Beringuel; (6) Mara
Jessie Obero; (7) Teodoro Trinidad, and (8) Isaias Alex.
[9]
TSN,
[10]
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13] Supra note 11, p. 11,
TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16]
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22]
[23] Ibid.
[24]
[25] Penned by Judge Alejandro A.
Marquez; CA rollo, p. 129.
[26] CA Rollo, p. 62.
[27]
[28] CA Rollo, pp. 86-87.
[29] Supplemental Brief for the
Accused; rollo, pp. 73-79.
[30] G.R. No. 169249, rollo, pp. 118-121.
[31] Information Technology of
the
[32] People v. Pajo, G.R.
Nos. 135109-13, December 18, 2000, 348
SCRA 492, 525, and People v. Alay-ay, G.R. Nos. 137199-230, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 603, 620.