THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - LORENZO OLIVA y ROSELA, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 187043
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: September
18, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Lorenzo Oliva appeals from the Court of Appeals (CA)
Decision[1]
dated April 21, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. HC-02102, affirming his conviction of
rape but modifying the amount of damages.
The records disclose the following facts:
Sometime in March 2003,
at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, appellant Lorenzo Oliva asked his
11-year-old daughter, “M,” to go with him to the farm of Naty Astor. When they
arrived at the place, he ordered her to undress. She obeyed the order because
she was afraid of him and he had a bolo, about 16 inches long, which he
brandished near her head. After removing her short pants and panty, appellant
mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina. It was painful and she
cried. About 15 minutes later, he told her to dress up and then she went home.
Two of her siblings were home when she arrived, while her mother was washing
clothes in the river about 100 meters away. She did not tell any of them about
the incident because she feared her father might kill them.
The incident was repeated
on September 9, 2003. At about 3:00 o’clock in the morning of that day,
appellant awakened “M.” She noticed that her shorts and panty were missing. Her
sister was sleeping beside her, but appellant pulled her towards the door. Near
the door, appellant went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina
while covering her mouth to silence her. It was then that her mother saw them.
“M” was so afraid, and she sat on the stairs while she put on her panty and her
shorts. Her mother, who was visibly upset, asked appellant what he was doing
but he simply ignored her. Her mother reported the incident to the police authorities.
Thereafter, they went to the residence of M’s Lola Naty Astor to see a doctor.
Dr. Nena L. Cruz, Municipal Health
Officer of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, examined “M” on September 1, 2003. Dr. Cruz
found old healed hymenal lacerations at the 4 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions in
the victim’s vagina. She further noted that the victim did not exhibit pain
upon insertion of one finger; but, with two fingers, there was a slight
resistance.
Appellant was charged with two counts
of rape under the following Informations:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-3821
That on or about 3:00 o’clock in the morning of September 9, 2003 while the private offended party was sleeping inside their house at B[rg]y. Malaguico, Municipality of Sipocot, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in having carnal knowledge with his own daughter, “M,” a 12-year-old minor taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over the latter against her will and without her consent to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded by the Honorable Court.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-3822
That sometime [i]n March 2003 in a forested and grassy land owned by Mrs. Naty Astor at B[r]gy. Malaguico, Municipality of Sipocot, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines while accompanied by the above-named accused to gather firewood, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd [design], did then and there willfully, unlawfully [and feloniously succeed in having carnal knowledge] with his own daughter, “M,” an 11-year-old minor taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over the latter against her will and without her consent to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded by the Honorable Court.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
When arraigned, appellant
pleaded not guilty to the two charges.
During the pretrial,
appellant admitted that he is the biological father of “M” and that she was a
minor at the time the incidents happened.
The victim’s birth
certificate shows that she was born on May 9, 1991. Thus, she was only 11 years
and 9 months old when the first incident happened; and 12 years and four months
old at the time of the second one.
Appellant belied the
testimony of “M.” He claimed that his wife told him that “M” was molested in
the river by her uncle Benjamin, his wife’s half-brother. At one time, “M” went
with appellant to the farm, and there he asked her if she had been raped by her
uncle. When she did not answer, he told her to undress and to lie down. While she
was lying down, he examined her vagina and saw that the opening was already big,
so he determined that she had sexual intercourse with her uncle. To further
determine if she was no longer a virgin, he took a coconut leaf, measured her
neck with it, placed it around her head, and let it slide down. When the
coconut leaf slid down, he concluded that she was no longer a virgin. As to the
incident of September 9, 2003, he said that he was asleep at about 3:00 o’clock
in the morning because he was drunk then.
The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape,
thus:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having
proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, this court hereby finds
LORENZO OLIVA y ROSELA, GUILTY in Criminal Case No. L-3821 and L-3822 of the
crime of Rape defined and penalized under Article 266 A(1)(a) and Article 266
B(1) and Article 266 A(1)(d) and [Article] 266 B(1) respectively, and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of Death in each case, and in line with
recent jurisprudence, to indemnify the victim [M] the sum of One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) as civil indemnity in these two cases and
the further sum of Seventy [F]ive Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral
damages, and to serve as a deterrent to fathers in sexually abusing their own
flesh, this court also awards the amount of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00)
as exemplary damages and to pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[4]
The CA affirmed the RTC
Decision with the following modifications: the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua for each offense, in view of Republic Act No. 9346, which
prohibits the imposition of the death penalty; civil indemnity and moral
damages were reduced to P100,000.00, each; and exemplary damages to P50,000.00.[5]
On appeal to this Court,
both the Office of the Solicitor General and appellant manifested that they
would no longer file supplemental briefs.
The appeal has no merit.
The Court sustains the decision
of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of rape. The legal aphorism is that factual
findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the
witnesses, and its assessment of their probative weight are given great respect
if not conclusive effect, unless it ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood, or
misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if
considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[6]
The victim’s narration of the ordeal
that she suffered at the hands of her own father was straightforward and
categorical; hence, it must be given full faith and credit. Further, courts
usually give credence to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual
assault particularly if it constitutes incestuous rape because, normally, no
person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and to testify
on the details of her ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice. Needless to
say, it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, because 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 was committed. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity.[7]
To the contrary, appellant’s
explanation that he was just trying to confirm if “M” was still a virgin when
he asked her to lie down and “examined” her vagina is too inane to be believed.
In an
attempt to discredit the victim’s testimony, appellant points out certain
discrepancies in her testimony, such as the exact time they went to the farm of
Naty Astor. Such discrepancy is trifling. The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances
provided by law.[8] Thus, the
precise time when the rape took place has no substantial bearing on its
commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute
accuracy.[9]
The victim
cannot be expected to store methodically in her memory the sordid details of a
rape incident and, when called to testify in court, give a completely detailed
and accurate account of the harrowing experience she suffered. Thus, minor
inconsistencies in the narration are generally given liberal appreciation by
the trial court.
As to the
second incident, appellant simply averred that he was asleep at that time. Such
defense fails in light of the categorical testimony of the victim. Mere denial,
if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and
cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape
victim.[10]
The imposition of the
penalty of death, which was reduced to reclusion
perpetua in view of Republic Act No. 9346, was proper considering that the qualifying
circumstance of minority and relationship had been duly established. The Court,
however, modifies the award of damages in light of more recent jurisprudence
increasing the amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00, moral damages to
P75,000.00,[11]
and exemplary damages to P30,000.00[12] to deter other persons with perverse
or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their children.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated April 21,
2008, finding appellant Lorenzo Oliva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
counts of qualified rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Appellant
is ordered to pay P150,000.00 as civil indemnity, P150,000.00 as
moral damages, and P60,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
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.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
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
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 2-21.
[2]
[3]
[4] CA rollo, p. 46.
[5] Rollo, p. 20.
[6] People v. Alabado, G.R. No. 176267, September 3, 2007, 532 SCRA 189, 206.
[7] People v. de Guzman, 423 Phil. 313, 331 (2001).
[8] People v. Rafon, G.R. No. 169059, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 370, 380.
[9] People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 177744, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 733, 737-738.
[10] People v. Lizano, G.R. No. 174470, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 803, 811.
[11] People
of the
[12]