FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- ROMEO MIRANDA y MICHAEL, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 176634 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN,
and VILLARAMA, JR.,
JJ. Promulgated: April
5, 2010 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Accused-appellant Romeo Miranda y Michael (Miranda) is before Us on
automatic review of the Decision[1]
dated October 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01953,
which affirmed the Decision[2]
dated February 13, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch
261, in Criminal Case No. 118507-H, insofar as the trial court found Miranda
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape against his own daughter AAA[3]
and awarded to AAA civil indemnity and exemplary damages in the amounts of P75,000.00
and P25,000.00, respectively.
However, the Court of Appeals modified the same RTC judgment by reducing
Miranda’s sentence from the extreme penalty of death to reclusion perpetua and increasing the award of moral damages from P50,000.00
to P75,000.00.
The Information charging Miranda of
the crime of Rape pertinently read:
On or about June 24, 2000 in Pateros, Metro Manila,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, with lewd
designs and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his daughter AAA, a
minor, seventeen (17) years of age, against her will and consent.[4]
Miranda pleaded “Not Guilty” when arraigned.[5] Prior to the commencement of trial, the
prosecution and Miranda agreed upon the following stipulation of facts:
a)
Fact of identity
of the accused;
b)
The case is
within the jurisdiction of this court;
c)
The date of the
commission of the crime;
d)
Fact of the
minority of the offended party;
e)
The relationship
of the accused and the complainant as father and daughter; [and]
f)
Existence of the
medico-legal report.[6]
The prosecution called to the witness stand AAA, the
victim; Police Senior Inspector (P/Sr. Insp.) Ruby Grace Sabino, the medico-legal
officer who conducted the physical examination on AAA; and Senior Police
Officer 4 Ramon Tagle, one of the arresting officers. The RTC summarized their testimonies as
follows:
P/Insp. Ruby Grace Sabino, x x x testified that upon a
letter-request from the Pateros Police Station, she conducted a physical
examination of AAA on June 25, 2000, the findings of which she reduced into
writing in Medico Legal Report No. M-2000-00, to wit:
Findings:
Hymen: elastic, fleshy type with deep fresh laceration
at 6 o’clock position.
Conclusion:
Physical findings of the genitalia is definitive
evidence of penetration. There is no
external signs of application of any form of physical trauma.
She
declared that the laceration was fresh because at the time of the examination,
there was blood; that something has penetrated the vagina or the hymen, and,
that there was seminal fluid on the vagina.
She
prepared a document entitled Sexual Crime dated June 25, 2000, Manifestation of
Consent in Case No. M-2000 dated June 25, 2000, which was signed by AAA and her
mother and Initial Medico Legal Report in case No. M-2000-00 dated June 25,
2000.
Through
the testimony of the offended party, AAA, it was established that she was born
on May 27, 1983, as evidenced by her Birth Certificate, marked as Exh. “C”,
hence, she was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the instant
charge. She declared that her father and
mother have been separated for 14 years and are not in speaking terms with each
other. She has been staying with her
mother at x x x while her father, a jeepney driver, resides in x x x, in a
two-storey house with an unfinished lower portion.
About
noontime of June 23, 2000, while she was fetching water in a “poso” near
their house in x x x, she came to learn that the live-in partner of her father
died, hence, she went to her father’s house in x x x to condole. Her father then told her to look after her
half-brother, CCC, and [half]sister, BBB. She stayed at his house, cooked food and washed the
dishes. She slept that night with her
half-sister in the sala.
On
the following day, June 24, 2000, her father left in the morning but returned
at lunch time and stayed in the house for the rest of the day. She was, however, not feeling well because of
a high fever and headache accompanied by vomiting spills which started at
noontime of the same day.
After
having dinner at 7:00 p.m. and while she was washing the dishes, her father
came to know of her condition and he told his daughter, BBB to finish the dish
washing. She then went to the room and
after wearing a pajama over her shorts and panty, she put on the mosquito
net. She then laid down and while
preparing herself to rest and go to sleep, she watched TV from 8:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m. with a “Good Morning” towel stuck on her mouth to prevent her from
vomiting. When her father turned off the
TV, she asked for the “Vicks Vaporub” placed at the side of the TV set. Accused then entered the mosquito net and
volunteered to massage her head. While
he was massaging her head, she felt that both his elbows were touching her
breasts. She tried to evade his elbows
saying she would be the one to do the massaging but he refused. Thereafter, he told her “dededehin niya po
ang dede ko” and she replied that she will tell her mother about it which
made him stop and instead, he massaged her hands.
In
between sobs, AAA continued testifying that her father then kissed her on her
neck while slowly lifting her T-shirt who thereafter sucked her breasts causing
her to push him hard telling him not to do it to her. Only his two children were inside the house
but both were already asleep at that time.
After sucking her breasts, he used his left hand in slowly pulling down
her pajama and thereafter her short and panty.
He then held both her arms and with his head going down, he licked her
vagina. She resisted and tried to kick
the wall to create some noise to awaken her half-brother and sister but he did
not stop. She did not shout for help out
of fear of her father stating “baka saktan niya ako”, whom she saw with
red eyes for the first time. Thereafter,
he removed his shorts with a garter and his brief and she turned her back to
him but he embraced her to make her face him.
He told her that he will insert his penis to her vagina “pero hinde
raw po niya ipuputok yun para hindi daw po ako mabuntis.” Then and there, he laid on top of her and
inserted his penis into her vagina. She
felt an entry into her vagina which she described to be painful. When her father removed his sex organ from
hers, she felt something hot flowed from her vagina.
After
the foregoing incident, he got dressed and wiped her vagina with the “good
morning” towel. Her father also asked
her if she wants to eat to which she replied in the negative. She then waited for him to sleep and seeing
him asleep, she fixed herself and climbed the fence to get out from the
house. She went to their house in x x x
and because her mother was still sleeping, she proceeded to the Barangay Hall
of x x x where she saw her uncle who accompanied her to x x x Police Station
where she executed a sworn statement.
She was also brought to
On
the questions propounded by the Court, she answered that it was before her
father inserted his penis to her vagina that he said that he will insert his
penis but will not “ipuputok” so that she will not get pregnant. She knows the meaning of “ipapuputok” because she was able to
watch a rape movie; that when her father knew that “lalabasan siya, hinugot
niya po, inalis niya ‘yong ari niya sa ari ko” and she was able to see
something “parang sipon at tumapon malapit sa higaan ko.”
SPO4
Ramon Tagle’s testimony is confined to the fact of apprehension of the accused
in the early morning of June 25, 2000.
He declared that he, along with SPO3 Carmelito Dequino and SPO1 Alfredo
Cardenas effected the arrest of the accused at his house at 1:15 a.m. of June
25, 2000 after his daughter, AAA, lodged a complaint of Rape against him. He further testified that the accused
voluntarily went with them after he was pinpointed and positively identified by
his daughter as the one who raped her.
He identified his signature in the “Sinumpaang Salaysay,” marked as Exh.
“B” with submarkings.[7]
On the other hand, the defense presented as witnesses
Miranda himself and the victim’s half-sister, BBB. The RTC recounted their
testimonies, thus:
BBB,
13 years old, single, [Grade] VI pupil, residing at x x x, testified that the
accused is her father while the offended party is her [half] sister. In the evening of June 24, 2000, she was at
their house sleeping. AAA was sleeping at her mother’s bed while her father was
at the other bed watching television.
She noticed that AAA was vomiting who told her that she was feeling
dizzy and so she slept ahead of her. She
could see AAA from where she was because the room has no door. She identified the pictures of their house
situated at x x x taken by her [half] sister, DDD. She slept beside her brother and father in a
“papag.” At that time, she heard
“kalampag” outside the house. She
and her brother slept ahead of their father.
Romeo
Miranda, Sr., 53 years old, married, driver, residing at x x x, denied the
accusation as he testified that at twelve o’clock midnight of June 25, 2000, he
was sleeping with his children when they were awakened by policemen knocking at
their window. He was told to go down by
the policemen and after doing so, he was brought directly to the x x x Municipal
Hall where he met his daughter AAA. It
was only at that instance that he came to know that he was being accused of
Rape by her. He then asked AAA, “ano
bang problema mo?”, but she did not respond. He declared that he was not pinpointed by
AAA, but she simply said … “ako raw”, after which, he was detained in
jail. He belied the accusation but did
not tell the police of the falsity of the charge for fear that he might be hurt
by them.
When
asked if he knows of any reason why he was charged by his daughter of this
grave offense, he replied “wala naman po. Lumaki sila na hindi ko binigyan ng
pansin, dahil nga sa kanilang ina ay walang ginawa kundi magsugal, bingo,
baraha, 41 x x x. Masama po ang loob nila dahil
hindi ko sila sinuportahan, pinabayaan ko sila… sila pong magkakapatid, lima po
sila.”
He likewise
testified that he and AAA seldom see each other since she was staying with her
mother. As regards the rape charge that
occurred at 11:00 p.m. on June 24, 2000, he stated that he was already sleeping
side by side with his children, BBB and CCC from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. and that
AAA was also asleep in another room. He
did not deny that before they went to sleep, he massaged AAA’s aching forehead
with efficascent from 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. as she was also feeling dizzy. He, however, vehemently denied having raped
her asserting that after massaging her head AAA transferred to another room
while he, together with his two (2) children, remained in the room where they
eventually slept. He further averred that
before June 24, 2000, he had no misunderstanding with AAA neither did they
quarrel before the subject incident.
He
described that the materials separating his room from the room where AAA slept
were made of carton and wood of good lumber and one can hear and see if someone
is talking or doing anything in the other room as it has no door.[8]
On February 13, 2004, after trial,
the RTC rendered its Decision finding Miranda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape. The
court a quo gave credence to AAA’s
plain and straightforward testimony on how she was ravished by Miranda on June
24, 2000, as well as her positive identification of Miranda, her own father, as
her assailant, thus, discrediting Miranda’s defense of denial. The RTC decreed:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Prosecution
having proved the guilt of the accused, ROMEO MIRANDA y MICHAEL, beyond
reasonable doubt, he is hereby meted out the capital punishment of DEATH.
He is likewise hereby ordered to pay the offended
party, AAA, the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand [Pesos] (PhP75,000.00) as civil
indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP50,000.00) as moral damages, without the
necessity of proving the same. An award
of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP25,000.00) to complainant as exemplary
damages is also in order, to deter fathers with perverse behavior from sexually
abusing their daughters.
The warden of the x x x Municipal Jail, xxx, is hereby
directed to immediately transfer the accused to the Bureau of Corrections, New
Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City.[9]
The records of this case were originally transmitted
to this Court on automatic review.
However, pursuant to People v. Mateo,[10] the
Court remanded the records to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and
disposition, whereat it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01953.
In
his brief,[11] Miranda
made a lone assignment of error – that the RTC gravely erred in finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
In its Decision dated October 31, 2006, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the Decision dated February 13, 2004 of the RTC with the
modification that the death penalty imposed on Miranda for the crime of rape be
reduced to reclusion perpetua in view
of the abolition of the death penalty; and that the amount of moral damages
awarded to AAA be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. The fallo
of the Decision of the appellate court reads:
WHEREFORE,
the trial court’s Decision dated February 13, 2004 is affirmed, subject to the
modification that in lieu of the death penalty, appellant is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and the amount of moral damages is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.[12]
On March 2, 2007, the
records of the case were forwarded to this Court for automatic review.[13]
In the Resolution[14]
dated March 28, 2007, the Court required the parties to file their respective
supplemental briefs within thirty (30) days from notice, if they so desired.
In separate
Manifestations, dated June 14, 2007[15]
and June 15, 2007,[16]
Miranda and the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, respectively, both waived the filing
of supplemental briefs and instead opted to stand by their respective briefs
filed before the Court of Appeals.
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following instances: (1) when force or intimidation is
used; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; and
(3) when she is under twelve (12) years of age.[17] Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found
that Miranda committed rape under the first circumstance, i.e., by having sexual intercourse with his 17-year old daughter
with the use of force and intimidation.
In the review of rape cases, the
credibility of the private complainant is the single most important factor for
consideration. The case of the prosecution stands or falls on the credibility
of the victim. This rule is in accordance with the intrinsic nature of the
crime of rape where only two parties, namely the victim and the accused, are
usually involved. In this regard, the
appellate court will generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on
matters of credibility owing to its unique opportunity to observe the
deportment and manner of testifying of witnesses firsthand during the trial
unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if
considered, might affect the result of the case.[18]
In the instant case, there is no basis for this Court
to overturn the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that
the testimony of the victim, AAA, is credible.
As the RTC observed, the testimony of AAA, in which she positively
identified her father as the one who ravaged her, is straightforward,
categorical, and spontaneous. AAA’s
account of her ordeal resonates with sincerity and truthfulness.
In answer to AAA’s explicit declaration that she was
sexually abused by Miranda, the latter merely interposes the defense of
denial. As between a categorical
testimony that rings of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the
former is generally held to prevail. A
mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes
self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary
weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
matters. As against the positive
identification and credible testimony by the private complainant, mere denials
of the accused cannot prevail to overcome conviction by the trial court.[19]
Miranda also proffers no credible explanation as to
why his own daughter, AAA, would accuse him of raping her if it was not
true. In fact, Miranda admits that he
has no misunderstanding with AAA, thus, no improper motive could be attributed
to AAA for charging her father with the commission of such an atrocious
crime. AAA’s testimony is worthy of full
faith and credence because her only apparent motive is to bring her father to
justice for raping her.
A rape victim’s testimony against her father is
entitled to greater weight since, ordinarily and customarily, Filipino children
revere and respect their elders. This is
too deeply ingrained in Filipino children and families and is even recognized
by law. It is thus unthinkable, if not
completely preposterous, that a daughter would audaciously concoct a story of
rape against her father in wanton disregard of the unspeakable trauma and
social stigma it may generate on her and the entire family. A teenage unmarried lass does not ordinarily
file a rape complaint against anybody, much less her own father, if it is not
true.[20]
Moreover, we have held that where a rape victim did
not lose time in reporting her father’s dastardly act and in seeking help as
soon as she was able to escape, such spontaneous conduct was an eloquent
attestation of her abhorrence and repugnance to her father’s perversity.[21] That AAA immediately told her uncle and
police officials about her hellish ordeal and that she willingly submitted
herself to physical and genital examination evince the truthfulness of her
charge of rape against Miranda.
During the trial before the RTC, AAA even broke down
and cried while narrating how she was sexually abused by Miranda. This is an eloquent demonstration of the
verity of her claim that she was raped.
It has been ruled that the crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence
of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity borne out of human nature
and experience.[22]
It bears stressing that
AAA’s account of the rape is reinforced by physical evidence. The Medico-Legal Report and testimony of
P/Sr. Insp. Ruby Grace Sabino, who physically examined AAA on June 25, 2000, a
day after the rape, established that AAA’s hymen had a deep fresh laceration at
6 o’clock position, evidencing penetration of the genitalia; and that seminal
fluid was present in AAA’s vagina.
Aside from challenging AAA’s
credibility – which this Court already found in preceding paragraphs to be
unassailable – Miranda also argues that the prosecution failed to prove that he
used force and intimidation against AAA.
He further calls attention to the condition of the place where the rape
purportedly took place. While Miranda
admits that AAA did sleep alone in the room where she was allegedly raped,
Miranda claims that said room had no door and it was near the sala where
his two other children were sleeping.
Any noise coming from the room could have been easily heard by those in
the sala. Miranda asserts that it
would have been easy for AAA to struggle and create noise to arouse the
attention of other people inside, as well as outside the house. Simply put, Miranda submits that AAA’s
failure to fight back or to cause any noise while supposedly being sexually
abused is contrary to human experience.
Miranda invokes the following part of AAA’s testimony to prove that the
latter did not put up any resistance at all during her alleged rape:
COURT:
What
happened after that?
Witness:
He
started to massage my head and then after that, I felt that both of his elbows
was touching both my breast (sic).
Q What
did you do?
A I
was trying to remove it and I said that I will be the one to do but he refused.
Q After
his elbow was touching your breast, what did you do?
A Sabi
po niya na dededehin nya po an[g] dede ko.
Q What
was your reply?
A
I told him that I will tell it to my mother.
Q Did
he stop touching your breast with his elbow?
A Tumigil po at pagkatapos ay hinilot niya ang
mga kamay ko.
Q What
happened next?
(witness
is crying)
A Hinalikan niya po ang leeg ko at unti-unti
niyang itinaas iyong
t-shirt ko.
Q What
did you wear at that time?
A Pajama po.
Q So
after trying to undress you or to lift your t-shirt, what happened next?
A Dinede po niya ang suso ko at itinulak ko
siya ng malakas.
Q What
was the position of your father when he was sucking your breast?
A He
was beside the Papag, nakatagilid at
dinedede ang suso ko.
Q When
he was sucking your breast, what did you do?
A Itinulak ko po siya at sabi kong huwag
niyang gawin sa akin.
x
x x x
Q During
that time that your father was sucking your breast, where was the two children?
A They
were sleeping in the living room ma’am.
Q Where
were you sleeping then?
A In
the room which has no door, ma’am.
Q So
you were in that room?
A Yes,
ma’am.
Q After
you said your father was trying to undress you and stopped in sucking your
breast, what happened next?
A Unti-unti po niyang ibinababa sa kanyang
kaliwang kamay ang pajama ko.
x
x x x
Q And
was it only the pajama that your father was trying to pull down in your
buttock?
x
x x x
A He
pulled out all my underwear.
Q Anu-ano
iyong hinila niya?
A Pajama,
short at panty, ma’am.
x
x x x
Q What
happened next after he successfully pulled down all of these three underwear?
A He
held both my arms and his head went down . . . .
Q And
would you please narrate to us what happened next?
A He
held my arms and leached (sic) my vagina.
Q What
happened, did you not offer any resistance?
A Tumututol po.
Q What
action did you make if any?
A Iyon pong dingding ay ginaganoon ko po.
Q Why?
Did you not try to make noise?
A None,
ma’am.
Q You
said you tried to kick the wall, what was your purpose in trying to kick the
wall?
A
Q Did
he stop?
A No,
ma’am.
Q After
leaking (sic) your vagina, your private parts, what happened next?
A Hinubad po iyong short niya na may garter.
Q Then
what did you do after that?
A Tumagilid po ako sa kanya, at pagkahubad ay
niyakap niya akong muli.
x
x x x
Q When
he was already naked, what did you do?
A Iniharap po niya ako sa kanya at pumatong po
sa akin.
Q Was
that the only … at that time?
A Pinatungan po niya ako at ipinasok ang ari
niya sa ari ko.
Q When
you say that ipinasok ang ari niya sa ari mo, what do you mean by that?
A Naramdaman ko pong may pumasok.
Q What
happened next?
A Masakit po iyong pumasok, sa akin.
Q After
that, did he tell you anything, or after he inserted his penis on your vagina,
did he tell you anything?
A None,
ma’am.[23]
Contrary to Miranda’s
averment, the aforequoted portion of AAA’s testimony actually reveals several
attempts by AAA to fight back at him.
AAA threatened that she would tell her mother about what Miranda was
doing to her, but it only deterred Miranda for awhile. AAA pushed Miranda away, but he continued to
kiss her breasts and undress her. AAA
kicked the wall to create noise but, unfortunately, it wasn’t loud enough to
disturb her half-siblings’ sleep. AAA
turned her body away but Miranda grabbed and hugged her. AAA repeatedly begged Miranda to stop but her
pleas fell on deaf ears. Miranda
overpowered all of AAA’s resistance.
Without doubt, Miranda gained carnal knowledge of AAA through force and
intimidation.
Notably, the prosecution need not even prove the
elements of force and intimidation in this case. Settled is the rule that in rape committed by
a father or a person recognized by the victim as her father, the former’s moral
ascendancy and influence over the latter substitute for violence and
intimidation.[24]
Having settled that
Miranda is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his own daughter, the Court
proceeds with a review of the penalties imposed upon him by the Court of
Appeals.
At the time of AAA’s rape, the Revised Penal Code had been amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. Republic Act No. 8353 already classified rape as a crime against persons. Among the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 8353 to the Revised Penal Code are the following:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed –
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; x x x.
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
x x x x
The death penalty shall also
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, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.
Under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,
minority and relationship are special qualifying circumstances in the crime of
rape that warrant the mandatory penalty of death. As such, they must both be specifically
pleaded in the Information and proven during trial. These two circumstances, minority and
relationship, must concur; otherwise, if only one is proven during trial, even
if the Information alleged both, the death penalty cannot be imposed. And, as special qualifying circumstances, the
same must be proven beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself.[25]
The special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were properly alleged in the Information against Miranda and proven by competent evidence, specifically, AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth, which was presented during the trial. Additionally, the parties stipulated and agreed during the pre-trial conference on the “fact of the minority of the offended party” and “the relationship of the accused and the complainant as father and daughter.” The RTC, therefore, was correct in originally imposing the death penalty on Miranda.
Nevertheless,
the Court of Appeals was also correct in modifying the penalty imposed upon
Miranda because by June 24, 2006, Republic Act No. 9346, prohibiting the
imposition of the death penalty, already took effect. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9346 imposes
the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
lieu of death when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code, like Republic Act No. 8353 in this
case. Miranda shall not be eligible for
parole because Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 clearly provides that
“persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or
whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the
law, shall not be eligible for parole.”
Although the Court of Appeals already modified the award
for damages of the RTC, the Court deems it necessary to again review the said
award. While the Court affirms the award
of: (1) civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, inasmuch as Miranda
was originally sentenced to death, and (2) moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00,
as the same is
awarded without need of pleading or proof of basis; the Court increases the award of
exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with
prevailing jurisprudence.[26]
WHEREFORE, the
Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the
Decision dated October 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01953.
Accused-appellant Romeo Miranda y Michael is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of QUALIFIED RAPE and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua, in
lieu of death, without the possibility of parole. He is ORDERED
to pay the victim, AAA, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00
as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal concurring; rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2] Penned by Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio; CA rollo, pp. 17-24.
[3] The real name of the victim is withheld to protect her identity and privacy pursuant to Section 29 of Republic Act No. 7610, Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC. See our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] CA rollo, pp. 20-21.
[9]
[10] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[11] CA
rollo, pp. 71-82.
[12] Rollo, p. 17.
[13] Id.
at 1.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] People v. Erese, 346 Phil. 307, 314 (1997).
[18] People
v. Villanueva, Jr., 442 Phil. 293, 301 (2002).
[19] People v. Alvero, 386 Phil. 181, 200
(2000).
[20]
[21] People v. Servano, 454 Phil. 256, 282 (2003).
[22] People v. Agustin, 418 Phil. 145, 155 (2001).
[23] TSN, March 9, 2001, pp. 11-19.
[24] People v. Cesista,
435 Phil. 250, 265 (2002).
[25] People v. Valez, 406 Phil. 681, 699 (2001).
[26] People v. Oliva,
G.R. No. 187043, September 18, 2009; People v.
Mariano,
G.R. No. 168693, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 74, 94.