FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - |
G.R.
No. 177740 Present: PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN,
and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. |
|
ROMULO
GARCIA y MACEDA, Accused-Appellant. |
Promulgated: April
5, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
On
appeal is the Decision[1]
dated
On
That on or about the 6th day of January 2000, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have carnal knowledge of one [AAA],[4] five (5) years of age and his grandniece by affinity thus sexual abuse prejudicial to the child’s development.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon
arraignment on
The facts as
established by the prosecution are as follows:
In the
afternoon of
Around
The following
day,
Consequently,
BBB reported the incident to the PNP Mandaluyong City Police Station. The case was referred to PO1 Josefina L. Abenojar
of the Women and Children’s Desk for investigation. PO1 Abenojar prepared the sworn statements
executed by BBB and AAA relative to the incident.[10]
SPO4 Julieta SI
Espiritu, Chief of the Women and Children’s Desk, corroborated the testimony of
PO1 Abenojar. SPO4 Espiritu testified
that she tried to familiarize AAA with the surroundings in the police station because
she was hesitant to talk at first. She
also noticed that AAA looked serious about what she was saying and observed AAA
to be a bit afraid and ashamed. She
attested that she issued a referral letter to the City Prosecutor’s Office.[11]
It likewise
appears that BBB was accompanied by DSWD representative Brenda Galope when they
brought AAA to St. Claire’s Hospital.
However, for unknown reasons, they were refused admission. Thus, they proceeded to the National Bureau
of Investigation, where AAA was examined by medico-legal officer Dr. Ida De
Perio Daniel.[12]
Dr. Daniel testified that she conducted
physical and medico-genital examination on AAA.[13] She prepared a report, entitled Living
Case No. MG-00-29,[14]
which showed the following findings:
CONCLUSIONS:
1. No evident signs of extragenital physical injury was noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.
2. Hymen, intact and its orifice small (0.3 cm. in diameter) as to preclude complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing genital injury.
According to
Dr. Daniel, the phrase “to preclude complete penetration by an average-sized
adult Filipino male organ” means that the hymen was not penetrated by an erect
penis, but explained that in rape cases, a normal finding will not disprove
that there was no sexual intercourse or abuse.[15]
The defense,
on the other hand, interposed the defense of alibi.
Testifying
for appellant, DDD, appellant’s common-law-wife, testified that on
Appellant, for
his part, testified that on
On
WHEREFORE, this Court is morally convinced that the accused, ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA, is GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, in relation to R.A. 7160. Finding the victim, [AAA], to have been under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of rape on January 6, 2000 and finding the offender to be a relative by affinity within the third civil degree, in addition to the fact that said victim is below seven (7) years old, this Court imposes the supreme penalty of Death through Lethal Injection, as provided for in Republic Act, 8177, amending section 24 of R.A. 7659, in the manner and procedure therein provided.
The accused is hereby directed to indemnify the offended party the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (Php 75,000.00) Pesos, the crime of Rape being effectively qualified by the circumstances under which the Death Penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory laws.
He is further ordered to indemnify the victim in the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php 50,000.00) Pesos, by way of moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[18]
In view of the Death Penalty imposed
by the trial court, the entire records of the case were forwarded to this Court
for automatic review. In a Resolution[19]
dated
After a review of the case, the Court
of Appeals reduced the penalty of death imposed by the trial court to reclusion
perpetua in view of the abolition of the Death Penalty by Republic Act No.
9346.[21] The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereby DISMISSED for evident lack of merit and the assailed Judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION imposing the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA upon the Appellant.
SO ORDERED.[22]
The case was then elevated to this
Court for review. Appellant alleges that
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVE[LY] ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF RAPE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[23]
The core issue
to be resolved in the instant case is whether the crime of rape has been
sufficiently proven.
Appellant insists that the
prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
rape. He contends that the trial court hastily disregarded his defense of
denial, which was sufficient to absolve him in light of the evidence on
record. He emphasizes that the
medico-legal officer testified that there were no signs of swelling on the
victim’s vagina when she was examined.
Appellant further claims that the victim was coached to make false
accusations against him, considering that he was not in good terms with the
victim’s grandmother.[24]
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.[25]
In the present case, AAA
categorically testified that appellant directly inserted his penis into her
vagina, causing her to feel pain. AAA’s
testimony specified the acts committed by appellant when he violated her on
PROS. SILAO:
Q- Matagal mo nang kakilala si Papa Boyet?
A- Opo.
Q- Bakit, kaano-ano mo ba siya?
A- Lolo po.
Q- Matatandaan mo ba [AAA] kung ano ang nangyari sa iyo nung ika-6 ng Enero 2000 mga bandang hapon?
A- Nung lumalabas po ako, kami po ay naglalaro.
Q- Saan ka naglalaro?
A- Sa labas po.
Q- Sa labas ng ano?
A- Sa kalsada.
Q- Nung naglalaro ka sa may kalsada, may matatandaan ka bang ginawa sa’yo si Papa Boyet?
A- Opo.
Q- Ano ang ginawa sa’yo ni Papa Boyet?
A- Sabi niya huwag ka magsusumbong sa Nanay mo.
Q- Bakit, ano ang ginawa niya sa’yo?
A- Sabi niya wag ka daw magsusumbong sa Daddy mo.
Q- Saan ka dinala ni Papa Boyet?
A- Sa bahay niya po.
Q- Malayo ba yung bahay ni Papa Boyet?
A- Hindi po, malapit lang po.
Q- May tao ba sa bahay ni Papa Boyet?
A- Opo.
Q- Sino ang tao sa bahay ni Papa Boyet nung dinala ka niya doon?
A- Siya lang po.
Q- Malaki ba yung bahay ni Papa Boyet?
A- Opo.
Q- Yung bahay ba ni Papa Boyet, may ibaba at may itaas?
A- May pataas pa po.
Q- Saan ka dinala, sa ibaba o sa itaas ng bahay?
A- Sa itaas po ng bahay.
Q- Nung nasa itaas na kayo ng bahay ni Papa Boyet, ano ang ginawa sa’yo ni Papa Boyet?
A- Hinubadan po yung damit ko po at short ko po.
Q- Ano
ang suot mo ba
A- Bistida po.
Q- Yung panloob mo, ano ang iyong suot?
A- Short po.
Q- Pagkatapos niya hubadin ang iyong bistida at short, ano pa ang hinubad niya sa’yo?
A- Panty ko po.
Q- Nung hinubadan ka niya, ano naman ang suot ni Papa Boyet?
A- Damit po niya.
Q- Ano naman ang ginawa niya sa damit niya?
A- Hinubad niya din po.
Q- Naka
pantalon ba si Papa Boyet
A- Hindi po.
Q- Ano ang ginawa niya sa pantalon niya?
A- Hinubadan po.
Q- Bukod sa pantalon niya, ano pa ang hinubad niya?
A- Yung short lang po.
Q- Pagkatapos niya hinubad yung panty mo, at tsaka hinubad nya rin yung pantalon niya at yung short niya, ano ang ginawa niya sa’yo?
A- Pinahiga po ako.
Q- Saan ka ipinahiga?
A- Sa
Q-
Pagkatapos nung pinahiga ka niya sa
A- Tinusok po nang “titi” niya ang “pepe” ko.
Q- Anong naramdaman mo?
A- Masakit po.
Q- Hindi ka humingi ng saklolo nung ginagawa niya iyon?
A- Hindi po.
Q- Bakit?
A- Kasi, huwag daw ako magsusumbong sa Nanay ko.
Q- Anong naramdaman mo bukod sa masakit?
A- Sinasabihan niya ako huwag magsusumbong.
Q- Gaano katagal niya iyon ginawa sa’yo?
A- Isa lang po.
Q-
Pagkatapos niya ginawa iyon, matagal ka pa ba
nakahiga dun sa
A- Hindi na po.
Q- Anong ginawa niya sa’yo?
A- Sinuot ko na po yung damit ko.
Q- Pagkatapos mo isinuot yung damit mo, saan ka nagpunta?
A- Sa bahay namin po.
Q- Pag sinabi mong sa bahay, sino ang pinuntahan mo sa bahay nyo?
A- Si Nanay ko po.
Q- Yung sinabi mo bang si Nanay mo, ito, itong katabi mo ngayon?
A- Opo.
Q- Pagdating sa bahay nang Nanay mo, nagsumbong ka ba agad sa Nanay mo?
A- Opo.
Q- Anong sinabi mo sa Nanay mo?
A- “Nanay, nanay, nung lumabas po ako, tapos masakit na yung “puke” ko po.”
Q- Ano pa ang sabi mo?
A- “Huwag mo hugasan kasi masakit.”
Q- Tinanong ba ni Nanay kung bakit masakit?
A- Opo.
Q- Ano ang sagot mo?
A- Sabi ko, “Nanay huwag mo ng hugasan kasi masakit.”
Q- Bakit tinanong ni Nanay kung bakit masakit?
A- Sabi ko po, “Nanay, matutulog na po ako sa higaan po.”
Q- Sinabi mo pa ba kay Nanay kung bakit naging masakit yung “pepe” mo?
A- Opo.
Q- Ano ang sinabi mo sa kanyang dahilan?
A- “Nanay, masakit po “puke” ko po.
Q- Sinabi mo ba kay Nanay mo nung pag-uwi mo sa bahay kung sino ang may kagagawan kung bakit masakit yung “pepe” mo?
A- Kasi po tinusok po ng “titi” ni Papa Boyet.
Q- Sinabi mo kung sino yung tumusok?
A- Opo.
Q- Sino ang pangalan?
A- Si Lolo Boyet po.
Q- Tumingin ka sa amin dito sa kwarto, nandito ba si Lolo Boyet?
A- Opo.
Q- Pakituro mo nga kung sino dito?
A- Siya po.
PROS. SILAO:
May we make it appear on record that the victim in this case [AAA] pointed to a person …
Will you please stand up. What is your name?
PERSON:
Romulo Garcia.
PROS SILAO:
And make it appear that
in so doing, the child is a little bit trembling and with fear.[26]
Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals
are in agreement that AAA was categorical, straightforward, spontaneous,
convincing, clear and candid in her testimony. A rape victim who testifies in a
categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains
consistent, is a credible witness.[27]
In resolving rape cases, primordial
consideration is given to the credibility of the victim’s testimony. 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.[28]
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.[29]
Here, we note that no such facts or circumstances of weight and substance have
been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial and appellate
courts.
Appellant’s claim that the criminal
complaint was filed against him because he was not in good terms with AAA’s
grandmother deserves scant consideration. The Court finds it incredible for AAA and her
grandmother to trump up charges of rape against appellant for the simple reason
that they did not have a harmonious relationship. Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of
young victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily
dismissed as a mere fabrication.[30]
Moreover, it is highly improbable
that BBB would allow her granddaughter to be exposed to the ridicule of a public
trial, if the charges were not true. We
note that AAA has been in the custody of BBB since she was an infant, and who
treated her as if she were her own daughter.
It was thus very unlikely that she would sacrifice her own granddaughter,
a child of tender years, and subject her to the rigors and humiliation of a
public trial for rape, if she were not motivated by an honest desire to have
her daughter’s transgressor punished accordingly.[31]
The Court is likewise not persuaded
by appellant's contention that AAA was never sexually abused because the
medico-legal findings showed that there were no signs of swelling on the
victim’s vagina when she was examined.
We have ruled in
a number of cases that the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual
intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is
not an essential element of rape. Even
the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the
possibility of rape.[32]
Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no
significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus.[33]
In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not
necessary. Penile invasion necessarily
entails contact with the labia. It
suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia
of the pudendum of the female organ. 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.[34]
As to the penalty, Article 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:
ART. 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:
l)
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;
2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;
3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;
5)
When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;
7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;
9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and
10)
When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or
physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the
crime. (Emphasis supplied.)
Under Article 266-B, paragraph 6,
subsection 1, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender
is a “parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the
victim.” The circumstances that qualify a crime should be alleged and proved
beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself, as these attendant circumstances
alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty. They are in the
nature of qualifying circumstances.[35]
The age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must, therefore,
be both alleged in the information and proven during the trial; otherwise, the
death penalty cannot be imposed.[36]
Here, the Information[37]
alleged that AAA is appellant’s grandniece by affinity. It should be pointed out, however, that this
relationship does not make the appellant a relative of the victim by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. Hence, the provision in Article 266-B,
paragraph 6, subsection 1, is not applicable in this case.
Nevertheless, it is provided under
Article 266-B, paragraph 6, subsection 5, that the death penalty shall also be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the victim is a child below
seven (7) years old. The special
qualifying circumstance that the victim was below seven (7) years of age at the
time of the commission of the rape was properly alleged in the Information and
proved during trial by the testimonies of the complainant and her grandmother. It was also supported by the copy of the birth
certificate[38]
establishing that the victim was only five (5) years old when the rape was
committed. Thus, appellant was, at that
time, correctly sentenced to death by the trial court. In view of the enactment of Rep. Act No.
9346[39]
on
We likewise uphold the award of P75,000.00
as civil indemnity made by the courts a
quo as the award is in line with existing case law. We
have held that if the rape is perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying
aggravating circumstances that require the imposition of the death penalty, the
civil indemnity for the victim shall be P75,000.00.
Also, in rape cases, moral damages are
awarded without need of proof other than the fact of rape, because it is
assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an
award. The moral damages awarded in the
instant case, however, should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00
pursuant to current jurisprudence on qualified rape.[41] Exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00
are also called for,[42]
by way of public example, and to protect the young from sexual abuse.[43]
WHEREFORE,
the Decision dated P75,000.00
as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
With costs against the
accused-appellant.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
WE
CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution, I certify 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.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-20. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, with Associate Justices Eliezer R. De Los Santos and Fernanda Lampas Peralta concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 17-25. Penned by Judge Amalia F. Dy.
[3] Records, pp. 1-2.
[4] This appellation is pursuant to Section 44, Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426, 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.
[5] Records, p. 25.
[6]
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] Exhibit “D” for the prosecution, records, p. 264.
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] CA rollo, pp. 24-25.
[19]
[20] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[21] AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH
PENALTY IN THE
[22] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[23] CA rollo, p. 44.
[24]
[25] People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No.
171020,
[26] TSN,
[27] People
v. Madraga, G.R. No. 129299,
[28] People v. Noveras, G.R. No. 171349,
[29] People v. Balonzo, G.R. No. 176153,
[30] People
v. Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135,
[31] People v. Tumala, Jr., G.R. No.
122100,
[32] People v. Operario, G.R. No. 146590,
[33] People v. Basite, G.R. No. 150382,
[34] People v. Operario, supra.
[35] People v. Begino, G.R. No. 181246, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 189, 196, citing People v. Ferolino, 386 Phil. 161 (2000).
[36] People v. Bayya, 384 Phil. 519, 527 (2000); People v. Maglente, 366 Phil. 221, 254 (1999); People v. Ilao, 357 Phil. 656, 672 (1998); People v. Ramos, 357 Phil. 559, 574 (1998).
[37] Supra note 3.
[38] Records, p. 260.
[39] Supra note 21.
[40] People
v. Ibańez, G.R. No. 174656,
[41] People v. Sambrano, G.R. No. 143708,
[42] People v. Regalario, G.R. No. 174483,
[43] People v. Sambrano, supra.