THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - EMELDO “Pamentolan” OBINA,
AMADO RAMIREZ, and CARLITO “Masoc” BALAGBIS, accused; EMELDO “Pamentolan” OBINA
and AMADO RAMIREZ, Accused-Appellants. |
G.R.
No. 186540
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: April 14,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1]
dated January 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00634.
On
February 1, 1996, appellants were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of robbery with rape in an Information which reads:
That on or about January 30, 1996,
at about 1:30 o’clock in the morning at Brgy. Campesao, Borongan, Eastern Samar
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
conspiring, confederating and helping one another with intent to gain, with the
use of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal and carry away Eight Hundred Pesos (P800.00)
cash belonging to the herein offended party and on the occasion of said robbery
said Imeldo Obina alias PAMENTOLAN, with lewd design and with the use of force
and intimidation and in conspiracy with his other co-accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the offended
party [AAA][2]
against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
When
arraigned, all the accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter,
trial on the merits ensued.
The
facts of the case are as follows:
On
January 30, 1996, at around 1:30 a.m., AAA and her common-law husband, BBB,
were roused from sleep when Emeldo Obina (Obina) and Carlito Balagbis
(Balagbis) barged into their room after entering the kitchen by destroying the
door shutter. AAA and BBB recognized both accused because of the illumination
coming from the gas lamp that hung on a post near where they lay asleep.
Obina,
who carried a knife, demanded money. AAA gave them all the money she had,
amounting to Eight Hundred Pesos (P800.00). Balagbis poked a knife,
about twelve (12) inches long, on the side of BBB. Obina ordered BBB to kneel
down and, simultaneously, mashed AAA’s breasts and fingered her genital organ.
A voice coming from under the house shouted: “you will kill first the man and
later on we will play with the girl.” The couple recognized the voice to be
that of Amado Ramirez (Ramirez) whom they were familiar with.
Fearing
for his life, BBB jumped from the window and ran towards the plantation. Obina
and Balagbis chased BBB, but they failed to catch him. BBB then sought help
from the police.
While
Balagbis and Ramirez were chasing BBB, Obina took the opportunity to have carnal
knowledge of AAA against her will. Thereafter, he ordered AAA to dress up and
forced her to go with him. AAA was able to free herself from Obina’s hold when
several dogs barked at them. She ran towards the house of a neighbor and sought
help. Later on, BBB and the police arrived.
On
February 6, 1998, the RTC of Borongan,
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, accused EMELDO OBINA is
hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
Robbery with Rape defined and penalized under Article 294, par. 1 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9, par. 1 of Republic Act No. 7659
which took effect on December 31, 1993, which provides a penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua to Death. Accordingly, Emeldo
Obina is hereby sentenced to serve the indivisible penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua and to pay the offended party [AAA] the amount P50,000.00 as
moral damages, plus the costs of this suit.
Accused Carlito Balagbis and Amado Ramirez are found guilty as
co-principal of the crime of Robbery defined and penalized under Article 294,
par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 9, par. 5 of Republic
Act No. 7659 which provides a penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences accused
Carlito Balagbis and Amado Ramirez each to serve an imprisonment to 4 years and
2 months of prision correccional, as maximum, and all respondents are ordered
to pay the victims [BBB] and [AAA] the amount of P800.00 jointly and
severally, and to pay the cost of this suit.
Records show that accused Emeldo Obina and Amado Ramirez have been detained since February 7, 1996 while Carlito Balagbis was detained on February 9, 1996. Each of the accused are therefore entitled to the preventive imprisonment thus far undergone by them, provided they agree with the rules and regulations imposed on convicted prisoners, otherwise they shall be entitled to only four-fifths (4/5) of their preventive custody in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 6127.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Appellants
Obina and Ramirez filed their respective appeals; while accused Balagbis
withdrew his appeal on January 21, 2000.
On
January 30, 2008, the CA rendered a Decision,[6] the
fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
assailed Sentence [Decision] of the RTC, 8th
Judicial Region, Branch 1, Borongan, Eastern Samar, in Criminal Case No. 10690,
finding appellant, Emeldo Obina alias “Pamentolan,” guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Robbery with Rape, and appellant Amado Ramirez and accused Carlito
Balagbis alias “Masoc,” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery, is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that appellant Obina is ORDERED to pay the
victim [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
No Costs.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Hence, this appeal.
The sole issue in this
case is whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the conviction
of appellants.
The instant appeal is
bereft of merit.
As a rule, findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses and of their testimonies are accorded
great respect, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts and
circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the
case. In criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon
deserves much weight and respect, because the judge has the direct opportunity
to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or
not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the
credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the
testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient
to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of
the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. The rule finds an even
more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[8]
In the case at bar, the Court finds
no compelling reason to deviate from the said rule that factual findings of the
trial court should not be disturbed on appeal. The
RTC and the CA committed no reversible error in finding appellant Obina guilty
of robbery with rape, while appellant Ramirez and accused Balagbis guilty of
robbery.
As to the penalty imposed, the RTC correctly sentenced
appellant Obina to reclusion perpetua
in accordance with Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The CA, likewise, committed no error
in affirming the penalty imposed on appellant Ramirez and accused Balagbis.
As
to the damages awarded, we hereby rule that appellant Obina is ordered to pay
AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
damages.
The
civil indemnity and moral damages are separately granted in rape cases without
need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[9] Civil
indemnity is mandatorily awarded to the rape victim on the finding that rape
was committed.[10] It is
in the nature of actual or compensatory damages.[11]
Similarly,
moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without need of
pleading or proof; it is assumed that a rape victim actually suffered moral
injuries, entitling her to this award.[12] That
the victim suffered trauma, with mental, physical, and psychological suffering,
is too obvious to still require recital at the trial by the victim, since we
assume and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[13]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the Decision dated January 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00634 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against appellants.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
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 Antonio L. Villamor, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, concurring; rollo, pp. 5-20.
[2] Under
Republic Act No. 9262, also known as
"Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004," and its
implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate
family members are withheld, and fictitious initials are instead used to
protect the victim's privacy.
[3] Rollo, p. 6.
[4] CA rollo, pp. 22-38.
[5]
[6] Supra note 1.
[7] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[8] People v. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 682, 705, citing People v. Malapo, G.R. No. 123115, August 25, 1998, 294 SCRA 579, 591.
[9] People of the
[10] People v. Espino, Jr., supra note 8.
[11] People v. Crespo, G.R. No. 180500, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA 613; People v. Arivan, G.R. No. 176065, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 448.
[12] People of the Philippines v. Rolly Canares y Almanares, G.R. No. 174065,
February 18, 2009; People v. Diocado,
G.R. No. 170567, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 123; People v. Codilan, G.R. No. 177144, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 623; People v. Bunagan, G.R. No. 177161, June
30, 2008, 556 SCRA 808; People v. Nieto,
G.R. No. 177756, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 511; People v. Malicsi, G.R. No. 175833, January 29, 2008, 543 SCRA 93.
[13] People v. Crespo, supra note 11.