Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, -
versus - LEONITO AMATORIO,
Appellant. |
G.R. No. 175837 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, DEL CASTILLO*, and ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: August 8, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA,
J.:
This is an appeal from the August 29, 2006 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00964, which held appellant Leonito Amatorio (Amatorio) guilty of five counts of rape. The CA Decision affirmed with modification the January 28, 2005 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2840-C up to 2844-C.
The accusatory portions of the separate Informations filed against Amatorio read:
Criminal Case No. 2840-C
That
on or about the 27th day of July 1991, at Barangay XXX, in the
Municipality of Guinayangan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
knife, with lewd design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one
AAA[3], a
minor, 9 years of age, against her will.
Contrary
to law.[4]
Criminal Case No. 2841-C
That
on or about the 30th day of July 1991, at Barangay XXX, in the
Municipality of Guinayangan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA, a
minor, 9 years of age, against her will.
Contrary
to law.[5]
Criminal Case No. 2842-C
That
on or about the month of June 1992, at Barangay XXX, in the Municipality of
Guinayangan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, with lewd
design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA, a
minor, 10 years of age, against her will.
Contrary
to law.[6]
Criminal Case No. 2843-C
That
on or about the 15th day of November 1993, at Barangay XXX, in the
Municipality of Guinayangan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
knife, with lewd design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one AAA,
a minor, 11 years of age, against her will.
Contrary
to law.[7]
Criminal Case No. 2844-C
That
on or about the 29th day of September 1994, at Barangay XXX, in the
Municipality of Guinayangan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
knife, with lewd design, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one
AAA, a minor, 12 years of age, against her will.
Contrary
to law.[8]
When
arraigned on
The prosecution offered three witnesses, namely: private complainant AAA, who was a nine-year-old girl at the time of the commission of the first act of rape; BBB,[10] the victimÕs mother; Dr. Florencia Agno-Vergara, Municipal Health Officer of Guinayangan, Quezon.
The prosecution first presented BBB, the mother of AAA.
Under oath, BBB
testified that Amatorio is her common-law husband. She narrated that she
received a letter from AAA when the latter was working in
On cross-examination, BBB testified that Amatorio was living in her house at Guinayangan, Quezon, along with her daughter AAA.
The next
witness presented by the prosecution was the victim, AAA, who testified that
she knew Amatorio one month before she was raped by him and that he was the
common-law husband of BBB. At
around 7:00 p.m. and
Three days
after the first incident, Amatorio repeated the same bestial act on AAA on
Sometime in June 1992, AAA was residing in the house of Roberto Olar. It was on that occasion that AAA was raped a third time by Amatorio. AAA testified that Amatorio ordered her to go with him fishing in a fishpond near the seashore and that she was raped on the way there. She said that she again begged for mercy, but that Amatorio did not stop. She also said that she believed Amatorio would kill her mother and sister which is why Amatorio was able to rape her again.
AAA then testified
that she was raped a fourth time on
AAA left their
home and went to
The prosecution next presented Dr. Florencia Agno Vergara, the doctor who examined AAA. Dr. Vergara issued a Medical Certificate[16] wherein her findings were Òhymen showed irregular bordersÓ which meant that the vaginal borders were irregular and with latches.
The defense
presented Amatorio who denied having raped AAA. He said that he does not know anything
about the claim of AAA that he raped her on
On
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing
considerations, this Court finds accused Leonito Amatorio GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 2840-C, 2841-C, 2842-C, 2843-C and
2844-C and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and
to pay the victim AAA the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages in Criminal
Cases Nos. 2840-C, 2841-C, 2842-C, 2843-C; and the penalty of DEATH in Criminal
Case No. 2844-C and payment of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.
The accused is to be credited of his preventive
imprisonment if proper and any, pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by R.A. 6127 and E.O. No. 214.
SO ORDERED.[18]
On appeal, the CA rendered a Decision modifying the RTC decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, except for the penalty in Criminal Case No.
2844-C which shall be modified to reclusion perpetua, the assailed
SO ORDERED.[19]
The CA modified the RTC Decision in view of the fact that the aggravating circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the Information and that Republic Act No. 9346[20] already abolished the penalty of death.
Hence, this instant appeal.
Three
principles guide the courts in resolving rape cases: (1) an accusation for rape
can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of
the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of
the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme 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.[21]
In giving more credence to the version of the prosecution, the RTC observed that the testimony of AAA was clear, straightforward and has the ring of truth.[22] Indeed, the records disclose that AAA was categorical and straightforward when she narrated the sordid details of the first time she was ravished by Amatorio on her birthday:
Q. Now
on the said date and year July 27, 1991 at around, between 7:00 and 8:00
oÕclock in the evening, do you recall any unusual incident that happened?
A. Yes
sir, there was.
Q. What
was the unusual incident that you can recall?
A. He
called me in our backyard telling me that he will give me a gift, sir.
Q. Why,
what is the special occasion on that day?
A. It
was my birthday, sir.
Q. Your
birthday, and how old are you at the time?
A. I
was 9 years old, sir.
Q. And
when your Uncle Leonito Amatorio called you at the backyard of your house, what
did you do if you did anything?
A. I
went to where he was, sir.
Q. And
he gave you a gift because on that day it was your birthday?
A. He
did not, sir.
Q. Why?
A. Because
when I came near him, he held me in my arm and he poked his knife in my side,
sir.
PROS. FLORIDO:
Again
we want to make it on record that the victim is crying, Your Honor.
PROS. FLORIDO:
Q. And
when the accused poked his knife to you, what part of your body did his knife
poke to you?
A. At
the right side of my body, sir.
Q. When
the accused poked his knife to you, did (sic) you able to recognize the same,
what kind of knife is it?
A. Yes
sir. I often see that weapon, that was 29.
Q. And
what did you do if you did anything?
A. I
fought back but I cannot do anything because he was strong, sir.
Q. And
because he was strong, what happened else if there is any?
A. He
dragged me to a grassy place that was at the backyard of our house, sir.
Q. When
he dragged you at the backyard of your house, what did the accused do if he did
anything?
A. He
undressed me, sir.
Q. Which
did the accused first take off and undressed you?
A. My
short and my panty, sir.
Q. When
the accused take off and undressed your shorts and panty and according to you
he pulled out your dress, what dress are you referring to?
A. He
pulled out the button of my shirt, sir.
Q. When
the accused pulled out your button in your shirt, what happened to the buttons
of your dress?
A. It
was detached, sir.
Q. And
what did you do, if you did anything when the accused pulled out your button
dress?
A. He
removed his shorts and brief, he was not wearing any t-shirt, sir.
Q. While
he was undressing you, where is the knife poked you (sic) at the time?
A. He
was holding and it was poked at my side, sir.
Q. And
after that, what happened next, if there is any?
A. When
he was undressed already, he pushed me in a grassy place and he placed himself
on topped (sic) of me, sir.
Q. When
he placed himself on topped (sic) of you, what happened?
A. He
opened my thigh and he placed himself at the center, sir.
Q. And
when he opened your thigh and placed himself at the center, did you feel any
strong or hard object?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What
hard object did you feel, if you feel (sic) anything?
A. It
was painful and my private part became blooded (sic), sir.
Q. You
said you felt pain because of the penis of the accused entered your vagina?
A. Yes,
sir.
PROS. FLORIDO:
We
want to make it on record that the witness is crying and her tears rolling down
to her face down to her chin.
Q. And
when you felt that there was something came (sic) out to your vagina which
according to you was blooded (sic), what did you do if you did anything?
A. I
fought back but I cannot do anything, sir.
Q. According
to you, he was very strong, what did you do if you did anything in spite of
your effort to fought (sic) back?
A. I
was fighting but he boxed my thigh, sir.
Q. When
he boxed your thigh, what happened next?
A. I
became weak, sir.
Q. After
you felt the blood in your vagina, did the accused successfully insert his
penis?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And
that was the reason why the blood came (sic) to your vagina?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. After
that, what did the accused do after he was able to insert his penis and
successfully insert his penis to your vagina?
A. He
told me Òna ingatan kong makahalata ang
Nanay koÓ or else will kill us, sir.
Q. Do
you believe with that threatening words uttered by your Uncle?
A. Yes
sir, because I was afraid.[23]
In the determination of guilt for the crime of rape, primordial is the credibility of complainantÕs testimony, because, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[24] Moreover, when the offended party is a young and immature girl, as in this case, where the victim was barely 9 years old at the time the rape was committed, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability, but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial, if the matter about which they testified were not true.[25]
The
truthfulness of AAA is more manifest in her comportment during the trial. As observed by the RTC, AAA broke down
and cried during her narration of her sexual ordeals or abuse by Amatorio.[26]
For
his part, Amatorio only offers the defense of plain denial. He denied knowledge about AAAÕs
allegation of rape on
Jurisprudence
teaches that between categorical testimonies that ring of truth, on one hand,
and a bare denial, on the other, the Court has strongly ruled that the former
must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the accused, when categorical
and consistent, and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses
testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial.[27]
As observed by the RTC, Amatorio miserably failed to adduce evidence showing
that AAA or her mother was actuated by any ill-motive in charging him with five
counts of rape.
All
told, this Court has no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC finding the
testimony of AAA and the other witnesses credible as it was in the position to hear
the witnesses themselves and observe their behavior and manner of testifying.
As this Court had held in previous cases, time and again, we have consistently
held that when a woman, more so if a minor, states that she has been raped, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. For no woman, least of all a child,
would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to
examination of her private parts and later be subjected to public trial or
ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek
justice for the wrong done to her.[28]
In
People v. Fraga,[29]
this Court held that "although the rape of a person under eighteen (18)
years of age by the common-law spouse of the victimÕs mother is punishable by
death, this penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant x x x because his
relationship was not what was alleged in the informations.Ó
Contrary
to the findings of the RTC, that the Òqualifying
circumstance of minority and relationship were clearly established by the
prosecution in Criminal Case No. 2844-C and it was also properly alleged in the
Information,Ó[30]
this Court finds that the same is bereft of basis as the relationship of
Amatorio to AAA was, in fact, not alleged in all the five Informations. It is basic that the filiation or kinship
with the accused must be alleged in the information as part of the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him.[31] The failure to accurately allege the
relationship between appellant and his victim in the information bars his
conviction of rape in its qualified form.[32] Thus, since AmatorioÕs relationship to
AAA was not alleged in the Information, he is thus auspiciously spared from
being convicted of qualified rape.
Based on the
foregoing, the RTC erred when it convicted Amatorio of qualified rape in
Criminal Case No. 2844-C, as he can only be held liable for simple rape as
correctly ruled by the CA. Articles
266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,
otherwise known as The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, reads:
ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. -
Rape is committed.
1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
x x x x
ART.
266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Finally, with
respect to damages, the Court affirms the RTC and the CAÕs awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count
of rape committed.
Civil
indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the crime by
the offender.[33] In accordance with prevailing
jurisprudence, the civil indemnity awarded to victims of qualified rape shall
not be less than P75,000.00, and P50,000.00 for simple rape.[34]
Moral damages
in the amount of P50,000.00 for each
count is also automatically granted in a rape case without need of further
proof other than the fact of its commission.[35]
This Court,
however, also awards exemplary damages in view of the minority of the victim. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[36]
an award of P30,000.00 for each count
of rape is thus warranted.
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated August 29,
2006, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C No. 00964, is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION in that appellant,
LEONITO AMATORIO, is ORDERED to pay the private complainant, AAA, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each
count of rape committed. In all other
respects, the Court of Appeals Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
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 CourtÕs Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division ChairpersonÕs
Attestation, 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 CourtÕs Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as an
additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza, per raffle
dated July 28, 2010.
[1]
Penned
by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion with Associate Justices Jose Catral
Mendoza (now a Member of this Court) and Sesinando E. Villon, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-9.
[2]
Penned
by Presiding Judge Mariano A. Morales, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 33-42.
[3]
The
real name of the victim is withheld to protect her privacy; instead, fictitious
initials are used to represent her, pursuant to Section 44 of Republic Act No.
9262 (the Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004).
Likewise, the personal circumstances or any other information tending to
establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her family members
shall not be disclosed.
[4]
Records
(Criminal Case No. 2840-C), p. 1.
[5]
Records
(Criminal Case No. 2841-C), p. 2.
[6]
Records
(Criminal Case No. 2842-C), p. 1.
[7]
Records
(Criminal Case No. 2843-C), p. 1.
[8]
Records
(Criminal Case No. 2844-C), p. 2.
[9]
Records
(Criminal Case No. 2840-C), p. 35.
[10]
The
real name of the victimÕs mother is withheld per Republic Act No. 7610,
Republic Act No. 9262. (People
v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 421.)
[11]
Exhibit
ÒA,Ó folder of exhibits.
[12]
Exhibit
ÒC,Ó id.
[13]
Exhibit
ÒD,Ó id.
[14]
Exhibit
ÒE,Ó id.
[15]
Exhibit
ÒF.Ó
[16]
Exhibit
ÒH.Ó
[17]
CA
rollo, pp. 33-42.
[18]
Id. at 41-42.
[19]
Rollo, p. 9.
[20]
An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
[21]
People
v. Glivano, G.R. No.
177565, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 656, 662, citing People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 318 (2004).
[22]
CA
rollo, p. 38.
[23]
TSN,
January 28, 1998, pp. 9-16.
[24]
People
v. Pascua, G.R. No.
151858,
[25]
People v. Gragasin, G.R. No. 186496,
[26]
CA
rollo, p. 40.
[27]
People
v. Dela Paz, G.R. No.
177294, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 363, 378, citing People v. Tagana, 468 Phil. 784, 807 (2004).
[28]
People
v. Sarazan, 443 Phil.
737, 750 (2003).
[29]
386
Phil. 884, 910 (2000).
[30]
Rollo, p. 41.
[31]
People
v. Awing, 404 Phil.
815, 834 (2001); People v. Dela Cuesta,
396 Phil. 330, 343 (2000).
[32]
People
v. Villaraza, 394 Phil.
175, 196 (2000); People v. Balleno,
455 Phil. 979, 990 (2003).
[33]
People
v. Baun, G.R. No.
167503,
[34]
People
v. Cacayan, G.R. No.
180499,
[35]
People
v. Codilan, G.R. No.
177144,
[36]
People v. Ofemiano, G.R. No. 187155, February 1, 2010; People vs. Layco, G.R. No. 182191, May
8, 2009.