Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
G.R. No. 182094 |
|
Appellee, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
EFREN ALFONSO, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Appellant. |
|
August 18, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
A father,
accused of raping his two minor daughters, is before us praying for his
acquittal.
On appeal is
the July 31, 2007 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02312 which affirmed with
modifications the Joint Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calabanga, Camarines Sur, Branch 63, finding
appellant Efren Alfonso guilty of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2)
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in Criminal Case No. RTC-'02-735 and Statutory
Rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) in Criminal Case No. RTC-'02-736.
Factual Antecedents
On October 1,
2002, two Informations were filed charging appellant with violations of Article
266-A(2) and 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC. The Informations read:
Crim. Case No. RTC’02-735
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor x
x x accuses EFREN ALFONSO [of] the crime of RAPE defined and penalized under
Art. 266-A, (2) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 8353 and
committed as follows:
That on or about the 7th day of April 2002,
in x x x Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously committed
an act of sexual assault upon his three (3)[-]year old daughter, “AAA”[3]
by inserting his finger into the vagina of the said victim to her damage and
prejudice.
The crime is committed with the following
attendant aggravating/ qualifying circumstances: The victim is a child
below seven years old and the offender is the father of the victim.
ACTS
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Crim. Case No. RTC’02-736
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor x
x x accuses EFREN ALFONSO [of] the crime of RAPE, defined and penalized under
Art. 266-A, (1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 8353
and committed as follows:
That on or about the 7th day of April 2002,
in x x x
The crime is committed with the following
attendant aggravating/ qualifying circumstances: The victim is a child
below seven years old and the offender is the father of the victim.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
On
arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.[6] During pre-trial, appellant admitted that “AAA”
and “BBB” are his legitimate children and who were then only 3 and 5 years old,
respectively, on April 7, 2002.[7]
Thereafter,
the cases were jointly tried.[8]
Version of the Prosecution
The
prosecution's first witness was “CCC,” the mother of “AAA” and “BBB.” “CCC” testified that on April 6, 2002, she and
her sons “DDD” and “EEE” went to Magarao, Camarines Sur, to have “DDD” treated by
a quack doctor. They left “AAA” and “BBB”
at their residence in the care of herein appellant. When “CCC” returned home on April 8, 2002, she
found “AAA” and “BBB” crying and in a state of shock. She initially
brought her daughters to the quack doctor but was prevailed upon to bring them
to a hospital for medical examination. Upon
her prodding, “AAA” and “BBB” informed her that they were sexually abused by
their father, herein appellant.[9]
The
prosecution next presented Dr. Augusto M. Quilon, Jr. (Dr. Quilon), a resident
physician at the Bicol Medical Center who testified on the results of the
medical examinations conducted on “AAA” and “BBB.” Dr. Quilon
explained that “AAA’s” hymen was intact but her labia majora bore reddish marks
which could possibly be caused by the insertion of a finger. “BBB,” on
the other hand, had superficial lacerations in her hymen which could possibly
be caused by sexual contact or insertion of a foreign object.[10]
The
prosecution next presented “BBB” as its witness. “BBB” was only 7 years old when she testified
in court, thus:
x x x x
PROS. OLIVEROS:
Q Do
you know what x x x your father has done to you?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Can
you tell us what your father has done to you?
A He
had [sexual] intercourse with me.
Q When you said you were molested by
your father, what happened to your vagina?
A It was painful.
Q Do you know also [where] the penis
of your father x x x [was] situated?
INTERPRETER:
A And the witness pointed to her
vagina.
PROS. OLIVEROS:
Q Did x x x your father x x x [insert
his penis into] your vagina?
A Yes, Sir.
x x x x
Q You said a while ago that you felt
pain, aside from that, what did you [observe] in your vagina?
A It was painful.
Q Was there blood that oozed [from]
your vagina?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Do you have clothes x x x when this
incident happened?
A Yes, Sir.
Q [Were] your clothes x x x removed?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Who removed [your clothes]?
A My father.
Q Kindly tell us again what is the
name of your father who removed your apparel?
A Efren.
Q If your father Efren is in court, [can
you] pinpoint him to us?
INTERPRETER:
A And the witness pointed to a man, [who]
when asked what is his name, answered Efren Alfonso.
PROS. OLIVEROS:
Q Can you tell us, [“BBB”], after you
were sexually abused by your father, do you still remember what happened to
your sister [“AAA”]?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Tell us what did your father do to
your sister [“AAA”]?
A He used his hand.
Q What did your father do [with] his
hand?
A He used his hand.
Q Where did your father [use his hand]?
A On the vagina.
INTERPRETER:
And the witness pointed to her
vagina.
PROS. OLIVEROS:
Q Vagina of your sister [“AAA”]?
A Yes, Sir.
x x x x
Q By the way, [“BBB”], when [did] this
incident [happen] x x x was [it] [nighttime] or x x x [daytime]?
A It was x x x [nighttime].
x x x x[11]
After “BBB,” the
prosecution presented “AAA” who was only 5 years old when she testified, thus:
x x x x
PROS. OLIVEROS:
Q Do
you know also the name of your father?
A Yes,
Sir.
Q Kindly
tell us[.]
A Efren.
PROS. OLIVEROS:
Q If
your father[,] Efren[,] is in court, please look around and pinpoint him to
us[.]
INTERPRETER:
The
witness has pointed to a man [who] when asked what is his name, answered Efren
Alfonso.
PROS. OLIVEROS:
Q A
while ago you pinpointed to your father[,] Efren Alfonso[.] Do you know what
[your father did to you?]
A Yes, Sir.
Q What
did your father do to you?
A He
removed his clothes and he removed also my clothes and he had sexual
intercourse with me.
Q What
did your father use in sexually abusing you?
A His
forefinger.
INTERPRETER:
As
demonstrated by the witness.
PROS. OLIVEROS:
Q When
you were sexually abused by your father by using his finger, who was your
companion then?
A Owen
and x x x my sister.
Q You
said that you were sexually molested by your father by using his finger[. Did] x
x x your father [insert his finger into] your vagina?
A Yes,
Sir.
Q What
did you feel when your father inserted his finger into your vagina?
A It
was painful.
Q A
while ago you said you have a companion, a sister of yours, if that sister is
in court can you pinpoint her to us?
INTERPRETER:
The
witness x x x pointed to a girl and when asked what is her name, [she] answered
[“BBB”].
PROS. OLIVEROS:
x x x x
Q You
pinpointed your older sister [“BBB”], do you know what x x x your father also
[did] to your sister [“BBB”]?
A Yes,
Sir.
Q Kindly
tell us what x x x your father [did] to your older sister [“BBB”].
A My
sister removed her clothes and my father also removed his clothes.
Q After
removing those clothes, what did your father do?
A He had sexual
intercourse with [“BBB”].[12]
In order to
assess whether “AAA” understood what she was testifying on, the trial judge
likewise propounded questions to her.
Thus:
COURT:
Few questions from the court.
Q You x x x mentioned [“AAA”] that
your father had inserted his finger [into] your vagina, was it done [at nighttime?]
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And your mother was not around?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And it was only the following day
that your mother arrived?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And that was also the time that you
have informed your mother of what happened?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q And x x x who were with you on that
night?
A Erwin and Ate.
Q What about your father?
A He was with us that night.
Q And it was you, your father, your
sister[,] and [a] certain Erwin, who slept together on that night?
A Yes, Sir.
Q You also x x x mentioned that
whenever you take a bath your father [would insert] his finger [into] your
vagina, is that correct?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What did you feel?
A Painful.
Q And you did not inform your mother [that]
whenever your father bathed you, [he would insert] his finger [into] your
vagina?
A No, Your Honor.
Q So it was only the following day
after your father had inserted his finger [into] your vagina that you x x x told
your mother about it?
A Yes, Your Honor.[13]
Finally, the prosecution presented the
Local Civil Registrar who testified on the Certificates of Live Birth of “AAA”
and “BBB.” It was established that “AAA”
was born on January 18, 1999 and was only 3 years old when the incident
happened. As regards “BBB,” she was born
on September 25, 1996 and was only 5 years old when the incident occurred.
Version of the Defense
The defense
presented appellant as its lone witness.
He claimed that on April 7, 2002, he was working at the sugarcane
plantation located about two kilometers away from their house[14]
but he took his lunch at their house.[15]
Contrary to the testimony of “CCC,”
appellant claimed that his wife did not leave their house on April 7, 2002.[16]
According
to appellant, it was already nighttime when he went home on April 7, 2002.[17] Upon arrival, he noticed that “AAA” was
already asleep but “BBB” was still awake.
He was informed by his wife that “BBB” was sick.[18] Appellant further testified, thus:
Q What
did you do after you learned that “BBB” was not feeling well?
A I
told my wife to ask “BBB” what she feels.
Q Did
your wife ask “BBB”?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Did
you hear [“BBB’s” answer] to the query asked by your wife?
A Yes,
sir, headache.
Q What
happened next after you heard “BBB” complaining about her head?
A Then
my wife asked “BBB” again what else is she feeling[.]
Q Did
“BBB” answer back?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
did you hear?
A She
was also complaining about her knees.
Q x
x x [W]hat happened next, if any?
A My
wife asked her again.
Q What
was the question?
A What
else was wrong with her.
Q What
did “BBB” answer when she was asked again.
A Her
vagina is also painful.
Q So,
what happened next after “BBB” told your wife that her vagina was painful?
A “BBB”
told us that she was sexually abused by her Manoy, by her elder brother.
Q What
did you do after “BBB” told you that she was sexually abused by her Manoy?
A Nothing,
sir.
Q How
about your wife, what did she do?
A None
also, sir.
Q So,
what happened to “BBB” after she told you that she was abused by her Manoy,
after telling that what did she do?
A Nothing,
sir.
Q You
said that you [did] nothing together with your wife including “BBB.” What [happened] after you heard “BBB” [tell]
you x x x that she was sexually abused by her Manoy?
A I
asked my wife if she will file a case in court but she did not respond.
Q So,
what did you do after that?
A When
I asked my wife if she will file a case in court, my wife did not reply.
Q That's
why after that what happened next?
A No
more, sir.
Q So,
what did you do?
A Then
we went to sleep.[19]
x x x x
Q Who
is this [“EEE”] you referred to?
A When
I married my wife, she already [has] a son.
Q [“EEE”]
is your step-son, is that correct?
A Yes,
sir.
Q How
were you able to say that it was [“EEE”] who sexually abused your two
daughters?
A It
was my wife who asked our daughters and they told my wife that it was [“EEE”]
who abused them.
x x x x
Q Were
there other persons aside from [“EEE”] whom they called Manoy?
A None,
sir.[20]
x x x x
COURT:
Only
one question from the court.
Q What
is the age of [“EEE” in] April, 2002?
A [In]
April 2002, he was already in Grade III.
Q His
age may be 10 or 11 years old?
A Yes, your Honor.[21]
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On May 25, 2006, the RTC rendered its
Joint Decision,[22]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the prosecution having proven
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in both Criminal Case No.
RTC’02-735 and Criminal Case No. RTC’02-736, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. RTC’02-735, this
Court finds the accused, EFREN ALFONSO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense of Rape by Sexual Assault as defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of
Article 266-A of Republic Act 8353 with the qualifying circumstances under
number 1 of Article 266-B of Republic Act 8353 that the victim is under 18
years of age and the offender is a parent and under number 5 thereof that the
victim is a child below seven years old as charged in the Information and
hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) years and
ONE (1) day of PRISION MAYOR, as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) years, FOUR (4)
months and ONE (1) day of RECLUSION TEMPORAL, as maximum; and to indemnify the
offended party, “AAA,” civil indemnity of P30,000.00,
moral damages of P30,000.00 and exemplary
damages of P15,000.00. The accused being a detention prisoner
is entitled to be credited with 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the
service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code.
2. In Criminal Case No. RTC’02-736, this
Court finds the accused, EFREN ALFONSO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense of Statutory Rape by having carnal knowledge of his daughter who is
below 12 years of age as defined and penalized under letter (d) paragraph 1 of
Article 266-A of R.A. 8353 with the qualifying circumstance under number 1 of
Art. 266-B of Republic Act 8353 that the victim is under 18 years of age and
the offender is a parent and under number 5 thereof that the victim is a child
below seven years old as charged in the Information and hereby sentences him to
suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH; and to indemnify the victim, “BBB,” the
amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[23]
The trial court lent credence to the
testimony of “CCC” that she was in Magarao on April 6, 2002 and that when she
went home on April 8, 2002, she learned that her daughters “AAA” and “BBB” had
been sexually molested by the appellant.[24] Lending credibility to “CCC’s” testimony were
the results of the physical examination conducted on her daughters which
indicated that “AAA” had “hyperemic labia majora” while “BBB” had “superficial
lacerations in her hymen.”[25]
The court a quo found it unusual that the appellant did nothing at all upon
learning of the sexual molestations suffered by his daughters which were allegedly
committed by “EEE.”[26]
Worse, after learning over the radio
that he was accused of raping his daughters, he did not come forward; instead,
he made himself scarce until his apprehension two years later.[27]
On the other hand, the trial court found
“AAA” and “BBB” competent witnesses despite their young age. Carefully observing
their manner of testifying, the court below was satisfied that they can
“perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or
appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.”[28]
The trial court disregarded the
insinuation by the appellant that it was “EEE” who sexually abused “AAA” and “BBB.” It noted that despite rigid
cross-examination, “AAA” and “BBB” stuck to their testimonies that it was
appellant who committed the molestations.[29] It also found it highly improbable for “CCC”
to coach “AAA” and “BBB” to testify falsely against their father, or for “CCC”
to allow “AAA” and “BBB” “to go through the rigors of a public trial”[30]
just to have her husband convicted for a crime which he did not commit.[31] Since the complaints were filed on April 19,
2002 or barely 12 days after the commission of the crimes, the RTC opined that
it was inconceivable for “CCC” “to have decided to fabricate a rape charge
against the [appellant] much less convince or coach her children to testify
falsely against their father.”[32] Besides, the trial court noted that appellant
did not offer any explanation as to why he sold their personal effects and
destroyed their house when his wife decided to bring “AAA” and “BBB” to the
hospital for medical examination.[33]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On
appeal, appellant argued that the trial court erred in giving credence to the
testimonies of “AAA” and “BBB.” He
claimed that their testimonies were all lies and fabrications as coached to
them by “CCC.”[34] He also alleged that the trial court erred in
appreciating the qualifying circumstance of relationship as it was not proven
that appellant is the father of “BBB.”[35]
In its
assailed July 31, 2007 Decision,[36]
the CA found “no reason to reverse the findings of the trial court”[37]
and thus upheld appellant’s conviction on both charges. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal
is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The appealed Joint Decision dated May 25, 2006 of the Regional Trial
Court of Calabanga, Camarines Sur, Branch 63 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua with no possibility of parole and reduction of
exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P25,000.00 in Criminal Case
No. RTC’02-736 and in Criminal Case No. RTC’02-735, the increase from P15,000.00
to P25,000.00 in exemplary damages.
In all other respects, the decision under review
STANDS.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.[38]
Our Ruling
On July 25, 2008, appellee filed a
Manifestation[39]
stating that it would no longer file a Supplemental Brief having already
extensively discussed the issues in its brief filed before the CA.
Appellant filed his Supplemental Brief[40]
on August 8, 2008. He insists that the
CA overlooked the fact that the reddening of “AAA’s” sexual organ might have
been caused by a disease or by the scratching done by “AAA” herself. He claims that he could not be held liable
for rape by sexual assault considering that the act imputed against him is
nothing different from the accidental or casual touching of “AAA’s” vagina
which he does every time he gives “AAA” a bath.[41] As regards “BBB’s” testimony, appellant
argues that the same deserves scant consideration because “BBB” was coached by
her mother, “CCC.” Thus, the possibility
that some other person committed the rape is present.[42] In particular, he points to “EEE” as the
culprit.[43]
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Both the trial court and the CA
correctly found appellant guilty of rape by sexual assault.
Under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC,
rape by sexual assault is committed “[b]y any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual
assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.”
In the
present case, there is no doubt that appellant inserted his finger into the
genital of “AAA.” The claim of the
appellant that disease or scratching caused the reddening of “AAA’s” genital
lacks factual basis. In fact, appellant
did not mention this before the court below to bolster his defense of denial
albeit Dr. Quilon’s mentioning that the reddening of “AAA’s” genital could have
also been caused by scratching or disease.
Likewise, the defense never presented any proof that “AAA” was suffering
from a disease at the time. Neither did
the defense elicit any admission from “AAA” that she scratched her genital thus
causing the reddening. On the contrary,
records show that “AAA” was forthright in her testimony that her father
inserted his finger into her vagina.
Moreover, appellant’s admission that he
touches “AAA’s” vagina each time he gives her a bath strengthens our belief
that he is capable of committing sexual abuse to his own daughter. Also, such admission does not negate the
possibility of committing rape by sexual assault on “AAA” on April 7, 2002.
We
reviewed succintly the testimony of “AAA” and we find the same credible and
straightforward. At the time of the
incident, “AAA” was only 3 years old.
She was 5 years old when she testified before the court. However, despite her age she consistently and
without hesitation pointed to her father as the person who inserted his finger
into her vagina on April 7, 2002.
Her
tender age notwithstanding the trial court ably found “AAA” competent to
testify on her harrowing experience. As
aptly observed by the trial court:
Certain
nagging questions need to be answered such as for instance did the children
fully understand the meaning of what they were telling the court? Were they able to distinguish truth from
falsehood? Were they able to appreciate
the duty to tell the truth in court?
x
x x x
The
competence of “BBB” to testify as to the fact of her having been sexually
abused was amply demonstrated before this Court. Both “BBB” and “AAA” were asked questions by
the prosecution and defense in order to probe their competency to testify in
terms of their ability to perceive, remember, communicate and distinguish truth
from falsehood. After observing the
manner of testifying and hearing the answers of the child witnesses, this court
was satisfied that no substantial doubt existed regarding the ability of the
children to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood,
or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court.[44]
Both the trial court and the CA
correctly found appellant guilty of statutory rape.
Under Art. 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC,
statutory rape is committed “[b]y a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a
woman” who is “under twelve (12) years of age.” In the instant case, the prosecution proved
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had carnal knowledge of “BBB” who was
only 5 years of age at the time.
Both the
trial court and the appellate court correctly disregarded appellant’s
contention that “BBB’s” testimony was rehearsed. The records clearly show that “BBB” testified
in a straightforward and credible manner despite the rigid cross-examination by
the appellant’s counsel. She remained
steadfast throughout her narration that it was appellant who sexually abused
her. This prompted the trial court to
state thus:
It is unthinkable that a child of tender years
placed under rigid cross-examination would not loosen up or break down and
reveal the details of such a traumatic experience including pinpointing the
actual perpetrator of the crime. It is
believed that such traumatic experiences are deeply engraved in the memory of
the victim and will certainly come to the surface once the victim is confronted
and cross-examined especially when the victim is an innocent and naïve
child. Their natural innocence and
naivete will prevent them from sustaining a lie.[45]
There is likewise no basis to
appellant’s claim that “CCC” coached “BBB” to testify falsely against him. We agree with the trial court’s observation
that:
To say that “CCC” deliberately concocted the rape
charge against accused who was her husband and that she taught her children,
who were only 5 and 7 years of age, to falsely testify against their very own
father would attribute such a high degree of malevolence if not sophistication
to said witness. This court finds it
highly improbable. To go out of her way
to file a complaint and go through the rigors of a public trial for the purpose
of having her husband convicted for an offense he did not commit is to this
court something the witness does not appear capable of. Moreover, wanting to spare a son from being
prosecuted and punished is not a sufficient motivation for a wife and mother to
want to have her husband put in prison or punished with the supreme penalty of
death. The ordinary functioning of the
human mind and human emotion does not seem to work that way. It could probably happen in moments of
desperation as when there is no other way to save her son. The sequence of events as shown by the
evidence does not bear this out. x x x
x x x x
The record likewise shows that the complaint was
filed on April 19, 2002 or only 9 days after the children were examined and
were found to have signs of having been sexually abused. During this span of time, it is inconceivable
for “CCC” to have decided to fabricate a rape charge against the accused much
less convince or coach her children to testify falsely against their
father. Moreover, all these could have
been uncovered during cross examination.
As it is, despite the rigid cross examination by counsel for the
accused, “BBB” and “AAA” did not falter in pointing to their father as the one
who did something wrong to their vaginas.[46]
Finally, the courts below correctly
disposed of appellant’s contention that “EEE” was the real culprit. Both “AAA” and “BBB” were consistent in
pointing out that it was appellant who committed the sexual acts against
them. Despite the suggestion from
appellant’s counsel, both remained steadfast that their father was the one who
raped them. Lending credence to the fact
that appellant was indeed guilty of the crimes attributed against him were his
own actuations at the time material to this case. By appellant’s own admission, he did nothing
upon learning that his own daughters “AAA” and “BBB” were sexually molested
allegedly by “EEE.” Instead, he just
went to sleep upon learning of the abuses committed against his own
daughters. When his wife, “CCC,”
insisted on bringing “AAA” and “BBB” to the hospital to undergo medical
examination, appellant got angry. He
sold their personal effects and even destroyed their house. He also made himself scarce. Even after hearing over the radio that he was
the one accused of raping his two daughters, he did not come forward to clear his
name. Instead, he went on hiding until
his capture two years later. “[T]he
flight of an accused is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind.”[47]
We thus
agree with the observation of the court a
quo that:
The facts as testified to by the accused on the
other hand do not seem to jibe with the normal habits of man. For instance, according to the accused,
despite having heard that his child “BBB” was sexually abused by his stepson,
he did nothing about it. It does not
take much education to feel the protective instincts of a father whose child
has been violated. He did not confront
his stepson nor did he report the matter to the barangay. Not even when he learned over the radio that
he was being accused of raping his own daughters did he come forward with what
he believed was the truth. Instead, the
accused made himself scarce until he was finally apprehended in the year
2004. Such actuations do not appear
consistent with the actuations of an innocent man.[48]
x x x x
It might have been a bit more believable if say
the accused reported the matter to the barangay captain or warned [“CCC”] that
he would report the matter to the authorities.
He did neither. In fact, he did
nothing. There is nothing to corroborate
his claim that “BBB” told her mother that she was sexually abused by her Manoy.[49]
All told, we entertain no doubt that
appellant committed the imputed acts upon his daughters “AAA” and “BBB” on
April 7, 2002.
The Penalty
Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the
penalty for rape by sexual assault is reclusion
temporal “if the rape is committed by any of the 10 aggravating/ qualifying
circumstances mentioned in this article.”
In Criminal Case No. RTC-‘02-735, the rape was committed by a parent
against his then 3-year old child. Reclusion temporal ranges from twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
penalty next lower in degree is prision
mayor which ranges from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years. Thus, the trial court, as
affirmed by the CA, correctly imposed upon appellant the penalty of six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
In Criminal Case No. RTC-’02-736, appellant
had carnal knowledge of his daughter, “BBB,” who was only 5 years old. Hence, the crime committed was statutory
rape, the penalty for which is death.[50] However, with the passage of Republic Act No.
9346[51]
prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the CA correctly modified the
penalty to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole.
Damages
In Criminal Case No. RTC-’02-735,
the awards of P30,000.00 as
civil indemnity and another P30,000.00 as
moral damages are proper. However, the
award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 must
be increased to P30,000.00 in
line with prevailing jurisprudence.[52]
In Criminal Case No. RTC-’02-736, we
find that both the trial court and the CA correctly awarded the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P75,000.00 as moral damages. However,
the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 must be increased to P30,000.00 in
line with prevailing jurisprudence.[53]
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the July 31, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02312. Appellant
Efren Alfonso is found guilty of Rape by Sexual Assault in Criminal Case No.
RTC-’02-735 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. He is also
ordered to pay “AAA” the amounts of P30,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as
moral damages, and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages. Appellant is also
found guilty of Statutory Rape in Criminal Case No. RTC-’02-736 and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole.
He is also ordered to pay “BBB” the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as
moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-24; penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Sesinando E. Villon.
[2] Records, Vol. 1, pp. 65-90; penned by Judge Freddie D. Balonzo.
[3] The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children, effective November 5, 2004.
[4] Records, Vol. 2, p. 1.
[5] Records, Vol. 1, p. 1.
[6]
[7] Records, Vol. 1, pp. 35-36.
[8]
[9] TSN, November 23, 2004, pp. 1-11.
[10] TSN, December 15, 2004, pp. 1-12.
[11] TSN, January 12, 2005, pp. 6-8.
[12] TSN, January 19, 2005, pp. 5-7.
[13]
[14] TSN, April 13, 2005, p. 4.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Records, Vol. 1, pp. 65-90.
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] CA rollo, p. 75.
[35]
[36] Rollo, pp. 2-24.
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44] Records,
Vol. 1, pp. 77-78.
[45]
[46]
[47]
People
v. Vallador, 327 Phil. 303, 315 (1996).
[48] Records, Vol. I, p. 77.
[49]
[50] Revised Penal Code, Art. 266-B provides in part:
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 x x x of the victim.
x x x x
5. When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old.
[51] An Act Prohibiting The Imposition Of The Death
Penalty In The
[52] See People v. Lindo, G.R. No. 189818, August 9, 2010.
[53] See People v. Garbida, G.R. No. 188569, July 13, 2010.