Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
PEOPLE OF THE
|
|
G.R. No. 177779 |
|
Appellee, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CORONA, C. J., |
|
|
|
CARPIO, |
|
|
|
CARPIO MORALES, |
|
|
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
|
|
NACHURA, |
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
- versus - |
|
BRION, |
|
|
|
PERALTA, |
|
|
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABAD, |
|
|
|
VILLARAMA, JR., |
|
|
|
PEREZ, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SERENO, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
FELIPE NACHOR
y OMAYAN, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Appellant. |
|
December 14, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x
D E C I S I O N
“[W]hen the offended parties are young and immature girls
[aged 12 to16], courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what
transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the
shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by the trial if the
matter about which they testified is not true.”[1]
The Charge
For review is the Decision[2] dated
June 16, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02040 which affirmed
with modifications the Decision[3] of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 35, in Criminal Case Nos.
IR-6033 and IR-6034, convicting appellant Felipe Nachor y Omayan of the crime
of rape against “AAA.”[4] The Information[5] in
Criminal Case No. IR-6033 contained the following accusatory allegations:
That on or about May 9, 2001, at x x x, Camarines Sur, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
lewd designs, with force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously [lay with] and [succeeded] in having carnal
knowledge [of] ‘AAA’, 14-year old minor, daughter of the culprit, against her
will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as
shall be proven in Court. The act is
with qualifying aggravating circumstance of the fact that the victim is below
18 years old and the offender is a parent. (Art. 266-B, Par. 6, subpar. 1, R.A.
8353)
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
The
Information[6]
in Criminal Case No. IR-6034 is identically worded except for the date of the
commission of the crime. In this case,
the appellant was accused of raping “AAA” on or about 11:30 in the morning of
the first week of June 2001.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. After the termination of the pre-trial conference,
joint trial ensued.
The Version of the Prosecution
“AAA”
was born on September 11, 1986, and lived with her parents and four siblings. She was 14 years old when in the morning of
May 9, 2001, she was left alone with her father, the appellant. While she was cooking at around 11:00 o’clock
in the morning, the appellant suddenly poked a bolo at her neck, pulled her
wrist and dragged her towards the room which she shared with her brother and
sisters. Gripped with fear, she struggled and attempted to escape but the
appellant’s strength was too much for her.
Her shouts for help were futile since the house of their nearest
neighbor was about a hundred meters away and separated by trees and hilly
terrain from their house.
While
inside the room, the appellant, with a bolo still in his hand, forced “AAA” to
lie down on the bed. When she obeyed,
the appellant removed her shorts and panty.
Thereafter, he took off his shorts and underwear and started kissing her
neck and breasts. He proceeded to mount
“AAA,” inserted his penis inside her vagina and executed a pumping motion. During this ordeal, “AAA” continued to
struggle, but her attempt to resist the appellant’s lewd desires was
unsuccessful. She instead experienced
intense pain and cried.
After
the appellant satisfied his lust, he again poked his bolo at “AAA” and
threatened to kill her, her mother and siblings if she would report the
incident to anyone. The appellant then
stood up, put on his clothes and departed.
“AAA” kept the incident to herself out of fear.
“AAA”
was again raped by the appellant in the first week of June, 2001 when her
mother and siblings were not around. At
around 11:30 in the morning, “AAA” was studying in their house when the
appellant came out of his room armed with his bolo. “AAA” rushed outside for fear of another
sexual abuse, but was overtaken by the appellant who poked his bolo at her neck
and dragged her towards her room. Once inside,
the appellant removed the pants and panty of “AAA,” and threatened to kill her,
her mother and siblings if she would relate the incident to another
person. As in the previous incident of
rape, the appellant forced “AAA” to lie down, inserted his penis inside her
vagina and made coital movements.
Despite her struggle and resistance, she was unable to resist his
bestial acts. After satiating himself,
the appellant reiterated his warning to “AAA” not to tell anyone of her ordeal
or else he would kill them all.
A few
months later, the abdomen of “AAA” started to bulge. Having been threatened by the appellant, she
refused to divulge any information. The
mother of “AAA” therefore sought the assistance of one of her wedding sponsors to
whom “AAA” finally revealed the sexual abuse she experienced in the hands of
her father. After this revelation was relayed
to her mother, “AAA” was immediately taken to the Regional Office of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development where she declared in an interview
that her father sired the child she was carrying. She was then taken to the National Bureau of
Investigation for a medico-legal examination.
The results confirmed that “AAA” was pregnant. On December 27, 2001, “AAA” gave birth to a
baby boy she named “BBB.”
The Version of the Appellant
The
appellant denied raping “AAA.” He
averred that on May 9, 2001, he left his house at 7:00 o’clock in the morning
to go to his sister in Antipolo, Buhi, Camarines
The appellant asserted that it was his son, Randy, who
impregnated “AAA.” He confronted Randy
on the pregnancy of “AAA” but the latter refused to reply and cried
instead. The appellant also claimed that
his wife assisted “AAA” in filing the cases to get rid of him so that she could
continue having an affair with the man often seen in her company.
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On
January 27, 2003, the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding accused, Felipe Nachor y Omayan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt [of] the crime of rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by RA 7659 and further amended by RA 8353 in relation to RA
7610, in [C]riminal [C]ases No[s]. IR-6033 and IR-6034, respectively, he is
sentenced to death, [to] pay an indemnity of P50,000.00, and to pay the
costs.
SO ORDERED.[7]
The Verdict of the Court of Appeals
With the
imposition of capital punishment on the appellant, the case was elevated to us
for mandatory review and docketed as G.R. Nos. 157931-32. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[8] however,
we referred the case to the CA, which affirmed with modification the trial
court’s decision. Thus:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the appealed Decision dated
January 27, 2003 of the P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Should no motion for reconsideration be filed in this case by the
accused-appellant within the allowable reglementary period, or after the lapse
thereof, let the entire records of this case be forwarded to the Honorable
Supreme Court for appropriate action thereon.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Assignment of Errors
Hence, this
appeal where the appellant raises the following assignment of errors contained
in his Brief before the CA:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OF
DEATH.[10]
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
“[In determining] 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
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.”[11]
Guided by these legal precepts, we find the testimony of “AAA,”
who was 14 years old when the two incidents of rape occurred, credible and
untainted by any hint of falsehood or prevarication. She testified on her ordeal committed on May
9, 2001 as follows:
PROS. (BERNARD) BELTRAN:
Q: Do you
know the accused in these cases?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: If he
is in this courtroom, will you [point] to him?
INTERPRETER:
The witness points to a person who when asked x x x his name answered [‘Felipe
Nachor’]the accused in these cases.
PROS. BELTRAN:
Q: Why do
you know him?
A: He is
my father.
Q: Sometime
on May 9, 2001, where were you?
A: I was
at home.
Q: Where
is that house of yours situated?
A: At x x x, Camarines
Q: With
whom were you in your house during that day?
A: My
father.
Q: While
you were in your house at x x x, Camarines Sur on May 9, 2001 with your father,
what unusual incident happened if any?
A: My
father poked a bolo [at] my neck.
Q: How
long was that bolo?
A: The
length of the bolo (witness demonstrating with her hand, 1 ½ feet).
Q: Now,
what happened next?
A: He
undressed me.
Q: What
was undressed from you?
A: My
shorts and panties.
Q: What
about your upper clothing?
A: It was
not.
Q: After
the accused undressed you, what did the accused do next?
A: He also
undressed, sir.
Q: What
was undressed from him?
A: His
shorts and briefs.
Q: After
the accused undressed himself, what did he do next?
A: He lay
on top of me.
Q: What
did he do next?
COURT:
Before that, what was your position?
A: I was
lying on my back.
Q: Who
made you lie on your back?
A: My
father.
Q: Now, when you were lying on your back
and your father was on top, what did your father do next?
A: His penis was inserted in my vagina.
Q: Prior
to the insertion of his penis [into] your vagina, what did he do to you if any?
A: He
kissed me.
Q: x x x
what part of your body was kissed by him?
A: On my
neck.
Q: Where
else?
A: On my
breast.
x x x x
PROS. BELTRAN:
Q: Now
while the penis of the accused was inside your vagina, what was he doing?
A: He
again poked the bolo [at] my neck.
Q: What
did he do next?
A: He said
that [if] I [report] the matter he will kill us all.
Q: What
happened next?
A: He put
on his shorts.
Q: What
else happened?
A: And
then he left.
Q: What
about you?
A: I put
on my shorts also.
Q: What
about your panties?
A: I put
it [on] also.
Q: Did you
tell anybody what happened to you?
A: No[,]
sir.
Q: Why?
A: We
might be killed.
Q: By
whom?
A: My
father.
x x x x
COURT:
Q: You
said the accused Felipe Nachor poked a bolo [at] you. What part of your body did he poke his bolo?
A: [At] my
neck.
Q: While
poking the bolo [at] your neck, what did he say if any?
A: That if
I reported the matter, he will kill us all.
Q: When
you said the word ‘us’, who [were] you referring to?
A: Myself,
my mother, my sisters and brothers.
Q: While he had sexual intercourse with
you, what did you feel?
A: I felt anger.
Q: What about your vagina?
A: I felt pain in my vagina.
Q: What did you do while he was having
sexual intercourse with you?
A: I was crying.
Q: Aside
from that, what did you do if any?
A: I was
trying to escape, to run away.
Q: Were
you able to run away?
A: No,
your Honor.
Q: Why?
A: Because
he held my hands.[12]
x x x x
On the rape committed in the first week of June, 2001,
she testified as follows:
PROS. BELTRAN:
Q: Sometime
in the first week of June, 2001 in the morning was there any unusual incident
that happened between you and your father if any?
COURT:
Where? In what place?
PROS. BELTRAN:
At x x x, Camarines
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
PROS. BELTRAN:
Q: What
was that?
A: I was again
poked with a bolo [by] my father on my neck.
Q: When
you said your father, you are referring to the accused in these cases Felipe
Nachor y Omayan the one that you [pointed to] a while ago in court?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Now, what was [that] unusual incident
that happened [in] the first week of June 2001, at x x x, Camarines Sur
sometime at around 11:30 in the morning?
A: I was again poked with a bolo on my
neck and he undressed me.
Q: What was undressed from you?
A: My panties and shorts.
Q: After he undressed you, what did the
accused do next?
A: He also undressed himself.
Q: What was undressed by him?
A: Brief and shorts.
Q: After he undressed himself, what did
he do next?
A: He laid on top of me.
Q: What
was your position when your father laid on top of you?
A: I was
lying on my back.
Q: Who
made you lie on our back?
A: My
father.
Q: Now when your father was on top of
you, what did your father do next?
A: His penis was inserted inside my
vagina.
Q: Immediately?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: When your father inserted his penis
inside your vagina, what did he do next?
A: He made a push and pull motion.
Q: So you
want to impress us that while the penis of the accused was inside your vagina
he was doing a push and pull motion on you, is that what you mean?
x x x x
WITNESS:
A: Yes,
sir.
PROS. BELTRAN:
Q: What
happened next?
A: And
then he put on his shorts.
Q: What
about his briefs?
A: He put
on his briefs also.
Q: What
about you?
A: I also
put on my panties and shorts.
x x x x
Q: When
your father was already dressing himself, what did he tell you if any?
A: That if
I reported the matter he will kill us.
Q: Prior
to the insertion of the penis of your father [in] your vagina, did he tell you
anything?
A: That if
I tell the incident to somebody he will kill us.
Q: When
you said that he will kill us, [whom] do you think x x x your father [was]
referring [to]?
A: My
mother, my sisters and brothers.
Q: Now,
how did these incidents come into the open?
A: Because
my mother brought me to the ‘hilot’.
COURT:
Q: Why,
why did your mother bring you to the ‘hilot’?
A: Because
according to one of the wedding sponsors of my mother, why is my [abdomen]
becoming bigger.
PROS. BELTRAN:
Q: What
happened to the ‘hilot’?
A: According
to the ‘hilot’ my [abdomen] was already six (6) months big.
Q: Do you
know the reason why your [abdomen] was then about six (6) months big?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Why?
A: Because
of what my father did to me that he raped me.
Q: Why was
it that your [abdomen] was big?
A: Because
his penis was inserted in my vagina.
Q: Do you
know a certain child by the name of “BBB?”
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Why do
you know the child?
A: That’s
my child.
Q: Do you
know the father of your child?
A: Yes,
sir[.]
Q: Who is the father of your child?
A: Felipe Nachor.
Q: So you want to impress [on]us that
your father Felipe Nachor is also the father of your child “BBB?”
A: Yes, sir.”[13] (Emphasis supplied.)
We agree with the observations of the trial court, as
sustained by the CA, that the testimony of “AAA” on both occasions of her rape is
worthy of credence. Her statements under
oath are sufficient evidence to convict the appellant for having carnal
knowledge of her by means of force and intimidation on May 9, 2001 and the
first week of June, 2001. “AAA”
positively identified the appellant as her abuser. She never wavered in her testimony and
maintained even on cross-examination that the appellant was her rapist.
“[On the issue of credibility of witnesses,] the trial
court’s assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding,
if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of
weight or influence x x x. Having the [advantage
of directly observing the] deportment and manner of testifying [of the witness],
the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate
testimonial evidence properly.”[14]
In this case, we see no reason to deviate from the
findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA. The evaluation of the testimony of “AAA” has
been appreciated properly and the evidence is overwhelming to convict the
appellant of the crime charged.
The appellant attempts to discredit “AAA” by assailing
instances in her testimony that were improbable and inconsistent with human
behavior. Particularly, he argues that there
was no resolute resistance by “AAA” on the assault on her honor. He maintains that the testimony of “AAA” is
incredible since he “cannot remove her shorts and panties or easily insert his penis
into her vagina without first putting aside the bolo which he was allegedly
holding with his left hand.”[15] He further claims that there was failure on
the part of “AAA” to immediately file a complaint or report the rape incidents to
her mother or to the police authorities despite the absence of threats. Lastly, he contends that “AAA” acted
normally, as if nothing happened, and did not even leave their home after she
was supposedly raped on different dates.
The appellant’s contentions fail to impress. There is no factual basis for the appellant’s
assertion that “AAA” did not exert a tenacious effort to defy his sexual
aggression. On the contrary, “AAA” was
unwavering in her testimony that she struggled with the appellant in both
occasions of rape. “AAA” even punched
and kicked him in the thigh during the first occasion of her rape.[16] During the first rape incident, she tried to
flee from her horrible fate, but the appellant was too strong and succeeded in
having carnal knowledge of her. She even
shouted for help, but nobody heard her as the house of the nearest neighbor was
more or less 100 meters away and separated from their house by trees and hilly
terrain.
The appellant’s assault on the credibility of “AAA” by
asserting that he could not remove her shorts and panties or easily insert his
penis into her vagina without first putting aside the bolo held in his left
hand while his right hand was holding both her hands[17] has
also no basis in fact. As borne by the record, the appellant had
already been undressed of her shorts and panties before she was forced to lie
down. It is thus not impossible for him
to consummate the rape using his right hand to bind the hands of “AAA” while
holding a bolo to her neck with his left hand.
Even if it were true that “AAA” did not seriously resist
the appellant’s sexual offense, her failure is inconsequential and cannot
affect the credibility of her testimony.
“It must be stressed that the resistance of the victim is not an element
of the crime [of rape],” and the law does not impose on the prosecution the burden
of establishing the same.[18] “As long as the force or intimidation is
present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.”[19]
Here, “AAA” testified that on both occasions of rape, the
appellant poked a bolo at her neck, dragged her to a room in the house and
succeeded in making her submit to his will.
The use of a bladed weapon to ensure the commission of the rape “speaks
loudly of appellant’s use of violence, or force and intimidation.”[20]
Worth noting, too, is the filial relationship between the
appellant and “AAA.” He is the father of
the 14 year-old victim. In incestuous
rape, the father’s “moral ascendancy and influence over [his daughter]
sufficiently substitutes for force and intimidation.”[21] He “takes advantage of his blood relationship,
[proximity,] ascendancy, and [moral] influence over his victim both to commit
the [rape] and to intimidate the victim into silence.”[22]
The appellant further claims that the conduct of “AAA”
after being raped, i.e., not
reporting the incident to anyone despite the absence of threats from him and
acting like nothing happened, was incredible and contrary to human experience. This contention is misleading as a review of
the record reveals that he cowed “AAA” into not telling anyone of her harrowing
ordeal by threatening to kill her, as well as her mother and siblings if she
would do so. Considering that “AAA” was a
young girl at the time she was raped, the appellant’s threat was sufficient to
produce fear in her mind. Moreover, the
fact that the appellant was her biological father and exercised moral
ascendancy over her explains why she “behaved as though no wrong had been done
to her.”[23] “[D]elay in divulging the name of the
perpetrator of the crime, if sufficiently explained, does not impair the
credibility of the witness and [her] testimony nor destroy their probative
value.”[24]
The appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi were
properly rejected. Denial and alibi are
inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot
be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a
credible witness. “Between the positive
assertions of the [victim] and the negative averments of the [appellant,] the
former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater
evidentiary weight.”[25]
We are not convinced by the appellant’s postulations that
it was his son, Randy, who raped “AAA” and that he was accused of raping her
due to the instigation of his wife who wanted to get rid of him so she could
continue her illicit affair with another man.
A young girl, ‘innocent and guileless, cannot be expected to brazenly
impute a crime so serious as rape to any man if it were not true. Parents would not sacrifice their own
daughter, a child of tender years at that, and subject her to the rigors and
humiliation of public trial for rape, if they were not motivated by an honest
desire to have their daughter’s transgressor punished accordingly.” [26]
The Proper Penalty
The appellant committed incestuous rape and must consequently
suffer the penalty provided by law. The
trial court correctly imposed upon him the penalty of death since a rape
committed while the victim was still under 18 years of age by an offender who
is her parent merits no less than the imposition of capital punishment under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.[27] It is clear from the birth certificate of “AAA”
that she was only 14 years old when she was ravished by the appellant, her
biological father.
In view, however, of the passage of Republic Act No.
9346,[28] which
prohibits the imposition of the penalty of death, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for
parole, should be imposed.[29] Thus, appellant is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility
of parole for each count of rape.
The Damages
In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[30] the
amounts of civil indemnity and
damages awarded to “AAA” also require a
modification. For each of the two counts
of rape, she is entitled to an award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
another P75,000.00 as moral
damages and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE,
the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02040, which
affirmed with modifications the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga
City, Branch 35, finding appellant Felipe Nachor y Omayan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of rape is AFFIRMED
with modifications that appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape; and the
awards of moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to P75,000,00,
and P30,000.00 respectively, for each count of rape.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
MARIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] People
v. Torrellos, 448 Phil. 287, 299-300 (2003).
[2] CA rollo,
pp. 149-166; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and concurred in by
Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Monina Arevalo Zenarosa.
[3] Records, Vol. I, pp. 117-126; penned by
Presiding Judge Alfredo D. Agawa.
[4] 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.
[5] Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
[6] Records, Vol. II, p. 1.
[7] Records, Vol. I, p. 126.
[8] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433
SCRA 640.
[9] CA rollo,
pp. 165-166.
[10]
[11] People
v. Basmayor, G.R. No. 182791, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 369, 381.
[12] TSN, July 6, 2002, pp. 4-8.
[13] TSN, July 8, 2002, pp. 10-14.
[14] People
v. Basmayor, supra note 11 at 382-383.
[15] CA rollo,
p. 65.
[16] TSN, July 8, 2002, p. 24.
[17] CA rollo,
p. 65.
[18] People
v. Sulima, G.R. No. 183702, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 415, 426 ; People v. Fraga, 386 Phil. 884, 907 (2000).
[19] People
v. Baldo, G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009, 580 SCRA 225, 233.
[20]
[21] People
v.
[22] People
v. Melivo, 323 Phil. 412, 423-424 (1996).
[23] People
v. Fraga, supra note 19 at 908.
[24] People
v. Villanueva, 312 Phil. 55, 67-68 (1995).
[25] People
v. Bang-ayan, G.R. No. 172870, September 22, 2006, 502 SCRA 658, 670.
[26] People
v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA 20, 39.
[27] ART. 266-B Penalties. – x x x.
The
death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
When
the victim is under eighteen (18) years
of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim;
x x
x x.
[28] Approved on June 24, 2006.
[29] People
v. Guillermo, G.R. No. 173787, April 23, 2007, 521 SCRA 597, 610.
[30] People
v. Araojo, G.R. No. 185203, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 295, 309.