FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MARLON BARSAGA ABELLA, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 177295
Present: PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN,
and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: January 6, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
Under
automatic review is the Decision[1]
dated September 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02085
which affirmed with modification the Judgment[2] promulgated
on June 3, 2003 by Branch 25 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City
convicting accused-appellant Marlon Barsaga Abella of the crime of rape,
defined and penalized under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay civil indemnity and damages,
and further ordering him to acknowledge and support his offspring with the
private offended party.
In
a Minute Resolution[3] dated
The antecedent facts are culled
from the records of this case. Consistent
with our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto[5]
and People v. Guillermo,[6] this Court withholds the real name of
the private offended party and her immediate family members as well as such
other personal circumstance or information tending to establish her identity. The initials AAA represent the private
complainant and the initials BBB refer to the mother of the private
complainant.
The
accusatory portion of the information reads:
That sometime on December 1999, in the afternoon, at
Barangay San Vicente, Municipality of Pamplona, Province of Camarines Sur,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, while armed with “Balisong” and under the influence of
liquor, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd design, did then and
there willfully and feloniously enter the house of herein complainant and then
and there have sexual intercourse with AAA, a woman of feeble mind, against her
will to her damage and prejudice.
Acts contrary to law.
Accused-appellant Abella pleaded not
guilty upon arraignment.[7] The pre-trial conference followed and,
thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses,
namely, AAA,[8] BBB,[9] Dr.
Emelito Alegre,[10] Dr.
Imelda Escuadra[11] and
Corazon Alipante,[12]
and documentary exhibits consisting of the Ultrasound
Report[13] of AAA dated
September 14, 2000 issued by Dr. Alegre, the Medical Certificate[14] of
AAA dated July 14, 2000 and Clinical
Record[15] of AAA dated
June 13, 2000 issued by Dr. Alcantara, the Psychiatric
Evaluation[16] of AAA dated
September 25, 2001 of Dr. Escuadra, and the Certificate
of Live Birth[17]
of the daughter of AAA issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar of the City
of Naga.
The defense, on the other hand,
presented the testimonies of the accused-appellant[18]
and his father, Danilo Abella,[19]
and documentary exhibits consisting of two (2) Barangay Blotters[20] dated
March 15 and September 16, 2000 issued by the Barangay Captain of San Vicente,
Municipality of Pamplona, Province of Camarines Sur.
After trial, the RTC convicted the accused-appellant.
The trial court found the 38-year old AAA
as a credible witness and her testimony candid and truthful despite her “moderate
mental retardation” or intellectual quotient of a 7 to 8-year old child. In contrast, the trial court found that the defenses
of denial and alibi of the accused-appellant were flimsy and farfetched. It further ruled that the child conceived and
delivered by AAA was fathered by the accused-appellant. The dispositive portion of the judgment
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the
foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused MARLON ABELLA y BARSAGA
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape, and hereby sentences him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Accused is likewise directed to recognize [xxx] as his illegitimate
daughter, and provide for her support as soon as his financial means
permit. Furthermore, he is hereby
ordered to pay complainant the sum of P75,000.00 as indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages. With costs de officio.
Considering that the accused has
been undergoing detention during the pendency of the trial of this case, the
same is hereby credited in the service of his sentence.
The decision of the RTC was directly elevated to this Court. The accused-appellant filed his Brief[21] on
The CA summarized the evidence of the parties as follows:
Dr. Emelito
Alegre,
a radiologist and sonologist, testified that he had conducted an ultrasound
examination on AAA on
Dr. Imelda
Escuadra
of the Women and Children Protection Unit of Bicol Medical Center,
Dr. Escuadra added that AAA had recurrent thoughts
of the rape incident and the threats to kill her if she would divulge the
matter. It was also observed that AAA
was not oriented as regards to persons and dates and that she showed poor grasp
of general information. During the last
examination on
Dr. Escuadra further testified that AAA’s mental
ability particularly on the arithmetic aspect was poor, as she could not even
count from 1-100. She concluded that
although AAA’s chronological age was 38 years old, she manifested a mental age
of between 7-8 years old. AAA’s
intelligence quotient was only 51, which is classified as moderate mental
retardation. Aside from her mental
disadvantage, AAA also suffers from dwarfism being only three (3) feet and
eight (8) inches tall.
Corazon Alipante, a psychologist
of the Bicol Medical Center who conducted the psychological testing on AAA,
confirmed that the latter’s mental capacity is functioning within the moderate
mental retardation level with an average intelligent quotient of 51 and that
her perception of reality is impaired.
AAA testified that
she knew the appellant personally since he was a child because they lived in
the same neighborhood. She narrated that
sometime at around
Continuing with her narration, AAA stated that
several months after the incident, her stomach became big. Thinking that she was just ill, she drank
some bitter solution upon her mother’s instruction. As her stomach continued to grow, AAA was
forced to tell her mother about the rape incident. Thereafter, AAA consulted a doctor who
confirmed that she was pregnant.
Consequently she gave birth to a baby girl.
BBB, AAA’s mother,
on the other hand, testified that the appellant is the cousin of her
husband. She claimed that she noticed
her daughter becoming pale and thinner.
She also noticed that AAA’s stomach was getting bigger and thus decided
to bring her to a doctor, who in turn informed her that her daughter might be
pregnant. An ultrasound examination
confirmed that AAA was indeed pregnant.
BBB then asked her daughter who was responsible for her pregnancy, AAA
replied that it was the appellant.
BBB further claimed that prior to the confirmation
of the pregnancy, the appellant had given her some mahogany seeds which he said
AAA should take so that she will have her menstruation. But since the mahogany seeds made AAA weaker,
BBB discontinued it and decided to consult a doctor instead. Upon learning that it was the appellant who
had raped her daughter, BBB immediately reported the matter to the Municipal
Hall of Pamplona. Thereafter, the
appellant was arrested.
BBB also testified that appellant’s parents had
tried to settle the case by offering the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). They however declined said offer, as it was
not even commensurate to the expenses they have already spent for their
daughter and her child. AAA gave birth
to a baby girl on 16 August [2000] but the appellant and his family had never
given them any financial support.
Aside from the testimony of the [accused]-appellant, the defense also called Danilo Abella, appellant’s father, to the stand. Both testimonies were principally anchored on
denial, and attributed that the filing of this case against the accused was ill
motivated and was due to the bad blood and personal animosities between their
family and that of the complainant.
Appellant contends that a certain Mang Ben, a construction worker of the
China Geo, was the one responsible in impregnating the complainant.
After its review of the evidence, the CA agreed with the findings of the
RTC and affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant. However, as prayed for by the
plaintiff-appellee, the appellate court deleted the award of exemplary damages
in favor of AAA for lack of basis, thus:
WHEREFORE, the
foregoing considered, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that the award for exemplary damages is DELETED. No costs.
The
accused-appellant did not move for the reconsideration of the appellate court’s
judgment. He instead elevated for review
his conviction before us.
Accused-appellant
reiterates the issues and arguments he has raised before the courts below as follows:
I
The trial court gravely erred in failing to consider
the motive behind the filing of the instant case against the accused-appellant.
II
The court a quo gravely erred in convicting the
accused-appellant of the crime charged although his actual participation in the
alleged act was not proven with certainty.
Accused-appellant
asserts that he should be acquitted of the crime charged. AAA allegedly testified unsurely as to the
identity of her assailant and that she testified incoherently as to the details
surrounding the rape incident. Accused-appellant
points out that AAA mentioned that she was raped by a certain Mang Ben. AAA then testified that the accused-appellant
was holding a knife while her pants were being pulled by him with his left hand
and her mouth being covered with his right hand. She also allegedly said that the
accused-appellant opened his knife when he was about to molest her but he left after
opening the knife.
Accused-appellant
insists that AAA was coached to testify against him in furtherance of the
hostility between their families. He
claims that AAA’s mental disability made her so subservient to her parents that
she would believe everything that they tell her. He further argues that the alleged P20,000.00
offer of accused-appellant’s family to settle this criminal case happened
before this case was actually filed which proves that the said offer was either
concocted by AAA’s family or they were extorting money.
The
plaintiff-appellee maintains that the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused-appellant
of the crime charged. AAA allegedly
testified clearly and convincingly that she was raped by accused-appellant. The plaintiff-appellee points out that AAA clarified
on the witness stand that it was accused-appellant, and not Mang Ben, who raped her; that she did
not say that the accused-appellant simultaneously pointed a knife at her,
covered her mouth, and pulled down her pants – she rather testified that, after
her mouth was covered and pants pulled down, the accused-appellant forced her to
lay down and then drew a knife; and that AAA said that the accused-appellant
left after raping her. Assuming there were
inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony, the same pertain to insignificant details which
rather support, not destroy, her credibility.
The
plaintiff-appellee claims that the contention that the crime charged against the
accused-appellant was prompted by revenge or ill-motive on the part of AAA’s
family was baseless and that the mental disability of AAA did not affect her
credibility and veracity of her testimony.
The psychiatric evaluation of AAA allegedly proves that she was generally
“coherent and relevant” and that her extensive examination on the witness stand
shows that she could distinguish good from bad and truth from lies.
We
affirm the conviction of the accused-appellant.
Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by
a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended
party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended
party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
In People v. Andaya,[25] it
was held that “sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with
the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape” with
or without the attendance of force, threat, or intimidation.
In
the case before us, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA, a demented person, through
force, threat or intimidation. AAA was psychiatrically
evaluated as an adult woman with the mental age of a 7 to 8-year old child and
that she gave birth to a child despite her mental inability to give her consent
to a sexual relationship. These facts
support the allegation of sexual abuse. AAA
also identified without uncertainty the accused-appellant as her attacker and related
distinctly that he forcibly laid her down, held her at knifepoint, and sexually
abused her. She testified on direct
examination as follows:
PROS.
TADEO:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Do you know the accused in this case?
A: Yes sir.
Q: What is his name?
A: Marlon Abella.
Q: Is he in court, please identify him?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Please
point to him.
A: (Witness pointed to the accused Marlon
Abella)
Q: Since when have you known Marlon?
A: Since he was a child.
Q: Why do you know him?
A: He is my neighbor.
Q: Do you have any relationship with Marlon?
A: None
sir.
Q: How about with the family of Marlon, if
you know, by consanguinity?
A: None sir.
Q: In the information, it appears that you
are the offended party, why are
you accusing Marlon for rape?
A: He raped me.
Q: Do you remember when was that?
A: No sir.
Q: What time was that?
A:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Where were you raped?
A: In our house.
Q: Do
you mean to say that the accused in this case entered your house?
A: Yes sir.
Q: After he entered your house, what
happened next?
A: He raped me.
Q: When
you said he raped you, how did he start molesting you?
A: He
pulled down my shorts.
Q: What
hands did he use in pulling down your shorts?
A: One
hand.
Q: What
hand, his right or left?
A: Left
hand.
Q: While
his left hand was pulling down your short pants, what was his right hand doing?
A: He
covered my mouth.
Q: After
your short pants was pulled down, what happened next?
A: He
laid on top of me.
Q: What
happened next? Do you have panty at that
time?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: What
happened to your panty?
A: He
pulled down my panty.
Q: You
said a while ago that he placed himself on top of you, what happened next?
A: He
laid on top of me.
Q: Why,
what was your position?
A: I was
lying down.
Q; When
you lied down, was it on your own volition?
A: No
sir.
Q: Who
asked you to lie down or did the accused forced you to lie down?
A: He
forced me to lie down.
Q: How?
A: He
grabbed me by my shoulder.
Q: After
you were forced to lie down, what did the accused do next?
A: He inserted
his organ.
Q: Before
he inserted his organ, was he wearing something on his body?
A: Only
a T-shirt, without pants.
COURT:
Q: Where
was his shorts?
A: He removed
his shorts.
PROS. TADEO:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: While
removing his shorts, what did you do?
A: He
also undressed me.
Q: How
about you, what did you do?
A: I did
not shout.
COURT:
Q: Why?
A: I was
afraid.
Q: Why
were you afraid?
A: He
had a sharp weapon.
PROS. TADEO:
Q: What
kind of sharp weapon was that?
A: A
knife.
Q: Where
did you see that knife, in what part of his body?
A: On
his waist.
Q: While
he was about to molest you, did he remove that knife from his waist?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: Where
did he place it?
A: He
was holding it.
Q: What
did he do with it?
A: He
told me that if I tell the matter he will kill me.
Q: Did
he tell you those words?
A: Yes
sir.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Q: What
do you mean when you said he did something to you? Did he insert his penis to your vagina?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: What
did you do when he inserted his penis to your vagina?
A: None
because I was afraid.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What
did you feel when he inserted his organ to your vagina?
A: Painful.
Q: Did
you not like it?
A: I did
not.
We
find no real conflict in the testimony of AAA as to the identity of her assailant. A close scrutiny of the testimony of AAA that
a certain Mang Ben raped her shows her
evident confusion to the suggestive questions and insinuations of the defense counsel
and to the hypothetical questions of the trial court, thus:
ATTY. MANLAGNIT:
Q: When
you first know Marlon you said he was still a child at that time, you have of
age, am I correct?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: You
said you know Marlon because he lives nearby or he is one of your neighbors, is
that correct?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: And
as a matter of fact, there are other neighbors staying near your house?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: How
many neighbors aside from Marlon?
A: Many.
Q: Would
you say 10?
A: More
than.
Q: 12?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: You
also know your neighbors?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: Could
you name a few for us?
A: Mang
Ben.
Q: Who
else?
A: Julia.
Q: Who
else?
A: My
sister.
Q: And
your sister has already a husband?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: And
your sister and her husband are living near your house?
A: Yes
sir.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Q: Do
you know to distinguish truth from lies?
A: I am
not telling a lie.
Q: You
are not telling a lie because what you are telling us is the truth?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: Therefore,
you can tell the court and distinguish truth from a lie?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: And
you know what is good from what is bad?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: You
testified on cross that you obeyed what your parents told you that you were
reminded that you were raped by Marlon, is that right?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: Was
that reminder made to you by your parents correct or wrong?
A: Correct.
Q: Why
do you say that the reminder by your parents was correct?
A: Because
they told me.
Q: Supposed
your parents told that it was Mang Ben who raped you, will you obey your
parents?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: So
you will testify before this court that Mang Ben raped you because that was
what your parents told you?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: Did
Mang Ben actually rape you?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: How
many times did Mang Ben rape you?
A: Only
one.
Q: Did
you not tell that to your parents that Mang Ben raped you?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: Aside
from Mang Ben, will you tell the court if the penis of Mang Ben was inserted
into your vagina?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: How
many times did that happen to you – that the penis of Mang Ben was inserted
into your vagina?
A: Only
one.
Q: Which
came first, when Mang Ben raped you or when Marlon raped you?
A: Marlon.
Q: Do
you know of any person who raped you other than Mang Ben and Marlon?
A: None.
AAA’s
puzzling answers are understandable considering her undisputed low mental ability
to comprehend the true import of the questions.
Nonetheless, on further clarificatory questions of the trial court, AAA rectified
her answers and testified consistently that she was raped by the
accused-appellant, and not by a certain Mang
Ben, thus:
COURT:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Do
you know the government prosecutor?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: Suppose
your mother tells you that you were raped by the government prosecutor, will
you tell that to the court?
A: No
sir.
Q: Supposed
you were told by your parents that you were not raped by Marlon, will you
testify before this court that you were raped by Marlon?
A: I
will not obey.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: On
direct examination you said it was only the accused who raped you. However, during the clarificatory question by
the court you also said that you were also raped by Mang Ben. Tell the court, which is now correct, was it
only Marlon who raped you or it was also Mang Ben who raped you?
A: Only
Marlon.
Q: When
you said only Marlon, are you telling the court that Mang Ben did not rape you?
A: He
did not.
Q: Are
you very sure of your answer?
A: Yes,
it was Marlon.
Q: Did
you not testify on clarificatory question from the court that you were also
raped by Mang Ben?
A: No,
only Marlon.
Q: So
your answer which you gave to the court a while ago when you were asked whether
you were also raped by Mang Ben was not true?
A: It is
not true.
Q: Let
us assume that your parents tell you that Mang Ben raped you, will you testify
that in court?
xxx xxx xxx
A: No
sir.
Q: So if
your parents will tell you something which is not true, will you tell the court
that you will not obey your parents?
A: I
will not obey them.
Moreover,
we accord great weight and respect to the conclusion of the trial court that
AAA is “candid, sincere, straightforward and simple” in her testimony as well
as to the ruling of the appellate court that the alleged flaws in her
statements do not affect her credibility and veracity of her testimony that the
accused-appellant raped her, and that the defenses of denial and alibi of the
accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony of AAA.
By well-entrenched jurisprudence, the
issue of credibility of witnesses is “a question best addressed to the province
of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that
elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand
while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts” and
“[a]bsent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial
court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by
the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances
are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would
have affected the outcome of the case.”[26] In People
v. Santos,[27] this
policy has been emphasized as follows:
We
stress the well-settled doctrine that the lower court's assessment of the
credibility of a witness is accorded great respect owing to its direct
opportunity to observe the latter's demeanor during trial. In People v. Ayuda, we held:
“It is
doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on
the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and
will not be disturbed on appeal. This
is so because the trial court has the advantage of observing the victim through
the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry flush
of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous
mutter of a reluctant answer, the forthright tone of a ready reply, the furtive
glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the
candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an
oath, or the carriage and mien. ...” [Emphasis ours]
The
foregoing doctrine is more stringently applied if the trial court is sustained
by the appellate court.
It
has been stressed, moreover, that the bare denials and uncorroborated alibis of
an accused cannot overcome the positive identification of the accused and
straightforward recounting of the accused’s commission of a crime. In People
v. Nieto,[28] this
Court held:
It is an established jurisprudential rule that a
mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome
the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of
appellant in the crimes attributed to him.
The defense of alibi is likewise
unavailing. Firstly, alibi is the
weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to
disprove. Unless substantiated by clear
and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving
of any weight in law. Secondly, alibi is unacceptable when there is a positive identification of
the accused by a credible witness. Lastly, in order that alibi might
prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused has been somewhere else
during the commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have
been impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.
In
the present case, we do not perceive any cogent reason to justify the reversal
of the trial and appellate courts’ high regard of the truthfulness of AAA’s
testimony and we find the bare denials and uncorroborated alibis of the
accused-appellant devoid of any evidentiary value. We quote with approval the pertinent
disquisitions of the trial court on the testimonies of the witnesses as follows:
By the very nature of the crime of rape, the same
precludes any eyewitness to the incident, except the victim and the perpetrator. Hence, to prove the same will depend largely
from the testimony of the victim, and the acquittal of the accused will not lie
on the strength of his defense. Thus,
the case for the prosecution will rise or fall on the basis of the victim’s
testimony, which the court will consider with utmost caution.
In the instant case, victim AAA was a mental
retardate, which the court finds, not only on the basis of the expert testimony
of Dr. Escuadra but also on the basis of its observations. It noted that even if the victim had a mental
age of a 7 to 8 year-old child, yet, she was candid, sincere, straightforward
and simple in her testimony in court despite the grueling cross-examination
conducted by Atty. Manlangit. The
aforesaid demeanor of the complainant only showed that she was telling the
truth. Complainant never wavered in her
testimony, that it was Marlon who raped her, the circumstances or details under
which she was raped; and in positively identifying Marlon in court. The court likewise noted the limited mental
ability and poor aptitude of the complainant when she was extensively grilled
and cross-examined, and even upon clarificatory questions from the court, thus
giving the impression to the court that she was just being obedient and was
coached by her parents in filing this instant case against Marlon. She likewise admitted that a certain Mang Ben
also raped her, but, later corrected herself.
Such was understandable. Even
Atty. Manlangit noted that the victim was already tired and exhausted while
testifying in court. (TSN, p. 43, Sept. 24, 2002) Besides, there was no testimony from the
complainant that she was merely instructed by her parents to file the rape case
against Marlon even if the same were not true.
The court considered the inconsistencies in complainant’s testimony as
minor inconsistencies which even strengthen her testimony. Xxx xxx xxx
The
Court notes that the appellate court’s own evaluation of the evidence concurred
with the findings and conclusions of the trial court as follows:
We likewise find no merit in the insinuations made
by the [accused]-appellant that the instant complaint was motivated by the
malevolent design of the complainant’s family to put him down or the greedy
scheme of the latter to extort money from his family. At best, these insinuations, trivial and
inane, are merely conclusory and unfounded.
It cannot tarnish AAA’s account of how the [accused]-appellant had
sexually assaulted her.
As aptly observed by the court a quo, it is hard to
fathom that a parent would use her children as engines of malice, especially if
the same would subject them to humiliation, nay stigma. No mother would expose her child to possible
public ridicule if the only motive is to get back at the
[accused]-appellant. Said the trial
court:
“Marlon and his father, Danilo, attributed ill-will,
personal animosities and bad blood between their family and that of the
complainant as the reasons behind why a fabricated case was filed against
Marlon. It is incomprehensible to the
mind of the court that because at one time or another Marlon chased
complainant’s father with a hoe, or the complainant’s brothers unlawfully
entered the premises of the accused, or that they peeped or pried upon Marlon’s
privacy, causing the latter to chase them with a bolo as the reasons why, out
of revenge, a rape case was concocted and filed against him. Such are flimsy excuses, which do not deserve
belief from any reasonable being. This
Court could not, in the exercise of sound judgment, accept the flimsy reasons
advanced by the accused that the victim, a mental retardate, was only coached
by her parents in implicating the accused as the person responsible for the
crime. A mother will never compromise
the reputation of her daughter in order to implicate a person with a crime he
did not commit. Besides, it was quite
absurd and illogical that families in feud would make their mental retardate a
tool to give a scripted and concocted testimony in court that she was raped
just to send her family’s enemy to jail.
It is unnatural for a parent to use his offspring as an engine of malice
especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment and even stigma. No parent in their right mind would possibly
stoop so low as to subject their daughter to the hardship and shame concomitant
to a rape just to assuage their own hurt feelings.” [Citations omitted]
The
criminal information failed to allege the qualifying circumstance that the
accused-appellant knew of the mental disability of the private offended party,
thus, his conviction of statutory or simple rape committed with the use of a
deadly weapon, instead of qualified rape, is in order.
We
also accord high respect to the ruling of the trial court, as well as to the
appellate court’s deference thereto, that the accused-appellant was the
biological father of the two-year old daughter of AAA as a result of the rape
incident and in view of their “striking facial similarities and features.” The order to acknowledge and support
accused-appellant’s offspring is in accordance with Article 345 of the Revised
Penal Code.
This
Court, however, modifies the award of civil indemnity and damages in favor of
AAA. In line with recent case laws, the compensation
to be awarded in favor of the private offended party in cases of statutory rape
or simple rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon should be in the
amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P75,000.00
as moral damages.[29] Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed
by way of example or correction for the public good and when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[30] According to current jurisprudence, exemplary
damages should be awarded in favor of the private offended party in the amount
of P30,000.00 in statutory or simple rape cases.[31] In the present case, the award of P75,000.00
as civil indemnity and another P75,000.00 as moral damages in favor of
AAA is appropriate. The award of P30,000.00
as exemplary damages should also be imposed as a public example in order “to
protect hapless individuals from [sexual] molestation”[32]
and because of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of the commission
of the crime in the dwelling[33]
of AAA.
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing,
the Decision dated September 21, 2006
of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02085, which affirmed with modification the Judgment
promulgated on June 3, 2003 by Branch 25 of the RTC of Naga City, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the
private offended party civil indemnity in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(P75,000.00), moral damages also in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(P75,000.00), and exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00), plus interest on all damages awarded at the legal
rate of 6% from this date until fully paid.
No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga with Associate Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring; rollo, pp. 3-16.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 37-44.
[3] Rollo, p. 20.
[4]
[5] G.R. No. 167693,
[6] G.R. No. 173787,
[7] Records, pp. 27-29.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] CA rollo, pp. 68-95.
[22]
[23]
[24] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[25] G.R. No. 126545,
[26] People
v. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756,
[27] G.R. Nos. 137828-33, March 23, 2004, 426 SCRA 133, 156, citing People v. Ayuda, G.R. No. 128882, October 2, 2003, 412 SCRA 538, 546.
[28] Supra note 26.
[29] People
v. Araojo, G.R. No. 185203,
[30] Articles 2229 and 2230 of the Civil Code.
[31] People v. Araojo, supra note 29.
[32] People
v. Neverio, G.R. No. 182792,
[33] Sierra
v. People, G.R. No. 182941,