Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ROMEO
REPUBLO, Accused-Appellant.
|
G.R. No. 172962
Present: Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: July 8, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is an appeal from
the Decision[1] dated
January 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00348, which
affirmed in toto the Decision[2]
dated April 15, 2002 of the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
128 in Criminal Cases No. C-54755 to 54757 convicting accused-appellant Romeo
Republo of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape.
Three Informations were
filed against the accused-appellant:
Criminal Case
No. C-54755
That
sometime in the morning of September 1997 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with
lewd design and by means of force and intimidation did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with one
AAA, a minor of 12 years old, against the latter’s will and without her
consent.[3]
Criminal Case
No. C-54756
That
sometime in the afternoon of September 1997 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
lewd design and by means of threats and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attempt to have sexual intercourse with
one AAA, a minor of 12 years old, thus commencing directly by overt act, the
commission of the crime of “RAPE” as a consequence, but the herein accused was
not able to perform all the acts of execution which should constitute the said
felony, by reason or causes other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is,
the victim was able to [run] outside the
room.[4]
Criminal Case
No. C-54757
That
sometime in the evening of September 1997 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with one
AAA, a minor of 12 years old, against the latter’s will and without her
consent.[5]
On December 7, 1998,
accused-appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to the three criminal informations, which
were tried jointly.[6]
The prosecution’s
version of the facts, culled from the testimonies of witnesses AAA, her mother
BBB, Police Officer (PO) 3 Constantino Guerrero, and Dr. Tomas Suguitan, is as
follows:
In 1997, BBB went to
All three incidents
happened sometime in September 1997, on three different dates. The first incident occurred at around 9:00
a.m. on a Saturday, when then 11-year old AAA was awakened from her sleep by
accused-appellant. Only AAA and
accused-appellant were in the house at that time. Accused-appellant, who was wearing only his
shorts, pulled her blanket, forced her to lie down and undressed her. Upon removing her shorts, accused-appellant
inserted his penis inside her vagina. He
then left.[7]
The second incident
happened at around 3:00 p.m., two days later.
While AAA was doing her schoolwork inside her room, accused-appellant
entered the room and immediately went on top of her. However, as the daughter of accused-appellant
was inside the house, AAA was able to run outside. AAA went to her aunt LLL’s house.[8] Aunt LLL is the wife of BBB’s brother. The latter was not in his and LLL’s house at
the time AAA went there.
Around two days later,
AAA was preparing to sleep with accused-appellant’s children at around 10:00
p.m. AAA laid down beside the three
children. When the accused-appellant’s three
children were already sleeping, accused-appellant laid down beside AAA, and
threatened her not to tell anybody about what was happening, or else he would
kill her family. AAA was afraid and
believed that accused-appellant would execute his threat as she knows that “he
is a bad man.” Accused-appellant then removed
her shorts and inserted his private part into hers.[9]
BBB learned of these
incidents on July 24, 1998, when she had already returned to the
BBB then had AAA medically examined.[11] The third prosecution witness, Dr. Tomas D.
Suguitan, whose competence and expertise had been admitted by the defense,
observed that AAA had two healed shallow lacerations at 2 o’clock and 6 o’clock
positions of her hymen. Dr. Suguitan
concluded that AAA was in a non-virgin state when she was medically
examined. AAA told Dr. Suguitan that she
was sexually abused by accused-appellant.[12]
On August 10, 1988, BBB
and AAA went to the police station to give their statement. Fourth prosecution witness PO2 Guerrero took
the statements of AAA and BBB regarding the incidents.[13]
The defense presented accused-appellant
Republo as its lone witness. Republo
denied having raped AAA. Instead, he
believed that the rape charges were filed against him in order to teach him a
lesson, as there were several incidents that allegedly infuriated BBB, to wit:
On November 15, 1997,
accused-appellant purportedly caught AAA sitting on the lap of her boyfriend,
and they were embracing each other. The
following morning, he talked to AAA and told her that she was too young to be
in a romantic relationship. Resenting
this advice, AAA replied to him in a disrespectful manner. Accused-appellant got so annoyed with AAA
that he kicked her twice at her thighs.
AAA ran to her aunt LLL’s house and told her about the incident. LLL confronted accused-appellant. Accused-appellant told LLL that he caught AAA
with her boyfriend the previous night.
There was also another time when accused-appellant was drunk that he
quarreled with BBB. During this quarrel,
accused-appellant destroyed some of BBB’s furniture and appliances. He uttered the following words against BBB
and AAA: “YUNG ANAK MO, GUSTONG MAG-ARAL SA IYO,
Accused-appellant claims
that AAA began living with them only in November 1997. AAA’s grandfather had just died at that time,
and the parents of AAA asked accused-appellant and RRR to take care of AAA and
her sister, MMM.
On April 15, 2002, the
RTC of Caloocan City rendered its Decision convicting accused-appellant, the
dispositive portion of which read:
WHEREFORE,
finding the accused Romeo Republo guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two (2)
counts of Rape [in] Criminal Cases Nos. CO 54755 [and] 54757, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua in each cases and
indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one day maximum of prision
correccional as minimum to eight (8) years minimum of prision mayor
as maximum under Criminal Case No. C-54756.
Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the private complainant the
amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 for civil
damages for each count of consummated rape.
The accused is entitled to the benefits of his preventive imprisonment.
The
City Warden of Caloocan City is hereby ordered to commit the person of the
accused to the National Bilibid Prison,
The RTC held that the
straightforward testimony of AAA and the impartial findings of the medico-legal
officer led it to believe that accused-appellant committed the crimes
charged. The RTC likewise found the
credibility of accused-appellant doubtful, finding it unbelievable his claim that
AAA filed complaints for two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape
merely because accused-appellant maltreated her when she rudely answered him
after he warned her to be careful about her relationship with her alleged
boyfriend.
Accused-appellant
appealed the three convictions to this Court, where the cases were originally
docketed as G.R. No. 154292-94. However,
pursuant to the Decision of this Court in People
v. Mateo,[16] which
modified the provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure insofar as
they provide for direct appeals to this Court in cases where the penalty
imposed is death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, the cases were transferred to the Court of Appeals for
appropriate action and disposition.[17] Upon transfer, the cases were docketed as a
single case as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00348.
On January 31, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in toto.[18]
Accused-appellant
appealed to this Court anew,[19]
with both parties manifesting that they will no longer file supplemental
briefs, as the issues had already been thoroughly discussed in the Appellee’s
and Accused-Appellant’s Briefs filed in the original appeal that was
transferred to the Court of Appeals.[20]
In said
Accused-Appellant’s Brief, Republo specified the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES[’] INCREDIBLE
TESTIMONIES.
II
THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF TWO (2) COUNTS OF RAPE AND
ONE (1) COUNT OF ATTEMPTED RAPE WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.[21]
In insisting that AAA’s
testimony was incredible, the accused-appellant, in his brief, focuses on two
arguments:
1. Accused-appellant
points out that BBB entrusted the custody of AAA to BBB’s mother and
niece. This allegedly being the case,
accused-appellant contends that it is highly inconceivable for AAA’s
grandmother to let the children of BBB stay in accused-appellant’s house
considering that BBB specially provided for an apartment for her mother and her
children. There was therefore no need
for AAA to live with the accused-appellant considering that she had a place of
her own.[22]
2. Accused-appellant points out that AAA had
testified that she informed her aunt, LLL, about the rape incidents, but the
latter did not do anything about said information. Accused-appellant added that “[i]t would be
reasonable to presume that [LLL] did not find any reason to believe the allegations
of [AAA] against the accused-appellant.
Otherwise, [LLL] would have relayed the matter to [AAA]’s grandmother.”[23]
Accused-appellant’s
first argument is apparently meant to support his alibi, that he and AAA supposedly
lived in the same house only in November 1997 upon the request of AAA’s parents
after AAA’s grandfather died. Citing the
following portion of BBB’s cross-examination, accused-appellant contends that
it is highly inconceivable for AAA’s grandmother, who was entrusted with the
custody of AAA, to let the children of BBB stay in accused-appellant’s house
considering that BBB specially provided an apartment for her children:
Q Now, you mentioned of a house adjacent
to the house of your sister, what is that house adjacent to the house of your
sister?
A It is a house made of light materials,
sir.
Q That is not the house of your sister
[RRR]?
A They were just renting that, sir.
Q How about the adjoining house?
A That is the same, sir, they were just
renting it.
Q Who [was] renting it?
A
I was the one renting because I was
the one sending the money, sir.
Q To whom?
A To my mother, sir.
Q So you were the one leasing this house
in Bagong Silang?
A Yes, sir.
Q Which is a two adjacent structure?
A Yes, sir.
Q The one structure occupied by your
sister [RRR] and her family and the adjacent structure was occupied by your
mother and children?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you know that your mother, your
children, were staying in Bagong Silang while you were abroad?
A Yes, sir, I know that.
Atty.
Ibanes to Witness –
Q Because you were the one sending the
money to your mother in Bagong Silang for the payment of the rentals of this
adjoining structure occupied by your children and your mother?
A Yes, sir.
Q Aside from your mother, who were
residing in that structure adjacent to the house of the Republos?
A My mother, my children and one of my
niece [NNN] and her husband, sir.
Q How many children of yours are residing
there?
A Three (3) children, sir.
x
x x x
Q And this [HHH], [NNN] and your mother
were the persons to whom you entrusted your children while you were staying
abroad?
A Yes, sir.[24]
Accused-appellant
concludes that it was physically impossible for him to have raped AAA in
September 1997 considering that he and AAA lived in the same house only in
November 1997.[25]
In order that the
defense of alibi may prosper, the appellant must prove both the presence of the
appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the offense and the
physical impossibility of him being at the scene of the crime.[26]
In Marco v. Court of Appeals, [27]
the Court did not find the distance of twelve (12) kilometers far enough as to
make it physically impossible for the appellant therein to be at the scene of
the crime. In People v. Bation,[28]
we ruled that there was no physical impossibility for the appellant to be at the
scene of the crime, citing that the appellant claims to be merely twenty-six
(26) kilometers away from said scene. In
People v. Ignas,[29]
the distance was even much farther:
Basic is the
rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere
else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him
to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the
distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired
and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between
the two places. In these cases, the defense admitted that the distance between
La Trinidad, Benguet and Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya is 79 kilometers, which can be
negotiated in 4 or 5 hours. Clearly, it
was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the locus criminis
at the time of the killing. Hence, the defense of alibi must fail.
We, therefore, find it
difficult to uphold accused-appellant’s defense of alibi in the case at bar, when
he is merely claiming to be living in the adjacent house to that of AAA.
In so far as the above
testimony of BBB on cross-examination was being offered as proof that the
testimony of AAA was incredible, we fail to find any irreconcilable inconsistency
in AAA and BBB’s statements so as to conclude that AAA had been lying about
living in accused-appellant’s house, much less that she had been lying about
the rape incidents.
In said
cross-examination, counsel for accused-appellant was able to elicit from BBB an
admission that she had entrusted AAA to her mother, her niece, NNN, and the
latter’s husband, HHH. However, for
accused-appellant to subtly conclude on this premise that AAA’s aunt,
accused-appellant’s wife, RRR, was not entrusted just the same with the care of
AAA, is a non sequitur. Contrary to accused-appellant’s contention,
it is not at all inconceivable for AAA’s grandmother to let the children of BBB
stay in RRR and accused-appellant’s house, as the same is very close, adjacent
in fact, to the house where she (AAA’s grandmother) is staying.
As regards the testimony
of AAA that she informed her aunt, LLL, about the rape incidents, but the
latter did not do anything about said information, we likewise do not subscribe
to accused-appellant’s hasty conclusion that LLL did not do anything because
she did not believe AAA was telling the truth.
While we can think of many possible explanations why LLL would choose
not to get involved in such a potentially messy situation, it is best not to
indulge in the defense’s speculations on the same, especially since LLL was not
even presented as a witness. The trial
court, which was able to observe the demeanor of AAA and accused-appellant,
concluded that it was AAA who was truthful in her testimony on the harrowing events
of September 1997. It is the bounden
duty of the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses for both
sides and to weigh the probative value of their testimonies, just as it is the
trial court’s duty not to rely on, or consider as evidence, the purported
opinion of a person who was never even presented as a witness in the case.
We furthermore agree
with the finding of the trial court that it is unbelievable that AAA would file
complaints for two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape just to exact
revenge for the time accused-appellant allegedly kicked her. We are convinced even less that BBB would persuade
her daughter to lie about such rape incidents because of her quarrel with
accused-appellant. Thus, we have
repeatedly held that:
Not a few
accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought against them to
family feuds, resentment, or revenge.
But such alleged motives have never swayed the Court from lending full
credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout
her direct and cross-examinations, especially a minor as in this case. Further, we simply cannot believe that a lass
of tender age would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her
private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience, not to mention
the trauma, of a public trial, unless she was in fact raped. No young and decent Filipina would publicly
admit that she was ravished and her honor tainted unless such was true, for it
would be instinctive for her to protect her honor.[30]
On the civil aspect of
the case at bar, the trial court correctly found accused-appellant civilly
liable in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00
as civil indemnity for each of the counts of consummated rape. These amounts are consistent with prevailing
jurisprudence.[31] The trial court, however, omitted the civil
liabilities of accused-appellant for the attempted rape. Prevailing jurisprudence sets the amount of
the civil indemnity in attempted rape at P30,000.00 and moral damages at
P25,000.00.[32] We hereby modify the disposition in the lower
courts to include such amounts.
WHEREFORE, the Court
of Appeals’ Decision dated January 31, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00348,
which affirmed in toto the Caloocan
City Regional Trial Court’s Decision dated April 15, 2002 in Criminal Cases No.
C-54755 to 54757, is hereby AFFIRMED,
with the MODIFICATION that
accused-appellant Romeo Republo is further ORDERED
to indemnify private complainant in the amount of P30,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P25,000.00 as moral damages in Criminal Case No. C-54756 for
attempted rape.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
|
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-14.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 15-20.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Records, p. 19.
[7] TSN, August 5, 1999, pp. 2-4, 12-13.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] TSN, August 11, 1999, pp. 2-6.
[13] TSN, August 12, 1999, pp. 3-5.
[14] TSN, July 10, 2001, pp. 3-12; TSN, July 23, 2001, pp. 2-9.
[15] CA rollo, p. 20.
[16] G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[17] CA rollo, p. 61.
[18]
[19]
[20] Rollo, pp. 16-17; 23-24.
[21] CA rollo, p. 39.
[22] Rollo, p. 48.
[23]
[24] TSN, August 5, 1999, pp. 24-25.
[25] CA rollo, p. 49.
[26] Marco v. Court of Appeals, 339 Phil. 467, 474 (1997).
[27]
[28] 419 Phil. 494, 516 (2001).
[29] 458 Phil. 965, 993 (2003).
[30] People v. Gagto, 323 Phil. 539, 555-556 (1996).
[31] People v. Biong, 450 Phil. 433, 449 (2003); People v. Pagsanjan, 442 Phil. 667, 687 (2002).
[32] People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 169078, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 555, 569-570.