SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MARCOS QUIROS y SEMBRANO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 188600 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, ABAD,
VILLARAMA,
JR.,* MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 13, 2010 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the June 18, 2008
Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02682, affirming with
modification the Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 43, which found the
accused, Marcos Quiros y Sembrano, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having
committed statutory rape[3]
against the 9-year-old EMA.[4]
The accusatory portion of
the Information[5]
dated August 26, 2006 reads:
That on or about the 24th day of August, 2006, in the City
of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, MARCOS QUIROS y SEMBRANO, with lewd design, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally have carnal knowledge upon one EMA,
who is under 12 years of age, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
Contrary
to Article 266-A, par. 1(d) of R.A. 8353.
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty
to the charge. The parties stipulated on
the respective identities of EMA and the accused, as well as EMA's minority.
During the
trial, the prosecution presented, as witnesses, EMA herself; YYY,[6] the
mother of EMA; Dr. Mary Gwndolyn M. Luna, the physician who medically examined EMA;
and PO2 Jailine De Guzman Aquino, the police officer who received and
investigated the complaint of EMA.
The
thrust of the evidence of the prosecution, as summarized in the Appellee’s
Brief,[7] is as
follows:
The
victim EMA and the accused-appellant Marcos Quiros y Sembrano knew each other
well as they are both residents of xxx, xxx,[8] Dagupan
City, and are in fact immediate neighbors. At the time of the complained
incident, EMA was [nine (9)] years old. (Exh. B)
On
Without
realizing the significance of what the accused uttered and afraid that the
appellant might cause her to fall from the guava tree, EMA acceded to the
accused’s instructions.
Quickly,
the accused brought EMA to his house and into his son’s room. While EMA was
lying on the bed, the accused removed the latter’s short and panty and inserted
his erect penis into EMA’s vagina. EMA
felt great pain; thus she pushed back the accused who, thereafter, discontinued
the sexual assault. Noticing blood in
her vagina and on the accused’s penis, EMA ran home and reported the incident
to her mother.
On
the same afternoon of
That
same afternoon, EMA, accompanied by her parents proceeded to Dagupan City
Police Station to report the sexual assault (Exh. C), where she and her mother
executed sworn statements on the incident (Exhibits D and E).
Those who testified for the defense were the accused, Marcos
Quiros y Sembrano; his daughter, Mylene F. Quiros; and Rebecca Fernandez. The defense of the accused, as summarized in
his Appellant’s Brief,[9] is as
follows:
On
She
did not notice if EMA entered their house since she was already upstairs. At
around
On August
24, 2006, at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Rebecca Fernandez Paraiso,
was in her house with the accused. Her
house is about half (½) a kilometer away from the house of the accused.
The
accused talked with her husband for about (2) hours or until past
On
August 24, 2006, at around 3:00 (sic) o’clock p.m., Marcos Quiros was at the
house of his kumadre, Rebecca
Paraiso, located at Bonuan Boqui[g], Dagupan City. The said place is half (½) a
kilometer from his house. He arrived at
the house of his kumadre at around
1:30 o’clock p.m. and stayed there for about two and half (2 ½) hours.
At
past
He
was brought to the barangay office, where he was made to wait for the arrival
of members of the Bonuan police. Thereafter,
he was brought to the police precinct.
In its
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the felony charged and in conformity with law, he’s
sentenced to suffer the prison term of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the victim the following, to wit:
1.
P50,000.00
as indemnity fee;
2.
P30,000.00
as moral damages;
3.
P20,000.00
as exemplary damages;
4.
And
costs.
The
SO
ORDERED.[10]
Aggrieved,
the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals presenting this lone assignment of
error:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[11]
On
WHEREFORE, the decision dated January 29, 2007 holding the accused appellant
guilty of statutory rape, in Criminal Case No. 2006-0509-D of the RTC, Branch
43, Dagupan City, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is ordered to pay
private complainant EMA the increased amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to the P50,000.00 awarded by the RTC in favor of EMA as
indemnity or compensatory damages.
SO
ORDERED.[12]
Hence
this appeal.[13]
In
advocacy for his exoneration, the accused argues that the testimony of the
victim that she went with him during the incident for fear that he might cause
her to fall down from the tree is unbelievable.
According to the accused, such fear on the part of the victim should
have ceased after she had gone down from the tree and she had no more reason to
go with him.[14]
By
the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely on the
basis of the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible,
natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of
things. Accordingly, the Court has
consistently adhered to the following guiding principles in the review of
similar cases, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility;
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 must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3)
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.[15]
After going over the evidentiary
record, the Court finds no reason to disturb the decisions of the courts below.
The Court
does not subscribe to the argument of the accused that just because EMA had
come down from the tree, she had no more reason to be afraid and to follow what
he said. It must be remembered that EMA
was just 9 years old and was obviously innocent, unwary and too trusting as she
meekly obeyed the instructions of the accused. The simplicity of her story should not detract
from the veracity of her complaint. She
has proved to be a credible witness, and her testimony, worthy of judicial
acceptance.
Testimonies
of child-victims are almost always given full weight and credit, since when a
woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape has been committed. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity.[16] Thus, the Court quotes with approval the
disquisition of the appellate court on this score. Thus:
The fact that EMA freely went with the accused to
the house of the latter after she went down from the guava tree should not be
taken to mean that her account of the events is incredible. It must be noted that EMA was merely (9) years
of age when the rape transpired. By her
own admission, EMA did not even understand what accused-appellant said when he
instructed her to have sexual intercourse with him. It is not ludicrous to
think that an innocent and unsuspecting nine-year old girl would trust a grown-up
neighbor enough to let him take her with him to his own home – especially if
the girl lived only two houses away therefrom. Well-settled
is the rule that the testimonies of young victims deserve full credence and
should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.[17]
(Citation omitted)
Considering the age of the complainant, the Court finds it
improbable for a girl of her age to fabricate a charge so traumatic to herself
and her family had she not been truly subjected to the painful experience of
sexual abuse.[18]
Under rigid cross-examination, she was steadfast in relating her ordeal and nightmarish
experience at the hands of the accused. For accuracy, the details of her defilement
are hereby reproduced as follows:
PROS. SOLOMON:
Q You
said awhile ago that when the accused brought you inside the room of his son
Indong on
A He
undressed me while in the room of his son, sir.
Q What
was your position when he undressed you?
A I was
lying down, sir.
COURT:
Q What
was your attire at that time?
A Red
dress, sir.
Q Was it
a T-shirt?
A Yes,
sir.
Q How
about your lower attire?
A Blue
short(s), sir.
Q When he
brought you inside the room of his son and he undressed you, he removed all his
clothings (sic)?
A No,
sir, only the short(s).
Q In
other words, your upper attire w(as) intact?
A Yes,
sir.
COURT:
Proceed.
PROS. SOLOMON:
Q Aside
from wearing your shortpant(s), were you wearing also panty?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And he
also removed your panty?
A Yes,
sir.
Q After
he undressed you, what did he do next?
A He
inserted his penis into my vagina, sir.
Q And
what did you feel when he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A It was
painful, sir.
Q And
what was your reaction when you felt that it was painful?
A I
pushed him, sir.
Q And
what did the accused do to you when you pushed him?
A He did
not continue anymore, sir.
Q You
said that you felt pain in your vagina, what did he do next after you pushed
the accused?
A None,
sir.
Q What
happened (t)o your vagina Madame witness?
A There
was blood in my vagina, sir.
Q And
upon seeing your vagina bleeding, what did you do next?
A I went
home, sir.
COURT:
Q When
the accused inserted his penis inside your vagina, describe the accused’s
penis?
A It was
covered with blood, sir.
Q Was it
stiff?
A Yes,
sir.
COURT:
Proceed.
PROS. SOLOMON:
Q You
claimed a while ago that the accused in this case Marcos Quiros’s penis was
covered with blood, was that after you pushed him?
A Yes,
sir.
COURT:
Q When
the accused inserted his penis inside your vagina, was he naked?
A No,
sir, only his shortpant(s).
Q In other words, he was naked from the
waist down?
A Yes,
sir.[19]
From the foregoing narration, sexual intercourse was clearly
proven. Moreover, the prosecution more than sufficiently established that the victim
was only 9 years old at the time of the rape incident, as evidenced by her
Certificate of Live Birth.[20] Undeniably, the case is one of statutory
rape, the gravamen of which is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years
old. Sexual congress with a girl under
12 years is always rape. Thus, force, intimidation or physical evidence of
injury is immaterial.[21]
Besides,
the testimony of EMA was corroborated by her mother YYY who told the court that
when EMA came home, she was naked from the waist down, with blood oozing from
her genitals. Shocked at her daughter’s
appearance, she asked EMA what happened. EMA told her that the accused had raped
her.[22] No ill-motive could be imputed against the
victim and her parents to manufacture such an accusation, considering that the
accused, by his own admission, had maintained cordial relationship with the
family of the victim.
The
victim’s testimony that accused inserted his organ into her vagina was further strengthened
by the testimony of Dr. Gwendolyn Luna, who examined her one and a half (1 ½)
hours after the incident and the Medical Report[23] she
prepared after the examination. Dr. Luna
informed the court that EMA informed her that a certain “Macoy” inserted his
penis into her vagina. Her report stated
that the injuries sustained by the victim in her vagina were indicative of
sexual abuse. When the testimony of the witness corresponds
with medical findings, there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential
requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.[24]
The fact that Mylene Quiros, daughter of the accused was
inside the house cannot negate the fact that the accused did rape EMA. “Sadly, the presence of family members in the
same room has not discouraged rapists from preying on children, giving this
Court to observe before that lust is no respecter of time and place. Rape has been
shown to have been committed even in places where people congregate, in parks,
along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are
other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are
also sleeping.”[25] In other
words, the rapist and the victim need not have to be
alone for rape to be consummated.
The contention of the accused that he was in the house of his
kumadre, Rebecca Paraiso, at the time of the alleged rape
deserves scant consideration.
Time
and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of
all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[26] Furthermore, said defenses cannot prevail over the positive
and unequivocal
identification
of the accused by the victim, EMA. Denial
and alibi are practically worthless against the positive identification made by
the prosecution witnesses, especially by the rape victim.[27]
At any rate, the cardinal rule has always been that factual
findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the
witnesses, and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the
appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed
by the Court of Appeals. The exception
is when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked,
misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if
considered, will change the outcome of the case. The Court of Appeals has observed this rule
and so will this Court.
The
Court, thus, sustains the conviction of the accused for the crime of statutory
rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d)[28] of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC)[29] and the
imposition of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC.[30] The penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua, which being a single
indivisible penalty, is imposable regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.[31]
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the victim, in a case
for simple statutory rape, is entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages. In addition to the
damages awarded, the
Court also imposes on all the amounts of damages an interest at the legal rate
of 6% from this date until fully paid.[32]
WHEREFORE, the June 18, 2008 Decision of the
Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02682 is MODIFIED to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape, the Court
sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the victim, EMA, the
following:
1. P50,000.00 as indemnity fee;
2. P50,000.00 as moral damages;
3. P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
4.
the
costs of the suit.
The accused
is further ordered to pay legal interest on the civil liabilities imposed until
fully paid.
SO
ORDERED.
JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
A T T
E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R
T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member in lieu of Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per Special Order No. 585 dated July 1, 2010.
* * Designated as additional member in lieu of Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Special Order No. 863 dated July 5, 2010.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal concurring; Rollo, pp. 2-14.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 53-64.
[3] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 2006-0509-D.
[4] The Court shall use fictitious initials in lieu of the real names and circumstances of the victim and the latter's immediate family members other than accused-appellant. See People v. Gloria, G.R. No. 168476, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 742; citing Sec. 29 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, Sec. 44 of R.A. No. 9262, and Sec. 40 of the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[5] CA rollo, p. 7.
[6]
Name withheld to protect the identity of the child-victim.
[7] Statement of Facts, CA rollo, pp. 77-78.
[8]
The place of residence of the
child-victim is withheld to protect her privacy.
[9] Evidence for the Defense, CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
[10]
[11]
[12] Rollo, p. 13.
[13] On September
11, 2008, the Court of Appeals gave due course to the notice of appeal filed by
the accused (CA rollo, p.
110). The Court
required the parties to simultaneously file their respective supplemental
briefs (Rollo, p. 21), but
both manifested that they would no longer file supplemental pleadings (Rollo, pp. 30-31 and 33-35).
[14]
CA rollo, p. 48.
[15]
People
v.
[16] People v. Alfredo Bon, G.R. No.
166401, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 168.
[17] CA Decision, Rollo, pp. 11-12.
[18]
People v. Dalipe, G.R. No. 187154, April 23, 2010.
[19]
TSN,
[20]
Index of Exhibits for the
Prosecution, p. 34; CA rollo, p. 5.
[21]
People v. Ligotan, 331 Phil. 98
(1996).
[22]
TSN,
[23] Records, p. 56.
[24] People v. Anthony Rante y Reyes, G.R. No. 184809, March 29, 2010, citing People v. Tuazon, G.R. No.
168102, August 22,
2008, 563 SCRA 124, 135.
[25] People v. Pacheco, G.R. No. 187742, April 10, 2010.
[26] People
v. IIagan, 455 Phil. 891, 903 (2003).
[27]
People
v. Isla, Jr., 432 Phil. 414, 431 (2002).
[28] Art. 266-A. Rape; when and how committed.-Rape is committed.
1). By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx
d) When the offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
[29]
Previously Article 335, par. 3 of the
RPC which has been amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti- Rape Law of 1997).
[30]
Art. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article
shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
[31] People
v. Andaya, 365 Phil. 654 (1999).
[32]
People v. Bagos, G.R. No. 177152,
January 6, 2010, citing
People v. Guevarra, G.R. No.
182192, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 288, 313;
People v. Antivola, 466 Phil. 394
(2004); and People v. Olaybar, 459
Phil. 114 (2003).