Republic
of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ, JR., alias
“SANDY,” Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 180914
Present: CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, Velasco,
Jr., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, PERALTA,* and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: November
24, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
On
appeal is the Decision[1]
dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02131 which
affirmed with modifications the Decision[2]
dated February 6, 2006 of Branch 65 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulan,
Sorsogon, convicting accused-appellant Domingo Dominguez, Jr., also known as
“Sandy,” of three counts of rape and two counts of attempted rape of his minor
daughter.
Consistent with our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto[3]
and People v. Guillermo,[4] this Court withholds the real name of
the private offended party and her immediate family members as well as such
other personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish or
compromise her identity. The initials
AAA represent the private offended party, the initials BBB refer to her mother,
and the initials CCC stand for one of her relatives.
Accused-appellant
was indicted for four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape, all
qualified by his relationship with and the minority of the private offended
party. The criminal informations read:
Criminal Case No. 02-548 [Amended Information]
That on or about July 20, 2001 at more or less 7:00
o’clock in the evening, at barangay Anibong, municipality of Magallanes,
province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation,
that is by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy being the father of the
victim [AAA], a minor, 12 years of age, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the said victim against
her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
The qualifying aggravating circumstances of minority
and relationship are present considering that the victim is 12 years of age and
the accused is the father.[5]
Criminal Case No. 02-549 [Amended Information]
That on the 4th week of July 2001 at more
or less 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, at barangay Anibong, municipality of
Magallanes, province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and
intimidation, that is by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy being the
father of the victim [AAA], a minor, 12 years of age, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the said
victim against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
The qualifying aggravating circumstances of minority
and relationship are present considering that the victim is 12 years of age and
the accused is the father.[6]
Criminal Case No. 02-550 [Amended Information]
That in the second week of August 2001 at more or
less 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, at barangay Anibong, municipality of
Magallanes, province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and
intimidation, that is by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy being the
father of the victim [AAA], a minor, 12 years of age, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the said
victim against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
The qualifying aggravating circumstances of minority
and relationship are present considering that the victim is 12 years of age and
the accused is the father.[7]
Criminal Case No. 02-551 [Amended Information]
That in the second week of September 2001 at more or
less 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, at barangay Anibong, municipality of Magallanes,
province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and
intimidation, that is by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy being the
father of the victim [AAA], a minor, 12 years of age, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the said
victim against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
The qualifying aggravating circumstances of minority
and relationship are present considering that the victim is 12 years of age and
the accused is the father.[8]
Criminal Case No. 02-552
That on or about November 20, 2001 at more or less
1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, at barangay Anibong, municipality of Magallanes,
province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, commence the commission of the
crime of Rape directly by overt acts upon the person of [AAA], a minor, 12
years of age, through force and intimidation taking advantage of his moral
ascendancy being the father, to wit: by undressing the victim, thereby removing
all her clothing apparel with the intention of having carnal knowledge, against
her will and without her consent, but said accused did not however perform all
the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of rape, as a
consequence, by reason of some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance, that is because somebody saw them, and said acts produced
psychological and emotional trauma to said [AAA], to her damage and prejudice.
The qualifying aggravating circumstances of minority
and relationship are present considering that the victim is 12 years of age and
the accused is the father.[9]
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty to all charges. A
pre-trial conference[10]
followed and, thereafter, the criminal charges were jointly tried.
The prosecution presented four
witnesses, namely, the private offended party, AAA;[11]
her mother, BBB;[12] her
relative who claimed to be an eyewitness to the sexual abuse, CCC;[13]
and the medico-legal who physically examined her for signs of sexual abuse, Dr.
Irene V. Ella.[14] The documentary exhibits of the prosecution
consisted of the Medico-Legal Report[15]
dated November 23, 2001 issued by Dr. Ella; the Certificate of Live Birth of
AAA[16]
issued by the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar, Magallanes, Sorsogon;
and the Marriage Contract of AAA’s parents.[17] The defense, on the other hand, presented the
testimony of accused-appellant.[18]
Based
on the combined testimonies of the witnesses and documentary evidence for the
prosecution, the RTC accounted the prosecution’s version of the facts as
follows:
The evidence for the prosecution
shows and as narrated in open court by the victim herself [AAA]; that the first
incident of rape happened before the fiesta of Magallanes which was in the
month of July 2001. Her small siblings
were already asleep and she was about to go to sleep also, when she noticed her
father (the accused) already beside her.
Her father (accused) undressed her while he also undressed himself, and
as he was about to mount her for the purpose of raping her, her mother arrived
and inquired why she was naked. Because
of fear of bodily harm brought about by the threat coming from the accused who
was then holding a bolo, the victim did not say anything. She positively identified her father (the
accused) inside the courtroom when asked to do so by the public
prosecutor. The accused failed to
consummate the rape during the first incident.
The second rape happened after a
week from the first attempt, which could be between the fourth week of July or
first week of August 2001 because the victim stated that it was no longer in
the month of July 2001. It happened in a
coconut farm in Anibong, Magallanes, Sorsogon.
The victim was asked by her father to accompany him in getting coconut
leaves because they are going to weave it in their house. When the two (2) of them reached the place,
her father (accused) undressed her and thereafter undressed himself also and
made her lie down then inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt weak and pain all over her body
including her vagina which she felt to be swollen at that time. She tried to struggle but she was helpless,
particularly so, that the accused was also armed with a bolo at that time. After the bestial act was consummated they
proceeded home bringing with them the coconut leaves that they gathered. She did not tell anyone about the incident
because of fear of the accused and the thought that they might not believe her.
The third incident of rape happened
two (2) weeks after the second incident, which was sometime in the month of
August 2001. While the fourth incident
of rape happened three (3) weeks after the third incident which was sometime in
the month of September 2001. The fifth
and last incident of rape happened according to the victim sometime in the 20th
of November 2001. All the 3rd,
4th and 5th incidents of rape happened in the same
coconut farm although in the different places of the farm. The same pattern of execution was adopted by
the accused. He would ask the victim to
go with him to the coconut farm to gather coconut leaves, and once they reached
the place the accused would undress the victim then undress himself also and
have sexual intercourse with her against her will. The victim could not refuse or disobey the command
of the accused (her father) because he will scold and threaten her with
punishment if she would not go with him.
She could not also tell her mother about it because of fear. At the time of the first and second rapes the
victim was only 12 years old. She was already 13 years old when the third,
fourth, and fifth incidents of rape happened.
Her date of birth was January 3, 1989.
During the fifth incident of rape on
November 20, 2001 the accused and the victim [were] again in the same coconut
farm in order to get coconut leaves.
Both of them were already naked and the accused was about to mount the
victim when they were seen by prosecution eyewitness [CCC] who shouted at them,
that’s why the accused fled leaving the victim behind. Because of what happened the victim was able
to gain enough courage to tell her mother and to report the incident to the
barangay captain of their place, thus leading to the apprehension of the
accused.[19]
(Citations omitted.)
The
RTC pointed out that on cross-examination, AAA again narrated straightforwardly
how, when, and where she was sexually abused by her own father:
On cross-examination the credibility
of the victim was even enhanced by her consistent and very candid answers to
the very important questions propounded on her by the defense counsel. This notwithstanding some minor lapses on her
part, which can be explained by her tender age and lack of exposure to a
usually pressure packed court atmosphere.
The minor-victim was consistent in her claim that accused Domingo
Dominguez is her natural father; that she was raped by him; that nobody forced
her to file these cases against her own father; that they are seven (7)
children in the family; that the first attempted rape happened in the year 2001
before the fiesta in Magallanes at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening; their
house is situated on a hill where there is no electricity and they are only
using kerosene lamp in their house; there are no rooms in their house and
usually sleep in one place; at the time of the first attempted rape she and her
five small siblings together with her father were the only ones present in
their house; her mother went to her lola’s house in order to get a viand; while
she was attending to her five small siblings making them sleep the accused
undressed her; when her mother arrived she was already naked but her father
(the accused) made an alibi that he was just dressing her up because they were
going to the market; when her mother asked her about it she did not give any
answer; nothing happened during that time because of the timely arrival of her
mother; the first consummated rape (the second incident) happened in the
coconut farm in Anibong, Magallanes, Sorsogon, which is far from their house at
around 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon; it was her first sexual experience and her
private part bled; she could not refuse to go with her father to the coconut
plantation because of fear of punishment if she will not go with him, her
mother could not go against her father; she did not tell her mother about the
rape for fear that she might not believe her, because the culprit is her own
father who is her own blood; during the second incident she threw her panty
away because it was already stained with blood and just used her shorts; the
third incident of rape (second consummated rape) happened in the same coconut
plantation; the accused told her brother to fetch the carabao, when they were
already alone the accused raped her and after he was through with her they
gathered coconut leaves and when her brother together with the carabao arrived
later, they loaded them on the carabao and proceeded home; during the 3rd
incident there was no more bleeding of her vagina unlike the second she did not
throw her panty after the rape, she used it again; she did not tell her mother,
not even her friends nor her teacher nor her lola about the rape because of
fear that they might laugh at her; the fourth incident of rape (3rd
consummated rape) happened in the same coconut plantation under the same
pattern of execution with the accused succeeding in inserting his penis into
her vagina; the fifth and last incident of attempted rape happened on November
20, 2001 in the same coconut farm when [CCC] saw her and her father (accused)
both naked; because of what happened the victim gained courage to open up to her
lola and reported the incident to their barangay captain, knowing that [CCC]
will support her accusation; that even if her father will be meted out the
penalty of death she will not withdraw the case against her father and will
insist in her accusation that she was raped by him.[20]
(Citation omitted.)
The
RTC also summed up the corroborating evidence for the prosecution as follows:
The aforequoted testimony of the
offended party, [AAA], was amply supported by the medical findings and the
testimony made in open court by the medico-legal officer who physically
examined her, Dr. Irene V. Ella, MHO – Magallanes, Sorsogon.
Dr. Ella declared, that the minor
victim was brought to her office by the Barangay Captain of Anibong and the
Municipal Social Welfare Development Officer of Magallanes, Mrs. Mercadero, for
physical examination based on the alleged complaint of rape. Based on the result of the physical
examination, it was found out that the vaginal canal of the victim admits 1 cm.
in diameter test tube with no resistance.
Meaning, that something has been inserted on it for several times that’s
why the vaginal canal admits very easily a 1 cm. in diameter test tube with no
resistance. Accordingly, a girl without
sexual experience would show some resistance if you insert on her vagina a 1
cm. in diameter test tube. Another
finding was that the labia majora/minora was slightly gaping indicative of a
sexual experience on the part of the victim.
Normally, a girl without any experience in sex or sexual abuse would
show a closely adherent labia majora/minora which is the covering of the
vaginal canal. The medico legal officer
concluded, that the above findings confirmed penile penetration for several
times. Her basis is the laxity of the
vaginal wall and the easy insertion of the 1 cm. test tube. Accordingly, if the penetration only happened
once it will not cause such laxity or it might cause a laxity but not as
manifest as what was reflected in her findings.
The claim of the offended party,
[AAA], that the last attempt to rape her was committed by her father (accused)
on November 20, 2001 at around 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon was supported by
the very candid and credible testimony of prosecution eyewitness [CCC] who
declared that on November 20, 2001 at more or less 1:00 o’clock in the
afternoon he was at the forest of Anibong, Magallanes, looking for snails when
he chanced upon father and daughter, Sandy (accused) and [AAA], standing close
to each other totally naked. [AAA] was
crying while Sandy was standing. He did
not go near them because of fear of Sandy who had a bolo with him, so he left
the place and went home. He related the
incident to his cousin x x x. Both Sandy
and [AAA] saw him when he chanced upon them.
On cross-examination, the aforenamed
witness was able to clarify further his position when he stated, that he was
about 3 to 4 meters away from the two when he first saw them standing both
naked. He took two steps forward closer
to them that’s why he was able to confirm that it was his Manoy Sandy (Domingo
Dominguez, Jr./Accused) and his daughter [AAA] who were standing. [AAA] was shouting for help but the witness
could not come to her aid because of fear of Sandy who was carrying a bolo. What was made clear however from the
testimony of said witness was the fact, that he did not witness any sexual
intercourse between the two thus implying in all probability that the rape was
just in its attempted stage.[21]
(Citations omitted.)
The
RTC then summarized the evidence for the defense, based on the denial and alibi
of accused-appellant, as follows:
Accused Domingo Dominguez, Jr.
admitted during his testimony on direct examination, that he is the father of
the victim [AAA]; that his wife is [BBB]; that they have seven (7) children;
three of them were girls, the eldest is x x x while the youngest is [AAA]; his
main occupation is that of a farmer who works in the rice field; all his
children are in school and he provides for their education and daily
sustenance; that he loves his children and just wanted to discipline them but
he was placed into this kind of situation; he cannot afford to do to [AAA] the
charges that were filed against him; he cannot say whether he still loves [AAA]
considering that he is presently incarcerated; he had no bad record in the
barangay and had never been charged of a similar case before; he likewise scold
his two other daughters if they commit a wrong.
On cross-examination, the accused
further stated, that he spanks or maltreats his children whenever they commit
mistakes as a form of discipline; that whenever he physically maltreats or
disciplines his children they suffer injuries, although he do[es] it only when
he is angry; sometime when he arrived from work and nobody is around he gets
mad; that his children [have] developed that fear of him because of his way of
disciplining them even his wife is afraid of him; he claims that all the
charges filed against him were fabricated by members of his family because they
wanted to show other people that he is bad, but he denied having done those
criminal acts; that [AAA] filed this case against him because he scolded her;
that if he really planned to rape somebody he could have done it to other
persons but not to [AAA]; in 1999, [AAA] was about ten (10) years old and [had]
many male friends who are her classmates but had no boyfriend.[22] (References to case records deleted.)
In its Decision dated February 6,
2006, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three
counts of qualified rape in Criminal Case Nos. 02-549, 02-550 and 02-551, and
two counts of attempted rape in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552. The dispositive portion of said RTC judgment
reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the GUILT of accused
Domingo Dominguez, Jr. alias
“Sandy” having been established beyond reasonable doubt, sentence is hereby pronounced against
him as follows:
a)
In
Criminal Case No. 02-548,
above-named accused who is found guilty only
of Attempted Rape, defined and
penalized under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is sentenced
to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor to 20 years
of Reclusion Temporal, present the aggravating circumstances of minority and
relationship without any mitigating circumstance;
b)
In
Criminal Case No. 02-549,
above-named accused having been found guilty
of Qualified Rape is sentenced
to indivisible penalty of death, to indemnify [AAA] in the amount of
Php75,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto; another Php75,000.00 as moral damages and
another Php50,000.00 as exemplary damages, with no subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency;
c)
In
Criminal Case Nos. 02-550 and 02-551,
above-named accused is likewise found guilty
of Qualified Rape in each case
and sentenced to an indivisible penalty of death for each count of Qualified
Rape, to indemnify [AAA] in the amount of Php150,000.00 as indemnity ex
delicto; another Php150,000.00 as moral damages; and another Php100,000.00 as
exemplary damages, with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
d)
In
Criminal Case No. 02-552,
above-named accused is likewise found guilty
of Attempted Rape, defined and
penalized under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor to
20 years of Reclusion Temporal, present the aggravating circumstances of
minority and relationship without any mitigating circumstance.
The period of preventive imprisonment already served
by the accused shall be credited in the service of his sentences pursuant to
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The above-mentioned penalties shall be served by the
accused in the order of succession provided for in Article 70 of the same Code.[23]
(Emphases ours.)
Accused-appellant interposed his appeal from the judgment of the RTC to
the Court of Appeals. On April 11, 2006,
the trial court transmitted the records of the cases to the appellate
court. Accused-appellant filed his Brief[24] on November 21, 2006 while the
plaintiff-appellee, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
filed its Brief[25]
on March 21, 2007.
In his appeal before the Court of Appeals, accused-appellant cited the
following assignment of errors:
I
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the
accused-appellant of the crime of attempted rape in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548
and 02-552.
II
Granting arguendo that the accused-appellant is
guilty of attempted rape in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552, the penalty
imposed was not proper.
III
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the
accused-appellant of the crime of rape in Criminal Case Nos. 02-549, 02-550 and
02-551 thereby imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death.
Accused-appellant
asserted his innocence and asked for his acquittal from all the charges.
On
the two counts of attempted rape, accused-appellant claimed that the
prosecution failed to show any overt act which would prove his intent to rape
AAA. AAA’s claims during her testimony
that accused-appellant was “about to rape her” or “about to go on top of her”
were it not for the timely arrival of her mother, BBB, in Criminal Case No.
02-548, or were it not for the fortunate appearance of a relative, CCC, in
Criminal Case No. 02-552, were allegedly so vague that one cannot make a clear
conclusion whether the accused-appellant really intended to rape AAA.
Accused-appellant
also noted that should his conviction for the crime of attempted rape be
sustained, the trial court committed an error in the imposition of the proper
penalty. With the abrogation of the
death penalty, the imposable penalty for the crime of rape committed in the
attempted stage, which must be two degrees lower than that of the penalty
imposed for the crime intended to be committed, should be prision mayor.
Anent
the three counts of qualified rape, accused-appellant denied the accusations
and questioned the motive of AAA in charging him with said crime. Accused-appellant pointed out that it was
implausible that AAA would not tell her mother and siblings about the alleged
rapes. It was also incredible that AAA
would still accompany accused-appellant repeatedly to the coconut farm despite
her having been previously sexually assaulted by him, with AAA knowing that
their seclusion was another opportunity for accused-appellant to sexually
assault her again. Accused-appellant
averred that AAA’s unexplained silence and continuous acquiescence to the
sexual abuses supposedly committed against her made her accusations dubious.
Plaintiff-appellee,
on the other hand, claimed that accused-appellant was properly convicted in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-549, 02-550, and 02-551 for three counts of qualified
rape. Citing settled jurisprudence,
plaintiff-appellee argued that the appreciation by the trial court of all the
evidence on the rape charges deserved great weight and respect. AAA’s consistent, candid, and straightforward
narrations that she was raped for several times by her own father were duly
supported by the medico-legal findings of sexual abuse. Accused-appellant’s bare denials and
ascription of ill motive on AAA’s part in filing the criminal charges were
allegedly untenable.
In
Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552, however, plaintiff-appellee posited that
accused-appellant should be held criminally liable for two counts of acts of
lasciviousness instead of attempted rape.
Plaintiff-appellee noted that the most significant element of attempted
rape is the intent of the offender to penetrate the sexual organ of his victim.[26] In the aforesaid cases, accused-appellant was
able to do nothing more than undress AAA and himself.
After its review of the evidence, the Court of Appeals affirmed
accused-appellant’s conviction in Criminal Case Nos. 02-549, 02-550, and 02-551
for three counts of qualified rape; while it modified the RTC judgment in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552 and convicted accused-appellant for two
counts of acts of lasciviousness. The
appellate court also modified the penalties and damages imposed against
accused-appellant as follows:
WHEREFORE, the
appealed Decision dated February 6, 2006 is AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS:
(1)
In Criminal Cases
Nos. 02-549; 02-550; and 02-551, the penalty of death imposed on the
accused-appellant for each count of qualified rape is hereby reduced to reclusion
perpetua, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 without eligibility for
parole. The award of exemplary damages
for each count of qualified rape committed, is reduced to P25,000.00.
(2)
In Criminal Cases
Nos. 02-548 and 02-552, the accused-appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of acts of lasciviousness and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum
penalty to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum penalty for
each count of the acts of lasciviousness committed. The accused-appellant is likewise ordered to
pay private complainant the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages for each count of the acts of lasciviousness committed.[27]
Thereafter, accused-appellant appealed his convictions before us.
In
a Minute Resolution[28] dated February 4, 2008, we required the
parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. The parties, however, manifested that they
had exhausted their arguments before the Court of Appeals and, thus, would no
longer file any supplemental brief.[29]
We
sustain the findings of the Court of Appeals and affirm accused-appellant’s
conviction in Criminal Case Nos. 02-549, 02-550, and 02-551 for three counts of
qualified rape.
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 twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
In People v. Orillosa,[30]
we held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need
not be employed where the overpowering moral influence of the father would
suffice.
In
this case, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused-appellant, through force, threat or intimidation, had carnal knowledge
of his daughter, AAA, who was then only 12 to 13 years old.
AAA
recounted in sufficient detail the rape incidents as follows:
[Criminal Case No. 02-549]
Q: Now after that incident, was it repeated?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And when did it happen?
A: That second time happened after a week.
Q: A week after the first incident?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Where did it happen?
A: In a coconut farm.
Q: In
what place?
A: Anibong, Magallanes, Sorsogon.
Q: Now why were you in that farm at that
time?
A: He
told me to accompany him to get coconut leaves because we were going to weave
it in our house.
Q: Who is that “he” who told you to
accompany him?
A: My father.
Q: Now when you reached the place, what
happened?
A: He
undressed me and after undressing me he also undressed himself.
Q: You
were at that coconut plantation, only the two of you?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: After
you were undressed and after he also undressed himself, what happened next?
A: His penis was inserted inside my vagina.
Q: Were you made to lie down?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Now,
what did you feel when his penis [was] inserted [into] your vagina?
A: I
felt weak and I felt pain in all of my body and even my vagina felt pain and I
felt it is swollen.
Q: Now, did you see your father holding
anything at that time?
A: There was.
Q: What was that?
A: It was also a bolo because we were about
to get coconut leaves.
Q: Now
did you not struggle or fight him back?
A: Yes, I tried to struggle.
x x x x
Q: Now,
after your father inserted his penis in your private organ, what happened next?
A: After
that we proceeded home because we brought home the coconut leaves that we
gathered.
Q: Now
did you not tell anyone about the incident?
A: None.
Q: Why
not?
A: I was
afraid and that they might not believe me.[31]
[Criminal Case
No. 02-550]
Q: Now
[AAA], after that second incident, was it again repeated for the third
time?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: Do
you remember the date when it was repeated?
A: I
cannot recall the exact date but I could remember that it was two (2) weeks
after the second incident and I was free then because I didn’t have any
classes.
Q: Now
where did it happen?
A: At
the coconut farm also.
Q: The
same coconut farm where the second incident took place?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q; And
how did it happen?
A: The
same, he undressed me and he undressed himself and he made me [lie] down.
Q: Now
why were you with him on that particular date?
A: The
same, I helped him in getting coconut leaves.
Q: Now
why did you go with him considering the second incident of rape that happened
to you?
A: Of
course, because he was threatening me that I went with him.
Q: What
did he exactly tell you that made you fear [him]?
A: Because
he scolded us why we were not going with him.
Q: Now when
he undressed himself and you were also undressed, what happened next?
A: He
again inserted his penis inside my vagina.
Q: And
afterwards, what happened next?
A: We
proceeded home and again we brought with us the coconut leaves.
Q: Did
you not tell your mother or anyone about the third incident that happened?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: Why
not?
A: Because
I was still afraid.[32]
[Criminal Case
No. 02-551]
Q: Now
after this third incident, [AAA], do you still remember of another incident
that took place?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: And
do you still remember when it happened?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: When?
A: Three
(3) weeks after the third incident.
Q: Now
where did it happen?
A: The
same place, coconut farm.
Q: Now
why were you with him at that time?
A: Still
to gather coconut leaves.
Q: So
when you reached the place, what happened?
A: The
same happened, he undressed me and he also undressed himself.
Q: And
what happened next after both of you were already undressed?
A: He
again inserted his penis to my vagina.
Q: And what
did you feel at that time?
A: I
felt weak and my body felt pain.
Q: By
the way [AAA], do you know how old were you at that time of the first incident?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: How
old were you then?
A: Twelve.
Q: The
second time, how old were you?
A: Twelve.
Q: Until
the fourth time, you were still 12 years old when the incident happened?
A: During
the third time I was already 13 years old.
Q: Now
after your father inserted his penis on your vagina the fourth incident, what
happened next?
A: We
again gathered coconut leaves in order to bring to our house.[33]
The
birth certificate of AAA shows that she was born on January 3, 1989. Medical examination revealed AAA’s old
hymenal laceration and the examining physician concluded penile penetration for
several times. These support AAA’s claim
that she was repeatedly raped when she was only 12 to 13 years old.
We
also affirm the convictions of accused-appellant in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548
and 02-552, for two counts of acts of lasciviousness and not for attempted
rape.
The
Court of Appeals aptly cited Perez v.
Court of Appeals[34] in which we ruled:
[A]
careful review of the records of the case shows that the crime committed by
petitioner was acts of lasciviousness not attempted rape.
Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal
Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance. In the
crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the
felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have
commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim
but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the
penetration, however slight, is not completed.
There is no showing in this case
that petitioner’s sexual organ had ever touched complainant’s vagina nor any
part of her body. x x x.[35]
(Emphasis ours.)
We
also reiterated in Perez our
pronouncements in People v. Caingat,[36]
that the offender’s acts of lying on top of the victim, embracing and kissing
her, mashing her breasts, inserting his hand inside her panty, and touching her
sexual organ, which were interrupted were it not for the timely arrival of the
victim’s mother, do not constitute the crime of attempted rape, absent any
showing that the offender actually commenced to force his penis into the
victim’s sexual organ, and that said acts rather constitute the crime of acts
of lasciviousness punishable under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
In
Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552, there is a similar dearth of evidence
that accused-appellant was able to commence penetration of his penis into AAA’s
vagina. What the evidence on record
established was that during these two occasions, accused-appellant was only
able to undress himself and his daughter before the arrival of BBB and CCC. As AAA testified:
[Criminal Case No. 02-548]
Q: Can you still remember the first
incident that happened?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And what happened at that time?
A: The
first incident happened before the Fiesta of Magallanes during which my
siblings, small ones, were already asleep and I was also about to go to sleep
and then I suddenly noticed that my father was beside me and then he undressed me and he also undressed
himself and when he was about to rape me my mother arrived and she asked me
why I was naked. I was afraid then.
Q: Now
what did you observe in the person of your father at that time that he
undressed you?
A: Because he was about to rape me.
Q: Why were you afraid of your father at
that time?
A: Of
course, because he was threatening me and I was before already afraid of him.
Q: And how did he threaten you?
A: That he was going to kill everyone of
us.
Q: Now at the time of the incident, did you
see him holding anything?
A: There was.
Q: And what was that?
A: Bolo.[37]
(Emphasis supplied.)
[Criminal Case
No. 02-552]
Q: Now
after that fourth incident, do you still remember of any other incident?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: And
do you still remember when did it happen?
A: November
20, 2001.
Q: Fifth?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: Are
you sure?
A: Yes,
ma’am.
Q: Where
did it happen?
A: The
same place, coconut farm.
Q: And
why were you at that time also with him?
A: We
were still going to get coconut leaves.
Q: And after reaching the coconut
plantation, what happened next?
A: He undressed me and he undressed himself
also.
Q: Then after both of you were already
undressed, what happened next?
A: When he was about to go on top of me he
suddenly saw [CCC] and I saw also [CCC].
What he did was to flee.
Q: Both
of you were already undressed from top to your drawers?
A: During
that time I was only using shorts and my shorts [were] already taken off but I
had [a] shirt [on] my body.
Q: How about your panty, was it still on
your body?
A: Yes, ma’am.
x x x x
Q: Now
at that time, when [CCC] witnessed you and your father, was your father still
wearing an upper apparel?
A: Only
upper apparel.
Q: What about his underwears and his
shorts?
A: He was only wearing brief[s] but his
shorts [were] already taken off.
Q: Was your father able to mount on your
top?
A: No, he was about to go on top of me.
Q: Now
when [CCC] witnessed you and your father in that position, what happened next?
A: My
father hid from [CCC] and what I did was to leave the place. So what [CCC] did was to go home.[38]
(Emphases supplied.)
We
cannot simply assume in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552 that
accused-appellant was intending to rape AAA simply because accused-appellant
undressed himself and AAA during these two instances, plus the fact that
accused-appellant did rape AAA on three other occasions. Such a presumption hardly constitutes proof
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape. The gauge in determining whether the crime of
attempted rape had been committed is the commencement of the act of sexual
intercourse, i.e., penetration of the
penis into the vagina, before the interruption.
As
the Court of Appeals found, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552 that accused-appellant committed the crime
of acts of lasciviousness.
The
elements of acts of lasciviousness, punishable under Article 336 of the Revised
Penal Code, are:
(1)
That
the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2)
That
it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a.
By
using force or intimidation; or
b.
When
the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c.
When
the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
(3)
That
the offended party is another person of either sex.[39]
All
elements are present in Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552.
Lewdness
is defined as an “obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous” act which
signifies that form of immorality carried on a wanton manner.[40] It is morally inappropriate, indecent, and
lustful for accused-appellant to undress himself and his own daughter (who was
completely capable of dressing or undressing herself), while his wife was away
and his other children were asleep; or doing the same acts in an isolated
coconut farm where only the two of them were present.
We
find completely understandable AAA’s silence and apparent assent to the sexual
abuses of her father for a period of time.
No standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim
following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to
fully comprehend the ways of an adult. [41] More importantly, in incestuous rape cases,
the father’s abuse of the moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter can
subjugate the latter’s will thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[42] Otherwise stated, the moral and physical
dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his
beastly desires.[43] AAA sufficiently explained that fear of her
father’s authority and shame kept her from revealing to others her ghastly
ordeal at the hands of her own father.
Moreover, AAA’s fear of physical harm if she defied her father was
real. By accused-appellant’s own
admission, on cross examination, he had used physical force to discipline his
children whenever he was angry or mad.[44]
We
find no reason to doubt AAA’s credibility, and accord great weight and respect
to the findings of the trial and appellate courts that her testimonies are
consistent, candid, and straightforward.
Accused-appellant’s bare denial, as opposed to AAA’s positive
testimonies, and accused-appellant’s uncorroborated allegation of ill motive on
AAA’s part in filing the criminal charges, are bereft of evidentiary
value.
Jurisprudence
has decreed that 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”[45]
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.”[46] This rule is even more stringently applied if
the appellate court concurred with the trial court.
In
People v. Nieto,[47]
we stressed further that the bare denial and uncorroborated alibi of the
accused cannot overcome his positive identification by the victim and
straightforward recounting of his commission of a crime:
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.[48]
This
is even more particularly true in rape cases where the accused and the victim
are father and daughter, respectively.
We declared in People v. Mendoza[49]
that:
It is well-settled that denial is essentially the
weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony
particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.
Accused-appellant’s bare assertion that private complainant was just “using”
him to allow her to freely frolic with other men, particularly with a certain
Renato Planas, begs the credulity of this Court. This is especially true
in the light of our consistent pronouncement that “no decent and sensible woman
will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public
contempt - the dire consequence of a rape charge – unless she is, in fact, a
rape victim.” More in point is our pronouncement in People v. Canoy, to wit:
… It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own
father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her
life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame,
pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious
that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her
life, had she really not have been aggrieved. Nor do we believe that the
victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact
revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and
maltreating her.[50]
Finally,
we adopt the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals upon accused-appellant,
but modify the damages awarded in AAA’s favor.
Given
the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, the Court of Appeals properly reduced
the penalty of death and, instead, imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty
of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole for each count of his three convictions for qualified
rape in Criminal Case Nos. 02-549, 02-550, and 02-551.
The
appellate court also correctly ordered accused-appellant to pay the victim for
each count of qualified rape, the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00)
as civil indemnity and another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00)
as moral damages, consistent with current jurisprudence on qualified rape. However, the exemplary damages in the amount
of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) should be increased to Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in line with recent case law.[51]
We
likewise affirm the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals upon
accused-appellant for his conviction on two counts of acts of lasciviousness in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552.
Under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of acts of
lasciviousness is punishable by prision
correccional. With the alternative
circumstance of relationship taken as an aggravating circumstance in the
commission of the crime, the penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed in its
maximum period following Article 64(3) of the said Code, or four (4) years, two
(2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
Applying the indeterminate sentence law, the said penalty shall
constitute the maximum term while the minimum term shall be within the range of
the penalty next lower in degree to that of the penalty provided by law which
is arresto mayor or one (1) month and
one (1) day to six (6) months. Thus,
accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer, for each count of acts of
lasciviousness, the penalty of imprisonment for six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6)
years of prision correccional, as
maximum.
The
award by the Court of Appeals of moral damages to AAA in the amount of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), for each count of acts of lasciviousness,
is appropriate, in the same way that moral damages are awarded to victims of
rape even without need of proof because of the presumption that the victim has
suffered moral injury, rests on settled jurisprudence.[52] We also deem that AAA is further entitled to
an award of civil indemnity in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00),
for each count of acts of lasciviousness.[53] The amount of exemplary damages should also
be increased from the Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) awarded by
the Court of Appeals, to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), for each
count of acts of lasciviousness, considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance
of relationship in the commission of the crime.
Exemplary damages should be awarded “in order to deter fathers with
perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their young
daughters.”[54]
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing,
the Decision dated July 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 02131, which affirmed with modifications the Decision dated February 6,
2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, of Bulan, Sorsogon, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, to read as
follows:
(1)
In
Criminal Case Nos. 02-549, 02-550 and 02-551, accused Domingo Dominguez, Jr. is
hereby held GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt for three counts of qualified rape
and that, for each count, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole, and 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);
(2)
In
Criminal Case Nos. 02-548 and 02-552, accused Domingo Dominguez, Jr. is hereby
held GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of acts of lasciviousness
and that, for each count, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for six (6) months of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision
correccional, as maximum, and ordered to pay the private offended party
civil indemnity in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00),
moral damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), and
exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00);
and
(3)
Accused
Domingo Dominguez, Jr. is further ordered to pay the private offended party
interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of Six Percent (6%) per annum
from date of finality of this judgment.
No
costs.
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate
Justice |
|
* Per Special Order No. 913 dated November 2, 2010.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-39; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 25-41.
[3] G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[4] G.R. No. 173787, April 23, 2007, 521 SCRA 597.
[5] Records, Vol. 1, p. 41.
[6] Records, Vol. 2, p. 39.
[7] Records, Vol. 3, p. 24.
[8] Records, Vol. 4, p. 27.
[9] Records, Vol. 5, p. 1.
[10] Records, Vol. 1, pp. 57-58.
[11] TSN, June 22, 2004 and August 10, 2004.
[12] TSN, December 14, 2004, pp. 7-19.
[13] TSN, September 21, 2004 and December 14, 2004, pp. 1-7.
[14] TSN, March 9, 2004.
[15] CA rollo, p. 46.
[16] Id. at 47 and 49.
[17] Id. at 48.
[18] TSN, September 6, 2005.
[19] CA rollo, pp. 29-30.
[20] Id. at 30-31.
[21] Id. at 31-32.
[22] Id. at 32-33.
[23] Id. at 40-41.
[24] Id. at 59-77.
[25] Id. at 101-137.
[26] Citing People v. Campuhan, 385
Phil. 912, 927 (2000) and People v.
Collado, 405 Phil. 880, 896 (2001).
[27] Rollo, pp. 38-39.
[28] Id. at 44-45.
[29] Id. at 52-56 and 57-59.
[30] G.R.
Nos. 148716-18, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 689, 698.
[31] TSN, June 22, 2004, pp. 6-8.
[32] Id. at 8-10.
[33] Id. at 10-11.
[34] 431 Phil. 786 (2002).
[35] Id. at 793.
[36] 426 Phil. 782 (2002).
[37] TSN, June 22, 2004, pp. 4-6.
[38] Id. at 11-13.
[39] Amployo v. People, 496 Phil. 747, 755 (2005).
[40] People v. Lizada, 444 Phil. 67, 97 (2003).
[41] People v. Crespo, G.R. No. 180500, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA 613, 637.
[42] People v. Baun, G.R. No. 167503, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 584, 598.
[43] People v. Orillosa, supra note 29 at 698.
[44] Pertinent
portion of TSN dated September 6, 2005, pp. 5-6, are quoted as follows:
Q: Mr.
Witness when you said that you are disciplining your children you mean to say
that you always spank or physically maltreat them whenever they [commit] mistakes?
A: Yes,
sir I was put to this situation because of disciplining my children.
Q: Now,
looking at your size Mr. Witness the bigness of your body one would assume that
whenever you physically maltreated or discipline your daughter or your children
they would receive severe injuries brought by the discipline that you are
trying to tell us, am I correct?
A: Yes,
but I seldom do it. It is only when I am
angry. (Kung nababaldi lang ako.)
Q: Now,
Mr. Witness, how often would you get irritated?
A: Sometimes
when I arrive at our house coming from work and nobody is around that is the
time I get mad.
Q: And
that often happens, am I correct?
A: It
seldom happens.
Q: Now,
Mr. Witness because of your habit of disciplining your children of course they
develop fear from you, am I correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Even
your wife is also afraid of you because of your tendency to inflict physical
harm on your children, am I correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Is
it not a fact Mr. Witness that your wife is also afraid of you because you also
inflict physical injury on her person whenever you are mad?
A: I
do not harm her if she is doing right.
[45]
People v. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 511, 524.
[46] Id.
[47] Id.
[48] Id. at 527-528.
[49] 490 Phil. 737 (2005).
[50] Id. at 746-747.
[51] People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA 20, 46.
[52] Amployo v. People, 496 Phil. 747, 761-762 (2005).
[53] People v. Poras, G.R. No. 177747, February 16, 2010.
[54] People v. Blancaflor, 466 Phil. 87, 103 (2004).