SECOND DIVISION
|
THE PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - TERENCIO FUNESTO y LLOSPARDAS, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 182237
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
BRION, PEREZ, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: August 3,
2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We decide the appeal filed by accused
Terencio Funesto y Llospardas (appellant) from the December 13, 2006
decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00415 MIN.
The Factual Antecedents
On June 9, 1992, the prosecution
charged[2]
the appellant at the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 2, Libertad,
The appellant, BBB, and AAA lived in a
house in Barangay Marcos, Magallanes,
Agusan del Norte. At around 9:00 p.m. of January 15, 1992, while BBB was at a
prayer service, the appellant approached the sleeping AAA, then nine years old,
and removed her panty. He then forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina, waking
up AAA. Due to the extreme pain and numbness in her legs, AAA could not push
him away. After satisfying his lust, the appellant restored AAAs panty and
returned to his mosquito net. AAA noticed blood in her private parts.[7]
When BBB returned from the prayer
service (held at the residence of a certain Edna M. Almonte in observance of
the feast of Sto. Nio),[8] she
noticed blood at the hemline and at the back part of AAAs dress. Upon inquiry,
AAA disclosed to her what the appellant did to her. BBB confronted the appellant
who denied the allegations and threatened to slap AAA.[9]
BBB wanted to go out to ask for help, but the appellant threatened to kill her
if she reported the incident.[10]
BBB brought AAA the following day to
the
The appellant, interposing denial as
a defense, alleged that BBB fabricated the charge due to his rejection of her
sexual advances, and to extort money.[13]
The RTC Ruling
The RTC found the appellant guilty of
statutory rape in its May 4, 1999 decision. It gave credence to the candid
testimony of AAA and the corroborating medical findings, and rejected the appellants
allegation of fabrication. In appreciating the victims minority to qualify the
crime as statutory rape, the RTC noted that while the prosecution did not
present AAAs certificate of live birth to prove her age, the defense did not
question AAAs age when she testified that she was nine years old. The court also
observed that if AAA did not look her age of nine years, the defense would have
called its attention while AAA was on the witness stand. It imposed the penalty
of reclusion perpetua on the appellant, and ordered him to pay AAA P100,000.00
as compensatory and moral damages, and to pay BBB P50,000.00 as moral
damages.[14]
The RTC forwarded the records of the
case to this Court for automatic review.
Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[15] we referred
the case to the CA for intermediate appellate review.
The CA Ruling
In its December 13, 2006 decision,
the CA affirmed the RTCs appreciation of AAAs clear, straightforward, and
spontaneous testimony that pointed to the appellant as the person who raped
her. The CA deleted the P50,000.00 moral damages awarded to BBB, noting
that such award is only for the victims.[16]
From the CA, the case is now with us
for final review.
Our Ruling
We affirm the appellants conviction.
Based on the records before us, we
see no reason to disturb the RTC's appreciation of the credibility of AAAs
testimony. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left
to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their
deportment and demeanor on the witness stand; his findings are binding and
conclusive upon this Court when affirmed by the CA.[17]
We differ from the lower courts
conclusion that AAAs minority can be appreciated to qualify the crime as
statutory rape since her minority was not proven by independent evidence. In People v. Pruna,[18]
the Court set out the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an
element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance:
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the
offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live
birth of such party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live
birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school
records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove
age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or
authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a
member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to
testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth
of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence
shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3
years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years
old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7
years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years
old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12
years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years
old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live
birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives
concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided
that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden
of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object
to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
6. The trial court should always make a
categorical finding as to the age of the victim.[19]
In the present case, the prosecution
failed to present any certificate of live birth or any similar authentic
document to prove the age of AAA when she was sexually violated. Neither did the appellant expressly admit
AAAs age.
This conclusion notwithstanding, we
find that the prosecution sufficiently proved that force and intimidation
attended the commission of the crime, as alleged in the Information. Jurisprudence
firmly holds that the force or violence required in rape cases is relative; it does
not need to be overpowering or irresistible; it is present when it allows the
offender to consummate his purpose.[20] In this case, the appellant employed that
amount of force sufficient to consummate rape. In fact, the medical findings
confirmed AAAs non-virgin state.
Thus, the appellant is guilty of
simple rape under Article 335(2) of the Revised Penal Code, and was properly
sentenced with the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.[21]
On the appellants civil liabilities,
a victim in simple rape cases is entitled under prevailing jurisprudence not
only to P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and to an added P50,000.00 as moral damages, but also
to P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to serve
as an example to deter persons with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from
sexually abusing children.[22] So, this should be in the present case.
WHEREFORE, the December 13, 2006 decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 00415 MIN is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Terencio
Funesto y Llospardas is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of rape, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. He is also ordered to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA
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 Courts 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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
* Designated as Acting Member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 1006 dated June 10, 2011.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr., and concurred in by Associate
Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Mario V. Lopez; rollo, pp. 4-13.
[2] The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the 15th day of January, 1992, at more or less 9:00 oclock (sic) in the evening, in Barangay Marcos, Municipality of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant, AAA, a woman under 12 years old, against her will, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Records, p. 1.)
[3] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 5142.
[4] See REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 335.
[5] Pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes; RA 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children, effective November 15, 2004; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real name of the rape victim is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, is not disclosed.
[6] Records, p. 42.
[7] TSN, November 11, 1992, pp. 3-4,
6, and 13.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] TSN, November 9, 1992, p. 6; Exhibit
A, records, p. 5.
[13] TSN, November 11, 1996, pp. 4-5, 17.
[14] The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the court hereby finds accused TERENCIO FUNESTO Y LLOPARDAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of RAPE[,] as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code[,] and accordingly hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, condemning and ordering said accused to pay the victim AAA the amount of PhP100,000.00 as compensatory and moral damages and the amount of PhP50,000.00 to BBB, the mother of the victim[,] as moral damages.
The accused, in the service of his sentence, shall be credited with the period of his preventive imprisonment he has so far undergone pursuant to RA 6127.
SO ORDERED. (Records, p. 246.)
[15] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[16] The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Judgment is affirmed with
modification. The award of P50,000.00 to BBB is deleted.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 12.)
[17] Vidar v. People, G.R. No. 177361, February 1, 2010, 611 SCRA 216, 230; and Heirs of Florentino Remetio v. Villaruel, G.R. No. 132357, May 31, 2006, 490 SCRA 43, 47.
[18] 439 Phil. 440 (2002).
[19]
[20] People v. Buban, G.R. No. 172710, October 9, 2009, 603 SCRA 205, 223-224; and People v. Nogpo, Jr., G.R. No. 184791, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 725, 744-745.
[21] The crime was committed in 1992, prior to the passage of the law imposing death for rape cases (RA 7659 took effect on December 31, 1993) and the new rape law (RA 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, took effect on October 22, 1997).
[22] People v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 185206, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 437, 450; and People v. Macapanas, G.R. No. 187049, May 4, 2010, 620 SCRA 54, 76.