Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus - AVELINO FELAN, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 176631 Present: CARPIO MORALES, Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., and SERENO JJ. Promulgated: February 2, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
His own daughter commenced the
prosecution of Avelino Felan for
qualified rape through her complaint dated
That
on or about the 12th day of February 1995, at around
The Prosecution showed that at about
10:00 p.m. on February 12, 1995, the accused roused his daughter AAA, the
complainant, then 14 years old, from sleep inside their house; that he told her
not to be afraid; that he removed her panty, spread her legs, and went on top
of her; that she resisted but he overpowered her; that he inserted his penis
into her vagina and made pumping movements until he satisfied himself; that she
cried due to vaginal pain; that she left the house and stayed with her friends,
who advised her to report the rape to Mrs. Charito Aris, a social worker of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in Ormoc City; that Mrs.
Aris later brought her first to the police station for reporting of the rape, and
then to Dr. Gloria Esmero Pastor, City Health Officer of Ormoc City, for
medical examination; that Dr. Pastor found that AAA’s hymen was torn; and that Dr.
Pastor concluded that the hymenal laceration could be caused by sexual
intercourse.
The accused denied the accusation,
branding it as the fabrication of AAA out of anger at him for not giving her
basic needs and for admonishing her to stop using illegal drugs.
After trial, on P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.[4]
On P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages in addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00.[5]
In his appeal to this Court, the
accused contends that the RTC and the CA erred in relying mainly on AAA’s
testimony, despite her not being a credible witness and although her testimony
was doubtful by reason of her having used illegal drugs and having engaged in
prostitution, aside from possessing a poor memory. He insists that he could control
his sexual urge.[6]
The appeal lacks merit and
persuasion. We affirm the conviction.
The
law applicable is Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659,[7] which
provides:
Article 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented.
The State
competently and sufficiently established these elements beyond reasonable doubt.
AAA rendered a complete and credible narration of her ordeal at the hands of
the accused, whom she positively identified. In
a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the
testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things, as in this case.[8] Here,
the victim’s testimony was even corroborated on material points by the
testimonies of Mrs. Aris and Dr. Pastor as well as by the documentary evidences
adduced.
It is notable that the
RTC and the CA both found and considered AAA as a credible witness whose
testimony should be believed. We accord great weight to the trial judge’s
assessment of the credibility of AAA and of her testimony because the trial
judge, having personally observed AAA’s conduct and demeanor as a witness, was
thereby enabled to discern if she was telling or inventing the truth.[9] The
trial judge’s evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court, and
it becomes the burden of the accused to project to us facts or circumstances of
weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted which, when duly
considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case differently.[10] We do not vary from this
rule now, however, considering that the accused did not make any showing that
the RTC, in the first instance, and the CA, on review, ignored, misapprehended,
or misinterpreted facts or circumstances supportive of or crucial to his
defense.
The denial
of the accused, being worthless, was properly disregarded. It was both self-serving
and uncorroborated. It could not, therefore, overcome the positive declarations
against the accused and the positive identification of the accused by AAA,[11] whose
good motive to impute such a heinous act to her own father was not disproved or
refuted. We do consider to be highly inconceivable for a daughter like AAA to
impute against her own father a crime as serious and despicable as incest rape,
unless the imputation was the plain truth.
In fact, as we observed before, it takes “a certain amount of
psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which would put
her own father to jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag the rest of
the family including herself to a lifetime of shame.”[12]
The attempt to discredit
AAA on the ground of her being a user of illegal drugs and of her having
engaged in prostitution deserved no consideration. First of all, AAA’s use of illegal
drugs and engaging in prostitution, even if true, did not destroy her
credibility as a witness or negate the rape. Indeed, the Court has ruled that the
victim’s moral character was immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of an
accused for rape, there being absolutely no nexus between it and the odious
deed committed.[13] Moreover, even a prostitute or a woman of
loose morals could fall victim of rape, for she could still refuse a man’s
lustful advances.[14]
The CA correctly pronounced the
accused liable for simple rape and properly punished him with reclusion
perpetua. Under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, supra, rape is qualified and punished by
death if it is alleged and proved that the victim was a minor during the
commission of the crime and that the offender was her parent.[15] Although
the information alleged that the victim was only 14 years of age at the time of
the rape, the State did not duly establish such circumstance because no birth
certificate, or baptismal certificate, or other competent document showing her
age was presented. Her testimony regarding her age without any independent proof
is not sufficient.[16] As a result, the penalty for simple
rape was properly reclusion perpetua.
Prevailing jurisprudence leads us to affirm
the CA’s ruling that AAA was entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,[17] and P50,000.00
as moral damages,[18] without
need of any pleading and proof. Similarly correct was the CA’s grant of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. [19] In People
v. Mira,[20]
we observed that “when either one of the qualifying circumstances of
relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information
and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance.”
In this case, the relationship between the victim and the accused is an
aggravating circumstance because it was alleged in the information and duly proved
during the trial. Thus, conformably with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which provides that “in
criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be
imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstance,”
we ratify the award of exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the
Court affirms the decision promulgated on
SO
ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice 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 Court’s Division
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, 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
[1] Records, p. 2-3.
[2] Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004), and its implementing rules, the real name of the
victim and the real names of her immediate family members are withheld and,
instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her to protect her privacy.
See also People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[3] Supra note 1.
[4] Records, pp. 191-200.
[5] Rollo, pp. 7-14; penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. Dizon (retired), with Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
[6] CA rollo, pp. 33-40.
[7] An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, and for other Purposes. (The law took effect on December 31, 1993).
[8] People v. Montesa, G.R. No. 181899,
[9] People v. Lantano, G.R. No.
176734,
[10] People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184958,
[11] People v. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. Nos.
132125-26,
[12] People v. Javier, G.R. No. 126096,
[13] Supra note 11, p. 466.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Article 335. xxx
xxx
The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim.
xxx
[16] People v. Mira, G.R. No. 175324,
[17] People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106,
[18] People v. Gragasin, G.R. No.
186496,
[19] People v. Arcosiba, G.R. No. 181081,
[20] Supra, note 16, p. 562.