Republic
of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus – JOEY TORIAGA,
Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 177145 Present: CARPIO MORALES, Chairperson, BRION, PERALTA,* BERSAMIN, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: February 9, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Joey Toriaga appeals the decision promulgated on
Toriaga was no trivial stranger to AAA
and her family. Her father was Toriaga’s close friend and “drinking buddy,” and
CCC, AAA’s aunt, regarded Toriaga as a trusted employee in her balut selling business. CCC even furnished
Toriaga a sleeping area inside her house. At the time material to this case, AAA
was a 13-year old lass.[4] She
happened to be alone in keeping watch of the house of CCC in the early evening
of November 26, 1995 while CCC and her family went to church for mass. At around then, Toriaga and AAA’s father were
drinking at the latter’s house, which was only about 20 meters away from CCC’s
house. Then, feeling already drunk, Toriaga returned to CCC’s house. Hearing
him knocking at around 7o’clock p.m. AAA
opened the door and let him in. She then casually went up to the second floor
to watch television. Later, AAA went downstairs, and saw Toriaga opening his
folding bed and switching off the lights. Thinking that Toriaga was going to
bed, she sat on the stairs. But she was not prepared for what happened next,
because Toriaga grabbed and poked an icepick at her neck and dragged her
downstairs. Holding the icepick to her neck, he ordered her to strip naked and
to lie on the folding bed. Out of fear she complied. He undressed himself and
mounted her. He inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt the penetration.
He was on top for about 10 minutes, stopping only because she pretended losing consciousness.
He lifted her and brought her upstairs, covering her mouth with a pillow. When she
felt the icepick being pressed into her stomach, she fought and parried the
blow, thereby preventing the icepick from penetrating her flesh. To protect
herself, she turned face down, but he stabbed her back with the icepick.
Although she was in pain, she kept silent and
still, which made him stop stabbing her, probably believing that she was
already dead. She soon heard him washing his hands downstairs. But just when
she tried to rise, she heard him coming back. She thus laid down again and
pretended to be asleep. Satisfied that she
had not moved, he went out of the house and closed the door. She then crawled
to the window and shouted for help. Several neighbors responded and rushed her
to the hospital for medical treatment.
The medico-legal findings disclosed her
injuries, to wit:
Wound, sutured, roughly elliptical, with contused edges, 0.5 cm. nape.
Wounds, sutured, roughly elliptical with contused edges, posterior chest, right side; 0.7 cm., infrascapular area, 5.5 cms. from the posterior median line; 0.6 cm. infrascapular area, 4.5 cms. from the posterior median line; 0.7 cm., infrascpular area, along paravertebral line, 4.0 cms. from the posterior median line; 0.6 cm. infrascapular area, along midscapular line, 6.5 cms., from the posterior median line; 0.7 cm., infrascapular area, 4.3 cms., from the posterior median line; 0.6 cm., area just above the right buttocks, along posterior axillary line, 9.5 cms., from the posterior median line.
Wounds, roughly elliptical with contused edges: 0.3 cm., right hypochondrium, abdomen with a curvilinear reddish abrasion measuring 6.5 cms.; 0.5 cm., intergluteal area, along posterior median line; 0.5 cm., outer upper quadrant, right buttocks, 10.0 cms. from the posterior median line.
GENITAL EXAMINATIONS:
Pubic hair, fine, scanty. Labia majora, coaptated. Labia minora, coaptated. Fourchette, with a superficial laceration, edges still bleeding. Vestibule, congested with a contusion at the left lateral portion. Hymen, short, thick, intact. Hymenal orifice, admits a tube measuring 2.0 cms. in diameter with moderate resistance. Vaginal walls, tight. Rugosities, prominent.[5]
On
That on or about the 26th day of November, 1995 at Kalookan City, Metro-Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of threat and intimidation by using a bladed weapon (knife) employed upon the person of 13-year old AAA, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual intercourse with said AAA, against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law.[6]
A
separate information for frustrated homicide was also filed.
Initially, the RTC consolidated the two
cases, and Toriaga pleaded not guilty
to both charges on
Toriaga denied raping AAA, claiming
that he returned to CCC’s house and slept.
He insisted that BBB had instigated AAA to charge him with rape and to testify
against him due to a previous misunderstanding between them.
On
WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds the accused Joey Toriaga guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and hereby sentenced him to suffer
imprisonment of Reclusion perpetua and all the accessory penalties attached thereto.
He is further adjudged to pay the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and the amount of P75,000.00 as for moral damages with no subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Considering that the accused is already serving sentence at the New Bilibid Prisons for having been convicted for the crime of Frustrated Homicide in another case, furnish the Director of the New Bilibid Prisons copy of this Decision, for the proper imposition of his sentence in this case.
SO
ORDERED.[7]
Thus, Toriaga appealed to this
Court, which, on
In the CA, Toriaga changed his defense of denial and alibi for the first time to the
affirmative defense of consensual sexual intercourse with AAA, whom he insisted
had undressed herself freely and did not shout when the incident was taking
place. He contended that he was liable only for qualified seduction because he was
a domestic within the contemplation of the law.
In its decision, the CA rejected his contentions, because, firstly, he was found not to have been
charged with the custody or authority over the minor victim; secondly, AAA was not a member of the
household of CCC, nor was he a member of the victim’s household; and thirdly, the complaint for rape neither
averred nor embodied the elements of seduction.
Consequently, the CA affirmed the conviction for rape.
In his appeal, Toriaga’s main argument of consensual sexual
intercourse rested on the failure of AAA to shout during the rape and on her
failure to escape when he momentarily left her and while he was busy undressing
himself. He insisted that the proximity
of the houses in the neighborhood should have emboldened her to put up some
resistance had the sexual encounter been forced. Her demeanor was inconsistent
with that of an ordinary Filipina whose instincts dictated that she summoned
every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to defile her virtue.
The appeal fails.
Firstly, the defense of consensual sexual intercourse, like
the sweetheart defense, demands corroboration. Yet, Toriaga offered no corroboration,
thereby exposing his belatedly offered defense as a self-serving after-thought resorted
to after his original defenses of denial and alibi had failed to ensure his acquittal by the CA. Thus, his new defense
deserved scant consideration.
Secondly, the physical evidence spoke more vividly than the
testimony of the victim, whose multiple injuries confirmed the use of brutal
force and violence in her rape. Also, the multiple stab wounds she sustained
negated his claim of consensual sexual intercourse.
Third, the CA’s rejection of Toriaga’s contention of being liable only for
qualified seduction was correct. Indeed,
the information did not allege the presence of the elements of qualified
seduction, to wit: (a) that AAA was a
virgin; (b) that she was over 12 and
under 18 years of age; (c) that he
had sexual intercourse with her; and (d)
that there was abuse of authority, or of confidence, or of relationship.
Fourthly, the RTC and the CA correctly determined the penalty
of reclusion perpetua as imposable. The
information alleged the use of a bladed weapon in the commission of the rape. Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that whenever the crime of rape is committed with use of a deadly
weapon the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. The
Prosecution established that the accused wielded an icepick to intimidate her
into submission and later to assault AAA with intent to kill her to seal her
mouth forever. Under Article 63, 2, Revised
Penal Code, where the prescribed penalties of reclusion perpetua and death, and there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances present or attendant, like herein, the lesser penalty
of reclusion perpetua is imposable.
And, fifthly, we will not disturb the awards of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages, but we add the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages by reason of the established presence of the qualifying circumstance of
use of a deadly weapon. Under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code, AAA was entitled to recover exemplary damages.[9]
WHEREFORE, we affirm the decision promulgated on P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Resolution 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 Resolution 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
*
In lieu of Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno who is on leave per Office
Order No. 944 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-18; penned by Associate Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now Presiding Justice), with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo, concurring.
[2] The real name of the victim is withheld
pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[3] Records, pp. 194-198.
[4]
[5] Records, p. 151.
[6]
[7] Records, p. 198.
[8] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[9]
People
v. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842,