Republic
of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - JOSE GALVEZ y BLANCA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 181827 Present: CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, DEL
CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: February
2, 2011 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
This is an
appeal from the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02275 dated July 13, 2007
affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Jose Galvez y Blanca of the crime
of rape.
Five separate
Informations were filed against accused-appellant Galvez in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan:
Criminal Case No. 3190-M-2002:
That sometime in the year 1999, in
the municipality of Angat, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, taking advantage
of the tender age and innocence of said AAA,[2]
then ten (10) years old and with lewd designs, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously kiss, touch the breasts and insert his finger into
the private parts of said AAA, thereby endangering her health and safety and
badly affecting her emotional and psychological well being and development.[3]
Criminal Case No. 3191-M-2002:
That sometime in the year 2000, in
the municipality of Angat, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
bladed weapon did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by
means of force, violence and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal
knowledge with his granddaughter AAA, then eleven (11) years old, against her
will and without her consent.[4]
Criminal Case No. 3192-M-2002:
That sometime in the year 2001, in
the Municipality of Angat, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
bladed weapon did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by
means of force, violence and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal
knowledge with his granddaughter AAA, then twelve (12) years old, against her
will and without her consent.[5]
Criminal Case No. 3193-M-2002:
That sometime in the first quarter
of the year 2002, in the municipality of Angat, province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence and intimidation and
with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge with his granddaughter AAA, then
thirteen (13) years old, against her will and without her consent.[6]
Criminal Case No. 3194-M-2002:
That on or about the 21st
day of June 2002, in the municipality of Angat, province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence and intimidation and
with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge with his granddaughter AAA, then
thirteen (13) years old and 9 months old, against her will and without her
consent.[7]
The trial court
summarized the narration of complainant AAA as follows:
In
her initial direct examination on March 31, 2003, private complainant testified
that she was born on August 22, 1988 (Exh. “A”). Accused whom [she] identified in Court is her
grandfather, the father of her mother.
On June 21, 2002 at around 12:00 o’clock midnight, she was in their
house at Barangay Peri, Sta. Lucia, Angat, Bulacan sleeping with her siblings,
accused, her grandmother Damiana, who is the mother of her father, and her
grandfather Popeng, who is the father of her father. Her mother lives in Masbate, while her father
works in Manila and comes home only on week-ends. While she was sleeping, accused crawled
beside her and inserted his penis in her vagina. She pushed the accused but he threatened her
with a knife which he poked at her side.
He told her not to tell anyone.
After inserting his penis in her vagina, [he] touched her breasts. She told the pastor of her church about the
incident sometime in June during a church service. She and her pastor thereafter went to the police
station to give her statement, which she identified in Court (Exh. “B”). She testified that this was the first time
that accused raped her.
Continuing
her direct-examination on February 8, 2004, private complainant testified that
the June 21, 2002 incident was not the first time that the accused raped
her. She could not, however, remember
the dates these incidents were committed against her by the accused. She remembers that accused raped her many
times, the first time of which was when she was twelve (12) years old. This incident happened in Pacific, Angat,
Bulacan at their residence. At this
incident, accused inserted his penis in her vagina. This happened in the bedroom of their house
while her three (3) siblings were playing outside the house. Accused did not say anything to her before
the incident. She resisted with no
avail. She reported this incident to her
aunt Gloria in 2002 when she was already thirteen (13) years old. It took her three (3) years before she
reported the incident because her grandfather told her not to tell anyone about
what happened or else he will kill her.
After this incident when she was twelve (12) years old, he again raped
her sometime in 2002. Aside from the
incidents when she was twelve (12) years old, and on June 21, 2002, she was
thirteen (13) years old when she was raped again in their house in Peri, Sta.
Lucia, Angat, Bulacan. As to how this
rape happened, she stated that [it is] “the same”, i.e., he inserted his
penis in her vagina. Her grandfather
raped her many times, almost everyday since she was thirteen (13) years old up
to when she was fourteen (14) years old.
Even so, she only reported the incident to her aunt in 2002 because she
could not bear what accused [w]as doing to her.
At that time, aside from accused and her three (3) siblings, her other
grandparents and her aunt Gloria were living with her. Her father was then working in Meycauayan,
Bulacan while her mother is in Masbate.
Aside from her aunt Gloria, she also reported the incident to her
pastor, Imelda Loyola. She was with her
aunt and pastor when she reported the incident to the police.
Continuing
her direct examination on February 24, 2005, she testified that after reporting
the incident to the police, they went to the doctor for examination. She identified accused in court.[8]
The prosecution
also presented Dr. Ivan Richard Viray, who examined AAA on July 4, 2002. He presented his conclusion that AAA is no
longer a virgin; that there are no external signs of application of any trauma;
and that there was a shallow healed laceration at 9:00 o’clock position on
complainant’s hymen.[9]
On the other
hand, the defense presented accused-appellant Galvez, who simply denied the
accusations against him. He did not
offer any alibi.
On April 20,
2006, the trial court rendered its Decision convicting accused-appellant Galvez
in Criminal Case No. 3094-M-2002, but acquitting him in the other four cases:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, accused is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos.
3090-M-2002, 3091-M-2002, 3092-M-2002 and 3093-M-2002.
Accused
is, however, found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in
Criminal Case No. 3094-M-2002 and hereby sentence him to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Accused
is also ordered to pay private complainant AAA civil indemnity ex-delicto of P50,000.00,
exemplary damages of P25,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00.[10]
In arriving at
the foregoing disposition, the trial court noted that there was no testimony at
all as regards the alleged rapes to which accused-appellant was accused of in
Criminal Case Nos. 3090-M-2002 and 3091-M-2002.
As regards Criminal Case Nos. 3092-M-2002 and 3093-M-2002, the trial
court found AAA’s testimony to be very general, as she appeared to have failed
to remember any detail other than that the accused-appellant inserted his penis
into her vagina.[11] The trial court likewise noted the
discrepancy in AAA’s testimony on March 31, 2003 (wherein she testified that
she was raped by accused-appellant for the first time on June 21, 2002), and
her testimony on February 2, 2004 (wherein she testified that she was raped
many times before June 21, 2002).[12] The trial court further found her statement
that she was raped many times contrary to the physical evidence presented,
since Dr. Viray found only one healed shallow laceration.[13] The trial court therefore acquitted
accused-appellant in Criminal Case Nos. 3090-M-2002 to 3093-M-2002.
The trial court,
however, found AAA’s testimony as regards Criminal Case No. 3094-M-2002 to be
clear, convincing, full of details and consistent, and ruled that there is no
doubt in its mind that accused-appellant indeed sexually molested AAA on June
21, 2002.
Accused-appellant
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals where it was docketed as CA-G.R.
CR.-H.C. No. 02275 and was raffled to its Second Division. On July 13, 2007, the appellate court,
finding AAA’s testimony unflinching and resolute,[14]
affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant.
The Court of Appeals, however, modified the civil damages imposed upon
accused-appellant as follows:
The
trial court, therefore, correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of one count of qualified rape under par. 3, Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, but erred in imposing the
penalty of reclusion perpetua considering that at the time of the
promulgation of its Decision on April 20, 2006, the proper penalty for such
crime then is death. However, in view of
the passage of Republic Act No. 9346 on June 24, 2006, which expressly
prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, this Court is now constrained to
affirm the imposition of Reclusion Perpetua under Article 266B(1) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended. As shown
by her Certificate of Live Birth (Exh. “A”, records, p. 103), [AAA] was born on
August 22, 1988, and thus was only thirteen years and nine months old when
appellant, [her] own grandfather, raped her on June 21, 2002. Both the qualifying circumstances of the
victim’s minority (below 18 years of age) and her relationship with the
offender had been alleged in the Information and duly proved during the
hearings. Furthermore, following the
ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, the
awarded civil indemnity and moral damages must each be increased from P50,000.00
to P75,000.00.
IN
VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the challenged
decision AFFIRMED, with modification that the civil indemnity and moral damages
granted must each be for the amount of P75,000.00. In all other aspects, the lower court’s
decision stands. Costs against
appellant.[15]
Accused-appellant
appealed to this Court, adopting the Brief it filed before the Court of Appeals
with the following lone assignment of error:
THE
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION’S
EVIDENCE.[16]
Accused-appellant
claims that like the rest of the charges against him, the complaint under
Criminal Case No. 3094-M-2002 should suffer the same fate. According to him, the discrepancy in AAA’s
testimony on March 31, 2003 and that on February 2, 2004 as to whether she was
raped before June 21, 2002 goes into her credibility and candor.
We
disagree. We have held that in our
jurisprudence, falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in
modern jurisprudence.[17] It deals only with the weight of evidence and
is not a positive rule of law, and the same is not an inflexible one of
universal application.[18] Thus, the modern trend of jurisprudence is
that the testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in
part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and
improbabilities of the case.[19] In the case at bar, the trial court, which
found some portions of AAA’s testimony unconvincing, was nevertheless impressed
by the following portion of the testimony of AAA concerning the events of June
21, 2002:
FISCAL
DE GUZMAN:
Q: Now, on June 21, 2002 at about 12:00
o’clock midnight, do you remember [your] whereabouts?
A: I was in my bed, Ma’am.
Q: What were you doing at that time?
A: I was sleeping, Ma’am.
Q: Who were with you, if any, at that time
while you were then sleeping?
A: None, Ma’am.
Q: And, you were then sleeping in your
resident located at Bgy. Peri, Sta. Lucia, Angat, Bulacan, is that correct?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: This house where you were then sleeping,
how many rooms [does] it have?
A: There is no room, Ma’am.
Q: And it is only a one (1) room house?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: There is no division whatsoever in the
house?
A: There is a division, Ma’am.
Q: What was that division for in your
house?
A: It is a place where my siblings is (sic)
sleeping, Ma’am.
Q: That is a division from your place where
you were sleeping and the siblings where they were sleeping?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q:
And, what was that division made
of?
A: It is made of wood, Ma’am.
Q: The place where you were then sleeping,
it has no door?
A:
None, Ma’am.
Q: And also that place where your siblings
were sleeping?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: So, you mentioned that there was an
unusual incident, what was that unusual incident?
COURT:
What
date?
FISCAL
DE GUZMAN:
June
21, 2002, Your Honor.
COURT:
Okay,
answer.
WITNESS:
A: Ginapang po ako ng lolo ko.
FISCAL
DE GUZMAN:
Q: Who is this lolo you are
referring to?
A: Lolo Jose, Ma’am.
Q: Is he also residing in that same house
with you?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.
Q: And, how is he related to your Lola,
BBB.
A: Mag-balae po.
Q: When you say “Balae”, what do you
mean by Balae?
A: My father is the son of BBB and my
mother is the daughter of Jose.
Q: So, for clarification, Madame Witness,
you are living in the same house with the accused in this case, with your lola
BBB and your siblings?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
x x x
x
Q: Now, you mentioned that “Ginapang ka
ni lolo Jose,” after that what happened?
A: He inserted his penis to my vagina,
Ma’am.
Q: What did you feel when he inserted his
penis on your vagina?
A: It hurts, Ma’am.
Q: What did you do?
A: I was pushing him, Ma’am.
Q: What happened while you were pushing
him?
A: He was fight (sic) back, Ma’am.
Q: How was he fighting back?
A:
He was threatening me with a knife,
Ma’am.
Q: Was he telling you anything?
A: Not to tell anyone, Ma’am.
Q: How was he holding that knife?
A: Like this, Ma’am.
INTERPRETER:
Witness
is demonstrating through her right hand.
FISCAL
DE GUZMAN:
Q: On what part of the body was the knife
poked?
A: On my side, Ma’am.
Q: While he was inserting his penis on
(sic) your vagina, where was that knife?
A: He was holding the knife, Ma’am.
Q:
What else happen (sic) after he
inserted his penis on your vagina and you try (sic) to struggle?
A: He touched me, Ma’am.
Q; On what part of your body?
A; My breast, Ma’am.
Q: What else happen (sic) after that?
A: No more, Ma’am.
Q: How about your lolo, what did you do
after touching your breast?
A: None, Ma’am.
Q: Did he leave you in the house?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: He went out of the house that night?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Did you report that incident [to]
anyone?
A: Yes, to our pastor, Ma’am.
Q: When did you report that incident?
A: June, Ma’am.
Q:
Could you still remember how many
days after that incident happened?
A: I cannot remember, Ma’am.
Q: Where did you report that incident to
your pastora?
A: At our church, Ma’am.
Q: During a service?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Why did you report that incident to your
pastora?
A: Because I cannot bear it anymore, Ma’am.
Q: Was it the first time the incident
happened to you?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: I am referring to the raping incident,
was that the first time that the accused Jose Galvez raped you?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: What did the pastora do when you
reported the incident to her?
A: We went to the police station, Ma’am.
Q: What did you do at the police station?
A: We
gave our statement, Ma’am.
Q: I am showing to you a Sinumpaang
Salaysay, is this statement you are referring to?
A: Yes, Ma’am.[20]
The trial court,
which had the opportunity to observe both AAA and accused-appellant directly
and to test their credibility by their demeanor on the witness stand, was
completely persuaded by the above testimony of AAA as regards the events of
June 21, 2002. Other than the fact that
we give great weight to the findings of fact of the trial court, an independent
reading of said testimony compels us to conclude that AAA’s version is indeed
worthy of credence especially when compared to the bare denial of
accused-appellant who did not even offer an alibi. As observed by the Court of Appeals, AAA’s
testimony is “unflinching and resolute” and “passes the test of credibility
nary any indication whatsoever of a concocted testimony.”[21] Furthermore, it is almost cliché to add that
“[c]ourts usually give credence to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of
sexual assault, particularly if it constitutes incestuous rape because,
normally, no person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public
trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal were it not to condemn an
injustice.”[22]
Accused-appellant
likewise attacks AAA’s credibility on the ground that the physical evidence
presented yielded no proof of external signs of physical injuries, implying
that this negates the contention that AAA was raped. We disagree.
The shallow healed laceration at 9:00 o’clock position on complainant’s
hymen, presented in the testimony of Dr. Viray, is in fact convincing physical
evidence of the rape, especially considering the age of AAA and the fact that
accused-appellant used a knife to threaten her.
Thus, in People v. Cuadro,[23]
we held:
Further,
the medical findings of Dr. Obedoza are indicative of rape. It is not indispensable that marks of
external bodily injuries should appear on the victim of rape. Considering that
in the commission of the first, second and third rapes, appellant threatened the
victim with a knife, it is logical that no external injuries would appear on
her body. What is more telling is that
the victim, at her young age, sustained lacerations in her genitalia. We have ruled that lacerations, whether
healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[24]
More
importantly, even if we assume for the sake of argument that AAA did not put up
a struggle against accused-appellant, we have consistently held that actual
force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor. [25] Thus, in the case at bar, we find that the
moral and physical dominion of the ascendant is sufficient to take the place of
actual force or intimidation.
We therefore
affirm the conviction of accused-appellant.
Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence on qualified rape, we also
affirm the modification made by the Court of Appeals to the trial court’s
Decision as regards the civil indemnity and moral damages that should be
granted to AAA in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00)
each. Established jurisprudence,
however, further warrant that we increase the award of exemplary damages from
Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).[26]
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing,
the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02275 dated July
13, 2007 is hereby AFFIRMED with further MODIFICATIONS that:
(1)
The
exemplary damages to be paid by accused-appellant Jose Galvez y Blanca is
increased from Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00); and
(2)
Accused-appellant
Jose Galvez y Blanca 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 pronouncement
as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-16; penned by then Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, concurring.
[2] Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victim’s privacy.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Id. at 8.
[5] Id. at 11.
[6] Id. at 13.
[7] Id. at 15.
[8] CA rollo, pp. 12-14.
[9] Records, p. 4.
[10] CA rollo, p. 30.
[11] Id. at 17-18.
[12] Id. at 18.
[13] Id. at 23.
[14] Rollo, p. 6.
[15] Id. at 14-15.
[16] CA rollo, p. 48.
[17] People v. Paredes, 332 Phil. 633, 638-639 (1996); People v. Jalosjos, 421 Phil. 43, 68 (2001).
[18] People v. Julian, 337 Phil. 411, 426-427 (1997); People v. Masapol, 463 Phil. 25, 33 (2003).
[19] Id.
[20] TSN, March 31, 2003, pp. 4-10.
[21] CA rollo, p. 104.
[22] People v. Lusa, 351 Phil. 537, 545 (1998).
[23] 405 Phil. 173 (2001).
[24] Id. at 185.
[25] People
v. Orillosa, G.R. Nos. 148716-18, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 689, 698.
[26] People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA 20, 46.