Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
G.R. No. 175834 |
|
Appellee, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
ROSAURO ASETRE Y
DURAN, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Appellant. |
|
June 8, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
On appeal is the
September 1, 2006 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00367 which affirmed in its
entirety the March 8, 2004 Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Branch 21 finding appellant
Rosauro Asetre y Duran guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of four counts of the crime of rape.
Factual
Antecedents
On June 11,
2001, four Informations[3]
were filed charging appellant with four counts of rape. Except for the dates of
commission, the Informations similarly read as follows:
That on or about (the first week of March 2001,[4] the second week of March 2001,[5] the
third week of March 2001,[6] the 23rd
day of March 2001,[7])
at Barangay BBB,[8] CCC, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force,
threat, and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously did lie, and
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA, a thirteen year-old minor.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
During his
arraignment on September 26, 2001, appellant entered the plea of not guilty.[9] Thereafter, the four cases were jointly
tried. During the pre-trial conference, the
defense admitted, among others, that AAA was born on March 23, 1988 as shown
in her birth certificate[10]
and was thus only 13-years of age when the alleged rape incidents happened.
Version of the
Prosecution
The prosecution established that
appellant was the common-law husband of DDD, who is the aunt of AAA. According to AAA, she started living with
DDD and appellant when she was still small.[11] AAA narrated that in March 2001,
particularly during her summer vacation at BBB, appellant raped her four
times.[12]
The first rape happened during the first
week[13]
of March 2001 at around noontime.[14]
Appellant took off her clothes[15]
then inserted his penis into her vagina.[16] AAA felt pain in her private parts.[17] AAA struggled against the advances of
appellant[18]
but to no avail. Appellant even
threatened AAA that she and DDD would be killed if she would report the
incident. Thereafter, appellant sexually molested AAA three more times. The second rape transpired during the second
week of March 2001;[19]
while the third rape was committed shortly thereafter.[20] The fourth and last rape incident happened on
March 23, 2001.[21]
Another witness for the prosecution
was Dr. Jeffrey M. Barcena (Dr. Barcena) who testified that on April 25, 2001,
he conducted a medical examination on AAA.[22] He testified that AAA had multiple old
hymenal lacerations which could have been caused by anything which penetrated her
vagina.[23] He also noted a recent abrasion on the labia minora.[24]
Version of the
Defense
The first
witness for the defense was Rosita Clarin (Clarin) who testified that appellant
was her neighbor for four years.[25] Clarin asserted that at the time the alleged
rapes were committed, AAA was not in BBB but in EEE attending school,[26]
hence appellant could not have raped her.
Clarin averred that AAA arrived at BBB only on March 24, 2001,[27]
or one day after the latest alleged rape was committed.
Romualdo Dulay (Dulay), another
defense witness, testified that he was also a neighbor of the appellant.[28] He claimed that during the time material to
this case, AAA was not in BBB but in EEE attending school.[29] He allegedly saw AAA in BBB only on March
25, 2001.[30]
The last witness for the defense was
the appellant himself. He denied having
raped AAA. He claimed that from the
first week up to the third week of March 2001, he was at BBB together with
DDD, his live-in partner, and his helpers.
He averred that at that time, or until March 23, 2001, AAA was not in
BBB but in EEE attending school.[31] Appellant insisted that AAA arrived at
BBB only on March 24, 2001[32]
at around 2 oclock in the afternoon.[33]
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
In its Decision
dated March 8, 2004, the RTC rendered its Decision finding appellant guilty as
charged. The trial court found AAAs
testimony to be credible and without any showing of ulterior motive to falsely
testify against the appellant.[34] The dispositive portion of the Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing
considerations the Court finds the accused Rosauro Asetre y Duran GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of four counts of rape and hereby sentences him to the penalty
of reclusion perpetua in each of the
four (4) cases. He is also ordered to
pay AAA the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in each of
[these] cases or a total of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
SO
ORDERED.[35]
Appellant filed
his Notice of Appeal;[36]
hence, the trial court ordered the records of the case to be forwarded to the
CA.[37]
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
On September 1, 2006, the CA
rendered its Decision dismissing the appeal and affirming in its entirety the
Decision of the trial court. Just as the
trial court disregarded appellants arguments on the alleged inconsistencies in
the testimony of AAA regarding the dates of the commission of the crimes, the
appellate court likewise found the same to be inconsequential.
The appellate court also found no
compelling reason to overturn the findings of the trial court on the
credibility of AAA,[38]
more so because there was no evidence of any improper motive on her part.[39]
The dispositive portion of the CA
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant
APPEAL is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the decision of Branch 21 of the
SO
ORDERED.[40]
On February 19,
2007, we accepted appellants appeal and required the parties to file their
respective supplemental briefs.[41] However, on April 17, 2007[42]
and May 7, 2007,[43]
respectively, appellee and appellant manifested that they are no longer filing
their supplemental briefs considering that they have already exhaustively
discussed their arguments in their respective briefs filed before the CA. Hence, this appeal is being resolved based on
the briefs submitted by the parties before the CA.
Issues
In his brief,[44]
appellant assigns the following errors:
I.
THE TRIAL
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED
DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
II.
THE TRIAL
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND
INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
Appellant argues
that he deserves an acquittal considering the glaring inconsistencies in AAAs
testimony regarding the dates of the commission of the offenses and the places
where the crimes were allegedly committed.[45] Citing People
v. Ladrillo,[46]
appellant claims that contrary to the ruling of the trial court, the failure of
AAA to specify the dates of the commission of the crimes creates serious
doubts on whether she was indeed raped.
Appellant also insists that AAA contradicted herself as to who
reported the incidents to her aunt DDD.
On the other
hand, appellee insists that the issue boils down to the credibility of the
witnesses and that the trial court did not err in giving full faith and
credence to the testimony of AAA[47]
which is consistent, candid and steadfast.[48] Appellee argues that any inconsistency in the
testimony of AAA as regards the dates of the commission of the crimes is
understandable considering her young age and the traumatic experience she had
undergone.[49] Besides, it claims that said inconsistencies
did not discredit the credibility of AAA because discrepancies on the exact
dates of the sexual abuses are inconsequential, the exact date of the commission
of the rape not being an
essential element of the
crime.[50]
Finally,
appellee asserts that in addition to civil indemnity, AAA is likewise
entitled to an award of moral damages as well as exemplary damages for each
count of rape.[51]
Our Ruling
The appeal is
partially meritorious.
We have thoroughly reviewed the
records of the case and we find that the evidence presented by the prosecution
showed that appellant is guilty of only one count of rape, and not four
counts.
The Informations charged appellant
with having raped AAA on the first week, second week, and third week, of
March 2001, and on March 23, 2001. However,
as argued by the defense, the testimony of AAA with regard to the first three
incidents particularly on the dates when and the places where the offenses were
supposedly committed contains disturbing discrepancies.
During her
direct examination, AAA testified, viz:
Q You
stated [that] you were staying with DDD and the [appellant] in the month of
March, 2001 in a tent located in BBB, CCC, do you recall x x x any incident
that happened?
A x
x x I was raped, sir.
x x x x
Q You
stated that you were rape[d], who raped you?
A He
was the one, sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness
pointed to the accused x x x
PROS. DAMASEN:
Q When
did the accused [rape] you?
A March
23, sir.
Q What
year?
A 2001,
sir.
Q Do
you recall how many times the accused raped you?
A Four
(4) times, sir.
Q When
was the first time?
A During
the first week, sir.
Q First
week of what month?
A March,
2001, sir.
Q When
the accused first raped you, where was that?
A In
our tent at BBB, sir.
x x x x
Q How
did he rape you?
A He
took off my clothes, sir.
x x x x
Q After
the accused removed [your shorts], what happened?
A x
x x [H]e raped me, sir.
x x x x
Q How
did he rape you?
A He
just inserted his penis [into] my vagina, sir.
Q What
did you do when the accused inserted his penis into [your] vagina?
A I
continued struggling, sir.
x x x x
Q You
said you were raped four (4) times in the month of March, 2001[,] where did the
second rape [happen]?
A x
x x [A]t BBB, sir.
x x x x
Q Who
raped you?
A Also
my [stepfather], sir.
x x x x
Q How
about the 3rd time where did the rape [happen]?
A Also
at BBB, sir.[52]
However, during cross-examination, AAA
testified that:
Q Madam
Witness you said that you were raped by the accused x x x in the first week of
March, 2001, isnt it?
A What
I know, sir, that was March 23.
Q So
the accused did not rape you in the first week of March, so you were only raped
by the accused [on] the 23rd of March, is that correct Madam
Witness?
A Yes,
sir.
Q The
accused also did not rape you on the second week of March, 2001?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Also
in the third week?
A Yes,
sir.[53]
It will be
recalled that in her direct examination, AAA testified that she was raped
inside their tent in BBB. However, in
her re-direct examination, AAA testified that she was raped elsewhere, viz:
Q Now,
you said you were raped four times in March 2001 where did the first rape
[happen]?
A FFF,
sir.
Q How
about the second rape where did it happen x x x?
A EEE,
Nueva Vizcaya, sir.
Q How
about the third rape where did it [happen]?
A Also
at EEE, sir.[54]
We thus could
not agree with the findings of the trial court and the CA that the inconsistencies
in the testimony of AAA regarding the first three rape incidents are
inconsequential. These inconsistencies
create a reasonable doubt in our mind as to whether appellant did in fact rape
AAA during those occasions.
Consequently, we are constrained to acquit appellant of the charges of
rape allegedly committed during the first week, second week, and third week, of
March 2001 based on reasonable doubt.
In contrast,
AAAs testimony as regards the March 23, 2001 incident was candid and consistent. She never wavered in her narration that through
threats and intimidation, appellant had carnal knowledge of her against her
will. During her cross-examination, she
testified, viz:
Q Madam
Witness can you remember what time were you raped by the accused on that 23rd
of March, 2001?
A That
was evening because he came to fetch me from my place at about 2:00 oclock,
sir.
Q 2:00
oclock in the morning or afternoon Ms. Witness?
A In
the afternoon, sir.
Q Where
did the accused fetch you in that afternoon of March 23, 2001?
A From
our house, sir.
Q And
that is in EEE, isnt it?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
time did you arrive at BBB, CCC when you were fetche[d] by the accused in
EEE?
A It
is already night, sir.
Q Can
you estimate the time?
A No,
sir. I dont know.
Q When
you arrived at BBB, CCC, isnt it that your [aunt] DDD was there?
A She
was not there, sir.
Q Why
is it that your [aunt] DDD was not there when you arrived from EEE?
A She
went to attend [a] wedding x x x
Q When
you arrived at BBB where did you go Ms. Witness together with the accused?
A At
the place where [he] raped me, sir.
Q Where
is that place?
A At
the waiting shed which is covered, sir.
Q Covered
with what Ms. Witness?
A Galvanize[d]
iron, sir.
Q Isnt
it that there are [other] tents near your tent where you stayed when you
arrived from EEE?
A There
was none, sir.
Q But
when you arrived at the place where the tent is located there are other people
around isnt it Ms. Witness?
A There
was none, sir.
Q x
x x [A]re there no houses around near the tent that you stayed on the night of
March 23, 2001?
A There
was none, sir.
Q How
did the accused rape you?
A He
removed my clothing, sir.
Q How
did he [remove] your clothing?
A I
was then wearing skirt and he removed my panty, sir.
Q And
you voluntarily consented isnt it Ms. Witness?
A No,
sir.
Q You
did not shout isnt [it] Ms. Witness?
A I
[shouted], sir. I even cried.
Q But
isnt it that the accused when he raped you he was not arm[ed] x x x?
A There
is none, sir.
Q He
did not even tell you any threatening words, isnt it Ms. Witness?
A He
threatened me, sir. He said that he is
going to kill me if I will not accede to his desire.
Q You
said that it was too painful when you were raped?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
that was the reason why you cried because it was painful?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
that was also the reason why you struggled because it was painful, isnt it?
A Yes,
sir.[55]
In her re-direct
examination, AAA remained consistent in her testimony that she was raped by
the appellant. Thus:
Q Now,
you stated that you were brought by your stepfather to BBB, CCC, in the
month of March 2001, do you still recall when was that, when in March, 2001?
A March
23, sir.
Q And
who was his companion when he fetch[ed] you in EEE?
A He
was alone, sir.
x x x x
Q Do
you recall what time you left EEE?
A 2:00
oclock, sir.
x x x x
Q Why
do you remember March 23, 2001 from among the three (3) rapes that happened
earlier?
A Because
that was the time when he fetch[ed] me from our house at EEE, sir.
x x x x
Q How
about on March 23, 2001 when the accused raped you[,] where [did it happen]?
A Here
at BBB, sir.[56]
As defined under
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed
1.
By a man who
shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a.
Through
force, threat or intimidation;
b.
When the
offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c.
By means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d.
When the offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present;
x x x x
As regards the
March 23, 2001 incident, the prosecution established that appellant had carnal
knowledge of AAA through force, threat or intimidation. AAAs confusion relative to the first three
incidents does not warrant his acquittal as regards the March 23, 2001 incident;
neither does it detract us from the fact that she was indeed raped by the
appellant on March 23, 2001. Notably, AAAs testimony was corroborated by the
medical findings of Dr. Barcena. Moreover,
appellant could not ascribe any ill motive on the part of AAA on why she
would charge appellant with such a serious crime.
Under Article
266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for rape committed under the
circumstances is reclusion perpetua. Moreover, pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence, AAA is entitled to an award of civil indemnity in the amount
of P50,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, as well
as exemplary damages of P30,000.00.
Finally, an interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on
all damages awarded from the finality of judgment until fully paid.[57]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Appellant
Rosauro Asetre y Duran is hereby ACQUITTED of the three counts of rape
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 3516, 3517 and 3519 on reasonable doubt. He is, however, found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of one count of rape in Criminal
Case No. 3518 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. All damages awarded in this case should be
imposed with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the
finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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
[1] CA rollo, pp. 111-130; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P.
Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
and Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
[2] Records,
Vol. 1, pp. 96-107; penned by Judge Fe Albano
[3] Records, Vol. 1, p. 1; Records, Vol.
2, p. 1; Records, Vol. 3, p. 1; Records, Vol. 4, p. 1.
[4] Records,
Vol. 1, p. 1; docketed as Crim. Case No. 3516.
[5] Records,
Vol. 2, p. 1; docketed as Crim. Case No. 3517.
[6] Records,
Vol. 4, p. 1; docketed as Crim. Case No. 3519.
[7] Records,
Vol. 3, p. 1; docketed as Crim. Case No. 3518.
[8] The
identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise
her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members,
shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for
Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act
Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective
Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes;
and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence Against
Women and Their Children, effective November 5, 2004.
[9] Records,
Vol. 1, p. 39.
[10]
[11] TSN,
November 15, 2001, p. 5.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] TSN,
December 10, 2001, p. 9.
[23]
[24]
[25] TSN,
January 9, 2002, pp. 5-6.
[26]
[27]
[28] TSN,
January 14, 2002, p. 5.
[29]
[30]
[31] TSN,
September 11, 2002, pp. 6-11.
[32]
[33]
[34] Records,
Vol. 1, p. 101.
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] CA rollo, p. 127.
[39]
[40]
[41] Rollo, p. 22.
[42]
[43]
[44] CA rollo, pp. 36-50.
[45]
[46] 377
Phil. 904 (1999).
[47] CA rollo, p. 82.
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52] TSN, November 15, 2001, pp. 9-18.
[53] TSN, November 22, 2001, p. 5.
[54]
[55] TSN, November 22, 2001, pp. 6-10.
[56]
[57] People
v. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011.