Republic of the
Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - BENJAMIN
PADILLA y UNTALAN, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 182917
Present: Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, DEL CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: June
8, 2011 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO DE CASTRO, J.:
The
case before Us is an appeal from the Decision[1]
dated
November 15, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00387. Said decision affirmed with modification the Joint
Decision[2]
dated September 3, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
On March 12, 2001, accused-appellant
was charged with three (3) counts of rape under three separate informations,
the pertinent portions of which state:
CRIMINAL
CASE NO. U-11273
That on or about January 13, 2001 at [XXX] and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the
father of [AAA], a minor, 11 years old,
by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and
without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659.[4] (Emphases
ours.)
CRIMINAL
CASE NO. U-11274
That at about dawn of January 14, 2001 at [XXX] and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the father of [AAA], a
minor, 11 years old, by means of
force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and
without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659.[5] (Emphases
ours.)
CRIMINAL
CASE NO. U-11275
That sometime in November 1999 at [XXX] and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the father
of [AAA], a minor, 10 years old, by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and
without her consent to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659.[6] (Emphases
ours.)
On
April 16 2001, accused-appellant separately entered a plea of not guilty in
each of the three cases.[7] Thereafter, the cases were set for a joint
pre-trial conference. In the said
conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following
matters, namely:
1.
The identity of the accused in [the] three cases;
2.
The identity of the private complainant [AAA] in
[the] three cases;
3.
That the accused is the father of the private
complainant; and
4.
That the private complainant is a minor having been
born on February 28, 1989.[8]
The joint trial of the criminal cases, then, ensued.
The prosecution presented the testimony of AAA in
order to prove that accused-appellant committed the three counts of rape as
charged in the above informations. AAA
testified that the date of her birth was February 28, 1989. In September of the year 1999, her mother,
BBB, went to work abroad. Since then,
AAA had been living in their house in XXX with the accused-appellant; CCC, her
older brother; DDD, her younger brother; and EEE, her younger sister. AAA related that the incidents of rape
charged against the accused-appellant occurred in November 1999, on January 13,
2001 and on January 14, 2001. In
November 1999, AAA recounted that at around seven oclock in the morning, she
was at the second floor of their house changing her clothes as she was about to
go to school. At that time, CCC was
already working at the Asingan market as a helper, while DDD and EEE were
outside the house. While AAA was
changing clothes, the accused-appellant came in. The accused-appellant held her arm with his
left hand and his right hand held a bolo.
He pushed AAA and the latter fell down on the floor in a lying
position. He told her not to shout or he
would kill her. He proceeded to remove
AAAs short pants and panty. He was able
to spread apart the legs of AAA despite her efforts to prevent him. He then went on top of AAA and inserted his
penis into her vagina. He then did the
push and pull movement. Afterwards, he
removed his penis, put on his brief and shorts and went to the market.[9]
As to the alleged second incident of rape on January
13, 2001, AAA related that the same likewise occurred at the upper floor of
their house in the evening of the said date.
AAA was then changing her clothes before going to bed, while her
siblings CCC, DDD and EEE were already sleeping downstairs. The accused-appellant again came in. He held AAA with his left hand and his right
hand held the same bolo used on the first incident of rape. AAA stated that the accused-appellant pushed
her again on the floor, removing her shorts and panty. He spread her legs and went on top of her
while she cried. He thrusted his penis into
her vagina then did the push and pull movement. Afterwards, he left AAA. The third incident of rape allegedly took
place on January 14, 2001, at dawn as AAA slept at the ground floor of their
house. CCC was already in the market, while
DDD and EEE were sleeping at a distance of around two meters from AAA. The accused-appellant woke up AAA and
whispered to her not to shout or he would kill her. He then removed her shorts and panty and
spread her legs. He went on top of her,
inserted his penis in her vagina and did the push and pull movement. Thereafter, the accused-appellant left. AAA said that at noontime on January 14,
2001, she and her younger siblings went to the house of her aunt, FFF. There, she reported the incidents of rape to
FFF. They then waited for AAAs
grandmother, GGG, and the latter accompanied AAA to the police station.[10]
The testimony of Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2
Patricio Badua, Jr. was also submitted in order to prove that he indeed
received a report in connection with the above-stated cases for rape. SPO2 Badua testified that on January 14,
2001, GGG reported that AAA was raped by the accused-appellant. SPO2 Badua recorded the report in the police
blotter and advised GGG that AAA should undergo medical examination.[11] When GGG and AAA returned, SPO2 Badua took
the sworn statement of AAA and he thereafter filed three criminal complaints in
court against the accused-appellant.[12]
FFF next took the witness stand for the prosecution
to corroborate the testimony of AAA. FFF
testified, among other details, that AAA is the daughter of her sister,
BBB. On January 14, 2001, at around eleven
oclock in the morning, FFF said that she was watering the plants in their yard
when she saw AAA, together with DDD and EEE, proceeding towards her and they
were crying. When FFF asked AAA why she was
crying, the latter eventually revealed that the accused-appellant raped her. They then waited for GGG to arrive so they could
have the accused-appellant picked up by the police.[13]
GGG also gave her testimony for the prosecution. GGG testified that her daughter, BBB, is
married to accused-appellant. This fact
was evidenced by a marriage certificate[14]
that GGG presented in court. The
Certificate of Live Birth[15]
in the name of AAA was likewise presented in order to prove that AAA is the
daughter of the accused-appellant and that her date of birth is February 28,
1989. According to GGG, she was at her
store in XXX at around 11:00 a.m. on January 14, 2001. She then went home and saw her grandchildren
AAA, DDD and EEE crying.[16] AAA reported to her that she (AAA) was raped
by the accused-appellant. Afterwards,
they went to the police station where AAA gave her statement. They then went to the hospital where AAA
underwent a medical examination.[17]
Lastly, the prosecution presented the testimony of
Dr. Noemie Taganas, the physician who examined AAA. Dr. Taganas testified that on January 14,
2001, she conducted an external and internal examination of AAA.[18] Dr. Taganas said that there was a swelling of
the nipples, the labia majora, labia minora and the clitoris of AAA. Moreover, Dr. Taganas stated that the hymen of
AAA showed incomplete and old healed lacerations at 12 oclock, 3 oclock, 6
oclock and 9 oclock positions. The
hymen was lacerated only halfway. Dr.
Taganas concluded that the physical virginity of AAA was already lost.[19]
The defense portrayed a different version of the events.
CCC testified for the defense in order to prove that
he had no knowledge of the allegations of rape of his younger sister, AAA. He stated that, in 2001, the
accused-appellant worked as a kargador
(porter) in the market, usually around 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. CCC related that his family slept side by
side on the lower floor of their house at about 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. Sometimes, he would sleep in another bed,
which is separated from the other bed by a bamboo divider. CCC further testified that he did not
remember any unusual incident that happened in the evening on the month of
January 2001. Particularly, CCC said
that he was asleep in their house and did not notice anything on that evening
when AAA was allegedly raped by the accused-appellant.[20]
The accused-appellant also took the witness stand to
prove his defense of denial and alibi. He
testified that in November 1999, he earned a living by selling fruits at the
Asingan market. During the market days
of Monday, Wednesday and Friday back then, he would usually go out at 5:00 a.m.
and stop selling fruits at 6:00 p.m. He denied
the allegation of AAA that he raped her sometime in November 1999 and that he
afterwards went to the Asingan market. He
also testified that in the morning of January 14, 2001, he went to the Asingan
market as he was already working there as a kargador. He came back to their house at 9:30 a.m. and
found therein his children AAA, DDD and EEE.
CCC was working at the market at that time. He asked AAA to cook food while he cleaned the
house. As he was cleaning, he allegedly
saw that his squash plant has withered.
He asked who among his children destroyed the plant, but none of them
admitted to the act. When he went to get
his whipping stick, his children ran away to the bamboo groves. He then went to find CCC in the market and
told him to follow his siblings. Afterwards,
while he was still cleaning their house, two police officers came, looking for
the house of Benjamin Padilla. When he
told them that he was Benjamin Padilla, they handcuffed him and brought him to
the police station where he was incarcerated.
The accused-appellant again denied raping AAA.[21]
On September 27, 2002, the defense also presented
the testimony of Dr. Noemie Taganas, who testified to the fact that the
lacerations found on the hymen of AAA on January 14, 2001 could still be
detected as of that trial date. The
defense, thus, moved for another physical examination of AAA, to which the
prosecution did not object. On October
3, 2002, Dr. Taganas again testified, stating that she conducted another
physical examination of AAA on September 27, 2002 and the internal findings
arrived at were the same as those obtained from the previous examination.[22]
On September 3, 2004, the RTC rendered its Decision,
finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of
rape, ratiocinating thus:
Seeking
exculpation from the crime, [accused-appellant] claimed that he could not have
possibly raped his daughter in November of 1999 and 14 January 2001 because he
was working as a baggage carrier in the market of Asingan, Pangasinan. As such, he would leave so early in the
morning and would return home in the evening or at times, close to midday. He also said that it was impossible to rape
her on the night of 13 January 2001 because all of them sleep side by side;
their sleeping arrangement was not even the same all the time.
[Accused-appellants] alibi and
denial deserves scant consideration. On
the contrary, [AAAs] straightforward and unwavering testimony deserves the
badge of credence. She could not have
spoken in such simple and forthright manner if the accusations were not
true. It is improbable for guileless
girls such as [AAA] to impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, let alone
her father, if it were not true. The
Court finds no motive for [AAA] to testify falsely against her father or
implicate him in the commission of the same.
The charges for rape could not have likewise been filed because [AAA]
regarded [accused-appellant] as a cruel father as the defense would want the
Court to believe. [AAA] has clearly
identified her father as the perpetrator of the sexual molestation she
suffered. She could not have done so if
she had only been prompted to free herself from a strict and overweening parent
meaning to enforce discipline. Moreover,
ill motive is never an essential element of a crime. It becomes inconsequential more so when there
are affirmative and categorical declarations towards the accuseds
accountability for the crime.
Amidst the firm
bedrock of evidence, [accused-appellant]s general denial pales in
comparison. Like alibi, denial is
inherently weak and must fail in the light of the positive declaration of the
victim that the accused authored the abuses.
[Accused-appellants] bare assertions denying his culpability cannot
overcome [AAAs] categorical testimony narrating her fathers libidinous
proclivities.
Her testimony is
readily corroborated by the medical findings of her non-virgin state and the
hymenal lacerations she suffered.
Juxtaposed against such telling evidence of the prosecution, the bare
denial and alibi of [accused-appellant] cannot prevail. Absent strong evidence to buttress such
denial, [AAAs] positive testimony deserves far greater weight.
Furthermore, [accused-appellant]
was persevering in his denial, so much so that he even questioned the medical
findings of Dr. Taganas. He requested
that [AAA] would undergo another medical examination, which request was granted
by the Court. After examination, Dr.
Taganas testified that her findings were all the same.
Little did [accused-appellant]
know that by questioning the findings of the doctor, he just dug a hole for his
grave and drove the final nail to his coffin.
By questioning the medical findings, to the mind of the Court, [accused-appellant]
admitted his crime. He admitted that
there was indeed penetration but only that the same was not complete; thus,
explaining that the laceration in [AAAs] hymen was only half way. It is very elementary that in rape cases,
full penetration is not required. The
mere touching of the penis of the lips of the vagina would already constitute
rape.
From the
plethora of evidence presented, the Court finds beyond the whisper of a doubt
that [accused-appellant] committed the three counts of rape against his
daughter [AAA], as alleged in the informations filed in Court. The complainants age when the crimes were
committed and the blood relationship between her and the accused have not been
questioned. Hence, under R.A. 8353, the
penalty of death awaits a parent who commits the crime of rape against his or
her child less than eighteen (18) years of age.
Consistent with law and prevailing jurisprudence, he likewise incurs
pecuniary obligations arising from his criminal liability.[23]
The RTC, thus, decreed:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court finds and hereby pronounces the accused GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape against his own daughter in each
of these three (3) cases. He is hereby
sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death in each of these cases
pursuant to R.A. 7659, otherwise known as the Heinous Crime Law, and is hereby
ordered to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of Php50,000.00 for
each count of rape as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 for each count of rape as
moral damages and Php25,000.00 for each count of rape as exemplary damages.
Cost against the
accused.[24]
Accused-appellant appealed the above judgment to the
Court of Appeals. On November 15, 2007,
the appellate court issued the assailed Decision, likewise pronouncing the
guilt of the accused-appellant. The
Court of Appeals found that:
The [testimony]
of Private Complainant was clear, definite, and convincing. Her narration contains the details, which
only a real victim could remember and reveal.
In fact, even during the grueling cross-examination, the Private
Complainants testimony was unequivocal.
It bears the hallmarks of truth as she remained consistent on material
points[.] x x x.
x x x x
In contrast, the Accused-Appellants
claim that he was at the market of Asingan, Pangasinan on all the three (3)
occasions of rape, is flimsy. We agree
with the trial court that his defense of denial is intrinsically weak and must
necessarily fail. Not to mention that
the said defense is negative and a self-serving assertion, it has no weight in
law if unsubstantiated by clear, strong, and convincing evidence of
non-culpability. Also, the
Accused-Appellant failed to buttress his denial by the required quantum of
proof. Verily, it did not overcome the
Private Complainants affirmative, categorical, spontaneous, and convincing
testimony.
The physical
evidence likewise reinforced the Private Complainants testimony. The Medico-Legal Report of Dr. Noemie
Taganas, who physically examined her on January 14, 2001, shows that her
genital has healed laceration at 12, 3, 6, and 9:00 oclock positions, and that
her hymen orifice admits 1-2 fingers with slight difficulty. Consequently, the lacerations and pain that
the Private Complainant suffered in her genital could be only the result of
penile penetration forced upon her by the Accused-Appellant.[25]
The Court of Appeals, however, modified the penalty
imposed by the RTC as follows:
The foregoing
considered, We affirm the trial courts finding that the Accused-Appellant is
guilty of three (3) counts of rape. The
age of the Private Complainant at the time of the rape incidents, as well as
her relationship with the Accused-Appellant, were sufficiently established by
the prosecution and admitted by the Accused-Appellant. Thus, the trial court correctly meted out the
penalty of death on all counts. However,
Republic Act No. 9346, entitled, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines, signed into law on June 24, 2006, prohibits the
imposition of the death penalty. The Accused-Appellant, thus, shall suffer
only the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
on three (3) counts.
While We sustain
the awards of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and of Twenty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as civil indemnity and exemplary damages,
respectively, for each count of rape, the
award of moral damages, must, however, be increased from Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) for each count in line with
prevailing jurisprudence.[26] (Emphases ours.)
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals
decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Accused-Appellant Benjamin Padilla is
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape and is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for each count. He is also hereby ORDERED to pay the Private Complainant
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Twenty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages, for each count of
rape. As modified, the Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) awarded below as moral damages is hereby INCREASED to Seventy-Five Thousand
Pesos (P75,000.00), for each count of rape. Costs against the Accused-Appellant.[27]
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal,[28]
which was given due course by the appellate court.[29]
The records of the case were then
elevated to this Court.
In an Order[30]
dated July 14, 2008, we required the parties to file their supplemental briefs,
if any, within thirty days from notice.
The prosecution and the accused-appellant separately manifested[31]
that, in lieu of filing their supplemental briefs before this Court, they were each
adopting and repleading the briefs they respectively filed before the Court of
Appeals.
The accused-appellant submits a lone assignment of
error, arguing that the RTC gravely erred in finding him guilty of the crimes
charged as the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.[32]
The
accused-appellant avers that the trial court should have given weight to his testimony
that he was working at the Asingan market as a kargador during the time the alleged rapes were committed. This statement was allegedly attested to by CCC. The accused-appellant argues that, although
the defense of alibi is weak, the prosecution is not released from its burden
to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He avers that the prosecution evidence must
always rely on its own strength and not by the weakness of the evidence adduced
by the defense. The prosecution failed
to prove that (1) there had been carnal knowledge of AAA by the
accused-appellant; and (2) the same was achieved through force and intimidation
upon AAA or because the latter was deprived of reason or was otherwise
unconscious. Hence, the
accused-appellant claims that the presumption of innocence in his favor should
be upheld.
After
a thorough and conscientious review of the records of this case, the Court
affirms the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the RTC that the guilt of the
accused-appellant of the crime of rape was indeed established beyond reasonable
doubt.
The
provision of law that defines the crime of rape by sexual intercourse is Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
ART. 266-A. Rape
When and How Committed. 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 machinations 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.
Specifically, Article 266-A(1)(d) spells out the
definition of the crime of statutory rape, the elements of which are: (1) that
the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such a woman is
under twelve (12) years of age or is demented.
In the prosecution of statutory rape cases, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil.[33]
In
the instant case, the element of carnal knowledge was primarily established by
the testimony of AAA, which the Court of Appeals and the RTC found to be
unequivocal and deserving credence. In
this regard, the Court reiterates the oft-cited doctrine that:
In a prosecution
for rape, the victim's credibility becomes the single most
important issue. For when a woman says
she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed; thus, if her testimony meets the test of
credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.
The rule is
settled that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and of
their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed
on appeal, in the absence of any clear showing that the court overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance
which would have affected the result of the case. This is because the trial court, having seen
and heard the witnesses themselves, and observed their behavior and manner of
testifying, is in a better position to decide the question of credibility.[34]
We
perused the entire records of the case and we are inclined to agree with the
factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals on the issue of the
credibility of AAAs testimony. AAA
unhesitatingly pointed to her father, the accused-appellant, as the perpetrator
of the reprehensible acts of rape against her.
The testimony of AAA was indeed straightforward, unequivocal, definite
and convincing. AAA tearfully narrated
the ordeal that she suffered at the hands of the accused-appellant as follows:
[PROSECUTOR
SILVESTRE RIDAO]
Q: The first incident, Madam Witness, is
November 1999. Where were you when the
incident happened?
[AAA]
A: I was in our house, sir.
Q: What were you doing in your house?
A: I was changing my clothes, sir.
Q:
For what?
A:
I was going to school that time,
sir.
Q:
What time was that?
A: Seven
oclock, sir.
Q: Where was your brother [CCC] at that
time?
A:
He was at the market, sir.
x x x x
Q:
How about the two, [DDD] and [EEE],
where were they?
x x x x
A:
They were outside the house, sir.
Q:
What happened while you were
changing your clothes?
A:
My father came, sir.
Q:
By the way, what part of the house
were you in?
A:
I was upstairs, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do when he
went to the second floor?
A:
He held me, sir.
Q:
With what hand did he hold you?
A:
His left hand, sir.
x x x x
Q:
You said he held you with his left
hand. How about his right hand, what was
his right hand doing?
A:
His right hand was holding a bolo,
sir.
x x x x
Q:
What happened next after he held
you?
A:
He pushed me, sir.
Q:
What happened to you when he pushed
you?
A:
I fell down in a lying position,
sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father tell you, if
any, Madam Witness?
A:
He told me not to shout because he will
kill me, sir.
x x x x
Q:
After you were pushed on the floor,
what happened next?
A:
He removed my short pants and my
panty, sir.
Q:
What did you do while he was
removing your shorts and panty?
A:
I was crying, sir.
Q:
What did he do next, Madam Witness?
A:
He removed his shorts and brief,
sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do when he
removed his shorts and brief?
A:
He spread my legs sir.
x x x x
Q:
What happened next after he spread
your legs?
A:
He went on top of me, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What happened next after he went on
top of you?
A:
He inserted his penis inside my
vagina, sir.
Q:
What did you feel when he inserted
his penis to your vagina?
A:
It was painful, sir.
x x x x
PROS.
RIDAO:
May we just put on record, Your Honor,
that the witness is crying.
COURT:
Put that on record.
x x x x
Q:
After he inserted his penis into
your vagina, what did he do next?
A:
He did the push and pull movement,
sir.
Q:
What happened next after he did the
push and pull movement?
A:
He removed his penis and stood up,
sir.
x x x x
Q:
Do you recall where you were, Madam
Witness, on January 13, 2001 in the evening?
x x x x
A:
I was in our house, sir.
Q:
In what particular place in your
house?
A:
Upstairs, sir.
Q:
What were you doing upstairs?
A:
I was changing my clothes, sir.
x x x x
Q:
Where was your older brother,
[CCC], at that time?
A:
He was already asleep, sir.
Q:
How about [DDD] and [EEE]?
A:
They were already asleep, sir.
Q:
Where were they sleeping?
A:
Downstairs, sir.
Q:
While changing your clothes, Madam
Witness, what happened?
A:
My father came again, sir.
Q:
What did you do when he came near
you?
A:
He held me again, sir.
Q:
How did he hold you?
x x x x
A:
His left hand, sir.
Q:
About [his] right hand, what was
his right hand doing?
A:
His right hand was holding a bolo,
sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did he do next after he held
your arm?
A:
He again pushed me, sir.
Q:
What happened to you when he pushed
you?
A:
I fell down, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next after
you fell on the floor?
A:
He removed my shorts and panty,
sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next?
A:
He spread my [legs], sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did he do next after spreading
your legs?
A:
He went on top of me, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next?
A:
He inserted his penis in my vagina,
sir.
x x x x
Q:
What did your father do next after
inserting his penis into your vagina?
A: He did the push and pull movement, sir.
Q:
While doing the push and pull
movement, what did you feel?
A:
I felt pain, sir.
Q:
After he did the push and pull
movement, what did you feel?
A:
I felt something hot, sir.
Q:
Coming from what?
A:
Coming from his penis, sir.
Q:
Where did you feel that something
hot?
A:
My vagina, sir.
Q:
What did your father do next after
you felt something hot in your vagina?
A:
He removed his penis from my
vagina, sir.
Q:
And then what did he do?
A:
He put on his brief and shorts,
sir.
Q: And then?
A:
Then he left, sir.
x x x x
Q:
On January 14, 2001, at dawn, Madam
Witness, do you recall where you were?
x x x x
A:
I was in our house, sir.
Q:
In what particular place in your
house?
A:
Downstairs, sir.
Q:
What were you doing downstairs?
A:
I was sleeping, sir.
Q:
About your brother [CCC], where was
he?
A: He was in the market, sir.
Q:
About your brother [DDD], where was
he?
A:
He was still sleeping, sir.
Q:
About your sister [EEE], where was
she?
A:
She was still sleeping at that
time, sir.
Q:
Where were they sleeping?
A:
On the ground floor, sir.
x x x x
Q:
What time were you awakened at
dawn?
A:
I cannot remember but it was early
dawn, sir.
Q:
Why were you awakened?
A:
My father woke me up, sir.
Q:
How did he woke you up?
A:
He shook me, sir.
x x x x
Q:
After you were awakened, what did
your father do next?
A:
He threatened me, sir.
Q:
How did he threaten you? What did
he tell you?
A:
He said to me: Dont shout or else
I will kill you.
Q:
How did he tell that to you?
A:
He whispered it to me, sir.
Q:
After making that threat, what did
he do next[?]
A:
He removed my shorts and panty,
sir.
x x x x
Q:
After removing your shorts and
panty, what did he do next?
A:
He also removed his shorts and
brief, sir.
x
x x x
Q: What did your father do next?
A: He spread my legs again, sir.
x x x x
Q: What did your father do next?
A: He went on top of me, sir.
Q: And then what did he do next?
A: He inserted his penis inside my vagina,
sir.
x x x x
Q: What did you do after he inserted his
penis inside your vagina?
A: He did the push and pull [movement], sir.
x x x x
Q: After your father did the push and pull
movement, what did you feel?
A: I felt something hot, sir.
Q: And after you felt something hot, what
did your father do?
A: He removed his penis from my vagina, sir.[35]
The
above testimony of AAA that the accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with
her was also corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Taganas that AAA was
no longer physically a virgin. In People v. Oden,[36] we held that [t]he spontaneity with which
the victim has detailed the incidents of rape, the tears she has shed at the
stand while recounting her experience, and her consistency almost throughout
her account dispel any insinuation of a rehearsed testimony. The eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled
with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough
to confirm the truth of her charges.[37]
Moreover,
People v. Bon[38]
reiterates that no sane woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to
public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a victim of rape and
impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. Testimonies of child-victims are normally
given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor,
says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show
that rape has been committed. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[39]
Thus,
the Court rules that the element of carnal knowledge of AAA by the
accused-appellant was sufficiently proven in each of the three (3) counts of
rape in this case.
The
accused-appellant cannot likewise rely on his defense of alibi to disprove the
testimony of AAA. Verily, denial and
alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative
evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive
declaration of a credible witness. Between
the positive assertions of the victim and the negative averments of the
appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to
greater evidentiary weight.[40] For alibi to prosper it is not enough for the
appellant to prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed; he
must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[41]
In
the instant case, the accused-appellant merely denied that he raped AAA in
November 1999. The accused-appellant did
not deny that he was in their house, with all of his children, on the night
when the second incident of rape on January 13, 2001 took place. As to the rape that was committed in the
early morning hours of January 14, 2001, the accused-appellant denied the same,
stating that he was at the Asingan market when the rape supposedly occurred and
that he only came home at around 9:30 a.m. on the said date. However, other than his testimony in court, the
accused-appellant failed to submit any other evidence to prove that he was indeed
at the Asingan market when the third incident of rape was committed. The testimony of CCC did not particularly
provide any specific corroboration on this point, as CCC merely testified that
the accused-appellant usually goes to
work at the Asingan market at 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The accused-appellant even subsequently denied
in his cross-examination that he went home at about 9:30 a.m. on January 14,
2001 without so much of an explanation.[42] Furthermore, the accused-appellant failed to
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at their house at
the time of the commission of the third incident of rape. CCC stated in his cross-examination that the
Asingan market was only 10 minutes away from their house if one were to go
there by foot.[43] Thus, it would have been relatively easy for the
accused-appellant to go back from the Asingan market to their house to carry
out the sexual abuse against AAA and then go to the market again. Consequently, the accused-appellants defense
of alibi cannot overcome the positive declaration of AAA.
As
to the second element of statutory rape, the fact that AAA was under 12 years
of age when the incidents of rape occurred had likewise been clearly
established in the instant case. During
the pre-trial conference before the RTC, the parties stipulated that AAA was
born on February 28, 1989 and such fact was also evidenced by the Certificate
of Live Birth of AAA, which was presented during the trial. Thus, AAA was only 10 years old and 11 years
old, respectively, when the incidents of rape charged against the accused-appellant
took place in November 1999 and January 2001.
Moreover, the parties previously stipulated during the pre-trial
conference and, thereafter, the accused-appellant admitted during trial that he
is the biological father of AAA. The
said fact is also evident in the Certificate of Live Birth of AAA.
The
age of AAA and her relationship to the accused-appellant qualify the three (3)
counts of rape in this case, as provided for under Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code, which reads:
Art. 266-B.
Penalties. x x x
The death
penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1. When the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
In
sum, the Court finds the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
three (3) counts of statutory rape in its qualified form.
Notwithstanding
the provisions of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the Court of Appeals
correctly held that the appropriate penalty that should be imposed upon the
accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua
for each count of rape. This is in
accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled an Act Prohibiting
the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
The
Court affirms the appellate courts award of P75,000.00 as moral damages
for each count of rape in accordance with the current jurisprudence on
qualified rape. However, the awards of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of
rape should be increased to P75,000.00 and P30,000.00,
respectively, in keeping with recent case law.[45]
WHEREFORE,
in light of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The
Decision dated November 15, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 00387 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The accused-appellant Benjamin Padilla y
Untalan is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of QUALIFIED
RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
without the possibility of parole. The
accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay
AAA for each count of rape P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00
as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus legal
interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% from the date of
finality of this Decision. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-22; penned by Associate
Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and
Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 40-50; penned by Presiding
Judge Rodrigo G. Nabor.
[3] The
real name or any other information tending to establish the identity of the
private complainant and those of her immediate family or household members
shall be withheld in accordance with Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing
for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, 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; Sec. 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as "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.
Thus,
the private offended party shall be referred to as AAA. BBB shall refer to her
mother. CCC shall stand for the name of her older brother, whereas DDD and EEE shall indicate the names of her younger brother and
younger sister, respectively. FFF shall pertain to the sister
of the private offended partys mother, while GGG shall designate the maternal grandmother of the private
offended party. XXX shall denote the place where the crime was allegedly
committed.
[4] Records
(Criminal Case No. U-11273), p. 1.
[5] CA rollo, p. 8.
[6] Records
(Criminal Case No. U-11275), p. 1.
[7] Records
(Criminal Case No. U-11273), p. 28.
[8]
[9] TSN,
August 22, 2001, pp. 2-9.
[10]
[11] TSN, June
11, 2001, pp. 3-4.
[12]
[13] TSN, June
19, 2001, pp. 2-6.
[14] Records (Criminal
Case No. U-11273), p. 93.
[15]
[16] TSN,
August 7, 2001, pp. 7-8.
[17]
[18] The
findings of Dr. Taganas were set forth in the Medico-Legal Certification, which
recites:
MEDICO-LEGAL CERTIFICATION
TO WHOM
IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that [AAA],
12 years old, female and a resident of [XXX] came to this hospital for
consultation and examination on January 14, 2001 with the following findings:
A.
External Findings:
-
Swelling of both nipples
-
Swelling of the labia majora, labia minora and clitoris
B.
Internal Findings:
- Hymen
showing incomplete and old healed laceration about 12:00, 3:00, 6:00 and 9:00
oclock position.
- Hymen
orifice admits 1-2 fingers with slight difficulty.
DIAGNOSIS:
Physical Virginity, Lost
(Signed)
NOEMIE M. TAGANAS, M.D.
Chief of Hospital (Records [Criminal
Case No. U-11273], p. 94.)
[19] TSN,
December 4, 2001, pp. 4-6.
[20] TSN,
February 4, 2002, pp. 5-10.
[21] TSN, June
10, 2002, pp. 6-11.
[22] TSN,
September 27, 2002, pp. 2-5.
[23] CA rollo, pp. 48-50.
[24]
[25] Rollo, pp. 18-20.
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] CA rollo, p. 89.
[33] People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 172372,
December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 307, 314-315.
[34] People v. Paculba, G.R. No. 183453, March
9, 2010, 614 SCRA 755, 763-764.
[35] TSN,
August 22, 2001, pp. 4-15.
[36] 471 Phil.
638 (2004).
[37]
[38] G.R. No.
166401, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 168.
[39]
[40] People v. Bang-ayan, G.R. No. 172870,
September 22, 2006, 502 SCRA 658, 670.
[41] People v. Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274,
March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 307, 317.
[42] TSN, June 11, 2002, p. 4.
[43] TSN, February 4, 2002, p. 10.
[44] People v. Dimanawa, G.R. No. 184600, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 770, 783.
[45] People v. Documento, G.R. No. 188706, March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 610, 614-618; People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 177740, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 318, 335.