Republic of the
Supreme
Court
Manila
THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus - JONIE
DOMINGUEZ, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G. R. No. 191065 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR.,
and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: June 13, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
SERENO,
J.:
The appeal
before us assails the
The present appeal stems from nine (9) criminal Informations
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Bulan, Sorsogon, docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. 02-582 to 02-590. In
the Informations, Jonie Dominguez was accused of committing multiple counts of
the crime of rape -- under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 in relation to R.A. No.
7610 -- against two minor female relatives, hereinafter called AAA and
BBB.
The aggravating circumstance of relationship was also
alleged in the Informations -- the accused was allegedly the victims
grandfather.[3] In Criminal Case No. 02-583, the Information
alleged that in committing the crime, the accused was armed with a knife -- an
aggravating circumstance.
AAA was allegedly raped twice: first in 2001 when she was
only nine years old, and second on
That sometimes (sic)
in the year 2001, at Barangay XXX, municipality of YYY, province of Sorsogon,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, while armed
with a knife, taking advantage of the youthfulness of the victim and his moral
ascendancy over her, with lewd designs, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously inserted his two (2) fingers to the sex organ of
AAA, a minor, 9 years of age, against her will and without her consent, to her
damage and prejudice.
The generic aggravating
circumstance of relationship is present considering that the accused is the
grandfather of the victim being the brother of the mother of the victims
father.
The second
instance of rape was allegedly committed by the accused by inserting his
fingers into AAAs vagina and having carnal knowledge of her afterwards. The accused did not use a deadly weapon, but
was able to perpetrate the crime through threats and the use of moral
ascendancy over AAA.[6] The Information, docketed
as 02-582, reads:
That on or about July 12, 2002, in the afternoon, at Barangay XXX, municipality of YYY, province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, taking advantage of the youthfulness of the victim and his moral ascendancy over her, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inserted his fingers to the sex organ of victim and then have carnal knowledge of the victim, AAA, a minor, 10 years of age, against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
The generic aggravating circumstance of relationship is present considering that the accused is the grandfather of the victim being the brother of the mother of the victims father.
BBB, on the other hand, was allegedly
raped seven times: first on
These accusations are
contained in the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. 02-584[9]
That on or about June 15, 2000, at more or less 10:00 oclock (sic) in the morning at barangay XXX, municipality of YYY, province of Sorsogon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation and taking advantage of the youthfulness of the victim and also his moral ascendancy over the latter, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of BBB, a minor, 12 years of age, against her will and without her consent, which acts likewise constitute child abuse and exploitation, as it demeans, debases and degrades the integrity of the child as a person, to her damage and prejudice.
The generic aggravating circumstance of relationship is present, the accused being the brother of the other of the victims father.
Criminal Case No. 02-585[10]
That on or about midnight of April 20, 2001, at barangay XXX,
municipality of YYY, province of Sorsogon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence
and intimidation, taking advantage of the youthfulness and his moral ascendancy
over the victim did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with
lewd designs inserted his fingers to the sex organ of the victim BBB, a minor,
13 years of age, against her will and without her consent, which acts likewise
constitute child abuse and exploitation as it debases, demeans and degrades the
integrity of the victim as a person, to her damage and prejudice.
The generic aggravating
circumstance of relationship is present, the accused is the grandfather of the
victim being the brother of the mother of the victims father.
Criminal Case
Nos. 02-586, 02-587, 02-588 and 02-590, were also couched in the same language
as Criminal Case No. 02-585, except for the dates of commission and the age of BBB.
AAA and BBB
chose to stay silent about the instances of rape, until their mother
accidentally discovered the commission of the crimes from the accused
himself. Overhearing Dominguez in one of
his drinking sessions, boasting that the children's vaginas were already wide,
she confronted her daughters and asked them about the remark. The children
reluctantly confided to her what had
happened. As a result, the girls were
brought to a doctor for examination.[11] The examining physician, Dr. Estrella Payoyo, found AAAs
hymen intact, but did not discount the fact that the child could have been
molested.[12] In contrast, BBB was found to have old hymenal
lacerations.[13]
The
Informations, filed on
During the
trial, AAA and BBB testified against Dominguez by narrating the lascivious acts
he had done to them. According to their testimonies, the accused had employed
trickery so that either AAA or BBB would be left alone with him and thereafter
raped, with threats of harm to her person or her family.[14] It should be noted that as to the second rape,
AAA was silent on the alleged sexual intercourse. She in fact did not mention it, but merely
testified that the accused inserted his fingers into her vagina on two
occasions.[15]
The main theory
of the defense was one of denial and alibi. The accused insisted that he was in
the mountains on the dates that he was alleged to have committed the crimes.[16]
The trial
court, after receiving the evidence, convicted the accused. It gave credence to
the testimonies of the two child-victims, who had positively identified him and
candidly narrated the sexual acts he had perpetrated against them. The court observed that he had failed to
rebut the said allegations. The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused JONIE DOMINGUEZ having been found GUILTY of two (2) counts of Statutory Rape under par. (2) of Article 266-A in relation to Article III, Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 and six (6) other counts of Simple Rape under pars. (1) and (2) pf Article 266-A in relation to Article III, Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, is hereby sentenced as follows:
1) In Criminal Case No. 92-582 (Statutory Rape), he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years 2 months and 1 day of Prision Correccional Maximum, as minimum, to 10 years of Prision Mayor medium, as maximum; to indemnify the offended party AAA in the amounts of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another Php50,000.00 as moral damages;
2) In Criminal Case No. 02-583 (Statutory Rape), he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years 2 months and 1 day of Prision Correccional Maximum, as minimum, to 12 years of Prision Mayor maximum as maximum, present the generic aggravating circumstance of USE OF DEADLY WEAPON (Article 266-B in relation to par. (2) of Article 266-A); to indemnify AAA the amounts of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, another Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php20,000.00 as exemplary damages;
3) In Criminal Case No. 02-584 (Rape), he is sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA (Article 266-B in relation to par. (1) of Article 266-A, RPC as amended); to indemnify BBB the amounts of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another Php50,000.00 as moral damages;
4) In Criminal Cases Nos. 02-585; 586; 587; 588 and 590 (Rape), he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years 2 months and 1 day of Prision Correccional maximum, as minimum, to 10 years or Prision Mayor medium, as maximum, for EACH COUNT of RAPE; to indemnify BBB the amounts of Php50,000.00 civil indemnity and another Php50,000.00 as moral damages; and to pay the costs;
5) In Criminal Case No. 02-589 (Rape), accused is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence and for failure of the prosecution to establish his GUILT beyond reasonable doubt.
The period of preventive imprisonment already served by the accused shall be credited in the service of his sentence pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
In the service of the sentences above-mentioned, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible pursuant to the provision of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
SO ORDERED.[17]
The
accused thereafter resorted to the CA for a review of the court a quos
Decision. The assailed Decision was
affirmed by the appellate court, which disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal interposed by Jonie Dominguez is DENIED, and accordingly his convictions as pronounced under the herein assailed November 5, 2007 Decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED together with the appropriate prison penalty, but with modification only as to the awards for civil indemnity and moral damages, for which appellant is hereby ordered to pay:
1) Php75,000.00 for civil indemnity, and Php75,000.00 by way of moral damages in Crim. Case No. 02-584.
2) Php30,000.00 for civil indemnity and Php30,000.00 by way of moral damages for each of appellants convictions in Crim. Case Nos. 02-582, 02-583, 02-585, 02-586, 02-587, 02-588, and 02-590.
3) Php20,000.00 as exemplary damages in Crim. Case No. 02-583.
SO ORDERED.[18]
The
accused timely filed a notice of appeal to elevate the case to this Court. He did not submit a Supplemental Brief, and
instead filed a Manifestation that the case be deemed submitted for decision.[19] The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf
of the People, had earlier filed a similar Manifestation in Lieu of
Supplemental Brief.[20] We thus refer to the
Appellants Brief filed with the CA, wherein the accused-appellant advanced
this lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[21]
We sustain the conviction.
Accused-appellant argues that the
prosecutors evidence was doubtful.
The
charges against him, he says, were just fabricated, since the parents of the
victims had an axe to grind against him. He claims that he had loaned an amount
to the victims aunt, who is the sister of the victims father. When he
demanded the return of the money, the victims parents got mad at him. He
insinuates that these ill feelings were the reason why he was falsely charged
by AAA and BBB.[22] We disregard this allegation for being irrelevant to the
question of whether the crime as charged did take place.
To introduce reasonable doubt on his
criminal culpability, the accused
highlights the testimony of Dr. Payoyo that BBBs old lacerations could
also have been caused by infection from scratching her vagina or by injury from
accidents. He also emphasizes Dr. Payoyos finding that BBBs vagina could
admit only one finger with resistance. As to Dr. Payoyos report that AAAs
hymen was intact, the accused-appellant relies on it to bolster his defense
that there was no sexual intercourse or sexual abuse.
Jurisprudence is clear on this matter. The absence of a
laceration in BBBs hymen does not overturn the testimonies of the
child-victims. As the Court held in People
v. Gabayron:[23]
Accused-appellant draws attention to
the fact that based on the medico-legal findings, there is no showing that his
daughters hymen was penetrated, nor there was any evidence of injuries
inflicted. However, jurisprudence is well-settled to the effect that for rape
to be consummated, rupture of the hymen is not necessary, nor it is necessary
that the vagina sustained a laceration especially if the complainant is a young
girl. ... The fact that there was no deep penetration of the victims vagina
and that her hymen was intact does not negate rape, since this crime is
committed even with the slightest penetration of a womans sex organ. Presence of a laceration in the
vagina is not (sic) essential prerequisite to prove that a victim has been
raped. Research in medicine even points out that negative
findings are of no significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite
repeated coitus. In fact, many cases of pregnancy have been reported in women
with unruptured hymen.(emphasis supplied)[24]
Another point
being raised by the accused-appellant concerns the consistency of AAA's
testimony. He argues that the inconsistencies in her testimony taint her
credibility. In effect, he claims that since rape is a traumatic event for the
victim, there was no way AAA could have forgotten or been mistaken about it,
including its place of occurrence, had rape really happened. Specifically, the
accused is arguing that since AAA mentioned two places -- their house and the
back of the school her testimony was not credible. In rebuttal, the Office of
the Solicitor General states that AAA indeed testified that she was violated in
their house and that, immediately prior to that incident, she was playing at
the back of the school when the accused-appellant called her to come inside the
house. AAA's house, where the second rape was committed, was at the back of the
school.[25] She herself clarified
this detail during the redirect examination.
The relevant portion of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes is
reproduced below:[26]
Q: AAA, during the last time that you were
here in court, you declared
that you were sexually molested by Jonie Dominguez at the house of your uncle Rogelio, is that correct?
A: Yes, Maam.
Q: And the other sexual molestation
happened at the back of your school in
A: No, Maam.
Q: What do you mean no, Maam?
A: At the house of Uncle Rogelio and at our
house.
Q: But during the last time when you were
asked by Atty. Gojar, you said
that you were also molested at the back of the elementary school, Barangay XXX, so which is
correct now?
A: The truth is that I was sexually molested
at the house of my Uncle Rogelio
and at our house.
Q: And why did you say that you were
molested at the back of the elementary
school in Barangay XXX, if not true?
A: I was confused thinking that the
question of Atty. Gojar is the location
of our house and our house is situated at the back of the elementary school.
There was therefore
no inconsistency to speak of. We find
AAA's testimony credible on this point and disregard the accused's attack on
the same.
The accused
also cites AAAs testimony that after each incident of molestation, she told
her parents about it. According to him, her testimony was discrepant with that
of her mother. Recall that the mother had alleged that the discovery of the
crime was due to his utterance regarding the state of her daughters vaginas.[27] We reject the claim of the accused. It can clearly be deduced from AAAs answer
during the cross-examination that when she told her parents about the
molestations, she was referring to the time immediately before the filing of
the Complaint and not immediately after the rape.[28] It should be pointed out that she was
consistent and unwavering in her claim that the accused inserted his two
fingers into her organ on two occasions.
The trial court observed AAAs consistency in her testimony and ruled
that she was a credible witness.[29] We respect the trial courts ruling on this
matter. This Court recognizes that:
Ample margin of error and understanding is accorded to young witnesses who, much more than adults, would
naturally be gripped with tension due to the
novelty of the experience of testifying before a court.[30]
We have reviewed the records and find no cogent reason to
disturb the conviction. A reading of the TSN of the hearing of the case
convinces us that the CA did not commit any reversible error. The victims were still minors at the time
they testified. Nevertheless, they were
able to narrate the incidents, albeit not exactly with the same coherence as a
fully capacitated adult witness would.
Leeway should be given to witnesses who are minors, especially when they
are relating past incidents of abuse.
Relevant to this, we quote the following discussion by
retired Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.:
It is thus clear that any child,
regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known his perception to others and of relating truthfully
facts respecting which he is examined. In the 1913 decision in United States vs. Buncad, this Court stated:
Professor Wigmore, after referring
to the common-law precedents upon this point, says: "But this much may be
taken as settled, that no rule defines any particular age as conclusive
of incapacity; in each instance the capacity of the particular child is to be
investigated." (Wigmore on Evidence, vol. I, p. 638)
While on the same subject, Underhill declares:
257.
Children on the witness stand. - Under the common law,
competency of a child under the age of fourteen years to testify must be shown
to the satisfaction of the court. He is presumptively incompetent, but if he is
shown to be competent it is immaterial how young he may be when he testifies.
He is competent if he possesses mental capacity and memory sufficient to enable
him to give a reasonable and intelligible account of the transaction he has
seen, if he understands and has a just appreciation of the difference between
right and wrong, and comprehends the character, meaning and obligation of an
oath. If the witness fulfills these requirements, it is immaterial as bearing
upon his competency that he is unable to define the oath or to define
testimony. In the wise discretion of the court, a child four, five, six and for
such ages as seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen or fifteen years
of age may be shown competent to testify. It may not be said that there is any
particular age at which as a matter of law all children are competent or
incompetent. x x x
The requirements then of a childs competency as a
witness are the: (a) capacity of observation, (b) capacity of recollection, and
(c) capacity of communication. And in ascertaining whether a child is of
sufficient intelligence according to the foregoing requirements, it is settled
that the trial court is called upon to make such determination. As held in United
States
vs. Buncad, quoting from Wheeler vs. United States, and
reiterated in People vs. Raptus and People vs. Libungan:
The decision of (sic) this question rests primarily with the trial judge, who sees the proposed witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligations of an oath. As many of these matters cannot be photographed into the record, the decision of the trial judge will not be disturbed on review unless from that which is preserved it is clear that it was erroneous. (citations omitted).[31]
We find that AAA and BBB were able to
candidly answer the questions propounded to them during the examination in
court and to communicate the ordeal they suffered in the hands of the accused.
They were credible witnesses.
The legal
doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is left to the
judgment of the trial court is well-established.[32] Its findings of facts, when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are deemed conclusive on this Court.[33] In this case, both the trial court
and the Court of Appeals found the prosecution witnesses credible.
The narrated
facts disprove the alibi of the accused-appellant that he was up in the
mountains on the dates that he allegedly molested the victims. BBB testified
that the accused was staying with another relative, their Tia Cita,
whose husband is his brother. He invited
BBB and her two siblings to go to the
house of their Tia Cita. He then ordered the two siblings of BBB to go
to the seashore and pull the crab catcher. BBB was left alone with appellant,
who then perpetrated his lewd acts on her. BBB likewise testified that appellant
lived with them, thus making it possible for him to be near her and to molest
her even at night while she was sleeping. She also testified that she was
threatened by the accused who warned her not to tell anyone, or else her family
would be killed.[34]
Both the trial court and the CA found these defenses of
denial and alibi incredible. The testimony of the accused was riddled with
obvious inconsistencies. He denied knowing the victims, but eventually
identified AAA as his grandniece. His own testimony contradicted his alibi,
since he testified that from 2000 to 2002, he was residing in his brothers
house. This was where one of the rape incidents happened, and was even near the
house of the victims. On this point, we have stated previously:
To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.Physical impossibility "refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places."[35]
On its part, the prosecution was able to
show the existence of the elements of rape under the amended Revised Penal
Code, effectuated by R.A. No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which states:
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 otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
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.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Before and after the violations, the intimidation took the
form of threats that the victims family would be killed by the accused. The
accused also employed trickery and took advantage of his authority over his
grandnieces. Under these circumstances, the accused was able to have carnal
knowledge of BBB and commit a series of
sexual assaults against both her and AAA. The two incidents of rape against AAA
happened before she reached 12 years of age, she being 9 and 10 then. For those
incidents, proof of threats, force or intimidation, is not necessary.
As to damages, there is a need to modify the award of civil
indemnity in Criminal Case No. 02-584.
Contrary to the claim of the prosecution, the accuseds
relationship to the victims cannot be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. For relationship to
aggravate or qualify the crime of rape committed against a minor, the accused
must be a relative of the victim within the third civil degree.[36] As a brother of the victim's paternal
grandmother, he is but a relative within the fourth civil degree. This
relationship cannot qualify the crime as to merit the punishment of reclusion
perpetua to death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
Thus, the rape of BBB by means of carnal knowledge was simple rape, and the
amount of civil indemnity should be decreased from P75,000 to P50,000.
With respect to
the manner of rape committed against AAA twice and against BBB six times, which
was rape by digital insertion, jurisprudence from 2001 up to the present yields
the information that the prevailing amount awarded as civil indemnity to
victims of simple rape committed by
means other than penile insertion is P30,000.[37] We adhere to these precedents.
We note that
prior to the amendment of the law on rape, the act of inserting the finger,
with lewd designs, into the genital orifice of a girl or a non-consenting woman
falls under acts of lasciviousness. The
victim was awarded civil indemnity
likewise in the amount of P30,000.[38] In
amending the law and renaming the act as rape, there is a recognition
that the same evil, as that of conventional rape, is sought to be prevented. This was recognized in People v. Jalosjos[39]
when the Court awarded civil indemnity, for each digital insertion committed by
the accused against the victim, in the amount of P50,000 similar to
conventional rape. Subsequent decisions,
however, reverted to P30,000 the civil indemnity for the commission of
rape under Art. 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code.[40] We follow the latter in the present
case.
An
award of exemplary damages to AAA and BBB for all the instances of rape
committed by the accused against them is also warranted. In People
v. Alfredo[41],
the Court reiterated an earlier decision held that exemplary damages may be
awarded not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where
the circumstances of the case show a highly reprehensible conduct.[42] In the present case,
the circumstances show the higher degree of perversity of the accused. Instead of showing any remorse in abusing
children of tender age, he repeatedly committed the crime against the
victims. Worse, he even degraded them
before other people by making fun of the fact that their private parts were
already non-virginal, something that society sees as outrageous and uncommon
for their age. Surely, only a person who
is outrageously perverse can brag about his vulgarities to others with seeming
impunity. These are conducts and
dispositions that are abhorrent to the norms of a civilized society and should
be curtailed and discouraged. We apply
the Courts rationale in People v. Rayos[43],
wherein we held that Article 2229 of the Civil Code sanctions the grant of
exemplary or correction damages in order to deter the commission of similar acts in the future
and to allow the courts to mould behaviour that can have grave and
deleterious consequences to society.
In People
v. Alfredo[44],
the Court clarified that the basis of awarding exemplary damages on account of
a crime is not exclusively Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which provides that
in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of civil liability may be
imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances. The Court held as
that:
In much the
same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be
awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award.
Thus, in People v. Matrimonio, the Court imposed exemplary damages to deter
other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from
sexually abusing their own daughters. Also, in People v. Cristobal, the Court
awarded exemplary damages on account of the moral corruption, perversity and
wickedness of the accused in sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman.
Recently, in People of the
It must be noted that, in the said cases, the
Court used as basis Article 2229, rather than Article 2230, to justify the
award of exemplary damages. Indeed, to borrow Justice Carpio Morales words in
her separate opinion in People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par,
"[t]he application of Article 2230
of the Civil Code strictissimi juris in such cases, as in the present one,
defeats the underlying public policy behind the award of exemplary damages to
set a public example or correction for the public good."[45]
The
records reveal the accuseds perversity and moral corruption, which should not
be replicated in our society. To deter
such behavior, exemplary damages must be imposed on the accused as a warning to
those persons who are similarly disposed.
Regarding
the penalty of imprisonment, we find that a modification thereof is in
order. Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, reads:
Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
...
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
The
trial court failed to apply the proper penalty in Criminal Case No. 02-583, for
rape by sexual assault aggravated by the use of a knife, in imposing a maximum
of only 12 years of prision mayor instead of prision mayor to reclusion temporal
with a duration of six (6) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. We impose fifteen (15) years and four (4)
months of reclusion temporal.
As
to the minimum penalty required by the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the RTCs
Decision was appropriate. Article 61
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code states that the penalty next lower in
degree to a prescribed penalty of one or more divisible penalties imposed to
their full extent is that immediately following the lesser of the penalties.
The minimum of the penalty to be imposed is to be taken from within the entire
period of prision correccional, or six (6) months and one (1) day to six
(6) years. Considering the abhorrent
character of the crime committed and the innocence of the victim in Criminal
Case No. 02-583, we peg the minimum penalty at six (6) years of prision
correccional.
The sentence of imprisonment imposed in Criminal
Case Nos. 02-582, 02-584 to 02-588 and 02-590 will remain undisturbed.
IN
VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the assailed Decision of
the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused JONIE DOMINGUEZ is sentenced to
suffer the following:
a) In Criminal Case
No. 02-583, the indeterminate penalty of
six (6) years of prision
correccional as minimum, to fifteen (15) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal as maximum.
b) In Criminal Case
Nos. 02-582, 02-585, 02-586, 02-587, 02-588 and 02-590, the indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to
ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum for each count of rape; and
c) In Criminal Case No. 02-584, the indivisible
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Accused JONIE
DOMINGUEZ is further ordered to pay the following civil liabilities:
a) To
AAA:
1)
P30,000 as civil indemnity for each count of rape in Criminal
Case Nos. 02-582 and 02-583;
2)
P30,000 as moral damages for each count of rape in Criminal
Case Nos. 02-582 and 02-583; and
3)
P30,000.00 exemplary damages for each count of rape in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-582 and 02-583.
b) To BBB:
1)
P50,000 as civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. 02-584;
2)
P50,000 as moral damages in Criminal Case No. 02-584;
3)
P30,000 as civil indemnity for each count of rape in Criminal
Case Nos. 02-585, 02-586, 02-587, 02-588 and 02-590;
4)
P30,000 as moral damages for each count of rape in Criminal
Case Nos. 02-585, 02-586, 02-587, 02-588 and 02-590;
5)
P30,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-584, 02-585, 02-586, 02-587, 02-588 and 02-590.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
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 Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the Opinion of the Courts Division.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and concurred in by Associate Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Michael P. Elbinias.
[2] The accused signed as Diony Dominguez in the RTC Decision.
[3] The proper nomenclature is granduncle instead of grandfather.
[4] Records (Criminal Case 02-583) at 1.
[5]
[6] Records (Criminal Case 02-582) at 1.
[7] Records (Criminal Case No. 02-584) at 1.
[8] Supra note 6 at 3-8.
[9] Supra note 7.
[10] Records (Criminal Case No. 02-585) at 1.
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN, 13 May 2003, at 9-13.
[13]
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] Supra note 6 at 274-275.
[18] CA rollo, at 358-359.
[19] Rollo at 35-36.
[20]
[21] Supra note 18 at 232.
[22]
[23] People v. Gabayron, G.R. No. 102018,
[24]
[25] Supra note 18, at 318-319.
[26] TSN,
[27] Supra note 18, at 244-245.
[28] TSN,
[29] Supra note 6, at 17-18.
[30] People v. Lawa, G.R. Nos. 126147/143925-26,
[31] People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791,
[32] People v. Barde, G.R. No. 183094,
[33]
[34] Supra note 18, at 308-315.
[35] People v. Mosquerra, G.R. No. 129209, 9 August 2001, 362 SCRA 441, 450, citing People v. Saban, 319 SCRA 36, 46 (1999); People v. Reduca, 301 SCRA 516, 534 (1999), and People v. De Labajan, 317 SCRA 566, 575 (1999).
[36] Revised Penal Code, Art. 266-B (1).
[37] People v. Soriano, G.R. No.
142779-95,
[38] People v. Velasquez, G.R. Nos.
132635 & 143872-75,
[39] G.R. Nos. 132875-76,
[40] Supra note 37.
[41] G.R. No. 188560,
[42]
[43] G.R. No. 133823,
[44] Supra note 41.
[45]