Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus- PATRICIO TAGUIBUYA,
Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 180497 Present: LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN, *SERENO, JJ.: Promulgated: October 5, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
The accused was charged with two counts of
rape and a violation of Republic Act No. 7610,[1] committed against his own daughter,
AAA,[2]
then a minor. In the first instance of
rape (Criminal Case No. 2545), committed in the month of May 1998, the accused
allegedly forced AAA to have sexual intercourse when she was cleaning the rice
fields; she was then alleged to be a 15 year old minor and his own daughter.[3] In
the second instance of rape (Criminal Case No. 2546), which took place on
The accused, pleading not guilty at
his arraignment, denied the charges, claiming that AAA had fabricated them in
retaliation for his and his wifes refusal to allow her to go with her
boyfriend to
In its decision promulgated on
October 15, 2003,[6] the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
accorded credence to the testimony of AAA and found the accused guilty of two
counts of qualified rape due to AAA being a minor at the time of the commission
of the rapes and because he had admitted being her father. The RTC acquitted
him of the violation of Republic Act No. 7610 on the ground that the
information did not allege that AAA had been a child below eighteen years of
age but over twelve years. Accordingly, the RTC ruled:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Patricio Taguibuya:
In
Criminal Case No. 2545-Bg., GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified
rape defined in and penalized by Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended
and sentences him to suffer the Supreme Penalty of DEATH and to pay the
costs. The accused is hereby ordered to
pay the victim AAA, the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00)
Pesos as civil indemnity and Fifty
Thousand (P50,000.00)
Pesos by way of moral damages.
In
Criminal Case No. 2546-Bg., GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified
rape defined in and penalized by Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended
and sentences him to suffer the Supreme Penalty of DEATH and to pay the
costs. The accused is hereby ordered to
pay the victim AAA, the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00)
Pesos as civil indemnity and Fifty
Thousand (P50,000.00)
Pesos by way of moral damages.
In Criminal Case No. 2386-Bg., for failure of the prosecution to allege in the information that the victim is a child below eighteen years of age but over twelve years which is an essential element of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Republic Act No. 7610, the accused is hereby acquitted of the charge.
SO ORDERED.[7]
On
WHEREFORE,
in light of the foregoing, the appealed Joint
Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The
accused now appeals, assailing the convictions for their being solely based on
the testimony of AAA.
We
affirm.
To
begin with, the accused assails the factual findings of the RTC, including its
assessment of the worth of the witnesses who testified in the trial. We cannot,
however, contradict the factual findings, especially because the CA, as the
reviewing tribunal, affirmed them. Such findings are now entitled to great
weight and respect, if not conclusiveness, for we accept that the trial court
was in the best position as the original trier of the facts in whose direct
presence and under whose keen observation the witnesses rendered their
respective versions of the events that made up the occurrences constituting the
ingredients of the offenses charged. The direct appreciation of testimonial
demeanor during examination, veracity, sincerity and candor was foremost the
trial courts domain, not that of a reviewing court that had no similar access
to the witnesses at the time they testified.[11] Without the accused persuasively
demonstrating that the RTC and the CA overlooked a material fact that otherwise
would change the outcome, or misappreciated a circumstance of consequence in
their assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of their respective
versions, the Court has no ground by which to reverse their uniform findings as
to the facts.
And, secondly, the urging of the
accused, that the RTC and the CA should not have accorded faith to the evidence
of his guilt because the only witness presented to prove the accusations was
the victim herself, is unworthy of consideration. Such urging cannot acquit
him, considering that it is already settled that the accused in a prosecution
for rape can be convicted on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim
provided the victim and her testimony are credible, convincing, and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things.[12] Conviction or acquittal in a prosecution for
rape has often depended more often than not almost entirely on the credibility
of the victims testimony, for, by the very nature of the crime, the victim is
usually the only one who can testify on its occurrence. At any rate, we also
remind that in this jurisdiction the worth of witnesses has been based on their
quality, not on their quantity. Accordingly, the RTC correctly considered AAA
to be forthright and consistent in her recollection of the details of her
ordeals at the hands of her own father.
Nonetheless, there is a need to
rectify the judgment of the CA on the civil liabilities. The CA awarded only
the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00
for each of the two counts of rape, and said nothing about exemplary damages.
Its judgment was inadequate in that respect in the face of the prevailing law
and jurisprudence.
Civil indemnity is mandatory upon a
finding of the fact of rape; it is distinct from and should not be denominated
as moral damages, which are based on different jural foundations and assessed
by the court in the exercise of its discretion.[13] In contrast, moral damages are
granted to the victim in rape in such amount as the court shall deem just and
reasonable without the necessity of pleading or proof.[14] Indeed, the fact that the victim
suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological sufferings that
constituted the bases for moral damages is too obvious to still require the
recital of such sufferings by the victim at the trial; the trial court itself
assumes and acknowledges her agony as a gauge of her credibility.[15] To expect and to require her to
still provide the proof of her pains and sufferings is to demand that she
render a very superfluous testimonial charade.[16]
Exemplary damages, which are intended
to serve as deterrents to serious wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue
sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment
for those guilty of outrageous conduct,[17] are awarded under Article 2230 of
the Civil Code when the crime is
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[18]
In People v. Catubig,[19] the Court held that the term aggravating circumstances as used by the
Civil Code should be understood in
its broad or generic sense, not in the sense of prescribing a heavier
punishment on the offender; hence, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an
aggravating circumstance should be a distinction that was of consequence only
to the criminal, as contrasted from the civil, liability, thereby entitling the
offended party or victim to an award of exemplary damages regardless of whether
the aggravating circumstance was ordinary or qualifying.
Being the victim of two counts of
qualified rape, AAA, a minor and the daughter of the accused, was entitled to
recover for each count of rape the
amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral
damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages (due to the attendance of
the qualifying circumstances of minority
of AAA and the relationship between
her and the accused). The quantifications accord with jurisprudence.[20]
In crimes, interest may be
adjudicated in a proper case as part of the damages in the discretion of the
court.[21] The Court considers it proper to now
impose interest on the civil indemnities, moral damages and exemplary damages
being awarded in this case, considering that there has been delay in the
recovery. The imposition is hereby declared to be also a natural and probable
consequence of the acts of the accused complained of.[22]
The interest imposed is the legal rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this judgment.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS
the decision promulgated on March 20, 2007, subject to the MODIFICATION that accused Patricio Taguibuya is ORDERED TO PAY to AAA for each of the
two counts of qualified rape the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages, plus interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this judgment.
The accused shall pay the
costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MA. LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
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
* Vice Associate Justice Martin S.
Villarama, Jr., per raffle of September 12, 2011.
[1] Entitled An Act Providing For Stronger Deterrence And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination, Providing Penalties For Its Violation, And Other Purposes.
[2] Pursuant to Republic
Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act of 2004), and its implementing rules, the real name
of the victim and the real names of her immediate family members are withheld
and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her to protect her
privacy. See also People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[3] Rollo, pp. 3-23;
penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Castillo, and concurred in by Associate
Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a Member of the Court) and Associate
Justice Rosmari D. Carandang.
[4]
[5]
[6] CA rollo,
pp. 21-49.
[7]
[8] Supra,
note 3.
[9] Entitled An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the
[10] Supra, note 3.
[11] People v. Guanzon, G.R. No. 187077, February 23, 2011; People v, De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 306; People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547; People v. Taan, G.R. No. 169432, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 219, 230; Bricenio v. People, G.R. No. 157804, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 489, 496; People v. Pacheco,G.R. No. 142889, March 2, 2004, 424 SCRA 164, 174.
[12] People
v. Felan, G.R. No. 176631,
[13] People v. Bato,
G.R. 134939,
[14] People v. Arizapa, G.R. 131814,
[15] People
v. Prades, G. R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998; 293 SCRA 411, 430-431.
[16]
[17] People v. Garbida, G.R. No. 188569,
[18] Article 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
[19] G.R. No. 137842,
[20] E.g., People v. Soriano,
G.R. N. 142779-95,
[21] Article 2211, Civil Code.
[22] Article 2202, Civil Code, provides:
Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be
liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the
act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been
foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.