Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - JOSELITO ORJE y BORCE, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 189579 Present: VELASCO, JR., J.,
Chairperson, PERALTA, BERSAMIN,* ABAD,
and VILLARAMA,
JR.,** JJ. Promulgated: September
12, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the August 10, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03234, which affirmed the February 4, 2008 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 106 in Quezon City, in Criminal Case No.
Q-05-136600. The RTC found accused Joselito Orje guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Facts
The information
charging the accused with rape reads as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of September, 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, being then the father, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation have sexual intercourse with one [AAA],[1] his own daughter, a minor 16 years old, inside their residence located at [XXX], this City, against her will and without consent, thereby degrading or demeaning the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said offended party as a human being.
CONTRARY TO LAW. [2]
Accused
pleaded not guilty to the above charge. During
the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following relevant facts:
(1) AAA is accuseds biological
daughter;
(2) AAA was only 16 years old at the
time of the alleged rape incident, subject to the presentation of her original
certificate of live birth; and
(3) Accused and AAA were staying in
the same house at the time of the alleged incident.
The prosecution later presented AAAs
Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit E).[3]
Version of the Prosecution
At the trial, the prosecution presented,
as witnesses, AAA and medico-legal officer Police Inspector Edilberto Antonio
(P/Insp. Antonio).
AAA
testified sleeping in their house and waking up at around six oclock in the
evening of September 1, 2005 with the feeling of something heavy pressing on her
body. It turned out to be her father, the accused, on top of her. At that
point, accused proceeded to strip her of her shorts, then her underwear and
then inserted his penis into her vagina. She attempted to shout and struggled
to break free, but her efforts proved futile at the start as he was holding her
hands and covering her mouth at the same time. Eventually, however, she succeeded in extricating
herself and got hold of a chair which she threw at the accused.[4]
AAA
further narrated that two days after that harrowing incident, accused slapped her
for arriving home late. Thereafter, AAA repaired
to her bedroom and took a bath. As she was combing her hair after her bath, accused
suddenly came up from behind and started to fondle her breasts. This turn of events
prompted AAA to run to her cousin (BBB) for help and, in the latters house, AAA
confided what she had just gone through. BBB informed her parents who, in turn,
reported the matter to the police. Accuseds arrest followed.[5]
AAA
also testified that, apart from the above incidents, accused also molested her
in December 2003 and again on March 15, 2004. She, however, kept both painful episodes
to herself out of fear that her father would make good on his threat to kill
her mother. AAA likened the abuse she received in the hands of her father to
being treated as a prostitute. On the witness stand, she stated wanting her
father to land in jail for what he had done to her. [6]
Marked
as Exhibit B and adduced in evidence was Medico-Legal Report No. M-3314-05
dated September 9, 2005, containing, among others, the following entries:
Findings: hymen, Presence of deep healed laceration at 2, 4, 7 or 8 oclock
position. Conclusion: Genetal [sic] examination [conducted on AAA] shows clear
evidence of penetrating trauma.[7] This
means, according to P/Insp. Antonio, that something entered or was inserted
into AAAs vagina causing lacerations. The depth of the hymenal lacerations indicates,
so P/Insp. Antonio testified, a forceful insertion or penetration of something into the vagina.[8]
Version of the Defense
The
defense called to the witness stand AAA who earlier executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay (hereinafter
referred to also as affidavit of desistance), in which she expressed her desire
to desist from pursuing the sham case against her father. As she explained
while testifying this time, the rape incidents never happened. AAA pointed to
her aunt, CCC, as having compelled her to falsely accuse her father to get back
at him for leaving the family when AAA
was barely nine years old. AAA also testified
being mad at the appellant for the slap she got after arriving home late one rainy night.[9]
Dated
December 16, 2005, the Sinumpaang
Salaysay partly reads as follows:
Na aking pong iniuurong ang aking habla sa aking ama na si Joselito Orge [sic], sa kasong rape;
Na wala pong katotohanan ang aking habla laban sa kanya. Na ang lumabas na positibong resulta tungkol sa pagkapilas ng aking pagkababae ay gawa naming ng aking kasintahan;
Na mahal ko po ang aking mga magulang, na ang aking habla laban sa aking ama ay dahil lamang sa galit sa kanya matapos na akoy kanyang pagalitan;
Na ako po ay handing magpatawad sa aking ama sa kanyang nagawa sa akin at akoy handa naring humingi ng tawad sa kanya sa aking mga kamalian;
Na ang aking sinumpaang salaysay ay buong puso kong lalagdaan ng walang pananakot, pangako o ano mang katumbas na halaga kapalit na pag-urong ko sa habla.[10]
The Rulings of the RTC and CA
On February 4, 2008, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, disposing as follows:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, accused JOSELITO ORJE y BORCE is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE under Art. 266-A, in relation to R.A. 7610, and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA without eligibility for parole; to pay the private complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. No costs.
SO ORDERED.[11]
The trial court appreciated in its Decision the twin qualifying
aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship.
On appeal, the CA affirmed[12]
the RTCs Decision, noting AAAs unequivocal testimony in court while
responding to questions from the prosecuting fiscal on the rape incidents. For reasons articulated in its Decision dated
August 10, 2009, the CA, just like the RTC, gave short shrift to AAAs
recantation.[13]
On August 24, 2009, accused filed a Notice of Appeal, which the
CA gave due course to
and directed the elevation of the records to this Court. In response to a
Resolution for the submission of supplemental briefs, if they so desired, the
parties, by separate manifestations, informed the Court that they are no longer
submitting supplemental briefs, but are each maintaining their positions and arguments
in their respective briefs filed with the CA.
The Issue
The sole issue, as raised and argued
before the CA, boils down to the question of whether or not the prosecution has
established accused-appellants guilt beyond the reasonable doubt.
This Courts Ruling
It should be stressed at the outset that while
it is not a trier of facts and is not wont to winnow and re-asses anew the
evidence adduced below, it still behooves the Court, in criminal cases falling
under its review jurisdiction pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5(2) of the
Constitution,[14] to take
a careful and hard look at the testimony given in rape cases. The Court is
constantly mindful of the pernicious consequences that a rape charge bears on
both the accused and the private complainant.[15] It
exposes both to humiliation, hatred and anxieties, more so if the element of
kinship comes into the picture. And to
stress familiar dicta, an accusation for rape can be made with facility, albeit
difficult to prove, but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to
disprove, and that conviction in rape cases usually rests solely on the basis
of the testimony of the offended party.[16] This
attitude of caution and circumspection becomes all the more compelling in this
case in light of the recantation of a key witness, the victim herself.
We deny the appeal.
The following are the elements of
rape as provided under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the accused
accomplished such act (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when
the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the
victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.[17]
In determining whether the elements of
rape have been established by the prosecution, courts recognize that conviction
or acquittal depends almost always entirely on the credibility of the victims
testimony, the crime being ordinarily perpetrated in seclusion[18]
and only the participants can testify as to its occurrence.[19]
Hence, the matter of AAAs credibility
is front and foremost before the Court.
That
credibility, accused-appellant urges, has been shattered to pieces by her
recantation of her previous testimony. The Court is not persuaded.
When called by the prosecution to
testify on January 20, 2006, AAA pointed at accused-appellant as the person who
raped her. There can be no mistake about the identification as she and accused-appellant
were family, living under the same roof. Her testimony, as uniformly found by
the trial and appellate courts, was clear, categorical and straightforward and withstood
an intense cross-examination. It was observed, too, that consistency on
material points marked her recollection of the details of the sexual
molestation, including how she struggled, at that precise time, to free herself
from her fathers hold. Her claim of being a rape victim found corroboration by
the medical findings of the examining medico-legal officer. We reproduce a
portion of AAAs direct testimony on January 20, 2006:
Fiscal Mangente
Q On September 1, 2005, about 6:00 oclock in the evening do you recall if there was any unusual incident that happened?
A There was.
Q Where were you then at that particular date and time?
A I was at home.
Q Could you tell us what was that unusual incident [that] happened while you were inside your residence?
A I was then sleeping and my siblings [were] outside the house. My father was inside the house and it was me and my father who were inside the house.
Q Could you tell this court where you were living then?
A x x x x
Q What happened while you were sleeping in your house with your father?
A I felt that he suddenly approached me and put himself on top of me.
Q When you realized that your father [was] putting himself on top of you what did you do if any?
A I was struggling and while I was struggling he held my two hands and I was not able to move anymore.
Q What other things did your father do aside from putting his hands in your mouth?
ATTY ALMONTE
There was no mention that the hands of the accused [were] put in the mouth, what was stated by the witness was he held her hands and [she] was not able to move.
FISCAL MANGENTE
Q After holding your hands what other things did accused do if any?
A He closed my mouth [with] his hands and I felt that his private part was put inside my private part.
Q [Did] you have any clothing at the time that you said your father was putting his private part [in] your private part?
A Yes, sir.
Q Could you tell us what was your clothing at that time?
A T-shirt.
Q And how about underwear?
A Short[s].
Q So, while your father was doing that to you what did you do?
A I was crying.
Q Did you shout for help?
A I could not shout because one of his hands covered my mouth.
Q So, after that incident what did you do, if any?
A I [ran] away from him.[20]
We fully agree with the findings of
the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that accused-appellant sexually abused AAA in
the early hours of the evening of September 1, 2005. Both courts were correct
in giving credence to AAAs positive testimony the first time around
notwithstanding her retraction of her previous testimonies and the allegations
contained in her affidavit of desistance. Indeed, there is no cogent reason to deviate
from their findings as to AAAs credibility as a prosecution witness and the
weight and value they accorded her sworn accounts.
Rape is no longer considered a personal criminal
offense listed as among the crimes against chastity defined and punishable under Title 11 of the RPC, as amended.
Republic Act No. (RA) 8353, or the Anti-Rape
Law of 1997, has reclassified rape as a crime against persons.[21] In effect, rape may now be prosecuted de oficio; a complaint for rape commenced
by the offended party is no longer necessary for its prosecution.[22] As corollary
proposition, an affidavit of desistance by the complaining witness is not, by
itself, a ground for the dismissal of a rape action over which the court has
already assumed jurisdiction.[23]
Courts look with disfavor on
affidavits of desistance and/or retraction.[24] In
People v. Bation, We explained why:
x x x [An affidavit of desistance] can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for monetary considerations and because it is quite incredible that after going through the process of having the accused apprehended by the police, positively identifying him as the rapist, and enduring humiliation and examination of her private parts, the victim would suddenly declare that the wrongful act of the accused does not merit prosecution.[25]
And
still another reason:
[A]n affidavit of desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the accuseds defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and accepted by the judge.[26] (Emphasis added.)
Accused-appellant
cannot plausibly bank on AAAs affidavit of desistance, complemented by her
testimony for the defense, as an exonerating vehicle for his dastardly act. Other
than the retraction or desistance affidavit, nothing in the records would show
any other circumstance of substance accepted by the trial court that would
becloud the veracity of AAAs earlier inculpating testimony.
As
long as the complaining witness musters the test of credibility and
consistency, her testimony deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be
discarded. And if such testimony is clear and credible to establish the crime
beyond reasonable doubt, a conviction of rape based on it may lie even if she
subsequently retracted her earlier testimony. So it must be here. As We
ruled:
A retraction x x x is exceedingly unreliable for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be repudiated. It can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or monetary consideration. Like any other testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of the witness on the stand.[27]
As
the appellate court correctly held, citing case law, AAAs testimony deserves
full credence, notwithstanding her subsequent retraction. We are reproducing
with approval what the CA wrote in this regard:
Mere retraction by a witness or complainant of her testimony does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony or statement. x x x The previous testimony and the subsequent one must be carefully compared and the circumstances under which each was given and the reason and motives for the change carefully scrutinized. The veracity of each statement or testimony must be tested by the credibility of the witness, which is left for the judge to decide. Only when there exists special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement given, can a retraction be considered and upheld. x x x
In this case, AAA alleged in her affidavit of desistance that she fabricated the case against her father because she got angry when he slapped her for [coming] x x x home late at night and that she was just induced and forced by her aunt, CCC, to file a case for rape because the latter was so mad at her father for leaving her mother for eight (8) years. We do not agree. It must be emphasized that a daughter, especially one in her minority, would not accuse her own father of such unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not been aggrieved. AAA withstood all the rigors of the case. x x x If it was true that she merely made up the charge, she should have been bothered by her conscience at the sight of her father in prison. It was only when she returned to her familys custody that she made the retraction. Before that, she maintained her story that she was raped and withstood cross-examination.
As to the allegation that her aunt only forced her to file a complaint for rape, it should be noted that it was AAA who sought for her cousins [CCCs daughter] help and not the other way around. x x x During her testimony, [AAA] was always accompanied by the DWSD social worker and not once did CCC appear when AAA was testifying. Besides no aunt x x x would possibly wish to stamp a minor falsely with the stigma that follows rape only for the purpose of punishing someone for a flimsy reason that doesnt even concern her personally.[28]
Indeed, a daughter angered by a
single slapping incident and an aunt who wishes to get back at a brother-in-law
for abandoning his family would not typically go so far as to falsely accuse a
man of rape. Normal human experience does not support such behavioral decisions
of frightful implication consequence. Given the stigma of a public trial where
the humiliating details of sexual molestation and the embarrassing findings of
the medical-legal are laid bare before the court, it is, to be sure,
unthinkable, if not entirely preposterous, for a daughter of tender years to concoct
a tale of rape against her own father if her motive were other than to have the
culprit punished.
But the trial court gave the simple
but arguably the more compelling reason why AAAs affidavit of desistance
should altogether be rejected. According to the RTC, AAA executed the document on
December 16, 2005, or two months after the rape incident happened. Yet, when
AAA testified on January 20, 2006 against accused-appellant, no mention was
made whatsoever of the affidavit, much less of its contents which
attributed her loss of virginity to what
she and her purported boyfriend did together. During her January 20, 2006
testimony, AAA minced no words in venting her anger against accused-appellant
and about her wish to see him in prison as a consequence of a guilty verdict.
AAAs responses to the public prosecutors questions speak for themselves:
FISCAL MANGENTE: Q: How do you express yourself about what you felt about your father? A: I am ashamed.
Q: After your father have done this to you and you know that there will legal consequences, if ever the court would be able to decide this case and your father will be convicted and there will be a penalty imposed on him you are still willing to push through with the complaint of yours? A: Yes sir
Q: Why? A: Because of what he did to me sobrang baboy.
Q: And you could not forgive your father .? A: I can forgive my father but I cannot accept that he is going to be free. I want him to be imprisoned.[29]
In
all, the commission of rape by accused-appellant has been sufficiently established.
As earlier indicated, the parties have stipulated during the pre-trial that
AAA, then 16 years of age when the incident occurred, is accused-appellants
biological daughter. AAAs age and her relationship with accused-appellant were
alleged in the information and AAA testified to these facts. Thus, the RTC
correctly convicted accused-appellant of qualified rape as defined and
penalized by Art. 266-B of the RPC, thus:
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 x x x
With
the abolition of the death penalty by RA 9346, the penalty for qualified rape
is reclusion perpetua. The imposition
of the penalty of reclusion perpetua by
the RTC without eligibility for parole is correct.
Pecuniary Liability
The
Court affirms the award of PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity and PhP 75,000 as
moral damages. Civil indemnity ex delicto
is mandatory on the finding that rape was committed, while moral damages are
assessable upon such finding without need of proof.[30]
The presence of aggravating circumstance entitles the offended party to
exemplary damages. Thus, We also affirm the award for exemplary damages, but,
pursuant to established jurisprudence, in the amount of PhP 30,000,[31]
up from the PhP 25,000 fixed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03234 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amount of exemplary damages is increased to PhP 30,000.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN ROBERTO
A. ABAD
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.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
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
* Additional member per Raffle dated September 7, 2011.
** Additional member per Special Order
No. 1076 dated September 6, 2011.
[1] The name and other personal circumstances tending to establish the victims identity and those of her immediate family are 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; 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; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[12] Rollo, p. 14. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court) and Romeo F. Barza.
[13]
[14] SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have
the following powers: x x x (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on
appeal or certiorari x x x final judgments and orders of lower court: x x x (d)
All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed in reclusion perpetua or higher.
[18] People v. Macapagal, Jr., G.R. No.
155335, July 14, 2005, 463 SCRA 387.
[24] People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 178325, February 22, 2008, 546 SCRA 514, 521; citing People v. Alicante, 388 Phil. 233, 258 (2000).
[29]
TSN, January 20, 2006, pp. 2-8.
[30] People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 173471, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 655.