Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - PATERNO
SARMIENTO SAMANDRE, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 181497
Present: CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, VILLARAMA,
JR., MENDOZA,* and REYES,**
JJ. Promulgated: February
22, 2012 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
On
appeal is the Decision[1] dated
April 25, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02024, affirming
with modifications the Decision[2]
dated
Consistent with the ruling in People v. Cabalquinto[3]
and People v. Guillermo,[4] this Court withholds the real name of
the private offended party and her immediate family members, as well as such
other personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish or
compromise the identity of said party.
The initials AAA represent the private offended party and the initials
BBB refer to her mother.
Accused-appellant
was indicted for four counts of rape qualified by his relationship with and the
minority of AAA. The Informations read:
[Criminal
Case No. FC-3163]
That on or about 11:00 oclock in the evening of January
11, 2000, at the City of Santiago, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of threats and
intimidation and with lewd designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously lay with, and have carnal knowledge of [his] sixteen (16) year[s]
old daughter, [AAA] against her will to the damage and prejudice of [AAA].[5]
[Criminal
Case No. FC-3164]
That on or about 10:00 oclock in the evening of
January 12, 2000, at the City of Santiago, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of
threats and intimidation and with lewd designs, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously lay with, and have carnal knowledge of [his]
sixteen (16) year[s] old daughter, [AAA] against her will to the damage and
prejudice of [AAA].[6]
[Criminal
Case No. FC-3165]
That on or about January 14, 2000, at midnight in
the City of Santiago, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of threats and intimidation
and with lewd designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously lay with, and have carnal knowledge of [his] sixteen (16) year[s]
old daughter, [AAA] against her will to the damage and prejudice of [AAA].[7]
[Criminal
Case No. FC-3068]
That on or about 2:00 to 3:00 oclock in the early
morning of January 14, 2000 at Sinsayon, Santiago City, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of
threats and intimidation and by reason of his moral ascendancy and influence as
a father, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of his 16[-]year[-]old daughter, [AAA], against her will to
the damage and prejudice of the latter.[8]
On July 6, 2000, accused-appellant pleaded
not guilty to all charges and waived the pre-trial conference.[9] Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented the lone testimony
of AAA,[10] the
private offended party; and formally offered its documentary exhibits consisting
of AAAs Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Office of the City Civil
Registrar of Santiago City,[11]
the Medico-Legal Certificate[12] dated
January 17, 2000 issued by the Southern Isabela General Hospital, and AAAs Sworn
Complaint[13] dated
January 18, 2000. On the other hand, the
defense submitted the testimonies of accused-appellant[14] and
his sister, Mary Marquez.[15]
After trial, the RTC rendered its
Decision on
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing
considerations, the Court finds the accused Paterno Samandre y Sarmiento GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of rape and hereby sentences him to the
penalty of death in each of these four cases.
He is also ORDERED to pay [AAA] the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
in each of these cases.[16]
Considering that death penalty was imposed on accused-appellant by the
RTC Decision, said cases were directly elevated before us for automatic
review. The Public Attorneys Office
filed the Brief[17] for
accused-appellant on April 2, 2004, while plaintiff-appellee filed its Brief[18]
on August 10, 2004 through the Office of the Solicitor General.
In our Resolution[19]
dated
The
Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision dated
AAA was born on
In the evening of
On
The Court of Appeals also presented a summary of accused-appellants defenses,
to wit:
Accused-appellant
denied having molested AAA. He claimed
that on
Accused-appellants
sister, Mary Marquez, testified that accused-appellant stayed in her house at
Tukal, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya on
After its evaluation of the foregoing evidence, the Court of Appeals promulgated
its Decision on April 25, 2007 affirming accused-appellants conviction for the
four counts of rape, but modifying the penalty and awards for damages rendered against
him. The decretal portion of said
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the
Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Paterno Samandre y
Sarmiento is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in each case and
is likewise ordered to pay AAA, in each case, the amounts of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to
the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in each case.[23]
Hence, this appeal.
In a Resolution[24]
dated
In his lone assignment of error, accused-appellant professes his
innocence of the crimes charged. Accused-appellant
highlights the inconsistencies in AAAs testimony, particularly, on whether or
not she has a suitor/boyfriend.
Accused-appellant asserts that AAAs initial concealment of the fact
that she already has a boyfriend supports accused-appellants contention that
AAA accused him of rape so he could go to jail and no longer prevent AAA from
marrying her boyfriend.
The
Court sustains accused-appellants conviction for raping his minor daughter on
all four counts.
Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by
a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended
party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
In People v. Orillosa,[26] the
Court held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation
need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant,
who is private complainants father, would suffice.
The
prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant, taking
advantage of his moral ascendancy as a father, had carnal knowledge of his 16-year-old
daughter, AAA.
In
her Sworn Statement, executed in question-and-answer form, on January 18, 2000,
AAA narrated to Police Officer (PO) Arlyn Malabad Guray that she had been
sexually abused by her own father, accused-appellant, since she was 10 years
old, and the latest incidents took place in January 2000. Below are relevant portions of AAAs Sworn
Statement:
Q: What
prompted you to appear before the Office of the Investigation section?
A: To
file a complaint against my father Paterno Samandre, maam.
Q: What
is your complaint against Paterno Samandre?
A: He sexually
abused and molested me, maam.
Q: When
and where did the incident happened?
A: Since
when I was still 10 years old up to January 14, 2000 in our house and even in
the river bank, maam.
Q: How
many times did your father sexually abused/molested you?
A: He
did it for many times, maam.
Q: When
was the last time that your father sexually abused you?
A: On
Q: Will you
please narrate how the incident happened?
A: Sometime
on the year 1993 we were then living at Tucal, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, and I was
then grade 3, while I was in our house one daylight sewing my cloth, my mother
and younger brother and sister were out, my father came to me and wanted me to
lay down and he will do something to me.
Sensing that he is doing bad to me, I hesitated but forced me and laid
me down in a bed. He then went on top of
me and instructed me not to move. He is
then wearing short pants, he removed my panty in my one leg then he removed his
short pants and tried to insert his penis but I continuously move my body and
pushed him. He told me that the pain was
only in the beginning and later on the pain will no longer feel by me. He was able to insert partially his penis on
my vagina and when he is about to ejaculate he immediately removed his penis
and poured his semen in my vagina.
Q: What
did you feel then?
A: Very
painful, maam.
x x x x
Q: On
this month of January 2000, how many times did he abuse you?
A: Four
(4) times, maam. The last time was on
the dawn of
Q: Will
you please narrate what happened on the dawn of
A: On
January 13 at about
Q: After
the incident happened what did you do then?
A: I
cried, maam and at about 6:00 oclock in the morning of same date he told me that
we will go to Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, but we did not proceed to said place,
instead we proceeded at Sagat, Cordon, Isabela, at the house of my cousin Lilia
Tabuar. And at the evening of same date
at around
During
trial, AAA related more vividly her most recent sexual tribulations at the
hands of accused-appellant:
Q: In
the evening of
A: I was at our house inside a room, sir.
Q: What
were you doing inside that room of your house in that evening of
A: I was sleeping, sir.
Q: Who
was your companion, if any, at that time inside the room where you were
sleeping in the evening of
A: My father and my younger sister [CCC],
sir.
Q.
How old is [CCC]?
A. Six (6) years old, sir.
Q. What happened in the evening of
A. He woke me up, sir.
Q. Who woke you up?
A. My father, sir.
Q. After your father woke you up, what
happened?
A. He wanted to rape me, sir.
Q. And what did you do when your father
wanted to rape you?
A. I just did not say anything, sir.
Q. And when you did not say anything, what
happened next?
A. He got angry with me, sir.
Q. And what did he tell you when he got
angry at you?
A. He
told me that he will be going to hurt me because he is angry, sir.
x x x x
Q. And
after your father wanted to harm you in the evening of
A. He
went on top of me, sir.
Q. When
your father went on top of you, what did he do next, if any?
A. He
removed his short pants, sir.
Q. After
your father removed his short pants, what did he do next?
A. He
removed my short from one of my legs, sir.
Q. When
your father removed your short, what did you do?
A. He
spread one of my legs and inserted his penis, sir.
Q. Where
did your father insert his penis?
A. At my
vagina, sir.
Q. When
your father inserted his penis inside your vagina, what did you feel?
A. I
felt pain, sir.
Q. What
did you do when your father inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A. I
struggled and crying, sir.
Q. Why
did you cry and why did you struggle?
A. It is
painful, sir.
Q. And
after your father inserted his penis inside your vagina in the evening of
A. He
made push and pull movement, sir.
Q. And
what did you do when your father made a push and pull move?
A. I
kept on struggling and crying, sir.
Q. And
after that, what happened?
A. He
removed his penis, sir.
Q. And
after your father removed his penis, from where did he remove his penis?
A. From
my vagina, sir.
Q. After
your father removed his penis from your vagina, what did he do next, if any?
A. He
wiped it, sir.
Q. What
did your father wipe?
A. His
penis and my vagina, sir.
Q. And
what did you feel when your father removed his penis from your vagina?
A. It is
painful, sir.
Q. What
else, if any?
A. There
is something hot, sir.
Q. What
was that?
A. The
whitish substance that came out from his penis, sir.
Q. Where
did it go that whitish substance when you felt it was hot?
A. Over
my vagina, sir.
Q. After
that, what happened?
A. I
kept on crying, sir.
Q. Where
did your father go after he removed his penis from your vagina?
A. He
lied down and went to sleep, sir.
x x x x
Q. Now
what happened, if any, in the evening of
A. He
again raped me, sir.
x x x x
Q. You
are referring to your father, is that correct?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Where
did your father rape you again in the evening of
A. Inside
the room, sir.
x x x x
Q. So,
how did your father rape you in the evening of
A. It is
the same, he also woke me up, sir.
Q. When
your father woke you up in the evening of
A. I
just kept silent, sir.
Q. Why?
A. Because
I do not want him to repeat what he did to me, sir.
Q. After
your father woke you up in the evening of
A. He
got angry with me, sir.
x x x x
Q. After
your father got mad at you in the evening of
A. He
suddenly went on top of me, sir.
Q. And
what did your father do after he went on top of you?
A. He
again removed his short pants, sir.
Q. After
your father removed his short pants, what happened next?
A. He
also removed my short pants and inserted his penis into my vagina, sir.
Q. And
what did you feel when your father inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A. It is
painful, sir.
Q. What
did you do when your father inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A. I
cried, sir.
Q. What
did your father do after he was able to insert his penis inside your vagina?
A. He
made a push and pull movement, sir.
Q. After
that, what happened?
A. I
kept on crying, sir.[28]
AAA
went on to recall on the witness stand that accused-appellant committed the
same bestial deeds against her two more times, at around two and three oclock in
the morning of January 14, 2000.
AAA
further testified that she was only able to put an end to her ordeal when accused-appellant
brought her to Cordon, Isabela, to visit their relative, Lilia Tabuar (Lilia). In the evening of
AAAs
Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Santiago
City establishes that she was born on
The
Court cannot give much weight to accused-appellants defenses, constituting of
denial, alibi, and the imputation of ill motive on AAAs part in the filing of
the instant rape charges.
We
have decreed in People v. Nachor[29] that:
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.[30]
The
testimony of Mary Marquez (Mary), accused-appellants sister, did nothing to
corroborate accused-appellants alibi.
As his alibi, accused-appellant claimed that he slept and stayed at his
fathers house in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, from January 11, 2000 until the
morning of January 13, 2000. However, according
to Mary, accused-appellant stayed overnight at her house also in Solano, Nueva
Vizcaya, on January 11, 2000, and went home the very next day, on January 12,
2000. Mary admitted that her house is
quite far from their fathers house. Mary,
when confronted with these conflicting averments as to accused-appellants purported
whereabouts on January 11 to 13, 2000, remained silent and could not offer any
explanation for the same, thus:
Q: Madam
witness on the night of January 11, 2000 where did the accused Paterno Samandre
sleep?
A: In our house, sir.
Q: And
in the following morning that is on January 12, 2000, where did the accused go,
if you know?
A: He went home, sir.
x
x x x
Q: During
your direct examination you stated that your brother the accused in this case
went to your house on January 11, 2000, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what time, did he arrive at your
house on January 11, 2000?
A: At about 4:00 oclock, sir.
Q: In the afternoon?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When
he arrived in your house he likewise slept in your house in the evening of
January 11, 2000, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
x
x x x
Q: Now,
the house of your father is likewise located at Tukal, Nueva Vizcaya, is that
correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How far is the house of your father to
your house?
A: It is quite far, sir.
Q: What
time did your [brother] Paterno Samandre sleep in your house in the evening of
January 11, 2000?
A: About 7:30, sir.
Q: In the evening?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You are very sure of that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What time did he wake up?
A: 6:00 oclock, sir.
Q: When your brother Paterno Samandre
testified in this case madam witness he stated that he slept in the house of
your father in the evening of January 11, 2000, what can you say about that?
PROS.
DAMASEN:
I would like to make it on record
that the witness could not answer the question, your honor.
COURT:
Alright, put
there no answer.
PROS.
DAMASEN:
Q: Likewise when your brother testified in
this case he stated that he went to Solano and not to Tukal on January 11,
2000, what can you say about that?
x
x x x
COURT:
Never mind the
implication. So just ask the
question.
No answer also?
PROS.
DAMASEN:
No answer, your
honor.
COURT:
Put no answer.
PROS. DAMASEN:
Q: A
while ago on direct examination you stated that your brother the accused in
this case went home to Santiago City on January 12, 2000 from Tukal, Nueva
Vizcaya, is that correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Now, when your brother testified in this
case madam witness he stated that he went home here in Santiago City on January
13, 2000, what can you say about that?
A: Yes, he went home, sir.
Q: So
you are now changing your previous answer?
PROS.
DAMASEN:
May we spread on record, your
honor, that the witness is taking time to answer a very simple question.
No answer, your
honor.
COURT:
Alright, put no
answer.[31] (Emphases
supplied.)
The
inconsistencies in AAAs statements do not destroy her credibility. Whether or not AAA has a boyfriend does not have
any relevance to any of the essential elements of the crime of rape. The Court adopts the following disquisition
of the Court of Appeals on this matter:
As aptly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor
General in the appellees brief, the initial denial by AAA that she has a
boyfriend is immaterial as it has no bearing whatsoever on the essential
elements of rape or the identity of the perpetrator. Settled is the rule that inconsistencies in
the testimonies of witnesses that refer to minor or insignificant details do
not destroy the witnesses credibility.
Moreover, no evidence was presented by accused-appellant to support his
claim that AAA wanted to marry her boyfriend, Freddie Fragata, and that the
latter is married. Thus, the motive
imputed by accused-appellant on AAA for wanting him to be jailed is too tenuous
to be given credence. As held in People v. Torres:
The attempt of accused-appellant to impute
ill-motive on complainant for fabricating the charge of rape against him cannot
succeed. Not a few persons accused of
rape have attributed the charges brought against them to resentment or revenge,
but such alleged motives have not prevented the Court from lending full
credence to the testimony of a complainant who remained steadfast throughout
her direct and cross-examination. Given
the naivete of complainant who was only 14 years old at the time of the
incident, we are hard put to believe that she could have concocted a tale of
pure fantasy, if only to get back at her father for not allowing her to live
and study in Manila. Well-settled is the
doctrine that no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape, particularly
against her alleged father, if such were not the truth, or if justice was not
her sole objective. The revelation of a
young girl that she was sexually abused cannot be easily dismissed as a mere
concoction, considering her willingness to undergo a public trial and relate
the details of her defilement. Normally,
no woman would be willing to undergo the arduous stages and embarrassing
consequences of a rape trial, if not to condemn an injustice and obtain
retribution.
We thus agree with the following observations of the
court a quo:
What does it take for a young daughter to wish her
father to stay in jail possibly for the rest of his life or even executed to
death? Certainly not for the reason that
her father refused to let her marry someone.
According to the accused in this case his daughter charged him of raping
her because he scolded her and prohibited her to marry her boyfriend who is a
married man. This is absurd especially
as he did not try to show that his daughter has evil ways.
x x x x
What lends credence to her accusation is that she
immediately reported the matter at the first chance she had. Unfortunately not to her mother because
according to her she did not have a chance to do so because her father was
always around watching her. This turned
out to be right because it happened that her mother was fool enough to side
with her husband when the denouncement was made. [AAA] reported the matter to her cousin (or
aunt) Lilia Tabuar when her father brought her to Cordon, Isabela, on January
19, (sic) 2000.[32]
In
People v. Crespo, [33] we emphasized:
It bears stressing once again that no woman would
concoct a story of defloration, allow the 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. It is settled jurisprudence that when a woman
says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show
that rape was indeed committed. A woman
would think twice before she concocts a story of rape, especially against her own
father, unless she is motivated by a patent desire to seek justice for the
wrong committed against her.
The
issue of credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed to the province
of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that
elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand
while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts[34]
and [a]bsent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the
trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally
bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and
circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when
considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[35] The Court of Appeals further affirmed the
findings of the RTC. In this regard, it is settled that when the findings of
the trial court have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are
generally conclusive and binding upon this Court. [36] The Court finds no compelling reason herein to
deviate from said findings.
Finally,
the Court adopts the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals upon
accused-appellant but modifies the damages awarded to AAA. With the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346,
the Court of Appeals properly imposed upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole for each of the four (4) counts of qualified rape for which he is
hereby convicted. In line with current
jurisprudence, however, accused-appellant is liable to pay AAA for each of the
four (4) counts of qualified rape the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00)
as civil indemnity, another Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as
moral damages, and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary
damages.[37] Exemplary damages should be awarded in order
to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from
preying upon their young daughters.[38]
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated April 25, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02024 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION. Paterno Samandre y Sarmiento is found
GUILTY of four (4) counts of qualified rape for which he is sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each count without eligibility for parole and ordered to pay AAA the amounts of
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity,
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages, and Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, for every count, with interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
No
cost.
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate
Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate
Justice |
|
* Per Raffle dated February 1, 2012.
** Per Special Order No. 1203-A dated February 17, 2012.
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-14; penned by
Associate Justice
[2] CA rollo, pp. 23-30; penned
by Judge Fe Albano
[3] G.R. No. 167693,
[4] G.R. No. 173787,
[5] CA rollo, p. 11.
[6] Id. at 13.
[7] Id. at 15.
[8] Id. at 9.
[9] Records,
pp. 19-20.
[10] TSN, August 17 and 24, 2000 and October 5, 2000.
[11] Records, p. 7.
[12]
[13]
[14] TSN, May 28, 2001.
[15] TSN,
September 27, 2001.
[16] CA rollo, p. 30.
[17] Id.
at 60-73.
[18]
[19]
[20] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[21] Rollo, pp. 6-7.
[22] Id. at 7-8.
[23] Id. at 13.
[24] Id.
at 20.
[25]
[26] G.R.
Nos. 148716-18,
[27] Records, pp. 4-5.
[28] TSN, August 17, 2000, pp. 8-18.
[29] G.R.
No. 177779, December 14, 2010, 638 SCRA 317.
[30] Id. at 333.
[31] TSN,
September 27, 2001, pp. 5-15.
[32] Rollo, pp. 9-11.
[33] G.R.
No. 180500, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA 613, 640.
[34]
People v. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756,
[35]
[36] People v. Nogpo, Jr., G.R. No. 184791,
April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 725, 748.
[37] People
v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641,
[38] People v. Blancaflor, 466 Phil. 87, 103 (2004).