Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
VICTOR RONDINA, |
|
G.R. No. 179059 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* |
|
|
|
Acting Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VILLARAMA, JR., and |
|
|
|
PERLAS-BERNABE,** JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
June 13, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
Sadly, this is yet another case of a
lass pitilessly stripped of her innocence.
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari,
petitioner Victor Rondina (Victor) assails the Decision[1] dated July 24, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00185 which affirmed with
modification the Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC),
Factual
Antecedents
On March 29, 1999, the City Prosecution Office of Ormoc City filed
with
the
RTC an Information[3]
charging Victor as follows:
That on or about the 15th
day of July 1998, at around 4:00 oclock in the afternoon, at DDD, [Ormoc
City], and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused: VICTOR RONDINA, being then armed with a knife and by means of
force, threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge [of] the complainant herein, AAA[4] -
a sixteen (16) year old lass, against her will.[5]
On arraignment, Victor pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged.[6] Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued.
Version of the
Prosecution
In 1998, AAA was a young girl of
16 who was in second year high school. The
youngest and the only girl among a brood of four, she lived with her parents
and siblings in a rented house located in DDD,
On July 15, 1998, AAA, upon
arriving home from school at around 4:00 p.m., immediately proceeded to the toilet
to defecate. The said toilet, constructed
of hollow blocks with G.I.-sheet roofing, had only a tie-wire as lock. It was located outside AAAs house and was
being used as a communal toilet by the occupants of nearby houses.
Once
inside, AAA immediately took off her panty and relieved herself, forgetting
to lock the door.[7] After washing her anus, AAA was surprised
when Victor, a neighbor, suddenly entered the toilet with only a towel covering
himself from the waist down. Victor immediately removed the towel from his
waist as well as his brief. He then
poked a knife on AAAs neck, covered her mouth and threatened her by saying
[d]ont ever tell anybody otherwise I will kill your parents, your siblings
including yourself.[8] Because her mouth was covered, AAA was not
able to shout.[9]
Victor ordered AAA to stand
against the wall with her hands on both sides[10] and forcefully inserted
his penis into AAAs vagina.[11] AAA felt pain.[12] After a while, she felt a liquid-like
substance discharged from Victors penis.[13] When Victor had already satisfied his bestial
desire, he again wrapped the towel around his waist[14] and before getting out of
the toilet uttered do not tell your mother or else I will kill you.[15]
AAA did not immediately tell
anyone of her misfortune and just kept on crying. However, it came to the point where she could
no longer keep silent so that a few months after the incident, AAA finally told
her mother BBB that Victor raped her.[16]
When BBB
had AAA examined by physicians, it was discovered that aside from having
healed hymenal lacerations, AAA was more or less six months pregnant, viz:
OB-GYNE NOTES
G1 P0 LMP July, 1998 (1st week)
EDC April, 1999 (2nd week)
Abdomen soft, uterus palpable with fundal height of 23 cms.
Fetal heart tone not appreciated
Quickening noted December, 1998
Visual Vulva Examination pubic
hair - present
no
inflammations - noted.
no
fresh lacerations.
hymen
with healed lacerations at the 3 oclock,
5
oclock and 9 o clock positions
Vaginal opening admits
two examining fingers freely
Pelvic Ultrasound Result: Single live intrauterine pregnancy
with
mean
AOG of 24 weeks and 2 days by BPD
and
FL.[17]
Hence,
Victor was charged with the crime of rape.
During the pendency of the proceedings and after about nine months from
the date of the alleged incident, AAA gave birth to a baby girl, CCC, on
May 1, 1999.
Version of the
Defense
Victor interposed the defense of
denial and alibi. He averred that he
could not have raped AAA at 4:00 oclock in the afternoon of July 15, 1998
because during that time, he was in a cockpit in Brgy. Macabug,
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
With two conflicting versions before
it, the RTC declared the issue to be one of credibility, that is, whether AAAs
claim that she was raped by Victor vis--vis the latters denial and alibi, is credible,
convincing and satisfactory as to hold the latter guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape.[21]
In resolving the case, the court
held that the prosecution was able to duly establish all the elements of rape. It gave much credence to AAAs testimony
since it observed that the latter, despite some inconsistencies in her
testimony during trial, narrated her travails at the hands of Victor in an
earnest, spontaneous and straightforward manner. She was able to give all the core elements of
rape in her narration. As to the
inconsistencies, the RTC chose to brush them aside as it found them to be minor
inconsistencies which only tend to bolster rather than weaken the rape victims
credibility as they show that her testimony was not contrived.[22] The RTC then declared itself convinced that
the prosecution, by its own evidence, was able to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence,
the dispositive portion of its Judgment[23] dated
WHEREFORE, after considering all the
foregoing, the Court finds the accused Victor Rondina GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape as charged in the information and, accordingly,
without any finding as to mitigating and aggravating circumstances, hereby
sentences him to suffer imprisonment of Forty (40) years reclusion perpetua, to
pay the offended party the sum of P75,000.00 as indemnity, P50,000.00
as moral damages, and costs; also to acknowledge the offspring [CCC] and to
give her support.
x
x x x
SO
ORDERED.[24]
Victor
filed a Notice of Appeal[25] which was granted by the RTC in its
Order[26] of June 28, 2000. After the elevation of the records of the
case, this Court accepted the appeal on
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
In his brief,[30] Victor averred that the RTC should not have
given full faith and credence to AAAs testimony for the following reasons:
(1) AAA reported the crime only after five months from its alleged occurrence;
(2) the rape could not have been committed in the said toilet because of the
presence of the occupants of nearby houses; (3) it was unimaginable and
improbable to commit the rape in the manner and position narrated by AAA; (4)
AAAs testimony was full of inconsistencies; and (5) AAA was impelled by
other motive in filing the charge against him.
The CA, however, found no compelling
reason to depart from the RTCs ruling.
Aside from reducing the award of civil indemnity from P75,000.00
to P50,000.00, it affirmed the trial courts judgment in all other
respects in a Decision[31] dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, except for the MODIFICATION in the award of civil
indemnity as aforementioned, the trial courts Decision dated June 7, 2000 is
hereby AFFIRMED as to all other respects.
SO ORDERED.[32]
Hence, Victor comes to this Court to seek a
reversal of his conviction.
Assignment
of Errors
Victor ascribes upon the lower courts the
following errors:
1.
The Honorable Court of
Appeals and the Honorable Regional Trial Court committed serious error of law
and grave abuse of discretion when it did not apply the ruling of this
Honorable Supreme Court in PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CRISPIN T. RUALES
[G.R. No. 149810, August 28, 2003] to the effect that due to the nature of the
crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution and that the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
2.
The Honorable Court of
Appeals and the Honorable Regional Trial Court committed serious error of law
and grave abuse of discretion when it did not apply the ruling of this
Honorable Supreme Court in PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. APAT [114 SCRA 620]
which ruling is squarely applicable to the facts in the present case;
3.
The Honorable Court of
Appeals and the Honorable Regional Trial Court committed serious error of law
and grave abuse of discretion when it declared that the petitioner x x x failed
to show any improper motive on the part of the private complainant, which would
have prompted the latter to file false claims against the petitioner;
4.
The Honorable Court of
Appeals and the Honorable Regional Trial Court committed serious error of law
and grave abuse of discretion when it merely brushed aside the alibi of the
petitioner not taking into account that while alibi may be considered a weak
defense, such alibi could work to exculpate the petitioner as such alibi is the
truth and is sufficiently corroborated;
5.
The Honorable Court of
Appeals and the Honorable Regional Trial Court committed serious error of law
and grave abuse of discretion when it rendered and affirmed a judgment of
conviction despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.[33]
Our Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit.
The lower courts
did not err in giving full faith and credence to AAAs testimony.
Victor avers that the lower courts, in resolving the case,
failed to apply the Courts pronouncement in People v. Ruales,[34]
viz;
In deciding rape
cases, we have been guided by the following well-established principles: (a) an
accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) due to the
nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c)
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.[35]
The Court had
consistently acknowledged that [a]t the core of almost all rape cases, the
credibility of the victims testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic
nature of the crime where only the participants therein can testify to its
occurrence.[36] Hence, the testimony of the complainant must
be examined with extreme care for, whether the case results in conviction or in
acquittal, the final outcome would almost invariably be dependent on what the victim
declares and on how she has stood and comported herself at the witness stand
during questioning.[37]
We have carefully
examined the records of this case and hold that the lower courts did not commit
reversible error in according superior weight to AAAs testimony.
It is worthy to note
that before AAA was put on the witness stand, the RTC directed the Department
of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to cause her to be subjected to a
psychological examination.[38] This was due to the prosecutions claim that AAA
was then emotionally unstable. In
compliance therewith, the DSWD submitted to the court the result of the
Psychiatric Evaluation and Mental Status Examination[39]
performed upon AAA indicating that she was suffering from organic brain disease
which is mental retardation. She could,
however, undergo trial albeit with assistance because of her sub-average
general intellectual functioning.[40]
Notwithstanding AAAs
mental condition, the Court notes that she was still able to recount the
details of her traumatic experience in a credible, convincing and
straightforward manner and therefore her testimony bears the ring of truth. She testified as follows:
Q: You said that you were
already inside the toilet, what did you do inside?
A: I defecated.
x x x x
Q: While you were inside what
happened?
A: He inserted his penis [into]
my vagina.
Q: To whom are you referring the
pronoun he?
A: Victor.
Q: Are you referring to the
accused in this case Victor Rondina?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Are you telling us that he
went inside the toilet?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: Where [did] this incident
[take] place[,] his insertion of his penis into your vagina?
A: Inside the toilet.
Q: What was your position when
he inserted his penis [into] your female organ?
A: He made me lean against the
wall.
Q: You mean to say that you were
in the standing position?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you not resist x x x the
sexual advances of the accused.
A: I resist[ed].
Q: In what manner?
A: He told me, do not kuan
because [youre still young and Im old].
Q: What do you mean by saying
the word dont?
A: What I mean is that, when I
was in the toilet, I was poked with a knife and I was not able to shout because
my mouth was covered.
Q: In what part of your body was
the knife being poked?
A: In my neck. (And the witness
pointed to [the] left side of her neck.)
Q: Did you see the weapon.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you
please describe to us the length and the size of the weapon?
COURT INTERPRETER:
The witness estimated the
length at about 5 inches.
Q: That excludes the handle?
A: It does not.
Q: So that size consist[s] only
of the blade?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did he say anything when he
poked the knife in your neck?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Would you recall what [were]
the utterances made by the accused?
A: Dont you ever tell anybody
otherwise I will kill your parents, your siblings including yourself.[41]
x x x x
Q: While his male organ was
inside yours, what else did he do?
A: That is what Ive told you
sir, that he told me that [once] you tell anybody Ill kill your parents.
x x x x
Q: What did you notice from his penis if any?
A: [Felt] different.
x x x x
Q: Was there anything that you [felt]?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What?
A: He inserted his penis [into]
my vagina and there was some kind of apple-apple or a liquid like
substance.
Q: What did you do [in] that
instance that his penis was inside your female organ?
A: It [felt] so different for
me.
Q: Did you like it?
A: No sir.
Q: Did you feel pain?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After youve noticed that he
had already ejaculated, what else did he do?
A: When he was about to get out,
he said that do not tell your mother or else I will kill you.[42]
When
asked by the trial court to demonstrate her position during the alleged sexual
intercourse, AAA even readily made a physical illustration of the same:
Q: You were in the straight
standing position during the alleged sexual intercourse?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: [As a] preliminary to the
ocular inspection, the Court would like you to make the physical illustration
as to your position. This is now [the]
wall of the courtroom, imagine that, that wall is the wall of the toilet. Illustrate how you were standing at the time
that you were sexually molested.
COURT INTERPRETER:
The witness illustrate[s]
to the Court by standing [with] her back leaning against the wall with hands on
both sides.
Q: Were you not in a squatting
position?
A: No your honor, I just
position[ed] myself like this. (As the witness earlier demonstrated to the
Court).[43]
With her intelligence
level, it is hard to believe that her testimony had been rehearsed as Victor
would want to put it. If such was the
case, AAAs testimony would have eventually fallen apart. However, as shown above and except for a few
minor inconsistencies and some difficulty in understanding the questions
propounded to her,[44]
AAA was still able to testify with definiteness on the material details of
her harrowing experience at the hands of Victor.
Victor avers that the
manner in which the rape was committed, as narrated by AAA, defies
imagination, is incredible and contrary to human experience. He calls attention to AAAs testimony
during cross examination that his left hand was covering her mouth while his
right hand was poking the knife at her the entire duration of the alleged
sexual intercourse. Given the
circumstances, Victor implies that it was improbable for him to penetrate AAAs
vagina in a standing position considering that his two hands, as testified to by
AAA, were not free and that AAA was moving to resist the penetration. Victor thus invokes the case of People v.
Apat[45] where
the Court pronounced as follows:
3. The manner by which
the appellant allegedly raped Gregoria, as narrated by her, defies the
imagination. It may hardly be envisioned
how a man can successfully consummate the sexual act on an unwilling woman with
his left hand placed over her mouth (supposedly to prevent her from shouting
for help) and with his right hand x x x holding a hunting knife pointed at the
womans forehead and, while so positioned, was able to manage to remove the
pantie of the woman, spread her legs, unbutton his short pants, and perform the
sexual intercourse.[46]
Victor likewise cites the following inconsistencies in AAAs
testimony: (1) AAA stated in her direct examination that on the day of the
alleged rape, she came home from school at 4:00 p.m. On cross examination, however, she testified
that she just stayed home the whole day; and (2) in AAAs Affidavit[47]
executed on January 29, 1999, she stated that Victor was wearing shorts when he
entered the toilet and that it was the latter who took off her underwear. But
later on direct examination, she claimed that she was the one who removed her
underwear and that Victor was wearing a towel and a brief. Despite all these, the lower courts still
chose to treat AAAs testimony as gospel truth instead of considering her
irreconcilable contradictions as sufficient grounds to create doubt in Victors
favor.
We have gone over the records and observed that both on
cross and re-cross examinations, AAA answered yes when asked by the defense
counsel if at the time Victor inserted his penis into her vagina, he was also
covering her mouth with one hand and poking a knife on her neck with the other.[48] In re-direct examination, however, AAA
testified as follows:
Q: You told us earlier that you
tried to keep on moving while the accused inserted his penis into your vagina
if only to prevent [him] from penetrating you, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: If you keep on moving, how is
it that he was able to penetrate you?
A: He really penetrate[d] it and
he insert[ed] it.
Q: Easily or forcefully?
A: Forcefully.[49]
Upon inquiry by the Court, AAA answered:
COURT
to the witness
Q: In what manner did he [insert]
his penis? Did he [use] his hands or
what?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: Which hand did he [use] if
you can recall?
A: Left.
Q: Does it mean that his left
hand was holding his penis in guiding it towards the inside of your vagina?
A: Yes, your Honor.[50]
From AAAs testimony, it can be inferred that the
covering of the mouth, the poking of the knife and the insertion of Victors
penis into her vagina were all happening at almost the same time. Hence, it is not difficult to understand why AAA
answered yes when asked by the defense counsel if Victor was covering her
mouth and poking a knife at her neck when he inserted his penis into her
vagina. Moreover, [r]ape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not
remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a persons
achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it
is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the
victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious
mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to
mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and
horrifying experience she had undergone.[51] In this case, AAA was just 16 years old
when she was cruelly abused by Victor. She
was also later found possessed of low level intelligence. A fortiori, we must accord to her greater understanding,
consideration, and sensitivity as she relives, through her testimony, her
harrowing [experience] at [Victors] hands.[52]
This also goes true with respect to the inconsistencies pointed out by Victor,
which the Court finds too flimsy and trivial to merit serious consideration.[53]
To reiterate, it is not unnatural to find minor discrepancies in the testimony
of a rape victim as she cannot be expected to remember every minute detail of
her ordeal. [54]
Furthermore, AAAs
testimony is corroborated by the doctors findings that she was pregnant and
that her hymen has healed lacerations at 3 oclock, 5 oclock and 9 oclock
positions. Dr. Ma. Esperanza S. Agudo
testified that these lacerations could have been caused by sexual intercourse.[55] Where a rape victims testimony is
corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis
for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[56]
Thus, there being no
compelling reason to deviate from the lower courts appreciation of AAAs
testimony, the Court gives deference to the well-settled rule that the
assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best
undertaken by a trial court, whose findings are binding and conclusive on
appellate courts. Matters affecting
credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity
to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of that witness deportment
on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts
which usually rely on the cold pages of the silent records of the case.[57]
Victors imputation
of ill motive on the part of AAA and her family deserves scant consideration.
Victor contends that AAA
and her family harbored a grudge against him.
He claims that AAAs family, who used to rent the house owned by the
aunt of Victors wife, was made to vacate the same so that his family could occupy
it instead. And as the pleas of AAAs
family to continue occupying the house were ignored, charges were filed against
him.
The Court, however, is
unconvinced.
Motives such as family
feuds, resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving
full credence to the testimony of a rape victim. Also, ill motives become
inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the
rape victim, which clearly establishes the liability of the accused. In the
present case, AAA categorically identified [Victor] as the one who defiled
her. Her account of the incident, as found by the RTC, the Court of Appeals,
and this Court, was sincere and truthful. Hence, petitioners x x x flimsy allegation of
ill motive is immaterial. [58]
Besides,
it is difficult to believe that AAAs family would stoop so low as to subject
her to physical hardship and disgrace that usually accompany the prosecution of
rape just to relieve hurt feelings.
Indeed, it is highly inconceivable that any family would willfully and
deliberately corrupt the innocent mind of its minor member and put into her lips
the lewd description of a carnal act just to
satisfy a personal grudge or
anger against the accused.[59]
Victors alibi
cannot prevail over AAAs positive identification of him as her rapist.
Victor contends that the lower
courts erred in brushing aside his defense of alibi on the sole ground that it
is inherently weak. He avers that
proving that he was not at the place of the alleged incident when it happened
is the most plausible defense against the charges hurled upon him. Besides, his
alibi that he was in Brgy. Macabug,
In
order for the defense of alibi to prosper, two requisites must concur: first,
the appellant was at a different place at the time the crime was committed, and
second, it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the
time of its commission.[60] In this case, the second requisite is not
met. Victor himself testified that the
distance between Brgy. Macabug and the
place where the rape occurred is just three to four kilometers and that the same
can be traversed by land transportation in just a few minutes.[61] Hence, it was not physically impossible for him
to be at the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime. Also, even if Victors alibi is corroborated
by Alex, said defense is still unworthy of belief. Alex admitted that Victor was his employer[62] and that he was
testifying for Victor as he relied on him for livelihood.[63] [I]t has been held that alibi becomes more unworthy
of merit where it is established mainly by the accused himself and his or her
relatives, friends, and comrades-in-arms and not by credible persons.[64]
Moreover
and most importantly, denial and alibi are practically worthless against the
positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses, especially by the
rape victim.[65]
Victors weak alibi cannot thus overcome AAAs positive identification
of him as her rapist.
The lower courts
did not err in convicting Victor of the crime of rape.
All told, we hold that neither
did the RTC
err in finding
Victor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape nor did the CA in affirming said conviction. As aptly declared by the appellate
court, the prosecution has sufficiently established that Victor had carnal
knowledge of AAA against her will and consent. We subscribe to the same.
Damages
awarded
The CA was correct in reducing
the award of civil indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. In cases of simple rape as in this case,
civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically awarded without need of
pleading or proof.[66]
However, we note that the both the RTC and the CA failed
to make an award for exemplary damages. Under
Article 2229 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages are imposed by way of example
or correction for the public good.
Exemplary damages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious
wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the
rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous
conduct. Being corrective in nature,
exemplary damages can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating
circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly
reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender.[67] Here, Victor raped a minor, AAA, with the
use of a knife, threatened to kill her and her family if she tells them of her
ordeal, and even got her pregnant.
Victor should therefore pay AAA exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00
in line with existing jurisprudence.[68] Also, interest at the rate of 6% per annum is
imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until
fully paid.[69]
Support of the offspring CCC
The RTC ordered Victor to acknowledge AAAs offspring CCC
and give her support. Article 345 of
the Revised Penal Code provides for three different kinds of civil liability
that may be imposed on the offender: a) indemnification, b) acknowledgement of
the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing, and c) in every
case to support the offspring. With the
passage of the Family Code, the classification of acknowledged natural children
and natural children by legal fiction was eliminated and they now fall under
the specie of illegitimate children.
Since parental authority is vested by Article 176 of the Family Code
upon the mother and considering that an offender sentenced to reclusion
perpetua automatically loses the power to exercise parental authority over
his children, no further positive act is required of the parent as the law
itself provides for the childs status.
Hence, [Victor] should only be ordered to indemnify and support the
victims child.[70] The amount [and terms] of support shall be
determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing in accordance with
Article 201[71] of the
Family Code.[72]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 24, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00185 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:
1) Petitioner Victor Rondina is ordered to pay AAA P30,000.00
as exemplary damages.
2) Interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all
the damages awarded in this case from the date of the finality of this judgment
until fully paid.
3) Petitioner Victor Rondina is further ordered to give
support to AAAs offspring, CCC, in such amount and under such terms to be
determined by the
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
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
Court.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
* Per Special Order No.
1226 dated May 30, 2012.
** Per Special Order No. 1227 dated May 30,
2012.
[1] CA rollo, pp. 178-191; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Stephen C. Cruz.
[2] Records, pp. 245-253;
penned by Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.
[3]
[4] The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be 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; and 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.
[5] Supra note 3.
[6] See Certificate of
Arraignment, records, p. 49, and RTC Order dated
[7] TSN dated August 26,
1999, pp. 80-81.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Records, p. 8.
[18] TSN dated February 18, 2000, pp. 13-14.
[19]
[20]
[21] Records, p. 246.
[22]
[23] Supra note 2.
[24] Records, p. 253.
[25]
[26]
[27] See Courts Resolution of even date, CA rollo, p. 30.
[28] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[29] See Courts Resolution dated September 22, 2004, CA rollo, p. 169.
[30] See Appellants Brief, id.
at 61-87.
[31] Supra note 1.
[32]
[33] Rollo, p. 11.
[34] 457 Phil. 160 (2003).
[35]
[36] People v. Relanes,
G.R. No. 175831,
[37] People v. Escala,
354 Phil. 46, 51 (1998).
[38] See RTC Order dated July 15, 1999, records, p.
72.
[39]
[40]
[41] TSN dated August 26, 1999, pp. 19-23.
[42]
[43]
[44] See p. 6 of the RTC Decision, records, p. 250.
[45] 200 Phil. 110 (1982).
[46]
[47] Records, p. 5.
[48] TSN dated August 26, 1999, pp. 52-55; 71-72.
[49]
[50]
[51] People v. Saludo,
G.R. No. 178406,
[52]
[53] People v. Alcoreza, 419 Phil. 105, 116 (2001).
[54]
[55] TSN dated July 15, 1999, p.9.
[56] People v. Bagos,
G.R. No. 177152,
[57] People v. Dahilig,
G.R. No. 187083,
[58] Dizon v. People,
G.R. No. 170342,
[59] People v. Zabala,
456 Phil. 237, 245 (2003).
[60] People v. Estrada,
G.R. No. 178318,
[61] TSN dated February 18, 2000, p. 23.
[62] TSN dated December 7, 1999, pp. 6-7.
[63]
[64] People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 749, 761.
[65] People v. Ayade,
G.R. No. 188561,
[66] People v. Ofemiano,
G.R. No. 187155,
[67] People v. Saludo, supra note 51 at 397.
[68]
[69] People v. Dumadag,
G.R. No. 176740, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 535, 550.
[70] People v. Glabo, 423 Phil. 45, 53-54 (2001).
[71] This article provides that the amount of support shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient.
[72] People v. Constantino, G.R. No. 176069, October 5, 2007, 535 SCRA 165,
169-170.