SPECIAL FIRST
DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
Nos.
115236-37
January 16, 2003 - versus -
BRYAN FERDINAND
DY
Y LA MADRID AND
GIOVAN BERNARDINO
Y GARCIA,
Accused-Appellants.
R E S O L U T I O
N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Accused-appellants Bryan
Ferdinand Dy and Giovan Bernardino filed separate motions for
reconsideration
of our Decision[1]
which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City,
Branch 5, finding them guilty of rape and acts of lasciviousness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his motion, accused-appellant
Dy submits that our decision should have been merely recommendatory, in
view of the provision of Article VIII, Section 5 (2) (d) of the
Constitution
which provides that the Supreme Court sitting en banc has jurisdiction
over "all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua
or higher." He contends that Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89 which
provides
that death penalty cases shall be within the jurisdiction of the Court
en banc is incongruous and incompatible with the aforementioned
constitutional
provision. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The contention is misleading.
Under Article VIII, Section 4 (1) of the Constitution, the Supreme
Court
may sit en banc or, in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or
seven Members. At present, it is made up of three divisions. However,
the
divisions of the Supreme Court are not to be considered as separate and
distinct courts. Actions considered in any of these divisions and
decisions
rendered therein are, in effect, by the same Tribunal. The divisions
are
not to be considered as separate and distinct courts, but as divisions
of one and the same court.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant Dy
further contends that: (1) the sexual intercourse between him and
complainant
Mobley was consensual; (2) there is no evidence of rape except for
Mobley’s
bare claim; (3) there is no conclusive evidence that Mobley and
Tennican
were drugged which caused them to black out and become unaware of what
was happening to them; (4) Bernardino did not commit acts of
lasciviousness;
and (5) there is no conclusive proof of conspiracy between the two
accused-appellants.cralaw:red
The issues raised by
accused-appellant Dy have been exhaustively considered and discussed in
our Decision and there is no need to reassess them or reconsider our
stand.cralaw:red
Bernardino, on the other
hand, alleges that: (1) accused-appellants were not accorded their
right
to a fair, unbiased resolution of the preliminary investigation when
the
reviewing prosecutor unilaterally reversed the findings of the
three-man
investigating panel that recommended the dismissal of the charges
against
them; (2) the right to be arraigned is not among the rights that are
susceptible
to waiver or estoppel, thus the lack of arraignment cannot be deemed
cured
by their participation in the trial; (3) the erroneous decision of the
trial judge to hold an expedited trial effectively deprived them of
proper
preparation for and presentation of an adequate defense; (4) the
evidence
presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish his guilt
with
moral certainty; (5) the trial court erroneously allowed
accused-appellant
Dy to remain at liberty even after promulgation of judgment on the
strength
of the same bail bond posted by him during trial, while denying
accused-appellant
Bernardino’s petition for bail; (6) the legal doctrines cited in our
Decision
do not apply in this case since the premises upon which these
principles
lie are not present herein; and (7) as a matter of equity, the
significant
delay in the resolution of this appeal should at least merit our
attention
to the peculiar effects of the decision in this case particularly as
regards
accused-appellant Bernardino.cralaw:red
We find that the points
raised by Bernardino on matters of substance and procedure have
likewise
been extensively discussed in our Decision.
However, two points
raised by accused-appellant Bernardino must be clarified.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First, the allegation
that there was no valid arraignment is misleading and betrays a lack of
comprehension regarding the procedural requirements of arraignment in
the
context of the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. In our decision, we
stated:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Concededly, the right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may not be
waived.
Indeed, the defense may waive their right to enter a plea and let the
court
enter a plea of "not guilty" in their behalf. However, it becomes
altogether
a different matter if the accused themselves refuse to be informed of
the
nature and cause of the accusation against them. The defense can not
hold
hostage the court by their refusal to the reading of the complaint or
information.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second, Bernardino argues
that the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar are not on all
fours
with the doctrine that findings of fact of the trial court are best
left
undisturbed on appeal; and that no woman would concoct a story of
defloration,
allow examination of her private parts and subject herself to trial and
ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled
to
seek justice for the wrong done to her. He claims that we should have
disregarded
the findings of the trial court for the reason that the haste with
which
the trial was conducted necessarily casts a cloud of doubt over the
validity
of the proceedings; that the conflicting findings of the investigating
panel and the reviewing prosecutor should have alerted us to varying
interpretations
of the facts at hand; and that there was no independent proof that
complainant
was drugged aside from self-serving documents relied upon by medical
experts
who did not examine complainant. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The records show that
the proceedings were not hastily conducted. While the proceedings might
have been of short duration than usual, they were nevertheless
conducted
with due regard to the right of each party to due process. The trial
court
should even be commended for conducting a speedy trial, which should be
the rule, rather than the exception. What is of prime consideration is
not the speed by which the trial was conducted but the manner by which
the procedural and substantial requirements were complied with. The
records
show that these requirements were adequately met. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We do not see any irregularity
in the conflicting findings of the investigating panel vis-à-vis
those of the reviewing prosecutor. It is the prerogative of the
reviewing
prosecutor to overturn the findings of the investigating panel
depending
on how he appreciates the evidence. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bernardino further claims
that the principle that no woman would concoct a story of defloration
is
largely an interpretation rooted in the Philippine context where in a
number
of cases, we have taken judicial notice of the Filipina’s inbred
modesty
and shyness and her antipathy in publicly airing acts which blemish her
honor and virtue. We do not agree. The outrage and cry for justice of
rape
victims are universal and are not limited to or the exclusive
prerogatives
of any one race or culture. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
the Motions for Reconsideration filed by accused-appellants Bryan
Ferdinand
Dy and Giovan Bernardino are DENIED WITH FINALITY.cralaw:red
Let a warrant of arrest
be issued against accused-appellant Bryan Ferdinand Dy. In this
connection,
the National Bureau of Investigation is DIRECTED to serve the warrant
of
arrest against him, to make a report thereon and submit the same to
this
Court within five (5) days after serving the same. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), and Puno, J., concur chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Promulgated on January 29, 2002 by the First Division of the Supreme
Court.
[2]
Bayan Telecommunications (Bayantel), Inc. v. Express Telecommunication
Co., Inc. (Extelcom), et al., G.R. No. 147210, January 15, 2002. |