SECOND DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
121637
April 30, 2003 - versus -
EDGARDO GREFALDIA,
Appellant. D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This is an appeal from
the decision[1]
dated November 8, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca, Quezon,
Branch
61, in Criminal Case No. 3199-G, finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of five counts of rape and meting on him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count and ordering him to indemnify the victim, Vilma
Convocar, in the amount of P30,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Edgardo
Grefaldia,
together with three John Does, was charged with rape upon the victim’s
verified complaint that reads:
That on or
about the 3rd day of December 1988, at Barangay Bagong Silang,
Municipality
of Buenavista, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the accused, Edgardo Grefaldia, conspiring and
confederating together with his three (3) co-accused, and mutually
helping
one another, and armed with an armalite rifle, by means of force,
threats
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant, against her will
and consent; that accused Edgardo Grefaldia had carnal knowledge of the
herein complainant twice, and while the other three (3) accused had
carnal
knowledge of the said offended party once.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With the
aggravating
circumstance of nighttime and superior strength.
Contrary to law.[2]
The present case is
just
one of several criminal cases, including Criminal Cases Nos. 3222-G,
3325-G
and 3326-G, all for murder, filed against Grefaldia in connection with
the same chain of events that occurred on December 3, 1988. In
G.R.
No. 121787, entitled People v. Grefaldia,[3]
this Court affirmed Grefaldia’s conviction for murder in Criminal Case
No. 3327-G.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Only Grefaldia was apprehended.
The three John Does remained at large. At his arraignment in this
case on September 27, 1989, Grefaldia, assisted by counsel, pleaded not
guilty. Trial ensued.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court’s summary
of the prosecution’s evidence, based mainly on the testimonies of the
victim,
Vilma Convocar, a resident of Barangay Batabat, Buenavista, Quezon, and
Dr. Rosalia Villasanta, Rural Health Physician of Buenavista, Quezon,
is
as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vilma
Convocar,
19 years old private offended party, is the widow of Gilberto Convocar,
victim in Criminal Case No. 3222-G, which was jointly tried with this
case.
On December 3, 1988, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, complainant
and her two children, ages 2 years old and 6 months old, respectively
were
inside their house while her husband Gilberto Convocar was outside at
that
time. Suddenly, there was a gunshot and she heard her husband
shouted,
"Why did you shoot me?" Her husband entered their house and she saw
that
he was wounded on the thigh. She embraced him and asked him what
happened
but somebody whose face was covered with a mask peeped at their door
and
told her to put out the light, which was a gas lamp. She obeyed because
she was afraid. She was told to go down the house and to point to those
persons [in] the house of Jessie Buenaobra, their neighbor. After she
pointed
to the house of Jessie Buenaobra, the masked man whom she later
identified
to be the accused Grefaldia was armed with an armalite when he
proceeded
to the house of Jessie Buenaobra while she was left with his companions
in the fields. She heard three gun shots, after which, she was again
told
to go with the group and leave her children and husband behind. When
they
passed by the house of Jessie Buenaobra, she saw that the mother and
son
were already dead. She was brought to Edgardo Grefaldia’s place at Bgy.
San Pablo, Buenavista, Quezon, which was far from her house. She
was raped there by the four persons. Accused Grefaldia was the first
person
who raped her and she recognized him when he removed his mask.
She
identified Grefaldia as the masked person who peeped at the door of
their
house because of his features. She failed to recognize the three other
persons who raped her. She was forced while the three others were
holding
her. After the fourth person finished raping her, Edgardo
Grefaldia
raped her again and it was midnight already when they finished with
her.
Thereafter, she was ordered to get dressed and she was brought to the
highway.
When they reached the highway, she slipped and fell on the ground
because
the bank of the highway is high. When she fell down, Edgardo Grefaldia
shot her and when she rose up, he shot her again which almost hit her.
She knew it was accused Grefaldia who shot her because he was the only
one who was with her when they went to the highway. It was at
that
time that she took the chance to escape and ran away from the group.
She
hid herself in the "cogonan" area until daytime and when it was already
5:30 in the morning, she returned to their house. Upon arrival there,
she
saw that her husband was already dead. She embraced him and she cried.
She saw her elder child near the head of her dead husband while she
found
her younger son under the house covered with a plastic fish net.
From inquiries, she learned that her brother-in-law heard the gunshot
and
sought the help of the barangay councilmen but they did not assist him
and they even told her brother-in-law to be thankful that only one was
killed. They were afraid that somebody else might be
involved.
They called for authorities who arrived in their house and conducted
investigation.
She accompanied the authorities to the house where she was brought by
accused.
Upon arrival in said place, the authorities searched the house of
Grefaldia
but his companions were not there anymore. The authorities found
a rolled mat upstairs and inside that mat, they saw Edgardo Grefaldia,
who voluntarily surrendered to the authorities with his gun too (TSN.,
January 30, 1990).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There were many
houses
in the place where their house is situated but their neighbors were a
bit
far from them because there were mountains in-between their houses
(TSN.,
March 15, 1990, p. 8). Accused Grefaldia was the only one whose face
was
covered with a black cloth and he was the one who peeped at their door.
Grefaldia’s companion at that time was not masked but he was armed with
a bladed weapon (TSN., May 29, 1990, pp. 3-5). After the incident at
the
Buenaobras, she was brought by Grefaldia and his companion to Bgy. San
Pablo, Buenavista, Quezon, which is an adjacent barangay. They were
lighted
with flashlight although it was a poor lighting then. Sometimes, she
happened
to glance in his face because of the light coming from that flashlight
and after they reached his house, Grefaldia removed his mask. There
were
two other men there without masks. Those men talked in whispers and she
was brought inside the residence. At that time, she already
recognized
Grefaldia by his face, feature and when he was apprehended the
following
day because of her report, he was wearing the same short pants.
While
she was being raped, the other companions of accused were holding her
in
the different parts of her body and she could not release herself from
their hold. Her dress was never torn despite her struggle because
she was ordered to remove her dress. She was naked when they raped her
and after that, they told her she would be killed because she might
report
the matter to the PC. She was advised to say her prayers. She was
not able to recognize the three other companions of Grefaldia.
She
was raped five times-by Grefaldia first, followed by his three
companions
and Grefaldia again,-which took time, because she was taken from their
house at 7:00 o’clock and it was already midnight when they finished
with
her. She was able to escape when she was brought to the highway
to
kill her because there were no houses around there and it was far from
the place where they brought her. She was shot by Grefaldia twice
but she ran away and was able to hide inside the cogonal area where she
waited for morning. She recognized the place where she was brought
because
of the identifying marks she left on the trail such as the several
pieces
of woods she cut as she passed and dropped on the way. She also
remembered
a small house near the house of Grefaldia and after that house, they
passed
by the creek, then a mountain and plain or level ground. She submitted
herself to medical examination (TSN., August 14, 1990).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Rosalia
Villasanta,
the Rural Health Physician of Buenavista, Quezon, examined the victim,
Vilma Convocar on December 6, 1988, at about 9:30 A.M., and she
submitted
her report on her medical findings (Exh. A and A-1), that there is
marked
congestion and inflammation of the vulva, with plenty of thick whitish
discharge at the cervix. There is also tenderness in the sacral region
and in both thighs. She explained that the inflammation of the
vulva
which is the outer portion of the vagina of the woman is an unusual
happening
because the vulva is inflamed or enlarged which was caused by forceful
sexual intercourse while the whitish discharge at the cervix means that
there are plenty of semen discharge by males. There could not be only
one
sexual intercourse because it is extraordinary being thick and plenty.
The tenderness at the sacral region and in both thighs means that the
sexual
intercourse was done by several persons for several times, causing
tenderness
of the sacral region. The whitish discharge was found outside and
inside
the vagina of complainant. Since the sexual intercourse was done in a
forceful
manner, several times, the marked congestion and inflammation of the
vulva
would still be evident even if the medical examination was done two (2)
days after the rape or on December 6, 1988 (TSN., October 4, 1990).[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court
likewise
summarized the evidence for the defense, consisting of the testimonies
of Grefaldia, Alonzo Guerrero, and Alejo Larce, as follows:
Alonzo
Guerrero,
a retired military man, residing at Calauag, Quezon, was assigned for a
long time at Buenavista, Quezon, in 1965 to 1969 and in 1978, when
accused
Grefaldia was just a young boy and having a hard time carrying the
plow.
He knew accused to be a good person because when they were doing patrol
duties in said place, he used to see accused helping his parents in
plowing
the field. The last time he saw accused was in December 1988, at
Calauag,
Quezon, maybe December 1, 2 or 3, because he thought it was on the
first
week of December and accused asked him if he could sleep in their
house,
which he did. Accused woke up around 5:30 in the morning and left at
maybe
6:00 o’clock to go home. He appeared as witness voluntarily and he
received
a subpoena. He is not related to Grefaldia and he just want to prove
the
truth (TSN., February 24, 1993, pp. 2-6). When he testified again on
March
30, 1993, he claimed he was certain that it was on December 4, 1988
that
Grefaldia arrived in their place at around 3:00 o’clock in the morning
because he asked his wife about it and his wife remembered that it was
December 4, 1988, which was the time she went to the doctor for her
medical
check up. He admitted, however, that accused stayed in their house for
three (3) hours to sleep and he did not know his whereabouts before
3:00
o’clock in the morning and after 6:00 o’clock A.M. of December 4, 1988,
when he left his place. When witness asked accused why he arrived
in their house at that hour, Grefaldia told him he came from Bicol
(TSN.,
March 30, 1993, pp. 2-5).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This witness, Alonzo
Guerrero, has known the accused Grefaldia as a good boy, helping his
parents
plow the field as a young boy of 15, in 1965 up to the year 1978. There
was a gap of ten (10) years from 1978 to December 4, 1988, when he saw
him again. A lot of things could have happened within that span of time
which could have influenced the accused Grefaldia into becoming a
responsible
member of society or someone with daring and false courage to commit
acts
towards his self-destruction. Witness Guerrero’s attempt to explain the
whereabouts of accused Grefaldia on December 3, 1988- the time of the
incident
in question, backfired when he claimed that it was on December 4, 1988,
at 3:00 o’clock in the morning, when Grefaldia arrived in their house
at
Calauag, Quezon, to have a 3 hours sleep. Coupled with his admission
that
he did not know the whereabouts of Grefaldia before 3:00 o’clock in the
morning of December 4, 1988. The testimony of this witness is not
worthy
of belief.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Edgardo Grefaldia,
accused, claimed that he was in Bgy. Bagalayan, Castillas, Sorsogon on
December 3, 1988, which would take a whole night travel to reach
Buenavista,
Quezon, because that is too far. He arrived in Bgy. San Pablo,
Buenavista,
Quezon, at more or less 10:00 o’clock in the morning of December 4,
1988,
and after an hour of his arrival, he was apprehended by policeman
Platon
and Investigator Advincula. They were accusing him as the one who
killed
the people in Bgy. Dela Paz but he could not do that because during
that
time, he was in Bicol and he did not admit it. He was told that he
committed
several crimes. He had no companion when he was taken from his house,
except
the soldiers because that was a joint effort headed by Captain Salvador
and the policemen. He was arrested on December 4, 1988 and brought to
Lucena
City on February 4, 1989. Thus, he stayed at the municipal jail for two
months (TSN., December 8, 1993; February 16, 1994). The defense of
accused
is anchored on his alibi that he was in Bicol, particularly at Bgy.
Bagalayan,
Castillas, Sorsogon, on December 3, 1988.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Alejo Larce, a
soldier
and resident of Castillas, Sorsogon, claimed that he has known accused
for about two years in 1981 and Grefaldia is a native of Bgy.
Bagalayan,
Castillas, Sorsogon, but he was a resident of Buenavista, Quezon. The
house
of Grefaldia was near their detachment where he was assigned. On
December
3 and 4, 1988, accused was residing at Bgy. Bagalayan, Castillas,
Sorsogon
and he used to see him there. He knew that accused left Castillas,
Sorsogon
at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning of December 4, 1988 to go to
Quezon
to help his grandmother in farming. He received a subpoena sent by
Atty.
Julieta Omaña and it was only then that he came to know that
Edgardo
Grefaldia have some pending cases before this Court but he could not
recall
anymore the year and the month when Atty. Omaña sent him said
subpoena.
He admitted that as a soldier, he has his own work and he only
occasionally
saw accused in the year 1988 not every day. In 1988, he knew that
accused has been going to Buenavista, Quezon (TSN., March 29, 1994).
Between the evidence
presented
by the prosecution and the defense, the trial court gave credence to
the
former as it found the victim’s testimony to be clear, positive,
straightforward
and convincing. The trial court rendered judgment finding
Grefaldia
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of rape. The
dispositive
portion of the trial court’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered CONVICTING the accused, Edgardo Grefaldia
of
five (5) Rapes as charged in the information, and he is hereby
sentenced
to suffer the penalties of five Reclusion Perpetua, with its accessory
penalties, and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of
P30,000.00.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to the
case of the three (3) John Does, the case against them is hereby
archived.
SO ORDERED.[5]
In his appeal brief,
Grefaldia,
now appellant, assails his conviction alleging that:
THE TRIAL
COURT
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON FIVE (5) COUNTS OF RAPE
DESPITE
THAT COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY IS DOUBTFUL AND CONTRADICTORY.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Prefatorily, the
evidence
on record shows that the appellant and his co-conspirators committed
the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and four separate crimes
of rape. They abducted Vilma, with lewd design, from
Barangay
San Pablo, Buenavista, Quezon, and brought her to Barangay Silang,
Quezon,
where she was raped five times. However, the appellant was
charged
under the Information with five counts of rape and not of forcible
abduction
with rape and four separate crimes of rape. The appellant cannot
be convicted of forcible abduction with rape even if said crime was
proved
by the prosecution for if it were otherwise the appellant would be
deprived
of his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him.[7]
The appellant can only be convicted of the crimes charged under the
Information,
and established by the prosecution, namely five counts of rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant primarily
assails the testimony of Vilma, the complainant in this case.
Specifically,
the appellant asserts that the victim’s identification of the appellant
as one of her rapists is doubtful. He posits that the crime was
committed
at nighttime and there was no showing that the situs criminis was
lighted.
Besides, if, as Vilma testified, she was not able to recognize and
identify
the three other malefactors who did not cover their faces, then with
more
reason that she could not have recognized the appellant, who covered
his
face with a black cloth.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The arguments of the
appellant fail to persuade.cralaw:red
Well-settled is the
rule that factual findings of the trial court are conclusive upon this
Court. The evaluation of the trial court regarding the
credibility
of witnesses are given great weight and respect unless there is showing
that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some
fact
or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the
result
of the case.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, in reviewing
rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) an
accusation
of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but even
more
difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove it;
(2)
in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape which usually
involves
only two persons, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized
with extreme caution; and (3) 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 defense.[9]
The credibility of the complainant is, therefore, of vital importance,
for in view of the peculiar nature of rape, conviction or acquittal of
the accused depends almost entirely upon the word of the private
complainant.[10]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a careful review
of the records of this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to
deviate
from the trial court’s findings regarding Vilma’s credibility as a
witness
and the weight and value of her testimony.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court correctly
ruled that Vilma recognized and sufficiently identified the appellant
as
one of the malefactors. While it is true that the appellant
initially
covered his face with a black cloth when he, together with the three
malefactors,
went to Vilma and her husband’s house, the appellant subsequently
removed
his mask when he raped Vilma affording her ample opportunity to take a
good look at his face. There is no better way for a victim of rape to
get
a good look at her rapist than to see him face to face.[11]
However, Vilma had ample time to observe the appellant since, after
raping
her, the appellant brought her to the highway and shot her. Under
the circumstances, Vilma was unlikely to have forgotten his face.
In fact, she remembered not only his face but also the short pants that
he wore at the time and which he still wore the following day when he
was
apprehended. Most often, the face and body movement of the
malefactors
creates a lasting impression on the victim’s mind which cannot be
easily
erased from her memory.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Significantly, in the
Court’s Decision, dated June 17, 1997, in G.R. No. 121787, which
affirmed
the appellant’s conviction for murder arising out of the same chain of
events as in this case, Vilma’s positive identification of the
appellant
as one of her rapists had already been passed upon by this Court.
As this Court stated in that case, the following excerpt of Vilma’s
testimony
conclusively implicates the appellant, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
After putting off the light, what happened next?
A
I was told to go down the house and I was asked to point to them the
house
of Jessie Buenaobra.cralaw:red
Q
Do you know this Jessie Buenaobra?
A
Yes, sir, he is my neighbor.cralaw:red
Q
Did you tell them the place of residence of this Jessie Buenaobra?
A
Yes, sir, because I was afraid.cralaw:red
Q
And what did you do after you have told them the house of Jessie
Buenaobra?
A
I was told to go with them, so, I went with them and after I have
pointed
the house of Jessie Buenaobra, he proceeded to the house and I was left
in the fields together with one of their companions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
And after one of the members of the group proceeded to the house of
Jessie
Buenaobra, what happened?
A
I heard a gunshot and after that, I was again told to go with them, and
we passed by the house of Jessie Buenaobra and I saw that the mother
and
son were already dead.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
You said that there were people who brought you out of your house and
brought
you to the ricefields, do you know those people who accompanied you
there?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
I did not recognize the other one because it was Grefaldia who was
always
holding me.cralaw:red
Q
Do you mean to say that it was somebody else who
entered
the house of Jessie Buenaobra?
A
It was Edgardo Grefaldia who proceeded to the house of Jessie Buenaobra
and I was left with his companions.cralaw:red
Q
Did you notice if Edgardo Grefaldia has a gun when he went to the place
of Jessie Buenaobra?
A
He has sir.cralaw:red
Q
What kind of gun?
A
An armalite, sir.cralaw:red
Q
How did you know that it was an armalite?
A
Because I used to see that kind of gun in the possession of
authorities
or soldiers.cralaw:red
Q
So, you mean to say that after Edgardo Grefaldia entered the house of
Jessie
Buenaobra, you heard three gunshots, is that right?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And how did you know that the mother of Jessie Buenaobra and the son
was
already dead after that incident?
A
Because we passed by beside the house of Jessie Buenaobra.
Q
Where did you proceed after you were taken by Edgardo Grefaldia?
A
I was brought to their place.cralaw:red
Q
And where is this place?
A
Brgy. San Pablo, Buenavista, Quezon, sir.cralaw:red
Q
And while you were in the house of Edgardo Grefaldia,will you please
tell
us what happened?
A
I was raped there by four persons.cralaw:red
Q
Who was the first person who raped you?
A
Edgardo Grefaldia, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Was this Edgardo Grefaldia still having a mask when he raped you? Or he
had already removed it?
A
None anymore.cralaw:red
Q
Mrs. Witness, in what particular stage of the alleged rape did you
recognize
this Edgardo Grefaldia?
PROSECUTOR ALTAMIRA:
If Your Honor please,
that was answered already. The answer was, when they reached the house,
he already removed the mask.cralaw:red
COURT:
Do not make your cross-examination
lengthy. Alright the Witness may answer.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
A
I already recognize him, Ma’am, by face, by his feature and when he was
apprehended the following day, he was wearing the same short pants,
Ma’am,
because the following day, I caused him to be apprehended.
(Underscoring
ours) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court correctly
characterized Vilma’s testimony as clear, straightforward and
convincing.
Indeed, she had no reason to lie about her ordeal. A rape victim
will not come out in the open and make public the offense committed
against
her, undergo the agony and humiliation of a public trial or endure the
ordeal of testifying on all the sordid details of the crime, if she has
not been truthful as to whether she has in fact been raped and by whom
or if she has not been motivated by the desire to obtain justice.[13]
Even appellant miserably failed to impute any improper motive on the
part
of Vilma to implicate him. The absence of ulterior motive in
implicating
the appellant further bolsters Vilma’s credibility.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, Vilma’s account
of her rape is corroborated by the medical findings of Dr.
Villasanta.
According to Dr. Villasanta, the inflammation of Vilma’s vulva
indicated
that the sexual intercourse was done in a forceful manner and the
presence
of an unusual amount of "thick and whitish" semen discharge at Vilma’s
cervix signified that several persons ravished her several times.
It bears stressing that when the testimony of a rape victim is
consistent
with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a
conclusion
that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been
established.[15]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All told, the appellant
failed to destroy Vilma’s credibility as a witness. In view of
her
positive identification of the appellant as one of her rapists, coupled
with Dr. Villasanta’s testimony and medical findings, the appellant’s
alibi
must fail. The appellant claimed that he was in Bagalayan,
Castillas,
Sorsogon, in the evening of December 3, 1988, and he arrived in Brgy.
San
Pablo, Buenavista, Quezon, at about 10:00 p.m. However, the
appellant’s
alibi has been rendered unworthy of belief as the other defense
witnesses
who were supposed to corroborate his alibi gave conflicting
testimonies.
Guerrero testified that at 3:00 in the morning of December 4, 1988, the
appellant arrived at his (Guerrero’s) house in Quezon and stayed there
to catch a few hours of sleep. At the time, the appellant
allegedly
just got off the bus from Bicol. On the other hand, Larce, the
other
defense witness, testified that it was only at 11:00 in the morning of
December 4, 1988, that the appellant left Sorsogon to go to
Quezon.
Given these conflicting testimonies, the appellant’s alibi indeed
deserves
scant consideration.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Alibi is one of the
weakest defenses.[16]
It is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove.[17]
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish with
clear
and convincing evidence not only that he was somewhere else when the
crime
was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to
have
been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[18]
Appellant failed to conclusively show that it was physically impossible
for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.
Moreover, the victim positively identified the appellant as one of her
rapists. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by
the victim of the appellant as one of her rapists.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court correctly
convicted the appellant of five counts of rape. The conduct of
the
appellant and the three John Does before, during and after the rape
established
conspiracy among themselves. In a conspiracy, the act of one is
the
act of all.[20]
Vilma testified that the appellant raped her twice while the three
unidentified
men likewise took turns in raping her. In addition to the two
times
that the appellant raped the victim, he is likewise liable for the
other
times that his co-conspirators raped Vilma unless the appellant
endeavored
to prevent his co-conspirators from raping her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the time that the
felonies were committed, the law in effect was Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code which provided that:
Art. 335. When and how
rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force and
intimidation;
2. When the woman is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is
under twelve years of age or is demented.cralaw:red
The crime of rape shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Whenever the crime
of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The crime was committed
by the appellant and his three cohorts with the use of their firearms.
The proper penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua to death.
Nonetheless, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua on the appellant for each count as the death penalty was not
then
imposable, the same having been restored only in 1994, or almost six
years
after the appellant and his co-conspirators had committed the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is need, however,
to modify the civil indemnity awarded by the trial court in favor of
the
victim. The trial court awarded the victim only the amount of
P30,000
as civil indemnity. This is not sufficient. Under prevailing
jurisprudence,[21]
rape victims are awarded the civil indemnity in the amount of
P50,000.
In addition, the amount of P50,000 shall be automatically awarded as
moral
damages upon conviction of the accused.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Decision,
dated November 8, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca, Quezon,
Branch 61, in Criminal Case No. 3199-G, finding Edgardo Grefaldia
guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of rape and sentencing him to
suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
The appellant is ordered to pay the victim, Vilma Convocar, the
sums
of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto and P50,000 as moral damages
for
each count of rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Quisumbing, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Proceso K. De Gala.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Records, pp. 2-3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
273 SCRA 591 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
RTC Decision, pp. 2-4; Records, pp. 69-71.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 8; id., at 75.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, p. 58.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
People vs. De la Costa, 305 SCRA 83 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People v. Villaruel, 368 SCRA 370 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
People v. Rapisora, 368 SCRA 170 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People v. Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July 11, 2002, p. 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People v. Oliver, 303 SCRA 72 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
People v. Taclan, 308 SCRA 368 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People vs. Santos, 368 SCRA 535 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
People vs. Murillo, 352 SCRA 105 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People vs. Galisim, 369 SCRA 727 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People v. Murillo, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People v. Tanail, 323 SCRA 667 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People v. Tolentino, 352 SCRA 228 (2002).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People v. Juan, 322 SCRA 598 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People v. Antonio, 336 SCRA 366 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People vs. Rapisora, supra.; People vs. Nerio, 366 SCRA 63 (2001).
[22]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |