EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
128109
November 19, 2003
-versus-
VENO ESPERAS,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:
Appellant cannot
be convicted of qualified rape, because the Informations did not allege
his relationship with the victim. Moreover, the latter's exact age at
the
time the crimes were committed was not proven by the prosecution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case
For automatic review
before this Court is the October 18, 1996 "Joint Judgment"[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palawan, Branch 52, in Criminal
Case
Nos. 12552, 12707 and 12708, finding Veno Esperas guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of three counts of rape. The decretal portion of the Decision
reads:
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused
VENO
ESPERAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of three counts of
rape as charged in:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 12,552;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B. CRIMINAL CASE
NO.
12,707; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C. CRIMINAL CASE
NO.
12,708; and as the commission of each of the offenses had been attended
by the qualifying circumstance that, the offenses charged were
committed
against a victim below 18 years of age, and by an offender who is
related
to the offended party within the second degree of affinity, the accused
is hereby sentenced to three (3) counts of death — one for each of the
above entitled Criminal Cases — in the manner prescribed by law; to pay
the offended party and complainant Emie R. Adier civil indemnity of
P50,000,00
for each of the three (3) offenses charged."[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In three separate
Informations
— one dated August 29, 1995; and two, November 7, 1995 — Prosecutor
Reynaldo
R. Guayco charged appellant as follows:
Criminal
Case
No. 12552
"That on August 4,
1995,
at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Sitio Landing, Municipality
of San Vicente, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, VENO ESPERAS, with violence,
threat and intimidation by using a knife and with lewd design, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge
with
EMIE R. ADIER, a girl of 15 years of age, against her will and consent
to her damage and prejudice."[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Criminal Case
No.
12707
"That on the 4th
day
of August, 1995, at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, at Sitio
Landing,
Barangay New Agutaya, Municipality of San Vicente, Province of Palawan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said
accused with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation
with the use of a knife, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
have carnal knowledge with one, EMIE R. ADIER, a girl of 15 years of
age,
a minor, against her will and consent."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Criminal Case
No.
12708
"That on the 4th
day
of August, 1995, at about 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Sitio
Landing,
Barangay New Agutaya, Municipality of San Vicente, Province of Palawan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said
accused with lewd design and by means of force, threat, and
intimidation
with the use of a knife, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
have carnal knowledge with one, EMIE R. ADIER, a girl of 15 years of
age,
a minor, against her will and consent."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon his arraignment on
November 10, 1995,[6]
appellant, with the assistance of counsel,[7]
pleaded not guilty to all the charges. After trial in due course, the
court
a quo rendered the assailed judgment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Facts
Version of the
Prosecution
In its Brief, the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecution's version of
the
facts in the following manner:
"In the
morning
of August 4, 1995, while the victim Emie Adier was cooking breakfast,
her
brother-in-law, appellant Veno Esperas, arrived and requested her to
buy
medicine for his fighting cocks and to bring it to his house after
attending
her class. Emie, who was then a fifteen-year old barrio lass, had
cordial
relations with appellant who is the husband of her sister Elnora.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Emie bought the
medicine
after attending school. She then proceeded to appellant's house at
Sitio
Landing, Barangay New Agutaya, San Vicente, Palawan, which is about two
(2) kilometers away from her school. Only appellant was at home because
his wife, the victim's sister, was away teaching at the far away town
of
Caruray, San Vicente, Palawan, where she and her child stayed during
weekdays.
Upon her arrival around 5:00 in the afternoon, the victim called the
appellant
and told him that she already bought the medicine he requested.
Appellant
appeared and went down the stairs. While she was handing the medicine
to
him, appellant immediately held her hand, pulled her up the stairs and
dragged her inside the house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"When inside the
house,
appellant hastily pointed a ten-inch jungle knife on Emie's neck. The
victim
cried and shouted but appellant immediately covered her mouth with his
hand.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The victim told
appellant
not to proceed with his intentions because she treated him as her own
brother
but appellant told her not to treat him as her brother. Her pleas went
unheeded. Appellant pushed Emie to lie down and proceeded to undress
her
of her uniform and underwear with his other hand. She kicked and
struggled
but she did not succeed in resisting appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Appellant thereby
undressed.
He then embraced and kissed the victim from her face to her vagina.
Appellant
placed his finger on her private part and while lying on top of the
victim,
inserted his organ to her vagina. The hapless victim felt pain. After
about
ten seconds, appellant removed his organ from the victim's vagina and
rested
on top of her for 30 minutes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"After resting, he
again
pointed his knife at Emie's neck. She boxed and kicked appellant but
she
could not resist his strength. Appellant again inserted his organ to
her
genitalia and made a push and pull motion. After ravishing the victim,
appellant sat and rested beside her. Emie attempted to run but
appellant
grabbed her and prevented her from running. In pain and feeling very
weak,
Emie was unable to escape.
"For the third
time,
he again poked the knife on Emie's neck and once more placed his organ
inside her vagina. He ravished her for ten minutes. After satisfying
his
lechery, appellant ordered the victim to dress up. Appellant forewarned
the victim not to tell anybody, otherwise, `Hindi ako aatras, papatayin
ko kayong lahat.'chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The victim who
was
hardly able to stand slowly dressed herself and headed home. She
reached
her house around 6:30 in the evening. She saw her parents and siblings
but she was unable to immediately disclose her ordeal because she
feared
for their lives. In the succeeding days, however, her mother noticed
that
she looked weak and did not eat regularly. She confided to her mother
three
days after the incident. The victim's mother went to the police. Emie
executed
three (3) complaints against appellant. The doctor who examined her
days
after the incident found that she suffered lacerations in her
genitalia.
The medical certificate dated August 10, 1995, signed by Dr. Ruthelma
Gejon
stated:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Grossly
Female
genitaliachanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Noted healed
laceration
at 3, 8 and 11 o'clockchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Admits one finger
with
tendernesschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Negative for
spermatozoachanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Based on her
findings,
the doctor concluded that the lacerations could have been caused by
penetration
or trauma."[8]
(Citations
omitted.) Version of
the
Defense
Appellant interposes
the defense of denial. His version of the facts is as follows:
"The
accused-appellant
is a simple farmer, aged 25 years at the time of trial. His marriage to
Elnora in 1993 was blessed with a child. Elnora teaches in a far place,
which needs crossing the sea by pumpboat. During schooldays, Elnora and
the child stay at her place of teaching assignment, leaving the
accused-appellant
alone at home to attend to their other concerns. Their house is a
one-room
nipa shack with a floor made of bamboo slats.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Early in the
morning
of 4 August 1995, the accused-appellant went to the house of the
accuser
and asked her, being the younger sister of her wife, to buy some
medicine
for his fighting cocks, and to bring it to his house after class that
day.
As told, the accuser bought the medicine and brought it to the house of
accused-appellant after class.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Upon reaching the
house
of accused-appellant, she called out to him. She was on the ground,
reaching
out to him the medicine with her right hand. The accused-appellant was
at the topmost part of stairs of his house. The floor of the house or
nipa
shack is about one meter from the ground. Thus, in the direct
examination
of the accuser.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Is the
flooring
elevated from the ground?
A. Yes, sir,
about a
meter high.
"While the accuser
was
in the act of giving the medicine to the accused-appellant, the latter
took hold of her right hand with his left hand, forcibly pulling her up
the stairs of his house, and while facing her directly, covered her
mouth
with his hand as she was shouting loudly even while she was still
outside
the house. The accused-appellant allegedly dragged her into his house,
and when they were inside the house, pulled out from a scabbard tucked
at the right side of his waist a jungle knife, poking the right side of
her neck. Even with a knife poked at her neck, she continued to shout.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The
accused-appellant
forcibly pushed her to the floor, and the accused-appellant while
holding
the knife with one hand, undressed her totally, removing her blouse,
skirt,
bra and panty with his free hand, even as she was continuously shouting
for help, with her back pressed against the floor. She was boxing,
pushing,
and kicking the accused-appellant. But still the accused-appellant
succeeded
in sexually abusing her.
"At the time of
the
alleged sexual assault she was menstruating. But she felt and touched
blood
in her vagina only after the third sexual intercourse.
"The
accused-appellant
removed her palda while he was on top of her. As the accused-appellant
removed her panty, the waistline of her panty got torn (although this
was
not presented as exhibit by the prosecution).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On the second
count
of [the] alleged rape, the accuser testified that before raping her the
second time, the accused-appellant poked the jungle knife to her neck.
And while the accused-appellant was poking the jungle knife to her
neck,
she again boxed him and kicked him but she could not resist his
strength.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The prosecution
did
not formally offer to prove that the accuser was a minor.
"The prosecution
reserved
the presentation of the birth certificate but never presented it in
evidence."[9]
(Citations
omitted.) Ruling of
the
Trial Court
The RTC convicted appellant
of three counts of rape for the following reasons. First, more than his
negative assertion, it was complainant's positive testimony that was
given
more weight. Second, the physical evidence - the medical examination of
complainant six days after the incident and the testimony of the
examining
physician — was deemed to have corroborated the former's assertion that
appellant had ravished her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court discarded
the denial proffered by appellant, saying that no woman, especially of
tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination
of her private parts, and expose herself and her family to a public
trial,
if she was not moved by the desire to have her ravisher punished.
Moreover,
because the close and cordial relations between her and appellant would
be adversely affected by the filing of the charges, only the desire to
seek justice could have motivated her and her mother to file the
charges,
against him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this automatic
review before us.[10]
The Issues
Appellant raises the
following errors for our consideration:
"1.01. The
trial court gravely erred in according credence to the testimony of the
accuser, the scenes depicted in her testimony being highly improbable
and
inconsistent with physical laws and human behavior.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1.02. The trial
court
gravely erred in imposing the death penalty on the accused-appellant as
the qualifying circumstances of minority was not sufficiently proven,
and
that of relationship was not pleaded in the information.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1.03. The trial
court
erred in finding that the physical evidence culled from the physician's
physical/medical examination of the accuser six days after the alleged
rape was consistent with the latter's complaint of rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1.04. The trial
court
gravely erred in ruling that the defense of denial by the accused is
inherently
weak, without putting to scrutiny the contradictory and improbable
testimony
of the accuser.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1.05. The trial
court
gravely erred in holding appellant liable to pay his accuser the sum of
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity."[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Simply put, the main
arguments
of appellant are as follows:
1) the
circumstances
surrounding the offense charged are highly improbable;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) the commissions
of rape cannot be drawn from the physical evidence presented by the
prosecution;
and
(3) the trial court
erred in appreciating the minority of the victim and her relationship
with
him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's
Ruling
We affirm the conviction
of appellant for three counts of rape, but reduce the penalty for each
count to reclusion perpetua for the failure of the Informations to
allege
his relationship with the victim and for the failure of the prosecution
to prove her exact age.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First Issue:
Probability of Circumstances
Appellant questions
why complainant did not sustain injuries despite the resistance she was
supposed to have put up against him — boxing and kicking him while
loudly
shouting for help. Such struggle should have caused bodily injuries not
confined only to the genitalia. Abrasions, hematoma or contusions
should
have resulted if he had indeed forcibly pulled her from the ground up
to
his house, which was about a meter above the ground. Moreover, a mark
or
cut would have been left on her neck, if he had truly poked a knife at
it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He adds as improbable
the failure of his neighbors to hear her cries if she truly shouted for
help. Among them was Ely Peralta who testified that she was inside her
house, which was about 10 meters away from his, yet she did not hear
any
shouts at the time.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Allegedly unable to
fathom why complainant and her mother would fabricate the charges
against
him despite his cordial relations with them, he contends that the trial
court should not have applied the rule that no decent woman would file
a rape charge if she was not motivated by the desire to seek justice.cralaw:red
We reject his arguments.
The assigned errors, being essentially factual, may readily be
explained
upon a careful review of the records.
First,
the records do not show whether the victim suffered other bodily
injuries.
During the trial, questions on this matter were limited to the
lacerations
of her genitalia. As to other injuries, none was propounded to her, her
mother or the examining physician.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second,
appellant
did not pull the victim from the ground while he was still inside his
nipa
house. She clearly testified that he had gone down the stairs; gripped
her hand; and dragged her from there, up the stairs, and into the house.[12]
It was not improbable that the whole process left her unscathed,
assuming
that she was.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third, his
claim
that the victim did not suffer injuries when he poked a knife at her
neck
is of no moment. It must be clarified that the word "poke" in the
transcript
was interchangeably used with the word "pointed"[13]
which indicates that it was a rough translation of the Filipino word
"tinutok."
Naturally, a knife that does not touch the skin would not cause injury.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nonetheless, the
presence
of injuries is not vital to establishing the guilt of appellant. The
alleged
absence of external injuries on the victim does not detract from the
fact
that rape was committed.[14]
Even, assuming arguendo that there were no signs of other bodily
injuries,
the occurrence of rape is still not negated, since their absence is not
an essential element of the crime.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither is the fact
of the rape weakened by the claim of appellant that none of his
neighbors
heard any shout for help from the victim. As can be gleaned from the
records,
he quickly halted her shouts by covering her mouth with his hand and
poking
a knife at her neck.[16]
He also warned her that he would kill her if she made any noise.[17]
From time to time he silenced her succeeding shouts[18]
until she eventually became too weak to make any noise.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, the circumstances
surrounding the rapes are not implausible, as appellant would like this
Court to believe. These are immaterial, as they refer to explainable
details
that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of
the
crime of rape — carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.cralaw:red
Appellant's denial cannot
overcome the victim's positive assertion. Mere denial, if
unsubstantiated
by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be
given
greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[20]
Time and time again this Court has said that when a woman — more so
when
she is a minor — says she has been raped, she says in effect all that
is
required to prove the ravishment.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, appellant
failed to show any ill motive, on the part of the victim and her
mother,
to fabricate such a story. A witness testifying candidly, trustworthily
and consistently — without any ill motive — is surely more credible
than
an appellant who simply denies the charge.[22]
"Where there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of
the rape victim to testify falsely against the accused or to implicate
him falsely in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is
that
the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence."[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The victim recounted
how appellant — armed with a knife — defiled her thrice on that fateful
day:
"FISCAL
ESTOLANO
What else
did
he remove from his body?
A He removed his
pants
and brief.
Q After removing
his
brief, what did he do?
A He again
pointed the
knife to me.
Q And what
happened
next?
A While he was
pointing
the knife, I continued pushing him, but I cannot resist his strength.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q What happened
next?
A He placed his
finger
inside my vagina.
Q Then what
happened
next?
A He inserted
his organ
to my vagina.
FISCAL ESTOLANO
What was
his position
when he inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A He was on top
of me.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After
inserting his
penis to your vagina, what did you feel?
A I felt pain.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After
inserting his
penis to your vagina, what did you do and while he was on top of you?
A He is still
pointing
the knife to my neck."[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q When you said
rested,
what do you mean by rested?
A He was resting.
Q Where was his
penis
while resting? Where did he rest?
A On top of me.
COURT
(to witness)
Did he
sleep on
top of you?
A No, sir.
FISCAL ESTOLANO
While the
accused
was resting, what did you do?
A While he was
resting
I kept on boxing him.
FISCAL ESTOLANO
(to witness)
Was the
penis
still inside your vagina?
A No more, sir.
Q How long did
Veno
Esperas rest?
A For 30 minutes.
COURT
(to witness)
On top of
you
he rested for 30 minutes?
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FISCAL ESTOLANO
Why did
you say
that he was resting there?
A Because at
that time
he was no longer moving.
Q No longer
moving his
what?
A He is no
longer moving
his body.
Q After resting
for
30 minutes, what did Veno Esperas do?
A He again point
a jungle
knife on my neck.
Q What did you
do when
he pointed the jungle knife to your neck?
A I again boxed
him
and kicked him but I cannot resist his strength.
FISCAL ESTOLANO
What
happened
next?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A He again
inserted
his male organ to my vagina.
Q What did you
feel
when he inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A I felt pain.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q How long did
the penis
stay inside your vagina?
A For 10
minutes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q While his
penis was
inside your vagina, what was he doing?
A He was then
kissing
me.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
FISCAL ESTOLANO
After 10
minutes
what did Veno Esperas do?
A He again
rested himself.
Q When you said
he rested,
what was his position when resting?
A He was sitting
beside
me.
FISCAL. ESTOLANO
How about
you,
what did you do since his body was no longer on top of you?
A When he was
resting
I was about to run away but he immediately held my hand, so I was not
able
to run.
Q How long did
Veno
Esperas rest?
A For 10 minutes.
Q After he
rested what
happened next?
A He again
inserted
his penis to my vagina.
Q How was he
able to
insert his penis inside your vagina when you said he was sitting beside
you and you were about to run away?
A While he
rested, he
again raped me."[25]
It is a hornbook
doctrine
that that the competence and the credibility of witnesses are best
determined
by the trial court[26]
because of its unique opportunity to observe their deportment while
testifying.[27]
Binding and conclusive on this Court are its factual findings, absent
any
arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and
substance.[28]
In the present case, the court a quo gave more credence to the positive
testimony of the victim, and we find no reason to set aside its factual
findings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second Issue:
Physical Evidence
Appellant contends that
the physical evidence from the medical examination is not consistent
with
the finding of rape. He argues that the examining physician should not
have concluded hastily that complainant had been raped, because the
medical
findings merely showed that her genitalia was positive for lacerations.
He adds that such lacerations are not conclusive of the commission of
rape.
Allegedly, although the examination was intended to determine its
factual
truth, the physician should not have rendered the conclusion that
complainant
had indeed been raped. He further alleges that the doctor was not even
an expert witness, having commenced medical practice only a year after
she passed her licensure examination. Moreover, her previous
examinations
on more than 10 rape victims supposedly resulted in inconclusive
findings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We disagree with appellant.
While vaginal lacerations alone cannot establish rape, they are
corroborative
of its commission. The straightforward and unwavering testimony of the
victim, coupled with her vaginal lacerations, proved that rape was
committed,
and that he was the perpetrator. It was the totality of evidence — not
the mere presence or absence of those lacerations — that established
his
culpability for the offense charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third Issue:
Minority and Relationship
Appellant claims that
the RTC imposed on him the penalty of death, because the trial court
had
appreciated the minority of the victim and his alleged relationship by
affinity to her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are persuaded.
Minority of the
Victim
Not Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt
We agree with appellant
that the minority of the victim was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to present her birth certificate despite its
reservation
to present it during the trial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It must be noted that
the rapes were committed prior to the effectivity of R.A.
No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997."
Applicable,
then is the old provision — Section 11 of R.A.
No. 7659 - which reads as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Sec. 11.
Article
335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
'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
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
'The death
penalty shall
also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following
attendant circumstances:
'1.
when the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent,
ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent
of
the victim."'chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Minority not having
been
sufficiently established, the trial court committed reversible error in
appreciating it as a qualifying circumstance; as such, it must be
proved
with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Required,
therefore,
is independent proof of the age[29]
of the victim, such as, her birth certificate or her mother's testimony.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The victim testified
that
she was born on August 14, 1979, and was thus 15 years old on the date
of the trial.[31]
On the other hand, her mother testified that she was born in September
1979.[32]
These conflicting — albeit casual — testimonies cast a serious doubt on
the victim's exact age at the time of rape.
In People v. Brigildo,[33]
the Court held that minority as a qualifying circumstance under Section
11 of R.A.
No.
7659 had not been properly proven when the testimony of the mother
as to the true age of the victim contradicted that of the latter. The
Court
was thus constrained to reduce to reclusion perpetua the penalty of
death
imposed by the trial court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's
Relationship
by Affinity to the Victim
Another error committed
by the RTC was its appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of
relationship
of appellant with the victim. He is allegedly her brother-in-law, but
because
this fact was not alleged in the Informations, it should not have been
used by the trial court to qualify the crime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Well-settled is the
rule that the relationship of the perpetrator with the victim must be
duly
alleged in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty.[34]
"If the offender is merely a relation — not a parent, ascendant,
step-parent,
guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim — the
specific
relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is `a
relative
by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third
civil
degree."'[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Civil Liability
In addition to indemnity
ex delicto, the victim should be awarded moral damages in the sum of
P50,000.[36]
This Court has granted the same to victims of rape without need of
proof
other than the fact of rape, which by itself shows the factual bases
for
the award. Also, exemplary damages of P25,000[37]
is proper, since the prosecution was able to prove the relationship of
appellant with the victim. Even it not alleged in the Information,
their
proven relationship is sufficient basis for this civil liability.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the joint
judgment promulgated on October 18, 1996 by the Regional Trial Court of
Palawan, finding appellant guilty of three counts of qualified rape, is
MODIFIED. He is found GUILTY of three counts of SIMPLE RAPE only, and
for
each count he is sentenced to three (3) terms of reclusion perpetua.
Furthermore,
for each count of rape he is ordered to pay the victim moral damages of
P50,000 and exemplary damages of P25,000, in addition to the P50,000
civil
indemnity imposed by the RTC for each count. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Written by Judge Filomeno A. Vergara.
[2]
RTC Joint Judgment, p. 15; rollo, p. 33; records, p. 84.
[3]
Information dated August 29, 1995; rollo, p. 7; records, p. 1.
[4]
Information dated November 7, 1995; id., pp. 9 & 16.
[5]
Information dated November 7, 1995; id., pp. 11 & 22.
[6]
See Order dated November 10, 1995; records, p. 35.
[7]
Atty. Benjamin Padon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Appellee's Brief, pp. 5–7; rollo, pp. 151–153. Signed by Assistant
Solicitors
General Carlos N. Ortega and Josefina C. Castillo and Solicitor Jane E.
Yu.
[9]
Appellant's Brief, pp. 9–12; rollo, pp. 93–96. Signed by Atty. Virgilio
P.A. Ocaya of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).chan
robles virtual
[10]
This case was deemed submitted for decision on April 9, 2003, upon
receipt
by this Court of appellant's Reply Brief signed by Attys. Amelia C.
Garchitorena,
Teresita S. de Guzman and Susan O. Bilog-Azarcon of the Public
Attorney's
Office (PAO). Appellant's Brief, signed by Atty. Virgilio P.A. Ocaya,
was
received by this Court on January 27, 2003, while appellee's Brief was
filed on September 3, 2002.chan
robles virtual law
[11]
Appellant's Brief, pp. 5 & 6; rollo, pp. 89 & 90. Original in
upper
case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, February 22, 1996, pp. 13–15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id., pp. 15, 17–18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
People v. Napud Jr., 366 SCRA 25, September 26, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People v. Cula, 385 Phil. 742, March 28, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, February 22, 1996, p. 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id., pp. 50, 63–64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id., p. 56.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id., p. 60.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People v. Edem, 378 SCRA 38, February 27, 2002; People v. Baluya, 380
SCRA
532, April 11, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People v. Balas, 372 SCRA 80, December 11, 2001; People v. Manayan, 368
SCRA 300, October 25, 2001; People v. Tagaylo, 345 SCRA 284, November
20,
2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People v. Pecayo Sr., 348 SCRA 95, December 14, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People v. Cula, supra, pp. 754–755, per Melo, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
TSN, February 22, 1996, pp. 22–23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id., pp. 25–29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People v. Montes, supra; People v. Tadeo, 371 SCRA 303, December 3,
2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Plana, 370 SCRA 542, November 27, 2001; People v. De Guzman,
388 Phil. 943, June 8, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. Obordo, 382 SCRA 98, May 9, 2002; People v. Bertulfo, 381
SCRA
762, May 7, 2002; People v. Sanchez, 375 SCRA 355, January 31, 2002;
People
v. Abella, 339 SCRA 129, August 28, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
People v. Alvarado, 379 SCRA 475, March 19, 2002; People v. Agravante,
372 SCRA 64, December 11, 2001; citing People v. Tundag, 342 SCRA 704,
October 12, 2000.
[30]
People v. De la Cruz, 338 SCRA 582, August 23, 2000; citing People v.
Javier,
311 SCRA 122, July 26, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
TSN, February 22, 1996, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
TSN, February 28, 1996, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
323 SCRA 631, January 28, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People v. Daganio, 374 SCRA 365, January 23, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
People v. Esperanza, GR Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003, p. 16, per
Davide,
CJchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
People v. Baldosa, 381 SCRA 712, May 7, 2002; People v. Arofo, 380 SCRA
663, April 11, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
People v. Villanueva, GR Nos. 146464-67, November 15, 2002; People v.
Barcelon
Jr., GR No. 144308, September 24, 2002; People v. Francisco, 351 SCRA
351,
February 7, 2001.
[38]
People v. Lachica, 382 SCRA 162, May 9, 2002.chan
rob |