SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
139332
June 20, 2003
-versus-
NOLI NOVIO Y AYASO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tacloban City, in Criminal
Case No. 94-09-447 finding appellant Noli Novio y Ayaso guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of rape, sentencing him to thirty years of reclusion perpetua and
ordering him to pay P50,000 to the victim, as civil indemnity.
The appellant was charged
with rape under the Information which reads:
That on or about the
24th day of September, 1994, in the City of Tacloban, Philippines and
within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did,
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
with one MARICEL B. TALISAY, a minor, while the latter was deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, as she was then asleep, against her
will,
with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.[2]
On May 17, 1985, Noli
was arraigned, assisted by counsel and offered to plead guilty to the
lesser
offense of acts of lasciviousness. The trial court asked the offended
party,
Maricel Talisay, whether she was in conformity with Noli’s plea.
Maricel
did not give her assent, thus, the plea was rejected. The trial
court
then entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged.[3]
The Evidence of
the
Prosecution
The spouses Wilberto
and Nenita Talisay owned a sari-sari store located at Barangay 88,
Costa
Brava, in San Jose, Tacloban City. Their young daughter, Maricel,
tended
the store whenever she was free from school and had no homework. The
spouses
earned additional income as caretakers of the Zamora beach house, about
one hundred meters away from their store.chanrobles virtual law library
Noli was the younger
brother of the husband of Maricel’s older sister. When Noli first met
then
13-year-old Maricel, he was instantly enamored with her that he began
frequenting
the store owned by the spouses Talisay.cralaw:red
In the evening of September
23, 1994, Maricel, together with her brothers - Jun, aged 11, and Joey,
aged 9 years - slept side by side in the store while their parents
slept
in the beach house. Maricel was wearing a red duster and panties.cralaw:red
The next day, at about
3:00 a.m., Maricel felt some ticklish sensation, as if somebody was
kissing
her. But she also felt stabs of pain in her vagina. She opened her eyes
and was horrified to see Noli completely naked on top of her.
Immediately,
Noli covered her mouth with his right hand and held both her hands with
his left. He warned her not to make any noise. She noticed, too, that
her
red duster had been rolled up to her neck and her legs were being
separated
by Noli with the use of his legs. She struggled, but to no avail. Noli
then inserted his penis in Maricel’s vagina.chanrobles virtual law library
In the meanwhile, Wilberto
and Nenita were awakened by a male neighbor who reported to them that
he
had heard the voice of a man inside their store. Nenita and Wilberto
immediately
got up. Nenita got a flashlight and bolo while Wilberto and their
neighbor
sought help from other neighbors. When she reached the store, Nenita
beamed
the flashlight on the store and found a pair of sandals by the
door.
She frantically knocked at the door, called out to Maricel and asked
who
was inside the store: "Maricel, hin-o iton tawo dinhi ha sakob?" (Who
is
in the store with you?) Hearing no reply, Nenita knocked again and
said,
"Maricel, hin-o iton tawo dinhi ha sakob?" When she
received
no response from Maricel, Nenita tried but failed to open the door of
the
store. Exasperated, Nenita forcefully pushed the door open and beamed
the
flashlight inside. She was aghast when she saw Noli completely naked on
top of Maricel, with his right hand over the girl’s mouth. He was
raping Maricel. Nenita noticed that her daughter was pale and
terrified.
Nenita pulled Noli from Maricel and attempted to hack him, but Noli
held
on to Maricel, using her as a shield. Nenita then ordered Maricel to
free
herself from Noli. As the girl was finally able to do this, Noli,
sensing
danger, hurriedly took his jogging pants, tucked the same under his
left
armpit and jumped over the window of the store. He fled, leaving
his blue t-shirt, black underwear, black wallet and sandals inside the
store. Nenita pursued Noli and hacked him on his left ankle with the
bolo.
Maricel was left inside the store, demeaned and distraught.cralaw:red
When Nenita returned,
she gathered the personal things that Noli left behind as he fled. When
she asked Maricel how Noli was able to enter the store, Maricel could
not
respond as she was crying profusely and trembling with fear.cralaw:red
Nenita reported the
incident to Barangay Chairman Segundino Edara, saying that her daughter
had been raped by Noli and sought the immediate arrest of the latter.
The
barangay chairman went to the store and saw Maricel crying. Noli was
invited
by the barangay chairman to the police station for investigation.
Nenita
brought Maricel to the police station, where the two executed their
respective
affidavits. Nenita turned over Noli’s t-shirt, underwear and wallet to
the police investigator. Both Noli and Maricel were brought to the
Eastern
Visayas Regional Medical Center, where Noli was treated for his wound
on
the left ankle, while Maricel was subjected to surgical and genitalia
examination.
Dr. Irene Dacut and Dr. Morris Alve conducted the examination and found
the following:
FINDINGS
-Abrasions, posterior
aspect, (L) thigh.cralaw:red
OB-GYNE Findings:
Menarch - June 1st Week ’94
LMP - Sept.
5, 1994 x 3 days
PMP - Aug.
1st Week, 1994
Ext. genitalia
- Grossly normal
Introitus- Nulliparous,
hymen intact, elastic, positive
Abrasions both inner
aspects of labia minora, 2.5 cms. (R)
side,
2.0 cm (L) side
Speculum exam
- Vagina admits virginal speculum with slight difficulty, cervix
pinkish, small, smooth with scanty whitish mucoid discharge.cralaw:red
Internal exam
- Vagina admits one examining finger with slight difficulty,
Cervix
firm closed non tender.cralaw:red
Uterus- small
Adnexae- (-) masses/tenderness
Vaginal smear for presence
of spermatozoa - No spermatozoa seen.[4]
The Evidence of
the
Accused
Noli denied having raped
Maricel. He insisted that he and Maricel were sweethearts.
He testified that it was sometime in April 1994 when he met Maricel,
the
sister of his older brother’s wife. Attracted, appellant
frequented
the store she tended and started courting her. After a month, Maricel
finally
accepted his offer and they became sweethearts. Maricel, however,
pleaded
to Noli for their relationship to be kept from her mother. Noli agreed.cralaw:red
On September 23, 1994,
Noli suggested that they meet in the store for a date. Maricel
assented.
When he arrived at the store, Maricel opened the door. They then
talked, and kissed. He removed his clothes and Maricel’s as well,
including
her panties. He went on top of her and touched her womanhood.
Noli
was flabbergasted when he heard knocks on the door of the store. Worse,
he heard Nenita calling Maricel. However, Maricel ignored her
mother’s
call. Unable to get any answer, Nenita forced open the door
and found him on top of Maricel. Nenita ordered Noli to dismount, to
which
he obliged. Noli then got his jogging pants and left the store.
In
his hurry, he did not notice that he was hacked on the leg by Nenita
with
her bolo until he reached his house. It was only then that he felt
pains
on his left leg. Noli claimed that when Nenita chanced upon him
and
Maricel, they were having consensual sexual intercourse.cralaw:red
On March 17, 1999, the
trial court rendered a Decision[5]
finding Noli guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and meted on him
the
penalty of thirty years of reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Court hereby finds the accused Noli Novio guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of consummated rape provided for in
paragraph
one (1), Article 355 (sic) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section
11 of Republic Act No. 7659 and without the Indeterminate Sentence Law
applicable and neither any mitigating nor aggravating circumstance
present,
this court hereby sentences accused Noli Novio to indivisible penalty
of
reclusion perpetua with imprisonment of thirty (30) years. Full
credit
to the days of his liberty has been restrained or under preventive
imprisonment
is granted provided he had voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by
the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.chanrobles virtual law library
The accused is also
condemned to indemnify the victim the sum of Fifty Thousand
(P50,000.00)
pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay
the cost of these proceedings.[6]
The trial court found
and declared that the prosecution was able to establish that Noli had
raped
Maricel. She clearly and positively identified Noli as the
perpetrator
of the crime. Her testimony was corroborated by Nenita. The
trial court overruled Noli’s defense that he and Maricel were
sweethearts
and had consensual sexual intercourse in the early morning of September
24, 1994. The court stated that Noli failed to adduce in evidence
pictures, letters or tokens to prove his and Maricel’s love
affair.
It stressed that if indeed they were sweethearts and had agreed to
meet,
Maricel should have asked her brothers Jun and Joey not to sleep with
her
in the store. She should have shielded Noli from the hacking
blows
of her mother. The evidence on record, however, showed otherwise.
Maricel
had slept with her brothers and did not shield Noli from her mother’s
blows.
The foregoing facts and circumstances, and Dr. Dacut’s medical findings
of abrasions in both the labia minora and majora of her vagina, fully
substantiated
the claim of Maricel that she had, indeed, been raped by Noli.cralaw:red
Aggrieved, Noli, now
the appellant, appealed from the decision of the trial court and
asserts
that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES
OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND THAT OF HER MOTHER AND IN NOT CONSIDERING
THE
DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE
FAILURE
OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[7]
The appellant puts in
issue the credibility of Nenita and Maricel Talisay and the probative
weight
of their collective testimonies. He avers that if, as claimed by
Maricel
and her mother, he had raped Maricel, his natural reaction upon hearing
Nenita calling Maricel, demanding to know who she was with, would have
been to immediately stand up, dress himself and leave the store.
He asserts that the mere fact that he remained on top of Maricel when
Nenita
opened the door belied the charge against him. The appellant also avers
that it was uncommon and unnatural for Nenita, a woman, who heard from
a male neighbor that a man was inside their store, to proceed to the
said
store and confront the intruder while her husband and their male
neighbor
sought help from neighbors. Noli insists that the prosecution resorted
to suppression of evidence when it failed to present as witness the
male
neighbor of the spouses Talisay who had informed the couple that he
heard
a male voice inside their store. Noli also insists that the prosecution
was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had raped
Maricel.
He contends that he was able to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that he and Maricel were sweethearts.chanrobles virtual law library
The Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), for its part, contends that the prosecution was able to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that Noli had raped Maricel. When
she
testified, Maricel clearly and positively identified the appellant as
the
one who laid on top of her, held her hands, and covered her mouth as he
inserted his penis inside her vagina despite her struggles. Her
testimony
was corroborated by her mother Nenita, who caught the appellant on top
of Maricel, raping her, and Dr. Irene Dacut who testified that when she
examined Maricel, she found abrasions on the inner aspect of the labia
minora of her sex organ which were indicative of forced sexual
intercourse,
thus belying the appellant’s defense. He miserably failed to
adduce
as evidence letters, tokens or pictures evidencing his relationship
with
Maricel. Moreover, even if they were indeed sweethearts, the
appellant
could not force Maricel to have sex with him as love is not a license
for
lust.cralaw:red
The contention of the
appellant does not persuade. It is stressed that when the credibility
of
the witness is in issue, the trial court’s assessment is accorded great
weight because it has a unique opportunity to hear the testimony of
witnesses
and observe their deportment and manner of testifying.[8]
It has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close range
the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses as they regale
the
trial court with their testimonies.[9]
In reviewing rape cases,
this Court had always been guided by three (3) well-entrenched
principles:
(1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the
accusation
is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused,
though
innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things,
only
two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of
the complainant should be scrutinized with great 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 the
defense.[10]
In this case, the Court
is convinced beyond cavil, as the trial court was, that Nenita and her
daughter Maricel were credible witnesses and their collective
testimonies
entitled to full probative weight.cralaw:red
Maricel vividly recounted
before the court her harrowing experience. She testified that she
was roused from her sleep when at or about 3:00 a.m. of September 24,
1994,
she felt pain in her vagina, opened her eyes and saw the appellant
completely
naked and on top of her. The appellant held both her hands with his
left
hand, covered her mouth with his right hand and warned her not to make
any noise. The appellant, using his legs, separated Maricel’s
legs
and inserted his penis in her vagina. She struggled to free herself
from
the appellant’s clutches to prevent him from raping her, but to no
avail.
Noli was too strong for her.cralaw:red
Q: Now,
while you were asleep do you remember having been awakened at around
three
o’clock in the early morning of September 24, 1994?[11]
WITNESS:chanrobles virtual law library
A:
When I woke up he was already on top of me; I did not wake up when he
got
inside the store.[12]
Q: When
you woke up, where was Noli Nobio (sic), when you opened your eyes?
A:
He was on top of me.cralaw:red
Q: What
was Noli Nobio (sic) wearing at the time he was on top of you?
A:
He was not wearing anything; he was naked.cralaw:red
Q: Now, how did
you know that it was Noli Nobio (sic) who was on top of you?
A:
I learned that he was already on top of me because it was painful; I
felt
pain.cralaw:red
COURT:
That is not the question
asked; you listen to the question very well and understand it before
giving
your answer.cralaw:red
Interpret again the
question.cralaw:red
WITNESS:
A:
I recognized his face because there was light inside the store.chanrobles virtual law library
PROS. TALAPIERO:
Q: When
you opened your eyes and you saw Noli Nobio (sic), did Noli Nobio (sic)
say anything to you?
A:
Yes ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: What
did he say?
A:
He placed his hand over my mouth and said ‘do not make any noise’.cralaw:red
Q: After
he covered your mouth with hand, what did you do?
A:
He was already lying on top of me and he was trying to inserted (sic)
his
penis into my vagina.cralaw:red
Q: Was he
able to insert his penis into your vagina?
A:
Yes, ma’am/ (sic)
Q: And what
did you feel?
A:
It was painful.cralaw:red
Q: What were you
wearing when you went to bed that night of September 24, 1994?
A:
I was in my red duster.chanrobles virtual law library
Q: What
else, if any, aside from the red duster?
A:
My panty.cralaw:red
Q: When
you opened your eyes at round three o’clock early in the morning of
September
24, 1994 and you saw Noli Nobio (sic) on top of you, do you know what
happened
to the clothes you were wearing that night?
A:
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: What,
please tell the Court.cralaw:red
A:
My duster had already been pulled up to my neck and my panty already
gone.cralaw:red
Q: What
happened after Noli Nobio (sic) inserted his penis into your vagina,
what
happened after that? What did he do after his penis was already
inside
your vagina?
A:
My mother arrived.[13]chanrobles virtual law library
Q: What
did you do when you woke up and had still that ticklish sensation?
A:
I wanted to push him away from me but I could not do so because he was
holding my hand and he was covering my mouth with his hand.[14]
ATTY. CINCO:
Q: For how
many minutes did the accused have his penis stayed in your vagina?
WITNESS:
A:
For about five (5) minutes.cralaw:red
Q: Dyring
(sic) this five minutes that the the (sic) penis of the accused was
inside
your vagina, did you struggle to free yourself from that situation?
A:
I struggled.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q: Were
you able to free yourself?
WITNESS:chanrobles virtual law library
A:
No, sir.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q: Why?
WITNESS:
A:
Because he was holding my hands and he was spreading my legs with his
legs.cralaw:red
COURT:
Proceed.cralaw:red
ATTY. CINCO
Q: Your
hands were held by Noli Nobio (sic)?
WITNESS:chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: Your
left and (sic) your hands?
A:
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: So your
mouth was not covered at that time when Noli Nobio (sic) was inserting
his penis into your vagina?
A:
His right hand was covering my mouth while his left hand was holding my
hands.[15]
Nenita corroborated
Maricel’s testimony. When she forced open the door to the store,
she saw the appellant on top of Maricel, completely naked, holding
Maricel’s
hands, covering her mouth and raping her.chanrobles virtual law library
The Court cannot give
credence to the testimony of the appellant that he and Maricel were
sweethearts.
His sweetheart theory is not supported by any photos or mementos to
prove
their alleged love relationship.[16]
If, as the appellant testified, he and Maricel had been having an
amorous
relationship a month after April of 1994 or approximately four (4)
months
before the incident, tokens or mementos of their affair could have been
exchanged, taken and kept.cralaw:red
Even if the Court assumed
for the nonce that Maricel and the appellant were, indeed, sweethearts,
the appellant cannot force Maricel to have sex with him. As often
stated, love is not a license for lust.[17]
The Court does not even believe the appellant’s testimony that he and
Maricel
had an agreement to meet at dawn on September 24, 1994. There were, as
the trial court noted, tell-tale signs that the appellant was not
welcome,
or even expected by Maricel at the store at dawn on that fateful
day.
Maricel was with her two brothers Joey and Jun inside the store.
Moreover, Maricel was fast asleep when the appellant helped himself
inside.
If, as the appellant claimed, he and Maricel had agreed to meet and
talk
in the store, Maricel surely would not have allowed her brothers to
sleep
beside her. She should have been fully awake for his arrival to welcome
his amorous advances, and enjoy the ecstasy of their togetherness
instead
of resisting the same. Patently, the appellant’s story is, as this
Court
said in People vs. Lorenzo,[18]
a put-up scenario; a story "which runs against the grain of ordinary
reality,
controverts logic and assails common sense."
While testifying on
direct examination, appellant claimed that he and Maricel had agreed to
meet on September 24, 1994.[19]
However, on cross-examination Noli appeared uncertain as he testified
that
he did not remember the date he and Maricel had agreed to meet and talk
as he was on the sea fishing, two days thenceforth.[20]
Even if the Court assumed
that indeed Maricel and the appellant had agreed to meet, there is no
showing
that she had consented to have sex with the appellant. Maricel
valiantly
struggled by pushing the appellant back to prevent him from raping her.[21]chanrobles virtual law library
The case for the prosecution
was not enfeebled by evidence that the appellant did not flee from the
store but remained on top of Maricel, even as Nenita forcibly opened
the
door and gained entry into the store. The appellant’s non-flight cannot
be weighed in his favor. There is no established declaration that
non-flight
is, in every instance, an indication of innocence.[22]
The Court is convinced that the appellant remained on top of Maricel
instead
of scampering out of the store because he thought that Nenita would go
away after Maricel had failed to respond to her mother’s
questions.
The appellant felt sure that Nenita would not be able to open the door,
as it was locked from the inside. But the appellant underestimated
Nenita’s
determination. She forced the door open and caught the appellant
completely
naked on top of Maricel, in flagrante delicto. Instinctively, the
appellant grabbed Maricel and used her as a shield against Nenita who
was
about to hack him with her bolo. When Maricel was finally able to
extricate
herself from the appellant, he realized that his life was in peril and
jumped out of the store completely naked, leaving his black underwear,
t-shirt, sandals and wallet behind.[23]
This Court does not
agree with the appellant’s assertion that it is uncommon for a mother
to
confront an intruder in their store while her husband and neighbor
sought
help from other neighbors. Most mothers would give up their own lives
and
fortune to protect their children from harm’s way and shield them from
embarrassment, ridicule and any taint on their reputation.[24]
In this case, upon learning that a man had gained entry into their
store,
Nenita believed that her daughter Maricel and her younger children,
Joey
and Jun, were in peril. She immediately took hold of a flashlight and a
bolo, and rushed to their store to protect and save her children. There
is nothing unnatural for Nenita to arm herself with a bolo and rush to
the store while her husband opted to seek help from neighbors. As this
Court had consistently ruled: "the workings of the human mind under
emotional
stress are unpredictable such that people react differently to
startling
situations."[25]
No prejudicial inference
can be attributed to the failure of the prosecution to present the
neighbor
of the couple who informed them of the presence of a male person in the
store as a witness. The testimony of the neighbor was merely
corroborative
of the testimony of Nenita.[26]chanrobles virtual law library
This Court agrees with
the trial court that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that
she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove
that
rape was committed.[27]
A young girl’s revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her
voluntary
submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public
trial where she could be compelled to give out details of an assault on
her dignity, cannot easily be dismissed as mere concoction.[28]
Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[29]
Proper Penalty on
the Appellant
Under Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, the prescribed
penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua. However, the trial court
sentenced the appellant to thirty years of reclusion perpetua. The
penalty
imposed by the trial court is void.[30]
Although under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic
7659, reclusion perpetua has a range of twenty years and one day to
forty
years, by nature, the penalty remains a single and indivisible penalty.
It cannot be divided into periods or equal portions. If the law
prescribes
reclusion perpetua as a single and indivisible penalty for a felony,
the
trial court is mandated to impose said penalty, absent any privileged
mitigating
circumstances conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
The
trial court is not authorized to vary the penalty provided for by law
either
in the character or the extent of punishment inflicted.[31]
There was no need for
the trial court to specify the duration of thirty years of reclusion
perpetua
whenever it is imposed as a penalty in any proper case. The Court is
not
impervious to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code which pertinently
provides
that, in applying the so-called "three-fold rule," i.e., that "(w)hen
the
culprit has to serve two or more penalties, the maximum duration of the
convict’s sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon
him"
- "the duration of perpetual penalties (penal perpetua) shall be
computed at thirty years." The imputation of a thirty-year duration to
reclusion perpetua in Article 70 is, as this Court recently held, "only
to serve as the basis for determining the convict’s eligibility for
pardon
or for the application of the three-fold rule in the service of
multiple
penalties.[32]chanrobles virtual law library
The appellant testified
on direct examination on June 21, 1996, that he was 17 years old when
the
crime was committed in 1994. However, he did not adduce in evidence his
birth certificate. Neither did he state when he was born. There is thus
an uncertainty as to whether the appellant was a minor at the time of
the
commission of the felony. Moreover, when he was asked on
cross-examination
if he was only sixteen years old when the crime was committed, the
appellant
replied that he did not know.cralaw:red
Q
And this incident happened in 1994, about three years ago when this
incident
took place. So would I be correct to presume that if you are nineteen
years
old now, minus three years, you were only sixteen when the incident
took
place?
A
I do not know.[33]
In sum, the appellant
failed to prove that he was a minor at the time of the commission of
the
felony. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to the privileged
mitigating
circumstance of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtual law library
Civil Liabilities
of the Appellant
The trial court correctly
ordered the appellant to pay to the victim, Maricel Talisay, P50,000 as
civil indemnity. In addition, the victim is entitled to the award of
moral
damages in the amount of P50,000. This is in line with the
current
rulings automatically granting moral damages without need of proof, the
reason being that mental, physical and psychological trauma suffered by
the victim is too obvious to still require proof at the trial.[34]
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tacloban City, in Criminal Case
No. 94-09-447 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant
Noli
Novio y Ayaso is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
simple
rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659
and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The appellant is ordered to pay
the victim, Maricel Talisay, P50,000 as civil indemnity and
P50,000
as moral damages.cralaw:red
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman),
and Quisumbing, JJ.,
concur.
Martinez, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Santos T. Gil.
[2]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id., at 20.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Exhibit "D," Records, p. 13.
[5]
Records, p. 206.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Id., at 224-225chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Brief for the Accused-appellant, Rollo, p. 79.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
People v. Layoso, G.R. No. 141773-76, 22 January 2003.
[9]
People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 142577, 27 December 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Ibid.; People v. Dalandas, G.R. No. 140209, 27 December 2002; People v.
Sambrano, G.R. No. 143708, 24 February 2003; People v. Bagaua, G.R. No.
147943, 12 December 2002.
[11]
TSN, 24 July 1995, p. 8.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Id., at 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Id., at 9-11.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
TSN, 25 July 1995, pp. 32-33.
[15]
Id., at 36-37.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
People v. Taperla, G.R. No. 142860, 16 January 2003.
[17]
Id., supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
240 SCRA 624 (1995).
[19]
TSN, 21 June 1996, p. 6.
[20]
TSN, 19 May 1997, pp. 7-9.
[21]
TSN, 19 May 1997, p. 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
People vs. Bacule, 323 SCRA 734 (2000).
[23]
TSN, 28 July 1997, pp. 12-15.
[24]
People v. Ramos, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
People v. Torejos, 326 SCRA 75 (2000).
[26]
People v. Paule, 261 SCRA 649 (1996).chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
People v. Galigao, G.R. No. 140961-63, 14 January 2003.
[28]
People v. Plurad, G.R. No. 138361-63, 3 December 2002.
[29]
People v. Galigao, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
People vs. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997).chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
In Re: Graham, 34 L. ed. 1051; Weems v. United States, 54 L.ed. 793.
[32]
People v. Tena, 215 SCRA 43 (1992).chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
TSN, 19 May 1997, p. 4 (Novio).
[34]
People v. Arriola, G.R. No. 140779-80, 3 December 2002
chan
robles virtual law library |