EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
142727
January 23, 2002
-versus-
ANTONIO DULINDO
ESUREÑA,
Accused-Appellant
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Antonio Dulindo Esureña
was charged with rape of his 13-year old daughter before the Regional
Trial
Court of Lucena City, Branch 58. The Information reads:
That on or about the
1st day of August 1994, at Barangay Ilayang Nangka, Municipality of
Tayabas,
Province of Quezon, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, armed with a bolo, with lewd designs, by means
of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Nena Decano
Esureña,
a minor, 13 years of age, and a daughter of said accused, against her
will.cralaw:red
Contrary to law.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The victim, Nena Decano
Esureña, is the eldest of six daughters of Maria Esureña
and accused-appellant, Antonio Dulindo Esureña (hereinafter
Antonio).[2]
On August 1, 1994, at 8:00 in the morning, Nena and three of her
younger
sisters, namely, Nelly, Naty and Michelle, went with their father
Antonio
to the woods in Ilayang Nangka, Tayabas, Quezon to gather anahaw leaves
to be used as roofing material for their house.[3]
While they were in the
woods, Antonio lured Nena into a secluded area. He pushed her to the
ground
and removed her shorts, panties and blouse, while he took off his short
pants and briefs. While Nena was lying on the ground, Antonio held her
hands and forced her legs apart, then inserted his penis into her
vagina.
He made up and down movements while he was on top of Nena who struggled
to free herself but she was pinned down by Antonio. Nena felt pain in
her
vagina and hips. After about fifteen minutes, Antonio stood up and told
Nena not to tell anyone of what happened or else he will kill her.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rape was witnessed
by Nena's sisters. Antonio threatened to kill Nena if they came nearer.
The three of them could do nothing but watch and cry.[5]
Nena could not tell
her mother what happened for fear of her father's threats. After two
weeks,
Nena's sister reported the rape to their mother, Maria. Consequently,
Maria
questioned Nena until the latter was forced to admit that her father
had
indeed sexually abused her. Maria relayed the incident to her brother
and
mother. Maria's brother went to Barangay Captain Gerson Pabria who, in
turn, reported the matter to the police.[6]
On October 11, 1994,
Nena was brought to the Provincial Health Office, Lucena, Quezon for
examination.
The Medical Officer, Dr. Ma. Amelia A. Tolentino, found deep healed
lacerations
at 4 and 7 o'clock positions and superficial lacerations at 3 and 11
o'clock
positions on her hymen.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Antonio admitted that
in the morning of August 1, 1994, he went to the woods with his four
daughters,
Nena, Nely, Naty and Michelle, to gather anahaw leaves. However, he
denied
the charge of rape. He alleged that his father-in-law, Gabriel Decano,
made up the accusation because he was mad at him for being a drunkard.
According to Antonio, he had a tendency to throw things around the
house
and hack the door with his bolo whenever he was drunk which scared his
daughters and angered his father-in-law.[8]
On January 12, 2000,
the trial court rendered judgment convicting Antonio of the crime of
rape
and sentenced him to death. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the
accused ANTONIO DULINDO ESUREÑA guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of
the crime of rape, having committed by the accused against his own
daughter
of 13 years of age and in full view of the other children, said accused
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and he is ordered to
pay the offended party, Nena Esureña, the amount of P100,000.00
as compensatory damages and P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages
and
also to pay the costs of the suit.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[9]
Hence, this automatic
review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
Section
22 of R.A. No. 7659.cralaw:red
In his lone assignment
of error, Antonio does not assail the trial court's Decision insofar as
it concludes that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that he
raped
his own daughter. However, he faults the trial court for imposing the
supreme
penalty of death contending that: (a) the minority of the victim was
not
proved clearly and convincingly; and (b) the other qualifying
circumstance
that rape was committed in the presence and in full view of the
victim's
relatives of the third degree of consanguinity was not alleged in the
information.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A careful review of
the evidence on record shows that Nena's testimony on the details of
the
rape was narrated in a straightforward, positive and convincing manner.
She did not waver even during cross-examination, despite her tender
age.
It is an established rule that courts usually give credence to the
testimony
of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, particularly if it
constitutes
incestuous rape because, normally, no person would be willing to
undergo
the humiliation of a public trial and to testify on the details of her
ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice.[10]
More importantly, the
fact of rape is corroborated by Nelly, Nena's younger sister. There is
nothing in the record which would indicate ill-motive on the part of
Nelly
to testify falsely against her father. Furthermore, the medical
evidence,
notably the finding of healed lacerations on the victim's private
parts,
supports the theory that Nena had been a victim of rape.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While we affirm the
trial court's judgment of conviction, we do not agree with the trial
court's
imposition of the death penalty. Under Republic Act No. 7659, the
imposition
of the death penalty in rape cases becomes mandatory when the offended
party is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or
affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of
the victim. The qualifying circumstances of age and relationship of the
victim to the accused must specifically be alleged and proved.[12]
In the case of People
v. Manuel Liban,[13]
this Court ruled that the birth certificate of the victim or in lieu
thereof,
any other documentary evidence that can help establish the age of the
victim
should be presented.cralaw:red
In People v. Javier,[14]
we required the presentation of the birth certificate of the victim to
prove her minority, failing which the imposition of the death penalty
cannot
be upheld.cralaw:red
In the case at bar,
although the minority of the victim was alleged in the information, the
same was not duly proved during the trial of the case. No evidence was
presented to show Nena's age, save for her own testimony. It has been
held
that while the testimony of a person as to her age, although hearsay,
is
admissible as evidence of family tradition, it cannot be considered
proof
of age beyond reasonable doubt.[15]
Hence, the qualifying circumstance of minority cannot be appreciated,
and
accordingly the death penalty cannot be imposed.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is a time-honored
principle that in a criminal prosecution, especially where the life of
another human being is hanging on the balance, nothing but proof beyond
reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with
which
the accused is charged must be established in order for the
corresponding
penalty thereto to be upheld.cralaw:red
On the other hand, the
qualifying circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of the
spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third
civil degree of consanguinity,[17]
although proved, was not alleged in the Information. As such, it also
cannot
be appreciated to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
Qualifying
circumstances which increase the penalty by degree rather than merely
affect
the period of the penalty, as in the case of aggravating circumstances,
must be properly pleaded in the information consistent with the
constitutional
right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since accused-appellant
Antonio is only guilty of simple rape, the amounts awarded as damages
must
be modified. The amount of P100,000.00 which the trial court awarded as
compensatory damages must be reduced to P50,000.00, while the award of
P50,000.00 as moral damages is justified and should be maintained.[19]
Further, the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded as exemplary
damages,
to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior,
like accused-appellant, from sexually abusing their daughters.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena, Quezon, Branch 58, in Criminal
Case
No. 95-35, finding accused-appellant Antonio Dulindo Esureña
guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
As modified, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua only, instead of death and he is ordered to pay the victim,
Nena
Esureña the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as
moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against
appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo,
Buena,
De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Criminal Case No. 95-35; Record, p. 2.
[2]
TSN, August 28, 1996, p. 12.
[3]
Record, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, August 28, 1996, pp. 3-6; Exh. C.
[5]
TSN, October 11, 1996, p. 4.
[6]
TSN, August 28, 1996, pp. 6-7.
[7]
Exh. A.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, April 23, 1997, pp. 4-12.
[9]
Penned by Judge Ismael B. Sanchez; Record, pp. 231-244.
[10]
People v. Dizon, G.R. Nos. 134522-24 and 139508-09, April 3, 2001.
[11]
People v. Seguis, G.R. No. 135034, January 18, 2001.
[12]
People v. Villaraza, G.R. Nos. 131848-50, September 5, 2000, p. 22,
citing
People v. Manggasin, 306 SCRA 228 [1999].
[13]
G.R. No. 138330, November 22, 2000.
[14]
311 SCRA 122 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People v. Pine, 346 SCRA 383, 393 [2000].
[16]
People v. Virrey, G.R. No. 133910, November 14, 2001.
[17]
Revised Penal Code, Article 266-B, sixth paragraph, subparagraph (3).
[18]
People v. Labayne, G.R. No. 132170, April 20, 2001.
[19]
People v. Pamilar, G.R. No. 130846, October 23, 2001. |