FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
143084
April 1, 2003
-versus-
JOSE TORELLOS Y
AVENDAÑO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
This is an appeal from
the decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No.
98-167678, convicting appellant Jose Torellos y Avendaño of the
crime of rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua
with all the accessory penalties, and ordering him to pay the victim
the
amounts of P300,000.00 as moral damages, P200,000.00 as nominal
damages,
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Information against
appellant reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about
September
9, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused with lewd
design did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly commit
sexual
abuse and lascivious conduct upon the person of Erriza Antiquera y
Samonte,
a minor, 16 years of age, by then and there undressing her, kissing her
breast and her vagina, caressing her body and thereafter placing
himself
on top of her and inserting his penis into her vagina, thus succeeding
in having carnal knowledge with the said complainant, thereby
endangering
her youth and normal growth and development, to the damage and
prejudice
of said Erriza Antiquera y Samonte.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.[2]
When arraigned, appellant
pleaded not guilty. Trial thereafter ensued.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The evidence for the
prosecution established the following facts:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 9, 1998,
at around 2:30 a.m., complaint, 16 year-old Erriza Antiquera, left her
house to visit her friend who lives on Paghanapin Street, Tondo,
Manila.
However, her friend was not home, so she decided to buy a sandwich at
the
Burger Machine on Sandico Street. Thereafter, she took a pedicab
and proceeded to her house. Along the way, the pedicab she was
riding
in was blocked by another pedicab with five men on board. One of
them, appellant Jose Torellos, whom complainant had previously met,
boarded
her pedicab and pointed a knife at her. He ordered the driver to
bring them to KP Tower in Tondo, Manila. His companions followed
them in the other pedicab. When they reached the place, they
entered
a small shanty. Inside, appellant lit a candle and they inhaled
shabu.
They told complainant to join them but she refused, prompting appellant
to hit her on the stomach. Thus, she was forced to inhale the
substance,
which made her weak that she had to sit down in a corner of the
shanty.
Appellant then asked his companions to leave, then locked the door and
forcibly undressed complainant and kissed her on the neck, breast and
private
parts. Then, he lay on top of her and inserted his penis into her
vagina. She protested and struggled against the advances but her
efforts were in vain. After satisfying his lust, appellant left
and
locked complainant inside the house, while a certain Kua stood guard
outside.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the afternoon of
September 10, 1999, appellant returned to the shanty and raped
complainant
again. After he left, she peeked through the door to make sure
that
no one was guarding her, then she forced open the door and boarded a
pedicab
and proceeded to her brother’s house on Asuncion Street. However,
she lost consciousness along the way before she could reach her
brother’s
house. When she regained consciousness, she found herself at the
Philippine General Hospital with her mother. She underwent a
forensic
interview and physical examination. Thereafter, accompanied by
her
mother, she went to Precinct 5 of the Western Police District and filed
a complaint against appellant.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Mariella Castillo
of the Philippine General Hospital who conducted the physical
examination
made the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fairly developed, fairly
nourished, dirty, unkempt, looked sleepy, oriented and answered
questions
slowly, depressed affect, walked with support, blank stares and
unresponsiveness
during physical examination, not in respiratory distress. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Head and Neck: normalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Chest, Abdomen, Back:
normalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Extremities: normalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
GENITAL EXAMINATIONchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hymen: cresentic, estrogenized
hymen, profuse non-foul smelling white vaginal discharge, abrasion and
contusion at 6 o’clock position of hymen, abrasion and contusion at
fossa
navicularischanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anus: normal findingschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IMPRESSION
Disclosure of sexual
abuse
Genital finding of fresh
abrasion and contusion in posterior hymenal structure indicate a recent
penetration injury.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Acute Stress Disorder
Probable Methamphetamine
Toxicity[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his defense,
appellant
alleged that the sexual congress between him and complainant was
voluntary
and consensual. He testified that he met her sometime in August
1998
when they were introduced by his friend, Niño, who told him that
she was a call girl and a shabu user. He told Niño to buy
shabu, then they proceeded to an abandoned house on Recto Avenue.
They were joined by their friends, Roger, Ray and Tupeng. All of
them, including complainant, inhaled shabu. It was complainant
who
rolled up a sheet of tissue paper which they used as burner.
After
a while, Niño and the others left, leaving him and
complainant.
She undressed herself and they had sexual intercourse for about one
hour.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 9, 1998,
at 3:00 a.m., appellant was with Niño, Roger and Tupeng on the
corner
of Wagas Street when they saw complainant approaching on board a
tricycle.
She asked them to get in the tricycle and, together, all of them
proceeded
to KP Tower. They entered a shanty and inhaled shabu. When
Niño and the others left, appellant and complainant had sexual
intercourse.
Later, appellant went back to Wagas Street where he found Niño
waiting
for him.[6]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial, the court
a quo rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Accused
Jose Torillos y Avendaño, is convicted of the crime of rape
under
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, attended by the aggravating
circumstance
of minority of the victim, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua will all the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay
the
costs. The accused is further sentenced to pay the victim, Erriza
S. Antiquera, moral nominal and exemplary damages in the respective
sums
of P300,000.00, P200,000.00 and P100,000.00 with interest thereon at
the
legal rate of 6% per annum from this date until fully paid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[7]
Hence, this appeal where
appellant raises the following errors:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE TRIAL COURT
COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE
BASIS OF THE IMPLAUSIBLE AND IMPROBABLE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINING
WITNESS.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN CONVICTING ACCUSED JOSE TORELLOS WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN
BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE THE FAILURE TO ALLEGE IN
THE INFORMATION THAT HE SUCCEEDED IN HAVING CARNAL KNOWLEDGE WITH (sic)
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT UNDER ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ENUMERATED IN
ARTICLE
266-A (1) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IV
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN APPRECIATING THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
V
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN AWARDING MORAL, NOMINAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN THE RESPECTIVE SUMS
OF P300,000.00, P200,000.00 AND P100,000.00 WITH 6% INTEREST PER ANNUM.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant argues that
the information under which he was charged was defective because it
failed
to allege that he had carnal knowledge of complainant against her
will.
Moreover, the information failed to specify the acts or omissions
complained
of as constituting the offense, in contravention of the requirements of
Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution was
able to establish by overwhelming evidence that appellant had carnal
knowledge
of complainant by means of force and intimidation. We find no
reason
to depart from this finding. It has been a time-honored doctrine
that the trial court’s factual findings are conclusive and binding upon
appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance
have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[8]
After a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record and the stenographic
notes of the witnesses’ testimonies, we find sufficient basis for the
trial
court’s conclusion that, indeed, appellant employed force and
intimidation
in sexually molesting complainant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant narrated
in detail her harrowing experience in the hands of appellant in this
wise:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. VELASCO
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. What
happened next if any?
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
On my way back after I bought the sandwich, my pedicab was blocked by
the
pedicab being ridden by the accused and his 4 companions.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. What
happened next if any?
A.
The accused boarded my pedicab and he poked a knife at me then he
forcibly
took me to his house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURTchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. How about
the one boarding your pedicab?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
He complied because the companions of the accused were following us.cralaw:red
Continue.cralaw:red
ATTY. VELASCO
Q. What
happened next if any?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
On reaching the house of the accused he was forcing me to get off from
the pedicab because he said he would like to talk to me but I refused
because
there was nothing for us to talk about but he insisted in having me get
off from the cab. The pedicab driver told the accused that if I
did
not want to go with him he should not force me but the accused told him
that they could afford to pay his pedicab.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. After
you refused to go with the accused inside the house, what happened next
if any?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
One of the companions of the accused a certain Niño also
admonished
the accused that if I did not want to go with him he should let me go
but
the accused ignored him, finally, I agreed to go with him inside the
house
if he would just talk with me provided that his companion would
accompany
me inside the house.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. What
happened inside the house if any?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
On entering the house it was dark so he lighted a candle then the
accused
and his companions sniffed shabu and the accused was also forcing me to
sniff shabu but I refused, and when I refused, the accused suddenly
pulled
and boxed me in the stomach.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. After
you were boxed in the stomach by the accused what happened to you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
I felt weak and I could not move.cralaw:red
Q. What
happened next if any?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
I went to a corner and I sat there.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. What
happened next?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
The accused told his companion to leave the house and then he put off
the
candle light.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. After
that what happened inside the house?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
He locked the door of the house leaving the two of us inside and then
he
forcibly undressed me.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT
Q. Then
what happened?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
He kissed different parts of my body and placed himself on top of
me.
I was begging him not to rape me.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Okay. Continue.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. VELASCO
Q. You said
that the accused kissed the different parts of your body, what part of
your body was being kissed?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
My neck, my breast and my private parts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. You said
that the accused placed himself on top of you, what did he do?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
He inserted his penis in my private parts and he succeeded in raping
me.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. How long
did it last?
A.
I do not know anymore.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant contends
that the information failed to specify the acts which constituted the
crime.
It is too late in the day for him to assail the insufficiency of the
allegations
in the information. He should have raised this issue prior to his
arraignment by filing a motion to quash. Failing to do so, he is
deemed to have waived any objection on this ground pursuant to Rule
117,
Section 9 (formerly Section 8) of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure,
to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Failure to move to
quash or to allege any ground therefore.— The failure of the accused to
assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint
or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or
failed
to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any
objections
based in the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i)
of section 3 of this Rule.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In People v. Palarca,[10]
the accusatory portion of the information failed to specifically allege
that the rape was committed through force or intimidation, although the
prosecution was able to establish by evidence that the appellant was
guilty
of rape as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised
Penal Code. Similarly, the appellant failed to object to the
sufficiency
of the information or to the admission of evidence. In affirming
his conviction, it was held that an information which lacks certain
essential
allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to
object
to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by
competent
evidence presented therein.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant also argues
that complainant’s testimony is both implausible and improbable.
According to him, complainant’s claim that she did not inhale shabu was
belied by the testimony of Dr. Castillo that private complainant
manifested
methamphetamine toxicity. We are not persuaded. While
complainant
may have testified on cross-examination that she did not inhale shabu,
she later explained on re-direct examination that she was confused by
the
question that the defense counsel propounded; and confirmed the fact
that
appellant forced her to inhale shabu by hitting her on the stomach.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant likewise
finds improbable the following: (1) complainant was able to recall the
events in detail from the time her pedicab was blocked to the time she
was able to escape from the shanty; but could not remember the length
of
time of her ordeal, (2) complainant stayed in the shanty for two days
and
did not try to escape by kicking the door or shouting for help; and (3)
complainant did not feel weak or pain from the alleged sexual abuse
committed
after she was hit on the stomach and forced to inhale shabu.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly, the above
cited improbabilities hinge on the credibility of the complaining
witness,
whom the trial court found to have no improper motive to falsely
testify
against appellant.[12]
The trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of the victim’s
statements
is accorded great weight because it had the unique opportunity of
hearing
her testify and observing her deportment and manner of
testifying.
The trial judge is indisputably in the best position to determine the
truthfulness
of the complainant’s testimony.[13]
There is no reason to depart from this rule in the case at bar.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the
seeming
inconsistencies cited by appellant refer to minor details that do not
directly
pertain to the elements of the crime of rape or to the identification
of
appellant as the rapist. Simply stated, the supposed
improbabilities
do not detract from the proven fact that appellant had sexual
intercourse
with complainant through force and intimidation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It bears emphasis that
when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of
twelve to sixteen, courts are inclined to lend credence to their
version
of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability
but
also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by the
trial if the matter about which they testified is not true.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court found
that the commission of the rape in this case was attended by the
aggravating
circumstance of minority of the victim, which was duly proved at the
trial.[15]
However, under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the fact that
the
rape victim was under eighteen (18) years of age may be appreciated as
a qualifying aggravating circumstance only when the offender is a
parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent
of
the victim.[16]
In the case at bar, none of these relationships obtains between
appellant
and the victim. Neither can the minority of the victim be
considered
a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 14 (3) of the Revised
Penal Code.[17]
In order that this circumstance shall aggravate the offense, there must
be a showing that the appellant deliberately intended to offend or
insult
the age of the victim.[18]
There was no such showing in this case. Hence, the trial court
erred
in applying the aggravating circumstance of minority.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accordingly, there
being no aggravating circumstance, appellant can only be convicted of
simple
rape defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, which is
punishable
by a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Article 63
of the Revised Penal Code provides that in "all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the
courts
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed."[19]
Therefore, the trial court correctly imposed on appellant the penalty
of
reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, the amount
of moral damages awarded by the trial court should be reduced from
P300,000.00
to P50,000.00, pursuant to controlling case law.[20]
We note that the trial court did not award civil indemnity in favor of
the victim. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the
fact of rape; it is automatically imposed upon the accused without need
of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape.[21]
Hence, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity must be awarded to
complainant.
The award of P200,000.00 as nominal damages and P100,000.00 as
exemplary
damages are without basis, and must be deleted. Under Article
2230
of the Civil Code, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may
be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances.
Considering that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of
the crime in this case, appellant cannot be ordered to pay exemplary
damages.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The award of interest
on damages is proper and allowed under Article 2211 of the Civil Code,
which states that in crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as a part of
the
damages may, in proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the
court.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view
of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch
18, in Criminal Case No. 98-167678, finding appellant Jose A. Torellos
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the
following
MODIFICATIONS: Appellant is ordered to pay complainant Erriza
Antiquera
the sums of P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity,
both with legal interest thereon at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum
computed from March 10, 2000, the date of the judgment of the trial
court.
The awards of nominal and exemplary damages are DELETED for lack of
basis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr.
[2]
Rollo, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, June 22, 1999, pp. 3-10
[4]
Records, p. 59.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, September 8, 1999, pp. 3-17.
[6]
Id., pp. 17-30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, p. 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People v. Daramay, G.R. Nos. 140235 & 142748, 9 May 2002.
[9]
TSN, June 22, 1999, pp. 6-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
G.R. No. 146020, 29 May 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Citing People v. Lopez, G.R. Nos. 135671-72, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA
469.
[12]
Rollo, p. 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 135554-56, 21 June 2002.
[14]
People v. Ponsica, G.R. Nos. 137661-63, 4 July 2002.
[15]
Exh. "A".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Revised Penal Code, Article 266-B, fifth paragraph, subparagraph (1).
[17]
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating
circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3)
That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect
due
the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be
committed
in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter hads not given
provocation.
xxx xxx xxx. (emphasis ours)
[18]
People v. Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, 6 February 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People v. Mangompit, G.R. Nos. 139962-66, 7 March 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People v. Gallate, G.R. Nos. 144395-98, 26 June 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People v. Solomon, G.R. Nos. 130517-21, 16 July 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People v. Plurad, G.R. Nos. 138361-63, 3 December 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People v. Pastrana, G.R. No. 143644, 14 August 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |