EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
143125
June 10, 2003
-versus-
DIOSDADO CORIAL
Y REQUIEZ,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
VITUG,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
For automatic review is
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 109[1]
imposing the death penalty on convicted appellant DIOSDADO CORIAL Y
REQUIEZ
for the crime of Qualified Rape,[2]
said to have been committed, according to the indictment, against his
own
minor granddaughter Maricar Corial.
At his arraignment,
appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge;[3]
trial ensued shortly thereafter.
The Case for the
Prosecution
Maricar Corial was born
to Marietta Corial, appellant’s daughter, but she did not come to know
her father (now said to be deceased). Maricar had two maternal
sisters
who lived with their mother and her "stepfather" in Balagtas,
Bulacan.
Maricar lived with her grandparents, herein appellant and his wife
Carmelita,
in Pasay City.cralaw:red
One afternoon in July
1998, Maricar and appellant were left alone in the house. She was
wearing a duster when her grandfather forced himself on her. He
first
inserted his penis into her private part, and then into her mouth and,
finally, into her anus. When her mother, Marietta, arrived for
Christmas
in 1998, Maricar revealed the sexual abuse she had suffered from her
grandfather.
Maricar went first to the barangay hall where she lodged a complaint
against
appellant and then to the Philippine General Hospital where Maricar was
physically examined. Still later, they repaired to the Pasay City
Police station where Maricar executed a sworn statement ("Salaysay").chanrobles virtual law library
According to barangay
captain Policarpio Tawat, Marietta and Maricar went to see him on the
morning
of 29 December 1998 at the barangay hall to seek assistance about the
sexual
assault. Along with a barangay kagawad, Tawat went to invite
appellant
to the barangay hall and then had a medical examination conducted on
Maricar.
When the medical examination proved positive for rape, Tawat turned
appellant
over to the Pasay City Police station.cralaw:red
The Provisional Medical
Certificate[4]
dated 29 December 1998, showed the following findings of Dr. Mariella
Sugue-Castillo;
viz:
"GENITAL EXAMINATION:
External genitalia:
normal
Hymen: crescentic hymen,
no discharge seen, (+) mound at 7 o’clock position, (+) attenuation of
posterior hymen
Anus: normal findings
"IMPRESSION
Disclosure of sexual
abuse.chanrobles virtual law library
Genital finding of posterior
hymen attenuation is suspicious for prior penetration injury"[5]
On the afternoon of
29 December 1998, SPO3 Milagros Carrasco was at the Women and Children
Desk of the Pasay City Police station when Barangay Captain Tawat,
Marietta,
young Maricar, and Marietta’s father arrived. After hearing the
story,
SPO3 Carrasco contacted social worker Erlinda Aguila to assist her in
conducting
the interview with Maricar. The child claimed that her maternal
grandfather
had sexually abused her. When confronted by SPO3 Carrasco,
appellant
remarked in Tagalog that he was just having a "taste" of the child (tinitikman
niya lang).
The Case for the
Defense
Testifying for her father,
Nelly Corial stated that the 59-year-old appellant had six children,
all
of them female, by his wife Carmelita. He was a mason and
construction
worker employed by D. M. Consunji while her mother was a
dressmaker.
Her father was a responsible person with no vices. Her parents
first
took custody of Maricar because the latter’s father, Francisco Amado
and
live-in partner of Marietta, would often inflict physical harm upon the
child. After Francisco’s death, Marietta resided in Balagtas,
Bulacan,
with yet another live-in partner, Rene Malinao, who both for a while
took
Maricar into their custody. Maricar was soon brought back to her
grandparent’s residence in Pasay City because of the maltreatment she
had
been getting from Malinao. According to Nelly, her parents loved
Maricar, provided for her needs, and had her take up schooling at the
Pio
del Pilar Elementary School. After the case against appellant was
filed,
Marietta confided to Nelly her regrets (nagsisisi) for having filed the
case. Marietta became "mentally deranged" and would harm herself
for no reason at all. She concluded that Marietta’s complaint was
fabricated (gawa-gawa lamang niya iyun). Menchu, another
daughter
of appellant, also testified for him. Her residence in Pasay City was
separated
from appellant’s house only by a wall. She confirmed that Maricar was
brought
to San Pedro, Laguna, at the instance of appellant who had wanted the
child
to have a vacation there.chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant denied having
raped Maricar. He took the child away from her parents because they
were
unable to properly care for her. After Francisco’s death, he took
custody of Marietta and her child but only for four months when
Marietta
started to live with another partner in Bulacan. Marietta was a
good
daughter and a good mother but she was mentally ill and hardheaded (suwail).
Marietta instigated the case against him because he had refused to
allow
her to live in their house in Pasay City. From Monday to
Saturday,
he would leave the house at six o’clock in the morning and return from
work at seven o’clock in the evening. On Sundays, Nelly would
always
be at home.
The Assailed
Decision
The trial court debunked
the defense of denial interposed by appellant and the assertion that
the
rape case was only trumped-up by his daughter Marietta. It instead gave
credence to what it so described as the "spontaneous and
straightforward"
testimony of Maricar Corial. The trial court adjudged:chanrobles virtual law library
"In view of
all the foregoing, the Court opines that the prosecution has proven the
guilt of the accused, Diosdado Corial y Requiez for rape as defined and
penalized under Art. 266-A and 266-B of RA 8353 as amended, and the
Court
hereby sentences the accused, Diosdado Corial y Requiez to death and to
indemnify the complainant in the amount of P75,000.00 and moral and
exemplary
damages in the amount of P50,000.00."[6]
Appellant, in this
Court’s
review of his case, would consider erroneous his conviction for there
was
no opportunity for him and his granddaughter to be alone in their
residence,
particularly on Sundays when all the members of the household stayed
home,
and for Maricar’s failure to make an outcry during the alleged sexual
assault
that could have easily attracted the attention of close kins whose
house
was only adjacent to theirs.
Quite often, this Court
has held that rapists are not deterred from committing the odious act
of
sexual abuse by the mere presence nearby of people or even family
members.
Rape is committed not exclusively in seclusion;[7]
lust, it is said, respects neither time nor place. The trial
court
has valued Maricar’s testimony as being "spontaneous and
straightforward."
Indeed, when a victim’s testimony is straightforward and unflawed by
any
major inconsistency or contradiction, the same must be given full faith
and credit.[8]
Appellant capitalizes on the so-called disparity between the
declaration
of Maricar in her testimony in court and her sworn statement. He
quotes a portion of her salaysay; viz:
"06.
T:
Natatandaan mo ba kung kailan at kung saan nangyari ang mga ginawa na
sinasabi
ng lolo mo sa iyo?
S:
Opo, simula po ng Grade II ako. Tapos naulit po nuong July 1998 at
nauulit
po pag araw ng Linggo pag wala ang lola ko at ang tita ko sa bahay
namin.
Kasi nagtratrabaho si Lolo ng Lunes hanggang Sabado. Pero pag wala
siyang
pasok ay ginagalaw din niya ako. Sa bahay namin sa Dolores, Pasay.[9]
He then labels it as
being inconsistent with her testimony on cross-examination; viz:chanrobles virtual law library
"Atty. Casas:
Now, it was in July
1998 which is finally the alleged (sic) contained in the information
that
you claimed you have been sexually molested, is that correct?
"A: Yes,
sir.chanrobles virtual law library
"Q: And you told
the Court in your direct examination that it was the first time that
the
same was committed?
"A: Yes,
sir."[10]
Not only is her assailed
statement - that before the July 1998 incident she has also been
subjected
to sexual assault by appellant - inconsequential in a
material
point but it also does not necessarily take away her credibility at the
witness stand. It is acknowledged that affidavits, usually taken
ex parte, are often held unreliable for being incomplete and inaccurate.[11]
Maricar’s failure to
shout during the sexual assault is not all that strange. Not
every
witness to or victim of a crime can be supposed to always act in
conformity
with the usual expectations of everyone;[12]
in fact, there is no known and accepted standard therefor.
Moreover,
to attribute to her the sophistication of an adult woman would be to
brush
aside the fact that Maricar is just a young girl. Even then, it
would
be unreasonable to judge her actions on the traumatic experience by any
norm of behavior that, if at all, may be expected from mature persons.[13]chanrobles virtual law library
The Court is not persuaded
by the claim of appellant that Marietta, the victim’s mother, has
fabricated
the charge simply because appellant did not allow her to stay with
him.
It just is not a convincing tale. It is difficult to believe that
Marietta would send his own father to jail, even to the gallows,
sacrifice
the honor and dignity of their family and subject her own child to
untold
humiliation and disgrace if she were motivated by any desire other than
to bring to justice the person responsible for defiling her child.[14]
Appellant’s claim that
Marietta is deranged lacks unbiased evidentiary support. In any
event,
it hardly has any bearing on the credibility of her own daughter.
Nor would the failure of the prosecution to present Marietta at the
witness
stand adversely affect the outcome of the case. The prosecution
is
not bound to present any witness other than the victim herself, for as
long as the testimony of the victim is credible, natural, convincing
and
otherwise consistent with human nature and the course of things,[15]
it may be the basis for a conviction. It is the prerogative of the
prosecution,
not much unlike that of the defense, to determine which evidence to
submit
in support of its own case.[16]
Maricar, on direct examination,
testified thusly:
"Q: In the information
filed to (sic) this Honorable Court, stated that you are complaining
for
rape perpetrated by your Lolo Diosdado Corial that happened in July
1998.
Do you still recall the date in July when this incident, the alleged
incident
happened?chanrobles virtual law library
"A: It was
in July but I do not know or remember the date, sir.cralaw:red
"Q: But could
you still recall if that was in the morning or lunch time or evening of
July 1998?
"A: It was
in the afternoon of July 1998.cralaw:red
"Q: And in what place
where this incident happened regarding the complaint (sic) that you
were
sexually molested by your grandfather Diosdado Corial?
"A: The
incident happened at 164 Dolores Street, Pasay City.cralaw:red
"Q: Was it inside
your house?
"A: Yes,
sir.chanrobles virtual law library
"Q: You earlier
stated that the alleged rape happened in the afternoon, sometime in
July
1998 inside your house at No. 164 Dolores Street, Pasay City. My
question
is, who were actually present inside your house when the incident
happened?
"A: My grandmother
was there, but she left.cralaw:red
"Q: And who was
left behind in the afternoon of July 1998 when the incident happened?
"A: I and
my grandfather was (sic) left inside the house.cralaw:red
"Q: And what actually
were you doing in that afternoon of July 1998 when you were inside your
house?
"A: None,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q: What were you wearing
then?
"A: I was
wearing a duster, sir.cralaw:red
"Q: And so was
there any unusual incident that happened in the month of July 1998?
When
you were left by your Lola inside your house and left with your Lolo?
"A: Yes,
there was.chanrobles virtual law library
"Q: Would you
kindly tell to this Honorable Court, what happened to you on that month
of July 1998?
"A: I was
raped by my grandfather, sir.cralaw:red
"Q: Will you further
explain to this Honorable Court, how were you raped by your grandfather?
"A: He inserted
his penis into my private part, sir.cralaw:red
"Q: And what did
you feel when your grandfather inserted his penis inside your private
part?
"A: I felt
pain, sir.cralaw:red
"Fiscal Barrera:chanrobles virtual law library
Besides inserting his
penis at your private part, what else did your Lolo do to you?
"A: He was
requesting me to suck his penis.cralaw:red
"Q: And did he
actually put his penis inside your mouth?
"A: Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q: And what happen(ed)
after he inserted his penis inside your mouth?
"A: He requested
me to suck it, sir.cralaw:red
"Q: And what else happened
aside (from) inserting his penis at your private part, and putting his
penis inside your mouth sometime in the month of July 1998?
"A: He inserted
his penis inside my anus.cralaw:red
"Q: What did you feel
when he inserted his penis inside your anus in the month of July 1998?
"A: It was
painful, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
"Q: What else
happened besides inserting his penis inside your anus or "Puwet"?
"A: No more,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q: And so after
that, what did you do?
"A: When
my mother arrived last Christmas, I told her what my grandfather did to
me.cralaw:red
"Q: You mean that was
last Christmas 1998?
"A: Yes,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q: And so what actually
did you tell your mother Marietta Corial?
"A: I told
her that my grandfather put his penis inside my vagina.[17]
On cross examination,
she recounted:chanrobles virtual law library
"Q: You specifically
mentioned the word rape when you were asked any unusual incident that
happened
on June 1998, is that correct?
"A: Yes,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q: Who told you
or how did you learn the word rape?
"A: Nobody
told me, sir.cralaw:red
"Court:
Pero alam mo ba ang
meaning nang rape?
Alam mo ba ang ibig
sabihin nang rape?
"A: Rape
means `Pang gagahasa.’
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtual law library
"Q: And because
the penis of your Lolo was inserted inside your vagina, you felt pain?
"A: Yes,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q: But you did
not shout, is that correct?
"A: I was
boxing him.cralaw:red
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Atty. Casas:
You also mentioned that
your Lolo raped you by placing his penis inside your mouth, is that
correct?
"A: Yes,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q: Definitely,
you did not like that idea or actuation by your Lolo?chanrobles virtual law library
"A: Yes,
sir.cralaw:red
"x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Q: By the way,
Maricar, do you love your Lolo and Lola?
"A: I love
my grandmother.cralaw:red
"Q: How about
your grandfather, do you love him?
"A: I don’t
love him.cralaw:red
"Q: Why do you
not love your grandfather?
"A: Because,
he did something wrong to me."[18]
The trial court has
found appellant guilty of having violated Sections 266-A and 266-B of
the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law
of 1997),[19]
that read:chanrobles virtual law library
"Article
266-A.
Rape; When And How Committed. - Rape is committed -chanrobles virtual law library
"(1)
By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following
circumstances:
(a)
Through
force, threat, or intimidation;chanrobles virtual law library
(b) When the
offended
party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;chanrobles virtual law library
(c) By means of
fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; and
(d) When the
offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none
of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
"(2)
By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in
paragraph
1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object,
into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
"Article 266-B.
Penalties.
- Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be
punished
by reclusion perpetua.
"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
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
"(1) When the
victim
is under eighteen (18) years of age and 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."
The death penalty for
the
crime herein charged may be imposed only when the twin qualifying
circumstances
of relationship between the appellant and the victim and the latter’s
age
are indubitably proven; otherwise, the appellant can only be held
liable
for the crime of simple rape penalized by reclusion perpetua.[20]
The relationship between appellant and the victim has been adequately
established.
The prosecution evidence has shown that appellant is the grandfather of
the victim,[21]
a fact that appellant himself has likewise maintained.[22]
The same cannot, however, be said with respect to the age of the victim.chanrobles virtual law library
In People vs. Pruna,[23]
the Court, after noting the divergent rulings on proof of age of the
victim
in rape cases, has set out certain guidelines in appreciating age,
either
as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. The
primary
evidence of age of the victim is her birth certificate. Age may
also
be proven by such authentic documents as a baptismal certificate and
school
records only in the absence of a birth certificate. If the
aforesaid
documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable,
the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a
member
of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to
testify
on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth
of
the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on
Evidence
shall be sufficient but only under the following circumstances:
a)
If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought
to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; b) If the victim is
alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that
she is less than 12 years old; c) If the victim is alleged to be
below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is
less
than 18 years old.cralaw:red
In the instant case,
the prosecution did not offer the victim’s certificate of live birth or
any similar authentic document in evidence. The trial court, in
convicting
the appellant of the crime of rape and imposing upon him the death
penalty
even in the absence of the necessary documents, relied on the sworn
statement
of Marietta Corial, the mother of the victim, attesting to the fact
that
her daughter Maricar Corial was born on 26 May 1990.[24]
Marietta Corial, however, did not testify in court. Such sworn
statement
was thus inadmissible in evidence under the hearsay rule,[25]
and unless the affiant had been placed on the witness stand, the
admission
of the mere affidavit and the conviction of appellant on the basis
thereof
would violate the right of the accused to meet witness face to face.[26]
In the absence of a
certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the
victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age under the
circumstances
heretofore mentioned, the complainant’s sole testimony can suffice
provided
that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused; to repeat,
"provided
that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused."[27]
There is no such declaration and admission on the part of appellant.cralaw:red
This Court cannot be
overly strict as regards the proof of age of the victim particularly
when,
such as under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Rep.
Act No. 8353, age is an element of the crime that, if shown, would make
it punishable by death. As so frequently expressed by the Court,
the severity of the death penalty, which by its nature is irreversible
when carried out, should behoove courts to apply the most exacting
rules
of procedure and evidence. The prosecution is not excused from
discharging
its burden even when the defense lets itself loose about it.cralaw:red
The trial court ordered
appellant to "indemnify the complainant in the amount of P75,000.00 and
moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00." The
award
must be corrected. In consonance with prevailing jurisprudence,
appellant
must be made to pay P50,000.00 civil indemnity, an award that is
outrightly
due the victim of rape by the mere fact of its commission, P50,000.00
moral
damages which is deemed concomitant with and which necessarily results
from this odious criminal offense, and P25,000.00 exemplary damages
which
are awarded under Article 2230 of the Civil Code when the crime is
committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances[28]
such as relationship between the offender and the victim.[29]chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the judgment
of the court a quo finding appellant Diosdado Corial y Requiez guilty
of
rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that he is hereby only adjudged
guilty
of simple, not qualified, rape and sentenced to suffer, instead of the
death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of
damages
by the trial court is likewise modified by hereby ordering appellant to
indemnify the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 civil indemnity,
P50,000.00
moral damages and P25,000.00 exemplary damages. Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna,
JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Presided by Judge Lilia C. Lopez.
[2]
Information, Records, p. 9.
[3]
Records, p. 16.
[4]
Exh. B.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Records, p. 3.
[6]
Rollo, p. 33.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
People vs. Cantuba, G.R. No. 137454, 18 November 2002.
[8]
People vs. Galigao, G.R. Nos. 140961-63, 14 January 2003.
[9]
Exh. C, Records, p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
TSN, 8 March 1999, p. 17.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
People vs. Quillosa, G.R. No. 115687, 17 February 2000, 325 SCRA 747.
[12]
People vs. Cabel, 347 Phil. 82.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
People vs. Razonable, G.R. Nos. 128085-87, 12 April 2000, 330 SCRA 562.
[14]
People vs. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, 10 October 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
People vs. Silvano, G.R. No. 141105-11, 8 March 2002.
[16]
People vs. Amamangpang, 353 Phil. 815, 828 (1998).
[17]
TSN, 8 March 1999, pp. 5-7.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
TSN, 8 March 1999, pp. 16-21.
[19]
94 O.G. 1507.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
People vs. Flores, G.R. No. 130713, 20 January 2000, 322 SCRA 779.
[21]
TSN, 8 March 1999, p. 3.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
TSN, 10 May 1999, p. 10.
[23]
G.R. No. 138471, 10 October 2002.
[24]
Rollo, p. 83.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
People vs. Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446, 31 January 1989, 169 SCRA 730;
People
vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-62072, 11 November 1985, 139 SCRA 583; People
vs.
Ramos, 207 Phil. 269.
[26]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
Id.
[27]
Id.
[28]
People vs. Cabigting, supra.
[29]
id. |