Republic of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 146854
April 28, 2004
-versus-
PASCUAL BALBARONA,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
For automatic review is
the October 31, 2000 Judgment[1]
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Lanao Del Norte, Branch 2
convicting
appellant, Pascual B. Balbarona, of raping his minor daughter and
imposing
on him the supreme penalty of death.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Information[2]
for rape filed on May 31, 2000 charges appellant as follows:
That on or about May
28, 2000, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of force and
intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of the said Odette M. Balbarona his daughter, a minor under fifteen
(15)
years of age, against her will.cralaw:red
Appellant pleaded not
guilty to the accusation.[3]
The prosecution and defense subsequently entered into a stipulation of
facts[4]
where it was admitted that the victim, Odette M. Balbarona, was
appellant’s
daughter and was fifteen at the time of the alleged rape; and that
appellant
was then living with the victim and his two other daughters.cralaw:red
Based primarily on the
testimony of the victim, the prosecution presented its case as follows:
In the afternoon of
May 28, 2000, at about 2:00 p.m., the victim, her two younger sisters
Gina
and Jocelyn, and their widower father-herein appellant were at their
house
in Barangay Tambacan, Iligan City. Gina and Jocelyn soon after left for
their neighbor’s house to watch TV.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The victim, in the meantime,
was about to go downstairs, after cleaning the second floor of their
two-storey
house, when appellant pushed her back. He then removed her clothes,
made
her lie down on the floor, pulled her panty down to her knees, and went
on top of her.cralaw:red
Appalled, the victim
asked appellant what he was doing, to which he replied that they were
the
only ones left in the house. She thereupon resisted by kicking him at
his
ear. The victim’s strength was no match to the appellant’s, however, as
he held her hand and then inserted his penis inside her vagina, drawing
the victim to shout in pain. Appellant thus got up immediately, put on
his clothes, and later left the house.[5]
The victim, meanwhile,
got dressed and ran to the neighboring house of her elder sister Tessie
Balbarona Commandro (Tessie) to whom she reported the dastardly act
committed
by their father upon her.cralaw:red
From her sister’s house,
the victim proceeded to another neighboring house, that of a friend,
one
Jean, to whom she likewise related the incident.cralaw:red
Jean thus accompanied
the victim to Wilfredo Sarsaba (Saabada), a member of the paramilitary
Civil Security Unit before whom the rape incident was also related.cralaw:red
After the occurrence
of the incident and for the next two days, the victim stayed at Jean’s
house and refused to return home.[6]
She was later taken into custody by the Department of Social Welfare
and
Development. And she was examined by Dr. Leonardo Labanon, Medical
Officer
V of the Iligan City Health Office.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Corroborating her sister’s
after the fact account, Tessie went on to declare that she did not at
first
believe the victim whom she knew to be suffering from some mental
imbalance
since birth, but that anyway she advised her to have herself examined
by
a doctor and for her to stay in her (Tessie’s) house.[7]
Sarsaba, at the witness
stand, recalled that when the victim, in the company of Jean, reported
to him the incident, she appeared pale and distraught. He thus
suggested
that he accompany the two to the police precinct but they refused and
left.
Sarsaba added that later in the evening, he echoed to barangay
councilor
Tuto Babatido the victim’s report.[8]
Prosecution witness
Dr. Labanon affirmed his findings in the Medical Certificate[9]
he issued concerning the pelvic examination he conducted upon the
victim
on May 30, 2000. On his finding that the victim had "hymenal notches at
6, 1 and 11 o’clock positions," Dr. Labanon stated that the notches
were
indentations at the inner surface of the hymen which notches were
regarded
as normal variants of a hymen and not indicia of lacerations. As for
his
finding that the victim’s "introitus [is] still tight, admits only one
finger with minimal resistance," Dr. Labanon opined that it was
unlikely
that the victim’s introitus was already penetrated by a normal size
penis.
He conceded, however, the possibility that there could have been
penetration
of the victim’s sex organ but only at the level of the labia since a
partially
erect penis may still penetrate the vagina to the extent of the labia
and
not the introitus.cralaw:red
While Dr. Labanon admitted
that he could not determine whether there was penetration of the
victim’s
vagina through the touching by the penis of the labia, he declared that
the victim had told him that her father had sexually abused her several
times although she could only remember the last incident, that which
occurred
on May 28, 2000 at their residence.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Another physician, Dr.
Ray P. Sagge (Dr. Sagge), City Psychiatrist of the Iligan City Health
Office,
confirmed his conclusions in his July 18, 2000 Medical Abstract[11]
on the victim’s mental condition that she is suffering from a mental
illness
classified as Mood Disorder, Major Depression coupled with a low level
of intelligence below that of the average. By Dr. Sagge’s account, the
victim pointed to the rape incident as the cause of her depression.cralaw:red
The doctor rejected
the idea that the victim was experiencing hallucinations, he adding
that
although she had at times difficulty in understanding questions
propounded
to her, she was on the whole coherent and was thus competent to become
a witness.[12]
Upon the other hand,
lone defense witness appellant denied the charge and proffered alibi.
He
claimed that in the afternoon of May 28, 2000, at 2:00 p.m. when he
allegedly
raped his daughter, he was still in his workplace in Barangay Saray
which
is a kilometer away from his residence.cralaw:red
Elaborating, appellant
declared as follows: He left home early at 4:00 a.m. of May 28, 2000 to
carry out his work as a butcher for his employer Gill Eballe. Having
been
occupied butchering two cows and two pigs in the morning of said date,
and roasting a pig in the afternoon, it was already 7:00 p.m. when he
got
home, his employer not having allowed him at any time of the day to
leave
the workplace. On his arrival at home, he found his three daughters
watching
TV at a neighbor’s house, but only Gina and Jocelyn later returned
home.
Worried of the victim’s whereabouts, he looked for her in the
neighborhood
whereupon his eldest daughter Tessie informed him that the victim had
left
with her friends. He thus scolded Tessie for allowing the victim to
roam
around instead of her (the victim) being of help in looking after her
younger
sisters. He continued searching for the victim until his arrest on May
31, 2000 at his workplace.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To the trial court appellant
ascribes the following errors:
I.
THE COURT GRAVELY ERRED
IN FINDING THAT THE HEREIN.APPELLANT HAD INDEED INSERTED HIS
PENIS
INSIDE THE VAGINA OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM
II.
THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF DR. LEONARDO LABANON
WHICH
APPARENTLY SHOWS THE INNOCENCE OF THE HEREIN APPELLANT OF THE
CRIME
CHARGED.
III.
THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY
ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE HEREIN ACCUSED HAD INDEED RAPED
THE ALLEGED VICTIM ON MAY 28, 2000 AT 2:00 O’CLCOK IN THE AFTERNOON.
IV.
THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THE HEREIN.GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF RAPE DEFINDE AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 266-A, PAR. 1,
CHAPTER
3 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8353
(ANTI-RAPE
LAW OF 1997).
Appellant assails the
victim’s testimony as failing to clearly show how it was possible for
him
to have raped her. He draws attention to her open court statements that
she was still wearing her panty and appellant was wearing his brief
when
he went on top of her.cralaw:red
To belie the claim that
there was actual penetration of or insertion of his penis inside the
victim’s
vagina, appellant harps on the medical finding showing no lacerations
in
her hymen, there being only hymenal notches which are normal to every
female.
He likewise harps on the medical opinion that since the victim’s
introitus
admits only one finger, it was unlikely that the introitus was
penetrated
by a normal size erect penis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant thus argues
that superior physical evidence has run counter against the People’s
testimonial
evidence.cralaw:red
Finally, appellant singles
out as a major flaw in the victim’s testimony her declaration on
cross-examination
that she was sexually assaulted at 2:00 p.m. of May 28, 2000, albeit
she
also stated that she, at the same time, went to Jean’s house.[14]
Upon close examination
of the transcripts of stenographic notes, this Court finds that the
testimony
of the victim is replete with details of how appellant carried out the
sexual assault against her. Consider the following:
(PROSECUTOR CUETO)
Q On May 28 year 2000,
where was your father then?
A He was just in our
house.cralaw:red
Q Did he work on that
day, as a butcher?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A No, sir.cralaw:red
Q How about you, where
were you on that day, specifically about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon?
A I was in our house.cralaw:red
Q Who was with you then?
A My younger sisters.cralaw:red
(COURT)
Q Your two younger sisters?
You are referring to your two younger sisters?
A Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
(PROSECUTOR CUETO)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q How about your father,
was he there?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Was there any instance
whereby your two sisters left?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q So when your two sisters
left, you and your father were left behind?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q While you were left
alone with your father, was there any unusual incident that happened?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What was that incident?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I was cleaning the
upstairs portion of our house.cralaw:red
Q While you were cleaning
your house, what happened next?
A My father suddenly
went upstairs.cralaw:red
Q When he went upstairs,
what happened?
A I was about to go
down when my father instead pushed me inside the upper portion.cralaw:red
Q After he pushed you,
what happened to you?
A He immediately removed
my clothes.cralaw:red
Q How about your underwears?
A He likewise removed
it.cralaw:red
Q How about your father,
what did he do?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A He likewise removed
his clothes.cralaw:red
Q After removing your
clothes by your father and after your father had removed his clothes,
what
happened next?
A He made me lie down
and then he immediately climbed on top of me.cralaw:red
Q What did he do after
climbing on top of you?
(COURT)
Q Climb or mount?
A Once he mounted on
top of me, he inserted his penis into my vagina.cralaw:red
(PROSECUTOR CUETO)
Q Was he able to penetrate
or insert his penis to your vagina?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Are you sure of that?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what did you feel?
A It was so painful.cralaw:red
Q After that, what happened?
A I immediately put
on my clothes and went downstairs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Did you not resist
your father?
A I resisted him. I
even fought back but he held my hands.cralaw:red
Q Did you not shout?
A I shouted.cralaw:red
Q Despite your resistance,
your father still proceeded with what he had done?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q How long did it take
for your father to do such act?
A He did not put it
inside my vagina for a long time. It was just for a short time because
I shouted that it was so painful.cralaw:red
Q You said that you
resisted. After you resisted and shouted, did your father insist on
having
sexual intercourse with you, after you shouted that it was painful?
A No more, sir. He immediately
got off of me.cralaw:red
Q And how about you,
what did you do after your father get up?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I immediately put
on my clothes and went downstairs.cralaw:red
x x x (Emphasis supplied).[15]
As tested by jurisprudentially
established rules in evaluating rape cases, the victim’s above-quoted
account
could not have been merely concocted by her, a naive young barrio girl.cralaw:red
Testimonies of rape
victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering
that
no young woman especially of tender age would fabricate a story of
defloration,
allow examination of her private parts, and pervert herself by being
subjected
to a public trial, if she was not moved solely by the desire to secure
justice for the wrong done against her.[16]
The tale of the victim
unmistakably brought out, as charged in the information, the elements
of
rape, to wit: (1) that there has been carnal knowledge of the victim by
the accused; and (2) that the accused achieves the act by force and
intimidation
upon the victim.[17]
What is more, there
was no attempt at all by the defense to show any ill motive behind the
victim’s accusation against appellant. Appellant in fact admitted that
he had good relations with the victim before and on May 28, 2000.[18]
The absence of evidence showing any improper motive on the part of a
witness
strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive
exists
and that his or her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[19]
Buttressing the victim’s
credibility is the fact that soon after her ordeal, she disclosed it to
her elder sister and other members of the community who confirmed such
disclosure. A complainant’s act of immediately reporting the commission
of rape has been deemed by this Court as a factor strengthening her
credibility.[20]
The victim was firm
for the most part in her testimony, save for some understandable minor
inconsistencies respecting the place, date, time and manner by which
the
rape took place. Thus, as to the victim’s supposed lapse that she and
appellant
were still wearing their underwear at the time he had carnal knowledge
of her, the same does not infirm her claim, which she clarified on
questioning
by the court, that appellant removed her panty before inserting his
penis
in her vagina.cralaw:red
x x x
(COURT)
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Where were you laid
down, on the floor?
A On the floor, Your
Honor.cralaw:red
Q On the floor of the
upper portion of your house?
A Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q After he was already
on top of you, what happened next?
A He told me not to
tell anybody.cralaw:red
Q You were able to lie
down on the floor of the upper portion of your house, am I correct?
A Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q When you were on such
position, what happened next?
A He immediately inserted
his penis, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q You mean to say, when
you lied down on the floor, he immediately inserted his penis?
A Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q You mean to say then,
that he inserted his penis even if you are wearing a panty, am I
correct?
A He pulled my panty
up to my knees, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q Does the Court understand
that before he inserted his penis on your vagina, he pulled your panty
up down?
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, Your Honor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Seeing that your panty
was pulled down, what did you do then?
A I moved around trying
to evade the thrust of his penis to my vagina, Your Honor.cralaw:red
x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied ).[21]
The victim may not have
been definite on whether appellant removed her panty before or after he
clambered atop her. What is certain, however, as she repeatedly pointed
out, is that appellant pulled down her panty before he inserted his
penis
inside her vagina.cralaw:red
By the victim’s account
then, it is gathered that appellant inserted his penis inside her
vagina
after he placed himself on top of her and pulled down her panty. That
appellant
may at that point have been wearing his brief does not mean that he
failed
to have carnal knowledge of her. For he may have subsequently removed
his
brief or simply let out his penis therefrom prior to the sexual
congress
with the victim.[22]
Appellant cites as a
serious contradiction the victim’s assertion that she was raped at 2:00
p.m. of May 28, 2000 while admitting that she was also at her friend’s
house at that same time. The contradiction is more apparent than real.
The victim ably explained, in all of her naiveté, what she meant
by her said statement in this wise:
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(ATTY. UMPA)
Q Miss Witness, what
time did you go to your friend Jean on May 28?
A At around 2:00 in
the afternoon.cralaw:red
Q So at around 2:00
o’clock in the afternoon, you went to the house of your friend Jean?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q So that was also the
time that you were allegedly raped by your father, am I correct?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q How is it possible?
(PROSECUTOR CUETO)
The statement is that
after the rape she went to the house of her friend. Actually, that was
about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. You cannot at the same time be
raped
and went to the house of a friend.cralaw:red
(ATTY. UMPA)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q I was not finished,
Your Honor. How was it possible that according to you, you went to the
house of your friend Jean at 2:00 o’clock and now at the same time you
said that you were allegedly raped by your father at 2:00 o’clock,
could
you please explain?
A He raped me at about
2:00 o’clock and then he did not rape me for a long time. Right after
the
rape was made, I immediately ran to Jean’s house.cralaw:red
x x x (Emphasis supplied).[23]
Rape victims are not
expected to make an errorless recollection of the incident, so
humiliating
and painful that they might in fact be trying to obliterate it from
their
memory.[24]
Thus, a few inconsistent remarks in rape cases will not necessarily
impair
the testimony of the offended party.[25]
The inconsistencies
in the victim’s account are clearly understandable in light of her
tender
age and attested low level of mentality. Besides, as the determination
of the credibility of witnesses rests largely with the trial court, its
assessment of the witnesses’ testimonies is treated with great respect
on appeal, absent grave abuse of discretion on its part, it having the
advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence
including
the demeanor of the witnesses.[26]
In fine, this Court
finds no compelling reason to disturb the trial court’s evaluation of
the
victim’s credibility.cralaw:red
Appellant raises the
ultimate challenge to his conviction – that there was no penetration by
his penis of the victim’s vagina based on the medical findings of the
lack
of lacerations in the victim’s hymen and of the tightness of her
introitus
as to admit of only one finger.cralaw:red
This Court is not persuaded.cralaw:red
It is a settled rule
that the absence of hymenal lacerations or abrasions (as well as of
seminal
fluid, spermatozoa, or hematoma) around the genital area does not
negate
the commission of rape.[27]
For the mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum
already
constitutes rape such that any degree of penetration, however slight,
of
the female organ by the male organ consummates such crime.[28]
In the case at bar, the victim positively and unwaveringly maintained
that
appellant inserted his sex organ inside her vagina as a result of which
she experienced extreme pain to draw her to shout, causing appellant to
withdraw his penis:
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(PROSECUTOR CUETO)
Q What did he do after
climbing on top of you?
(COURT)
Q Climb or mount?
A Once he mounted on
top of me, he inserted his penis into my vagina.cralaw:red
(PROSECUTOR CUETO)
Q Was he able to penetrate
or insert his penis to your vagina?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Are you sure of that?
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And what did you feel?
A It was so painful.cralaw:red
x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied).[29]
(PROSECUTOR CUETO)
Q How long did it take
for your father to do such act?
A He did not put it
inside my vagina for a long time. It was just for a short time because
I shouted that it was so painful.cralaw:red
Q You said that you
resisted. After you resisted and shouted, did your father insist on
having
sexual intercourse with you, after you shouted that it was painful?
A No more, sir. He immediately
got off of me.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied).[30]
(COURT)
Q When you were on such
position, what happened next?
A He immediately inserted
his penis, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q You mean to say, when
you lied down on the floor, he immediately inserted his penis?
A Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q You mean to say then,
that he inserted his penis even if you are wearing a panty, am I
correct?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A He pulled my panty
up to my knees, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q Does the Court understand
that before he inserted his penis on your vagina, he pulled your panty
up down?
A Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied supplied).[31]
(ATTY. UMPA)
Q Aside from mounting
on top of you, what did he do?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A He immediately inserted
his penis into my vagina.cralaw:red
x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied).[32]
(ATTY. UMPA)
Q Miss Witness, after
he mounted on top of you and he inserted his penis into your vagina,
how
long did he insert his penis into your vagina?
A Just a very short
time. Just as soon as he entered.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q So after that, he
immediately pulled away?
A Yes, sir. Because
I cried.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(COURT)
Q What made him pulled
away his penis?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Because I cried, Your
Honor.cralaw:red
Q So you are telling
us that he inserted his penis into your vagina, only once?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied).[33]
(COURT)
Q While he was mounting
on you, while he was on top of you, what happened?
A He inserted his penis
into my vagina and I shouted.cralaw:red
Q Because you shouted,
what happened then?
A He immediately removed
himself, Your Honor. He pulled away.cralaw:red
x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied).[34]
The victim’s testimony,
which bears the hallmarks of credibility, has indubitably established
the
penetration of the victim’s vagina by appellant’s penis. The sharp pain
that according to the victim she experienced during her ordeal could be
nothing but the result of penile penetration sufficient to constitute
rape.[35]
Thus, although the medical certificate issued and testified to by
witness
Dr. Labanon yielded negative findings of injury to her genitalia, this
cannot adversely affect the determinative fact proven by the victim’s
testimony.
A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape[36]
and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a
prosecution
for rape.[37]
The rationale behind the treatment of medical findings as not essential
in rape cases was succinctly elucidated in People v. Bohol,[38]
thus:
There is no gainsaying
that medical evidence is merely corroborative, and is even dispensable,
in proving the crime of rape. In child sexual abuse cases particularly,
normal physical findings are common due to several factors, such as
delay
in seeking medical examination, the rapid healing of injuries, washing,
urinating or defecating after the sexual assault, the elasticity of the
hymen, changes in the hymenal tissue due to estrogen effect when the
victim
is at the pubertal stage, or the type of sexual molestation involved,
such
as fondling, oral sodomy, or cunnilingus, which leaves no physical
marks.
The child’s disclosure is the most important evidence of the sexual
abuse
she has gone through.cralaw:red
Dr. Labanon himself
did not rule out the possibility, despite the normal medical results of
the pelvic examination of the victim, that there was penetration of the
victim’s vagina but only up to the level of the labia. Still,
regardless
of Dr. Labanon’s findings and the possibilities he had raised
therefrom,
the credibility of the victim, who was found to be a competent witness
by psychiatrist Dr. Sagge, remains the single most important issue in
this
prosecution for rape, and since her testimony satisfies the test of
credibility,
appellant’s conviction solely on the basis thereof[39]
must be sustained.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for appellant’s denial,
it is, like alibi, inherently weak as a defense and constitutes a
self-serving
negative evidence.[40]
Against the victim’s positive averments, appellant’s plain denial of
any
wrongdoing cannot prevail. And so can not his alibi. For, for alibi to
prosper, appellant must be able to show the physical impossibility of
his
being at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[41]
This appellant failed to discharge. He himself attested to the fact
that
the slaughter house where he worked was only one kilometer away from
his
residence where the rape took place:
x x x
(PROSEUTOR CUETO)
Q Now, this workplace
of your[s], a residence of Gil Eballe as you said, is one kilometer
away
from your residence, at Tambacan, Iligan City, did I get you right?
A More or less.cralaw:red
Q So if you are going
to work with that distance between your residence to your workplace at
Saray, Iligan City, it would take you only, about fifteen (15) minutes?
A Approximately.cralaw:red
Q If you take a ride,
for example, a bicycle or passenger vehicle, let’s say, would not it
take
you less than five minutes?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And in fact, if you
are going let’s say, you are going from Gil Eballe residence to your
residence,
to get something and get back to your place of work, it would only take
you about thirty (30) minutes, all in all, if you are going to walk?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
x x x[42]
It is thus clear that
the place where appellant claimed he was at the time the sexual assault
was carried out did not preclude the possibility of his being at the
locus
criminis.cralaw:red
Appellant’s insistence
that he did not leave the slaughter house at anytime during the daytime
of May 28, 2000 on instructions of his employer bore no corroboration
by
his employer or any of his fellow workers, leaving much to be desired
as
to the credibility of such claim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant’s culpability
for the crime charged notwithstanding, the trial court’s imposition of
the death penalty upon him does not lie.cralaw:red
Rape is punished with
death when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender
is a parent of the victim.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
x x x[43]
As a special qualifying
circumstance raising the penalty for rape to death, the minority of the
victim and her relationship to the offender must be alleged in the
criminal
complaint or information and proved conclusively and indubitably as the
crime itself.[44]
While the above-quoted information alleged the concurrence of the
victim’s
minority and her relationship to appellant as his daughter, the
jurisprudentially
required evidence to prove such circumstance is utterly lacking.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To prove a rape victim’s
minority, the prosecution must adduce in evidence her birth certificate
for it is the best evidence to prove her age at the time of the
commission
of the crime.[45]
Substitutionary evidence, absent proof of loss or destruction of the
original
of the birth certificate or the unavailability thereof without fault of
the prosecution, will not suffice.[46]
Likewise, the relationship
of the accused to the victim cannot be established by mere testimony or
even by the accused’s very own admission of such relationship.[47]
Except for the bare
testimonies of the parties, no birth certificate exists in the records
to prove that the victim was fifteen (15) years old at the time she was
raped by appellant. And yet there was no showing that her birth
certificate
was lost or destroyed or was unavailable without the prosecution’s
fault.
Thus, substitutionary evidence – the victim’s and appellant’s
testimonies
– was inadmissible.cralaw:red
Much reliance is had
on the stipulation of facts embodied in the trial court’s June 22, 2000
Pre-trial Order whereby appellant admitted to the victim being his
daughter
and her being fifteen (15) years old at the time of the rape incident.
This Court in People v. Sitao[48]
rejected stipulation of facts as a specie of evidence to prove the
qualifying
circumstances of rape:
Neither can a stipulation
of the parties with respect to the victim’s age be considered
sufficient
proof of minority. Circumstances that qualify a crime and increase its
penalty to death cannot be the subject of stipulation. An accused
cannot
be condemned to suffer the extreme penalty of death on the basis of
stipulations
or his own admissions. This strict rule is warranted by the seriousness
of the penalty of death.cralaw:red
As the prosecution failed
to prove then the alleged special qualifying circumstance attendant to
appellant’s commission of the crime of rape, he is guilty only of
simple
rape the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua. Accordingly, the
award
of civil indemnity must be reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. The
award
of P50,000.00 as moral damages stays, however.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Decision
dated October 31, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao Del Norte,
Branch 2 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant PASCUAL B. BALBARONA
is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape and is
sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim,
Odette
M. Balbarona, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another
P50,000.00
as moral damages.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records at 42-54.
[2]
Id. at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Records at 9.
[4]
Id. at 12-14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, August 4, 2000 at 2-79.
[6]
Id. at 13-79.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, July 11, 2000 at 2-18.
[8]
TSN, July 19, 2000 at 11-25.
[9]
Records, Exhibit "A" at 3.
[10]
TSN, July 10, 2000 at 2-18.
[11]
Records, Exhibit "B" at 26-28.
[12]
TSN, July 19, 2000 at 2-11.
[13]
TSN, August 16, 2000 at 2-23.
[14]
Rollo at 47-72.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, August 4, 2000 at 6-13.
[16]
People v. Alborida, 359 SCRA 495 [2001].
[17]
People v. Painitan, 349 SCRA 266 [2001].
[18]
TSN, August 16, 2000 at 18-19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People v. Llanita, 364 SCRA505 [2001].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People v. Asuncion, 358 SCRA 661 [2001].
[21]
TSN, August 4, 2000 at 25-27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Vide People v. Licanda, 331 SCRA 357 [2000], where the Court
interpreted
the victim’s statement that the accused was wearing briefs to mean that
the accused subsequently removed or lowered it during the sexual act to
expose his penis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
TSN, August 4, 2000 at 38-39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People v. Caniezo, 354 SCRA 298 [2001].
[25]
People v. Baring, 354 SCRA 371 [2001].
[26
People v. Francisco, 354 SCRA 475 [2001].
[27]
People v. Ombreso, 372 SCRA 675 [2001].
[28]
People v. Estrella, 352 SCRA 632 [2001].
[29]
TSN, August 4, 2000 at 10-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
TSN, August 4, 2000 at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Id. at 25-27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Id. at 31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Id. at 32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
TSN, August 4, 2000 at 74-75.
[35]
People v. Palicte, 229 SCRA 543 [1994].
[36]
People v. Bares, 355 SCRA 435 [2001].
[37]
People v. Tagaylo, 345 SCRA 284 [2000].
[38]
363 SCRA 510 [2001].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People v. Palero, 357 SCRA 724 [2001].
[40]
People v. Alay-ay, 363 SCRA 603 [2001].
[41]
People v. Baltazar, 343 SCRA 250 [2000].
[42]
TSN, August 16, 2000 at 16-17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Revised Penal Code, Art. 266-B, As Amended by R.A. No. 8353.
[44]
People v. Victor, 393 SCRA 472 [2002].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
People v. Ramos, 394 SCRA 452 [2002].
[46]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
Ibid.
[48]
387 SCRA 701 [2002].
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |