ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 121212 January 20, 1999 -versus- ARTEMIO CALAYCA,
D E C I S I O N MARTINEZ, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary A daughter was again allegedly raped by her own father, herein appellant Artemio Calayca, who is now facing a death sentence after having been found guilty of said crime in a decision[1] dated June 13, 1995, rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 24) of Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Case No. 95-129. Hence, this automatic review.cralaw:red A rape charge was initiated by Neddy Calayca through a sworn complaint[2] with supporting affidavits and documents[3] filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental on January 9, 1995. MCTC Judge Alfredo Cain found sufficient ground to prosecute the appellant for the crime of rape. This was the same finding of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Misamis Oriental upon examination of the records of the preliminary investigation forwarded to it. Consequently, on March 21, 1995, the corresponding Information[4] was filed with the Regional Trial Court reading as follows:chanrobles virtual law library "The undersigned
Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor II, upon sworn complaint of the offended party,
Neddy
Calayca, accuses ARTEMIO CALAYCA of the crime of RAPE, committed as
follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, March 6, 1995.cralaw:red "Asst. Provincial Prosecutor II" When arraigned under the above-quoted Information, the appellant entered a plea of "not guilty" to the crime charged. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. The evidence for the prosecution was anchored mainly on the testimony of 16-year old Neddy Calayca who, on May 2, 1995, narrated that at about 1:00 o’clock in the morning of January 29, 1994, she was sound asleep inside their house at Barangay Solo, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental when hse was awakened by the weight of her father, herein appellant Artemio Calayca, who was already on top of her, naked and armed with a bolo. He forcibly undressed her, inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull motion. Feeling the pain in her vagina, she resisted his onslaught by kicking and boxing him, telling him with bitter tears, "I wish you would die. You are a father without good morals."[5] But she was helpless to resist his lustful desire as he threatened her with a knife saying, "I will kill you if you will not agree."[6] After the sexual assault, she picked up her clothes, dressed up and was left weeping. She was then 15 years old when this incident happened.[7] Neddy Calayca first thought of immediately filing a case against appellant but was prevented by his threat to kill her. She, however, reported her awful experience with the appellant to her relatives in Manbayaan. She informed them that even before the January 29, 1994 incident, appellant had sexually abused her many times. Her relatives, who were also afraid of appellant, merely advised her to sue him. She immediately went home in Solo because she feared her father. When she reached home, her eldest sister Betty Lani Calayca also arrived from Manila. Informed of the rape incident, Lani and Neddy decided to leave the appellant. The two then traveled to Don Carlos, Bukidnon and worked as servants of the mayor, thinking their father could no longer find them there. However, appellant was able to locate them. While in the house of the mayor, appellant harassed them, so Betty Lani had him arrested by the police.[8] While appellant was in jail, Neddy reported to the police authorities that he raped her. The police then took her sworn statement[9] on the rape incident. Thereafter, Neddy filed her complaint for rape against the appellant.cralaw:red Betty Lani Calayca was 22 years old when she testified on May 18, 1995. She narrated that she was the eldest and Neddy was the second among the six (6) children of appellant. Their mother died when she was 9 and Neddy was 7. At 11, she left Balingasag for Manila where she stayed for 10 years. While in Manila, her aunt wrote that Neddy was sexually abused by the appellant and that she should come home. When she arrived home in Solo, she slept in the house of her father so she could observe him. That night, the appellant came to her and touched her body, but she quickly managed to get out of the house and stayed outdoors until morning. She then convinced Neddy to run away from home so they could avoid appellant. They went to Bukidnon to work, but their whereabouts was discovered by appellant, who then started to harass them. Undaunted by the appellant’s threat, the two sisters reported to the authorities what Neddy suffered in the hands of appellant. Thus, his arrest.cralaw:red The last witness for the prosecution was Dr. Angelita A. Enopia, a physician at the Balingasag Medicare Hospital, Misamis Oriental. She declared that on January 3, 1995 she conducted a pelvic examination[10] on the private complainant, who informed her that she was raped by her own father even when she was only seven (7) years old, and the last time was in January, 1994. Dr. Enopia noted that there were healed lacerations in the hymen of Neddy at 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 o’clock positions. She likewise found that there was a thickening of the hymen which was indicative of frequent sexual intercourse.[11] Appellant Artemio Calayca,
on the other hand, did not deny the imputation of her daughter Neddy
Calayca
that he raped her in the early morning of January 29, 1994. All that he
testified to was that he was a widower in 1998 and has six (6) children
by his late wife, two of whom he identified as Neddy, the private
complainant,
and Betty Lani. He claimed that Neddy was only nine (9) years old when
his wife died. The private complainant stayed with him together with
his
five other children, while Betty Lani stayed with his (appellant’s)
brother
at San Juan, Misamis Oriental. Betty Lani and Neddy left his house on
August
19, 1993. They took his savings from the proceeds of the sale of his
pig
in the amount of The defense did not present any other witness nor any documentary evidence.cralaw:red A judgment convicting the appellant of the crime charged and imposing upon him the penalty of death was rendered by the trial court in a Decision dated June 13, 1995, the decretal portion of which states:chanrobles virtual law library
"In view of the penalty imposed, let the whole record of the case including the evidence oral and documentary be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court, Manila, for automatic review. In addition, let the living body of the accused be committed to the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.cralaw:red "SO ORDERED." Appellant now assails the judgment of conviction claiming that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary "I
Appellant hammers on the alleged inconsistencies in private complainant’s testimony regarding the frequency of the commission of rape by appellant against her and the kind of weapon he used in forcing her to succumb to his bestial lust. More specifically, appellant pointed out that private complainant, at one instance, testified that he raped her for the first time on January 29, 1994,[14] and yet, she later declared that she was raped by him several times even before that date. Appellant further claims that private complainant likewise testified that he threatened her with a bolo when she tried to resist his bestial act on January 29, 1994,[15] but afterwards, she stated that it was a knife which appellant used to threaten her.[16] These contradictory declarations by private complainant, appellant argues, "only cast doubts on her claim that she was raped by her father on January 29, 1994."[17] Appellant’s contention fails to persuade Us.cralaw:red We have ruled in numerous cases that an errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be expected of a witness especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and so faithful as rape.[18] Minor errors in the testimony of a rape victim tend to buttress, rather than weaken, her credibility since that would indicate that her testimony was not contrived.[19] The alleged conflicting statements of private complainant is more imagined than real. Private complainant has made it clear in her testimony that even before the rape incident on January 29, 1994, appellant had raped her several times. Thus, she testified:chanrobles virtual law library
"A – Yes.cralaw:red "Q – What was their reaction? "A – When I told them that my father raped me several times, they feel bad.cralaw:red "COURT Before January 29, 1994 your father used to have sexual intercourse with you? "A – Yes, sir.cralaw:red ATTY. FELICIA What was the comment of your relatives when you told them that you were raped by your father several times? "A – They commented that my father is a pig."[20] (Emphasis supplied) Also, the seeming confusion by private complainant on the kind of weapon used by appellant to threaten her does not belie the fact of the commission of rape by him against her on January 29, 1994. Moreover, when the trial court clarified with private complainant what exactly was the weapon used by appellant, she made a definite declaration that it was a knife, not a bolo, thereby removing any confusion as to this matter, to wit:chanrobles virtual law library
"Q – After you saw the knife that your father was holding, what did you feel? "A – I was afraid.cralaw:red "COURT "Q – We will clarify, was it a bolo or a knife? "A - A knife.cralaw:red "Q – Not a bolo? "A – No, sir.cralaw:red "FISCAL KHO "Q – How long is that knife? "A – About this long (witness demonstrated, counsels agreed tp a 6 to 8 inches in length).cralaw:red "Q – With that length, does that include the handle? "A – Yes, including the handle."[21] [emphasis supplied] Nothwithstanding these minor flaws in the testimony of private complainant, the latter remained consistent and firm in her denunciation of appellant, her very own father, as the person who sexually abused her on January 29, 1994. The records bear this out as she testified as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
"Q – In what specific place at Solo, San Juan, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental where you were situated on January 29, 1994? "A – Inside the house.cralaw:red "Q – At about 1:00 at dawn, more or less, were you still in your house? "A – I was asleep inside our house.cralaw:red "Q – When you were asleep inside the house, was there any unusual incident? "A – Yes, sir.cralaw:red "Q – Will you please tell the Honorable Court, what it was all about? "A – My father placed himself on top of me and made a push and pull motion.cralaw:red "Q – Was he dressed or naked? "A – He was naked.cralaw:red "Q – How about you at that time? "A – He undressed me.cralaw:red "Q – What did you do, when your father made sexual intercourse with you? ATTY. FELICIA No basis, Your Honor.cralaw:red FISCAL KHO I will reform the question, Your Honor.cralaw:red "Q – You said that your father undressed you and he placed himself on top of you and made a push and pull motion, was there anything that happened to you.cralaw:red "A – Yes, there was.cralaw:red "Q – And, you please tell the Court what it was all about? "A – It was painful.cralaw:red "Q – Why is it that you felt a pain? "A – Because he made a push and pull motion.cralaw:red "Q – What particular part of your body was painful? "A – My vagina.cralaw:red "Q – Why, what happened to your vagina? "A – It was inserted.cralaw:red "Q – What was inserted? "A – A penis.cralaw:red "Q – The penis of whom that inserted your vagina? "A – Of my father.cralaw:red "Q – Is your father around in Court? "A – Yes, sir.cralaw:red "Q – Will you please point on him? "A – Yes, sir, he is there. (witness pointing to a man, and upon asked of his name responded that he is ARTEMIO CALAYCA).cralaw:red "Q – What did you do when your father inserted his penis into your vagina? "A – I was lying down.cralaw:red "Q – Did you agree that your father will have sexual intercourse with you? "A – I did not agree but I just followed him because he had a bolo with him.cralaw:red "Q – What did he do with the bolo? "A – He would hacked me if I will not agree.cralaw:red "COURT "Q – How old have you been at that time? "A – 15 years old."[22] Indeed, the testimony of Dr. Enopia, the examining physician, corroborated private complainant’s claim that she was sexually abused. Dr. Enopia’s declaration that she found healed lacerations on the victim’s hymen at 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 o’clock positions and that there was a thickening of her hymen, simply indicated a frequent coitus.cralaw:red In his brief, appellant further made a vain attempt to impute ill-motive on the part of private complainant to falsely charge him with rape. Appellant suggested that private complainant had an axe to grind against him for having allegedly slapped her and her sister Betty Lani when he discovered that they took his savings of P5,000.00 which was the proceeds of the sale of his pig. This alleged incident, appellant argues, should have deserved credence as this was not rebutted by the prosecution.cralaw:red We do not agree.cralaw:red This supposed ill-motive of private complainant was not duly established by the defense. Hence, there was nothing for the prosecution to rebut. The elementary principle in the rules of evidence is that an affirmative allegation made by a party must be duly proved to merit acceptance by the court. Besides, this posture of appellant was correctly rejected by the trial court when it ruled that:chanrobles virtual law library
We believe that a teenage unmarried lass would not ordinarily file a rape charge against anybody, much less her own father, if it were not true.[25] For, it is unnatural for a young and innocent girl to concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter subject herself to a public trial if she has not, in fact, been a victim of rape and deeply motivated by a sincere desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.[26] The alleged slapping by appellant on private complainant over money in the amount of merely P5,000.00 is too frail a reason for a teenage daughter to falsely charge her own father with the heinous crime of rape that is punishable by death. It is significant to note that, as likewise emphasized by the trial court, appellant did not deny the imputation of private complainant that he raped her on January 29, 1994 at his house in Solo, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental.[27] His silence on the evidence of rape against him is a mute but eloquent admission of the crime charged.[28] We, therefore, affirm the finding of the trial court that the charge of rape against appellant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.cralaw:red However, while we agree that the penalty of death should be imposed on him, regrettably this is not in accord with the law and jurisprudence.cralaw:red Although the matter of the proper imposition of the penalty is not assigned as an error by the appellant, nevertheless, it is a well-established rule in criminal procedure that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct an error as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the subject of assignment of errors or not.[29] The trial court imposed the death penalty on appellant because of the presence of the circumstance of minority of the victim (she was only 15 years old at the time she was raped on January 29, 1994) as well as the relationship of the offender (father) and the victim (daughter), pursuant to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659[30] which amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.[31]Section 11 of R. A. 7659 reads:chanrobles virtual law library
"2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and cralaw:red "3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.cralaw:red "Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.cralaw:red "When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.cralaw:red "When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.cralaw:red "The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:chanrobles virtual law library "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 "2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.cralaw:red "3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.cralaw:red "4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.cralaw:red "5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.cralaw:red "6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.cralaw:red "7. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation." (Underscoring supplied) In the aforecited case of People v. Ramos, We explained that:chanrobles virtual law library
A reading of the Information for rape filed against appellant in the present case reveals that he is merely charged with the crime of simple rape which warrants the imposition of the penalty or reclusion perpetua. This is so because the fact of the minority of the victim, is not stated in the Information. What was alleged therein was only the relationship of the offender as the parent of the victim. Again, as we have emphasized in People v. Ramos, the elements of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. As such, the charge of rape in the Information is not in its qualified form so as to fall under the special qualifying circumstances stated in Section 11 of R.A. 7659. Thus, the penalty of death prescribed in R.A. 7659 should not have been imposed against appellant. In the aforecited case of People v. Garcia, We ruled:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
There being no allegation of the minority of the victim in the Information under which the appellant was arraigned, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape as he was not properly informed that he is being accused of qualified rape.[39] Appellant’s conviction of qualified rape violates his constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.[40] In a criminal prosecution, it is the fundamental rule that every element of the crime charged must be alleged in the information. The main purpose of this constitutional requirement is to enable the accused to properly prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.[41] Adopting our pronouncements in the aforecited cases of People v. Garcia and People v. Ramos, the failure to allege the fact of minority of the victim in the Information for rape is fatal and consequently bars the imposition of the death penalty. Having been informed only of the elements of simple rape, the appellant can be convicted only of such crime and be punished accordingly with reclusion perpetua.[42] As regards the P50,000.00 which the trial court ordered the appellant to pay the private complainant, the assailed judgment does not specify what this amount is intended for. We believe, however, that the said amount is for payment of indemnity, which We find to be proper. In the recent case of People v. Prades,[43] it was ruled that the award of moral damages to the victim is proper even if there was no proof presented during the trial as basis therefor. The circumstance of relationship between the offender and the victim as an aggravating circumstance becomes necessary in the matter of awarding civil damages.[44] Thus, We find the appellant liable for P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.cralaw:red WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court convicting appellant Artemio Calayca of qualified rape is modified in the sense that the appellant is declared guilty of simple rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Neddy Calayca the sum of P50,000.00 by way of indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing,
Purisima, Pardo, Buena, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary [1]
RTC record, pp. 76-86.
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -1999 SC Decisions - Back to Home
|
|