[G.R. Nos. 136733-35. December 13, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ELADIO
VIERNES y ILDEFONSO, appellant.
D E C I S I O N PANGANIBAN, J.:
Under the Rules of Court, a judgment of conviction in a criminal prosecution may be modified only upon motion of the accused. As a rule, the prosecution is prohibited from seeking, and the trial court from granting, a more severe penalty than that imposed in the original decision. This is especially true in a case in which the new and amended penalty imposed is death.
The Case
Before us is an appeal[1] from the April 6, 1998 Decision and the May 21, 1998 Order[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City (Branch 12) in Criminal Case Nos. 0532-97, 0533-97 and 0534-97. The assailed Decision convicted appellant of two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. It disposed as follows: “WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, ELADIO VIERNES y ILDEFONSO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 0532-97 of the crime of Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 335, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2532 and Republic Act No. 4111; in Crim. Case No. 0533-97 of the crime of Attempted Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 335, par. 3 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2532 and Republic Act No. 4111; and, in Crim. Case No. 0534-97 of the crime of Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 335, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2532 and Republic Act No. 4111, and sentences him, as follows:
“1. CRIM. CASE NO. 0532-97 – to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify Catherine Linatoc in the amount of P50,000.00, to pay P10,000 as moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 (3) of the Civil Code, as well as exemplary
damages in the amount of P5,000.00 pursuant to Article 2229 of the same Code and the costs of this suit;
“2. CRIM. CASE NO. 0533-97 – to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correccional, as Minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as Maximum, to indemnify Catherine Linatoc in the amount of P25,000.00, and to pay the costs of this suit; and “3. CRIM. CASE NO. 0534-97 – to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify Catherine Linatoc in the amount of P50,000.00, to pay P10,000.00 as moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 (3) of the Civil Code, as well as exemplary damages in the amount of P5,000.00 pursuant to Article 2229 of the same Code and the costs of this suit.”[3]
On the other hand, the assailed Order increased the penalties as follows: “WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, ELADIO VIERNES y ILDEFONSO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 0532-97 of the crime of Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 335, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659; in Crim. Case No. 0533 of the crime of Attempted Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 335, par. 3 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and in Crim. Case No. 0534-97 of the crime of Rape, as defined and penalized under Article 335, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and sentences him, as follows:
“1. CRIM. CASE NO. 0532-97 – to suffer the penalty of DEATH, to indemnify CATHERINE LINATOC in the amount of P50,000.00, to pay P10,000 as moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 (3) of the Civil Code, as well as exemplary damages in the amount
of P5,000.00 pursuant to Article 2229 of the same Code and the costs of this suit;
“2. CRIM. CASE NO. 0533-97 – to suffer an indeterminate penalty of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as Minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion Temporal, as Maximum, to indemnify Catherine Linatoc in the amount of P25,000.00 and to pay the costs of this suit; and
“3. CRIM. CASE NO. 0534[-97] – to suffer the penalty of DEATH, to indemnify Catherine Linatoc in the amount of P50,000.00, to pay P10,000.00, as moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 (3) of the Civil Code, the amount of P5,000.00, as exemplary damages, pursuant to Article 2229 of the same Code and the costs of this suit.”[4]
Three criminal Complaints, all dated August 21, 1997, were filed by Catherine Linatoc (assisted by her mother Lina Dela Cruz-Linatoc) before Second Assistant City Prosecutor Danilo S. Sandoval. The Complaint in Criminal Case No. 0532-97 charged appellant with rape committed as follows:
“That on or about the 29th day of September, 1996 at about 10:00 o’clock in the morning at Barangay Tibig, Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the common law husband of the mother of the victim, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant who is a minor below 12 years old, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded to her under the provision of the Civil Code.”[5]
The Complaint in Crim. Case No. 0534-97 likewise charged him with consummated rape:
“That on or about the 18th day of August 1997 at about 12:00 o’clock noon, at Barangay Tibig, Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the common law husband of the mother of the victim, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant who is a minor of 12 years old against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded to her under provisions of the Civil Code.”[6]
Finally, in Criminal Case No. 0533-97, appellant was charged with attempted rape:
“That on or about the month of March 1997, around noon time, at Barangay Tibi, Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the common law husband of the mother of the victim, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd design pursuant to his carnal desire, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the
commission of the felony of rape directly by overt acts against the undersigned complainant who is a minor below 12 years old, by then and there undressing her and going on top of her with his exposed private organ but did not perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the said felony because the undersigned offended party resisted.”[7]
Criminal Case Nos. 0532-97 and 0534-97 were raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City, Branch 12; and Criminal Case No. 0533-97, to Branch 85 of the same court. Later, all the cases were consolidated in Branch 12.[8]
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.[9] After trial in due course, the lower court rendered the assailed Decision.
In a Motion for Reconsideration dated May 18, 1998, Prosecutor Sandoval asked that the imposed penalties be increased pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 7659. The RTC granted the Motion via the assailed Order.
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
In its Brief,[10] the Office of the Solicitor General presents the following narration of facts:
“Catherine Linatoc stood quietly by the door of the toilet of appellant’s – her mother’s common-law husband – house. Her skirt’s hemlines were slowly falling to her knees vainly covering the panty that were pulled down mid-way her lower legs. This was the third of a series of dismaying sex that she and appellant had been through. Like the others before this one, there was by appellant much pulling, shoving and forcible grasping of her hands, thus rendering her immobile for three minutes or so.
“The third rape happened in appellant’s house in Tibig, Lipa City, around noontime of August 18, 1997. Appellant then bidded [sic] the two brothers and a step-brother of Catherine Linatoc to clean the his tricycle, which was parked on the side of the street across his house. They followed his order. Appellant also instructed Catherine Linatoc to fetch water for the house toilet. She obliged, returning with two pails of it. She deposited them by the door of the toilet. Turning about, Catherine Linatoc was surprised to find appellant behind her. In quick succession, appellant pushed her to the wall, pulled her skirts up, drag her panty mid-way her lower leg, and rushed his own pants down. Grasping her hands tightly with one
hand, appellant began inserting his penis into her vagina. She resisted to no avail. His penis established a comfortable slide into and out of her [organ], as the pace quickened for about three minutes. The gyration was furious. After appellant spurted out, he backed off and left saying nothing.
“Frightened and crying, Catherine Linatoc went to her great-grandmother’s abode in San Guillermo, Lipa City. She reported the incident to this elder, and recounted some more. Catherine Linatoc told her great-grandmother of two other acts of sexual abuse by appellant. The first one, she narrated, happened on September 29, 1996, about ten in the morning[;] and the second, on March 1997 around noon-time.
“The first rape happened on September 29, 1996 in appellant’s house. Catherine Linatoc was on the ground floor of the house when so suddenly appellant sprung from wherever he was, grabbed and carried her to the second floor. The second floor was just three steps from the ground floor. He then undressed her, taking off her sando, skirt and panty. He undressed himself too, and then floored both their bodies, [his] on top of her. He caressed her breasts and started inserting his penis into her vagina. Appellant held her hands tightly and fought off her struggle. There was push and pull for about three minutes, then appellant came
through. Appellant dressed up, and before walking away, apologized to her. It would be the first and last rape, he said.
“There was soon the second sexual abuse. In March 1997, about noontime, using the same strategy as he did in the [first] rape, appellant unburdened himself on Catherine Linatoc. From nowhere, appellant appeared. He dragged her to the second floor where he undressed her and himself. He mightily threw her to the floor, his sweaty body covering her’s. Appellant engaged in the now familiar gyration once again. This time, however his penis landed on the thighs of the victim as insertion, because of her struggle and vagina’s virginal qualities, became
frustratingly difficult. Between her thighs appellant thrusted his penis. He satisfied himself just the same.
“The great-grandmother was helpless to remedy the abuse done to Catherine Linatoc. They waited for the father of Catherine Linatoc, Orlando Linatoc, who arrived four days later. The mother of Catherine Linatoc, Lina Viernes, also arrived. Catherine Linatoc had her medico-legal examination with these results.: ‘x x x lacerated hymen on the 3:00 and 9:00 o’clock positions with small amounts of whitish discharge.’
“The medico-legal examination was performed by Dr. Helen S. Dy. The present criminal complaints against appellant were thereafter filed.”[11]
Version of the Defense
Appellant denies the charges against him. Claiming to have been elsewhere at the time of the commission of the alleged crimes, he submits the following counterstatement of the facts:
“1) ELADIO, at the lower court, stated that he is the common law husband of Lina de la Cruz-Linatoc (mother of the alleged victim … Catherine Linatoc). He is a security guard and at the same time, a tricycle driver. On September 29, 1996 he was living with Lina, together with Catherine, his two sons and other relatives. On September 28, 1996 he scolded Catherine. As a consequence thereof, Catherine went to the house of her great grandmother and stayed therein even beyond September 29, 1996. Therefore, it is impossible for him (ELADIO) to have attacked Catherine sexually on September 29, 1996. It is not true that he attempted to rape Catherine in March of 1997 because he was on duty at that time. Their company logbook will bear witness thereto. (Exhibit ‘2’, Original Records) On August 18, 1997 it is not true that he raped Catherine since he was plying his tricyle then. (TSN, pp. 2-13, December 11, 1997; and pp. 2-22, January 8, 1998) “2) Lina de la Cruz at the Court below, testified that she confirms claim/s [sic] of ELADIO that Catherine was no longer in their house on September 29, 1996 and that ELADIO could not have abused Catherine sexually. Catherine’s charge for March 1997 and August 18, 1997 were not also true. (TSN, pp. 2-7, February 3, 1998).
x x x x x x x x x “D. Sur-Rebuttal Evidence.
“ELADIO, as a sur-rebuttal witness, denied to have asked the settlement of the case.”[12]
The court a quo held that the testimony of Catherine Linatoc -- both on direct and on cross-examination -- was clear, positive and steadfast. Corroborated by the medicolegal examination conducted on her, it was replete with details that jibed on material points. The prosecution successfully proved that she was the daughter of appellant’s common-law wife and that, at the time of the crime, she was 12 years old.
The declarations of complainant were accorded full faith and credence on the theory that she would not publicly acknowledge the defilement of her virtue or subject herself to public humiliation, if her purpose was not to obtain justice for the wrong committed. There is no evidence that she was a woman of loose morals or that she had any ill motive to falsely accuse appellant.
On the other hand, appellant’s denial and alibi were unsubstantiated and self-serving; hence, they deserve no weight in law. They cannot stand against Catherine’s positive testimony.
In the assailed Order, the trial court noted that the prosecution’s Motion was unopposed. It ruled that the increase in the penalty did not place appellant in double jeopardy.
Hence, this appeal.[13]
The Issues
In his Brief,[14] appellant raises this sole alleged error:
“The lower court has committed an error in convicting the accused-appellant of the crimes charged and on meting out on him the supreme penalty of death, more particularly in Criminal Cases Nos. 0532-97 and 0534-97.”
An appeal from a criminal conviction, especially one involving the death penalty, throws the whole case open for review. Thus, it becomes the duty of the reviewing court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether or not it is made the subject of an assignment of error.[15] In this light, the Court believes that a second issue needs to be taken up, namely:
“Whether the trial court erred in increasing the penalties via the assailed Order.”
This Court’s Ruling
The trial court was correct in convicting appellant in accordance with the challenged Decision, but was wrong in imposing the new penalties through the assailed Order.
First Issue: Appellant’s Culpability
After a thorough review of the pleadings, the transcripts of stenographic notes and other records of the case, we are convinced that the court a quo did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of the victim and the other prosecution witnesses. The testimony of private complainant, detailing how she was abused by appellant on two separate occasions and how he tried to rape her once more, was clear and convincing. We quote at length:
“Q While you were in your house on that date, September 29, 1996, 10:00 o’clock in the morning, do you remember of any unusual incident that transpired if any?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that unusual incident that transpired? A After my mother left, I was pulled sir.
Q By whom, who pulled you? A My step father, sir.
Q Where were you brought, towards what direction?
A Towards the second floor of our house and to the place where we sleep, sir.
Q By the way, that house where you were living in Brgy. Tibig, Lipa City on that date September 29, 1996, what kind of house is that?
A It is made of Sawali, sir.
Q How about the flooring, how many floors does it have? A Three (3) steps sir.
A Our stairs is made of three (3) steps, sir. Court:
From the ground floor? A Yes, sir.
Q What is located after going this stairs composed of three (3) steps? A That is the place where we sleep sir.
Q After you [were] pulled upstairs to where you usually sleep by Eladio Viernes, what did Eladio Viernes do to you after reaching that upper portion of your house, if he did anything?
Atty. Dimaandal
Leading your Honor. Court
Answer.
A He undressed me sir.
Q What were you wearing that Eladio Viernes took of[f] from your body? A I was wearing a skirt which was my uniform sir.
Q What else I[f] any were taken of[f] from your body by Eladio Viernes? A My blouse, sando and my skirt and my panty sir.
Q After Eladio Viernes took of[f] your clothing, after removing your clothing what did Eladio Viernes do on your body?
A He placed himself on top of me.
Q When Eladio Viernes placed himself on top of you, what was he wearing if any?
A None sir.
Q By the way, when Eladio Viernes pulled you to where you usually sleep, what was his wearing at that time?
A He was wearing pants, sir.
Q You said that after Eladio Viernes took of[f] all your clothing he went on top of you you said he was already naked, what did he do with hi[s] pants before he went on top of you?
A He mashed [m]y breast sir.
Q What else did he do [to] you aside from mashing your breast? A He inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q By the way, while he was mashing your breast, what were you doing if you did anything?
A I was fighting him back sir.
Q What did Eladio Viernes do when you fought him back while he was mashing your breast?
A He was slapping me sir.
Q When he inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you feel? A Painful, sir.
Q Was Eladio Viernes able to actually insert his penis[?] Atty. Dimaandal
Leading your honor.
Q After Eladio Viernes inserted his private organ into your private organ, what else did he do if anything more?
A He did pumping motion, sir.
Q For how long did he do this pumping motion, while his penis was inside your vagina?
A About three (3) minutes sir.
Q After three (3) minutes when Eladio Viernes did this pumping motion while his penis was inside your vagina, what else did he do if he did anything more?
A He removed his private organ sir.”[16]
We also quote the testimony of the victim regarding appellant’s attempt to rape her:
A In May 1997 but I do not remember the exact date sir. Q Are you sure about the date?
Atty. Dimaandal
That is the answer of the witness. Prosecutor
That’s why I am asking, are you sure about the date? A May 19, 1997 sir.
Q By the way, in [the] second incident [where] Eladio Viernes according to you raped you again, where did this happen?
A At Barangay Tibig, Lipa City.
Q In what particular place in Bgy. Tibig were you raped for the second time by Eladio Viernes?
A In the upper portion of our house at the place where we are sleeping sir. Q The same place where the second rape was committed?
A Yes, sir.
Q Around what time did this happen, this second rape happened? Atty. Dimaandal
We make it of record that the witness cannot answer. Prosecutor
The witness is thinking . . . A Noontime sir.
Q How did this happen? A He again pulled me sir.
Q By the way on that second occasion, where was your mother? A She was working sir.
Q You said that you were again pulled, where were you brought by Eladio Viernes at the same time around?
A The upper portion of our house and at the place where we were sleeping sir.
Q After you were pulled by Eladio Viernes, what did Eladio Viernes do to you? A He undressed me sir.
Q What kind of wearing apparel that you were wearing that were taken off by Eladio Viernes on that same occasion?
A I was wearing a skirt sir.
Q After you were undressed by Eladio Viernes what did Eladio Viernes do to you if he did anything?
A He again placed himself on top of me sir.
Q What was he wearing he placed himself on top of you if he was wearing anything?
A He was wearing pants sir.
Q When he placed himself on top of you, where was his pants? A He removed pants sir.
Q When Eladio Viernes went on top of you, what did you [sic] do if he anything more on the second time around?
A He again mashed my breast sir.
Q What did you do when Eladio Viernes again mashed your breast? A I was fighting him back sir.
Q What else did he do aside from mashing your breast, what did Eladio Viernes do to you?
A He was inserting his penis into my vagina sir.
Q When Eladio Viernes was inserting his penis into your vagina, what did you do?
A I was struggling sir.
Q When you struggled, what happened to that effort of Eladio Viernes to insert his penis into your vagina?
Q What did Eladio Viernes do when he failed to insert his penis into your vagina?
A He just placed it between my thighs sir.
Q After placing his penis between your thighs, what else did Eladio Viernes do if he did anything?
Atty. Dimaandal
May we interrupt . . That after translations the answer of this witness. He just place on my thigh, there was no vagina [sic].
Q You said that Eladio Viernes placed his penis in your thighs, in what particular part of your thighs?
Atty. Dimaandal Leading Court
Answer. Interpreter
Witness pointing to the inner portion of her two thighs
Q What did Viernes do after he put his penis between the inner portion of your two thighs?
A [H]e placed his penis between my thighs and he again did the pumping motion sir.”[17]
Pertinent portions of the testimony of complainant regarding her second defilement in the hands of appellant read as follows:
“Q Miss Witness, on August 18, 1997 around 12:00 noon where were you? A I was at home sir.
Q What were you doing? A I just arrived from school sir.
Q You said that you were in your house, where was this house located on that date, August 18, 1997?
A At Barangay Tibig sir.
Q You said that you had just arrived from school, when you arrived in your house in Brgy. Tibig, Lipa City on August 18, 1997 around 12 noon, whom did you meet in your house if you met anybody there?
A My step father sir. Q Meaning Eladio Viernes? A Yes sir.
Q Seeing Eladio Viernes in your house on that date August 18, 1997 around 12 noon, what did he do if he did anything upon seeing him or meeting you?
A He instructed our companions in the house to clean the motor tricycle sir. Q After instructing your companions in your house to clean the motor
tricycle, what else did Eladio Viernes do, if he did anything more? A He asked me to fetch two (2) containers of water sir.
Q By the way, these your companions of your house, [sic] who where given the instruction by Eladio Viernes to clean the motor tricycle, who are these companions [sic] of your house?
A My two brothers and one step brother, sir.
Q How old were these two brothers of yours and your one step brother who were given the instruction by Eladio Viernes to clean the motor tricycle? A My step brother was 12 years old; my two brothers were six and 5 years old
sir.
Q How far was this tricycle from your house? A Near the street sir.
Q Around how many meters if you can calculate was this tricycle from your house or can you point distance from the place where you are sitting now to any place inside the court room?
Interpreter
Witness pointing to the railings inside the Court room as their house and the witness pointed to the western wall of the court room as the place where the tricycle was to be around 7 meters sir.
Q What did your two (2) brothers and one (1) step brother do if they did anything more upon receiving the instruction from your step father Eladio Viernes to clean the motor tricycle?
A They followed the instruction of my step father to clean the tricycle sir. Q How about you when you were instructed by your step father to fetch two
(2) containers of water, what did you do? A I brought the water near the comfort room sir.
Q After you brought the two (2) containers of water to the place were you said a while ago, what did Eladio Viernes do to you if he did anything? A He followed me sir.
Q After Eladio Viernes followed you, what did he do [to] you if he did anything?
A I was frightened sir. Q Why?
Atty. Dimaandal
Not responsive your honor. I move to strike out the answer of the witness.’
Court
Continue.
Q Why did you get frightened?
A Because I felt that he will repeat the same thing sir. Q What do you mean repeat the same thing? A He will again repeat raping me sir.
Q When you got frightened, what did you do? A I tried to struggle sir.
Q Why did you struggle, what was Eladio Viernes doing [to] you?
A He pulled up my skirt and when I was trying to go out from the comfort room he was stopping me from going out sir.
Q What happened to your struggle, to free from the hold of Eladio Viernes when you were inside the comfort room?
A I could not go out [o]f the comfort room because I was held by my step father sir.
Q After Eladio Viernes pulled up your skirt, what did he do with you if he did anything more?
A He pulled down my panty sir.
Q Up to what portion was that panty of yours pulled down? Interpreter
Witness pointing to her ankle
Q After Eladio Viernes pulled down your panty up to your ankle, what did he do to you?
A He was inserting his penis into my vagina, sir.
Q What was your position in relation to Eladio Viernes when he was inserting his penis into your vagina?
A I was standing sir.
Q How about Eladio Viernes, where was he in relation to you while he was inserting his penis into your vagina?
A He was at my back sir.
Q What happened to this effort of Eladio Viernes in trying to insert his private organ into your private organ?
A It was inserted sir.
Q You said that you were standing, what was the form or what was the position of your body aside from the fact that you were standing when Eladio Viernes was able to insert his penis into your vagina while he was at your back?
A I was standing and I was struggling sir.
Q When Eladio Viernes was actually able to insert his penis into your vagina, what was the position of your body aside from the fact that you were standing?
Q After Eladio Viernes was able to insert his penis into your vagina while you are in a standing position, how long was his penis inside your vagina? A About three (3) minutes sir.”[18]
Catherine impressed the trial court as “a decent woman *who has+ not been shown to be of loose morals or one who goes out with different men any time of the day or night.”[19] A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner -- and remains consistent -- is a credible witness.[20] It is well-entrenched that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe them firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the stand.[21] In the absence of any showing that its assessment is flawed, an appellate tribunal is bound by it.
Despite the tender age of complainant, her accounts on direct and cross-examination were replete with details that jibed on material points.[22] Considering her young age, it would have been highly improbable for her to fabricate a charge so humiliating to her and her family, had she not been truly subjected to the painful experience of sexual abuse.[23]
The moral ascendancy of appellant as the common-law husband of complainant’s mother takes the place of force and intimidation as an element of rape,[24] although the presence of such element is apparent from Catherine’s testimony.
Alibi and Corroboration
Appellant denies having raped Catherine on September 29, 1996, claiming she was at her grandmother’s house in San Guillermo, while he was outside his house digging a toilet pit. Allegedly, in March 1997, he was on duty as a security guard at the Smart Tower; and on August 18, 1997, he was busy the whole day plying his tricycle route.
The trial court correctly disbelieved his alibi. Alibi and denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence that deserve no weight in law. They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over a credible witness’ testimony on affirmative matters.[25] Except for Lina Linatoc’s corroboration, the only evidence supporting the alibi and denial of appellant is his own say-so. And Lina happens to be his common-law wife; thus, her testimony is necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the testimonies of more
credible witnesses.[26] Negative testimony cannot prevail over the offended party’s positive identification of the accused as her rapist.[27]
Finally, for alibi to prosper, it must be shown that the accused was in another place at the time the crime was committed, and that it would have been physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.[28] Such physical impossibility was not proven in the present case. The
Smart Tower where appellant worked as a
security guard was located also in Barangay Tibig, Lipa City, and was only a thirty-minute walk from his house. The tricycle station, on the other hand, was only 1000 meters away. Note that he had a motorized tricycle at his disposal. His alibi, therefore, is unworthy of credence.
Attempt to Settle the Case
Appellant strongly denies the prosecution’s assertion that he attempted to settle the case with complainant’s family.
We remain unconvinced. Instead, we concur with the finding of the RTC that the letter dated November 25, 1997 -- addressed to Orlando and Catherine Linatoc, signed by appellant and delivered by Lina Linatoc -- was admissible evidence against appellant. Perusal of the letter reveals that he attempted to bribe Orlando with P150,000 or a house and lot and a promise of an additional P100,000 in exchange for dropping the charges against him.[29] Under Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
Voluntary Surrender
Appellant pleads for leniency on account of his alleged voluntary surrender. We disagree. The act of surrender must be spontaneous, accompanied by an acknowledgment of guilt, or an intention to save the authorities the trouble and the expense that search and capture would require.[30]Going to the police station “to clear his name” does not show any intent of appellant to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.[31]
Medicolegal Officer’s Testimony
Appellant avers that the medicolegal officer who examined complainant admitted being unsure of her findings.
We disagree with the assessment by appellant of the testimony of the medicolegal officer. However, even if we discount the testimony of the latter, complainant’s testimony by itself can sustain the former’s conviction. Medical examination is not an indispensable requirement, and its absence does not affect the verdict of conviction, if sufficient evidence is presented to prove the crime charged.[32] When a rape complainant, especially one of tender age like Catherine, says that she has been raped, she in effect says all that is necessary to show that she has indeed been raped.
Civil Indemnity and Moral Damages
The Solicitor General takes issue with the damages awarded by the RTC. In the assailed Order, it ordered appellant to pay P50,000 in civil indemnity, P10,000 in moral damages and P5,000 in exemplary damages for every count of consummated rape; and P25,000 in civil indemnity for the attempted rape.
Recent jurisprudence has increased the indemnification for the victim in a case of consummated rape to P75,000 if the crime was committed with, or effectively qualified by, any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory laws.[33] Moral damages are pegged at P50,000 without further need of pleading or proof.
Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are granted when an aggravating circumstance, which is not offset by a mitigating circumstance, attended the commission of the crime. In several cases, the relationship between the appellant and the rape victim justifies the award of exemplary damages, as in this case.[34]
Second Issue: Modification of Penalties
One day after the promulgation of the April 6, 1998 Decision, the prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration seeking the imposition of the death penalty on appellant for the two cases of consummated rape andreclusion temporal for the attempted rape, in accordance with Section 11 of RA 7659. The prosecution argued
that the Motion would not place appellant in double jeopardy, because “what is sought is just the imposition of the proper penalty as provided by law.”[35] The trial court concurred with the prosecution and granted the Motion in the assailed Order, saying that the Motion was unopposed and that there was no violation of appellant’s right against double jeopardy.[36]
We disagree. Conflicting decisions rendered over the years – both allowing the prosecution to seek the reconsideration of a conviction and prohibiting it therefrom – necessitate a review of the rule on the modification of judgments of conviction. Early on, in People v. Ang Cho Kio,[37] the Court, citing Article 2 of Rule
118 of the pre-1964 Rules of Court, held that the prosecution cannot move to increase the penalty imposed in a promulgated judgment. Reopening the case for the purpose of increasing the penalty as sought by the government would place the accused in double jeopardy. This ruling was followed in People v.
Pomeroy[38] andPeople v. Ruiz.[39]
The 1964 amendment of the Rules, however, allowed the fiscal to move for the modification or the setting aside of the judgment before it became final or an appeal was perfected.[40] Under this amendment, a judgment acquired finality and the trial court lost jurisdiction only in the following cases: (1) after the 15-day period to appeal lapsed,[41] (2) when the defendant voluntarily submitted to the execution of judgment, (3) when the defendant perfected the appeal,[42] (4) when the accused withdrew the appeal, (5) when the accused expressly waived in writing the right to appeal,[43] and (6) when the accused filed a petition for probation.[44] Under this amendment, the trial court had plenary power to alter or revise its judgment in accordance with the requirements of law and justice.
In 1985, Section 7 of Rule 120 was amended to include the phrase “upon motion of the accused” – effectively resurrecting the Ang Cho Kio ruling prohibiting the prosecution from seeking a modification of a judgment of conviction.[45] As amended, the provision was worded as follows:
“SEC. 7. Modification of judgment. – A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside by the court rendering it before the judgment has become final or appeal has been perfected. A judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the accused has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal, or the accused has applied for probation.”
Under this Rule, a judgment of conviction, before it became final, could be modified or set aside upon motion of the accused.[46] It obviously aims to protect
the accused from being put anew to defend himself from more serious offenses or penalties which the prosecution or the court may have overlooked in the original trial. It does not however bar him from seeking or receiving more favorable modifications.
Significantly, the present Rules, as amended last year, retained the phrase “upon motion of the accused,” as follows:
“SEC. 7. Modification of judgment. – A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation.”
Therefore, the assailed Order is erroneous and reversible. The trial court cannot increase the penalties without the consent of the accused.
We close this Decision with an exhortation to the defense counsel to be more circumspect in defending appellant and others similarly situated. Counsel should have immediately objected to the Motion for Reconsideration in the trial court. Because of this failure to take exception, the RTC judge meekly granted the relief prayed for and condemned the accused, inter alia, to two death sentences.
Before this Court, counsel was again caught flat-footed by not raising the erroneous basis of the assailed Order. We cannot disregard such serious lapse. We urge counsel, as well as all the members of the bench and the bar, to be more vigilant in protecting the rights of the accused -- especially those in jeopardy of the death penalty -- and to keep abreast of legal developments. Indeed, the learning process in law never ceases.[47]Utmost dedication to duty and excellence is expected of every lawyer.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed Order
is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, while the assailed Decision
is AFFIRMED and REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that the awards of moral damages are increased to P50,000 and those for exemplary damages to P25,000 for each consummated rape, pursuant to current jurisprudence.[48]
SO ORDERED.
[G.R. No. 147231. February 18, 2004]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RONNIE ABOLIDOR, CLAUDIO BARCIMO, JR. and FRANCISCO COMODA, accused.
CLAUDIO BARCIMO, JR., appellant.
D E C I S I O N YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision[1] dated January 31, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 31, in Criminal Case No. 40948, convicting Claudio Barcimo, Jr. @ “Noc-noc”, Ronnie Abolidor and Francisco Comoda of the crime of murder, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P16,000.00 as actual damages and P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages.
Claudio Barcimo, Jr., Ronnie Abolidor and Francisco Comoda were indicted for Murder in an Information alleging:
That on or about the 14th day of June 1993, in the Municpality of New Lucena, Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and helping one another together with another unidentified person, armed with firearms of unknown caliber, with deliberate intent and decided purpose to kill, with treachery, superior strength and evident
premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and shoot Thelma Subosa with said firearms hitting the latter on the head, chest and other parts of her body which caused the death of said Thelma Subosa immediately thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Upon arraignment,[3] the three accused pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
The victim, Thelma Subosa, was the mother of 14 children with her deceased husband, Primo Subosa. Subsequently, she cohabited with her common-law husband Warlito Huesca and lived together with some of her children in Brgy. Janipa-an, Oeste, New Lucena, Ilo-ilo. Thereafter, Warlito Huesca also died.
In the early morning of June 14, 1993, a day after Warlito was buried, the victim, her children namely, Ellyn, Roselyn, Evelyn, Manilyn, Leopoldo and Lilibeth, and Milagros Huesca, the younger sister of Warlito Huesca, were awakened by the forcible opening of the door of their house. Four men entered the house and declared a “hold up”. The victim pleaded not to be harmed. Instead, accused Ronnie Abolidor tied her mouth with a handkerchief to silence her. Then appellant Claudio Barcimo, Jr. shot the victim several times causing her instantaneous death.[4]
Prosecution witnesses Ellyn and Roselyn identified Claudio Barcimo, Jr. and Ronnie Abolidor since they slept on the same mat with the victim and a kerosene lamp was near the victim’s head.[5] Both testified that they knew Ronnie Abolidor because he was their neighbor for several years, and Claudio Barcimo, Jr. because he was a friend of their deceased stepfather. Francisco Comoda was later identified by the witnesses at the police station.[6]
Roselyn also testified that on June 12, 1993, at the burial of their stepfather, the victim told her that it was Claudio Barcimo, Jr. @ “Noc-Noc” who killed Warlito Huesca.[7]
For his part, appellant denied any participation in the killing of Thelma Subosa and claimed that he could not have done it because he was a good friend of Warlito Huesca; that on June 13, 1993, at around 4:00 p.m., he was with Brgy. Capt. Buñol in a celebration at the house of Brgy. Capt. Gerardo Paniza at Brgy. Dawis. He had dinner and watched game of mahjong; that at around 10:00 p.m., he went to sleep on the sofa near the mahjong table; that the mahjong game lasted until 4:00 a.m. the following day; that he and Capt. Buñol went back to New Lucena at about 6:00 a.m. of June 14, 1993; and on the next day, he left for Manila for treatment of tuberculosis.[8]
After trial, the trial court convicted the three accused on January 31, 2000 in a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having sufficiently established the guilt of all the three accused, namely, Claudio Barcimo, Jr., alias Nocnoc, Ronilo Abolidor alias Ronnie and Francisco Comoda, beyond reasonable doubt (Rule 133, Sec. 2, Revised Rules of Court) of the offense of Murder under Art. 248, R.P.C. as alleged in the Information, this Court hereby renders judgment sentencing all the said accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment consisting of Reclusion Perpetua, with all the attendant accessory penalties, to pay P100,000.00 as indemnity for death to the heirs of the late Thelma Sobusa, to pay the sum of P16,000.00 as actual damages, and P30,000.00 by way of moral and exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Only Claudio Barcimo, Jr. appealed the decision raising the following assignment of errors:
A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES ELLEN SOBUSA AND ROSELYN SOBUSA AND IN NOT APPRECIATING THE TESTIMONY OF THE AUNT OF SAID WINTNESSES AS CORROBORATED BY THE BARANGAY CAPTAIN OF THE PLACE WHERE THE INCIDENT HAPPENED THAT THE SAID PROSECUTION WITNESSES HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED THE KILLERS. B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TREACHERY IS
ATTENDANT IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NIGHTTIME IS ATTENDANT IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
D. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER OF THE ACCUSED.[10]
Appellant Claudio Barcimo, Jr. contends that his identification by Ellyn and Roselyn as one of the assailants is doubtful because when asked whether they know the assailants, they replied in the negative.
The contention is without merit.
By challenging his identification by the witnesses of the prosecution, as one of the assailants of the victim, the appellant attacks the credibility of said witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies. However, when the issue of credibility of witnesses is in question, the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect if not conclusive effect, precisely because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the witnesses as they testify, unless the trial court has overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts of substance which if considered might affect the result of the case.[11]
In the case at bar, there is no showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, misapplied or misconstrued any fact of substance that might materially affect the outcome of the case. The trial court found the collective testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Ellyn and Roselyn to be:
…generally impressionable but their natural naiveté and inexperience make them reliable witnesses. Their statements are generally free from any bias or prejudice as to be slanted or malicious. It is observed that the testimonies of Ellyn and Roselyn Sobusa are direct, straightforward and delivered without any hesitancy
whatsoever.[12]
The two prosecution witnesses, Ellyn and Roselyn Sobusa, positively identified appellant as the one who shot the victim. Although the incident occurred during nighttime, the house of the victim was sufficiently illuminated by the kerosene lamp placed near the head of the victim, which provided enough light for purposes of identifying the killers.
On direct testimony, Ellyn Sobusa narrated the incident as follows: Q. Can you recall in the morning of June 14, 1993 if there was any
unusual incident that happened? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that incident about?
A. At around that time I was awakened by the sound of the opening of the door. I saw four (4) persons entered our house and one them said, “This is a hold up.” My mother then pleaded, “Do not kill me. Have mercy.”
Q. What happened after your mother pleaded have mercy?
A. There was a shot and I ducked. Then another shot was fired which I do not know anymore because I lied with my face down.
Q. Do you know the person who said this is a hold up? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is he? A. Nocnoc.
Q. How far is this Nocnoc when you said he shot your mother? A. Very near.
Q. What was the position of your mother by the time she was shot by Nocnoc?
A. She was lying down.
x x x x x x x x x
Q. Miss witness, this incident happened at around 2:00 o’clock in the morning, why are you sure that Ronnie Abolidor was one of the four persons who entered your house?
A. Because we have a kerosene lamp placed very near the head of my mother.
Q. How far is that kerosene lamp from your mother? A. Witness demonstrates about 5 to 6 inches more or less.
Q. At that time that she was shot by Nocnoc, how far is Nocnoc from the kerosene lamp?
A. Nocnoc was situated on the feet of my mother.
Q. What was the position of Nocnoc when he shot your mother? A. He was standing.[13]
Considering the illumination from the kerosene lamp, and Ellyn’s proximity to her mother and to the appellant, she could have clearly seen and recognized the appellant when he shot the victim.
In People v. Prieto,[14] we ruled that the illumination provided by kerosene lamp or wicklamps, and flashlights, moonlight or starlight may, in proper situations, be considered as sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious.
Moreover, Roselyn testified that she was familiar with the voice of the appellant as he was a friend of his stepfather and she visited appellant’s house several times.[15] The voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years. Once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance.[16] We also note that appellant did not deny that Warlito Huesca was his good friend and that he visited their house many times.[17]
The credibility of the prosecution witnesses Ellyn and Roselyn is not adversely affected by their failure to immediately report the identities of the perpetrators to the responding authorities immediately after the incident. Indubitably, fear stifled the witnesses from voicing their knowledge of the identities of the perpetrators. There is no rule that a witness should immediately name the suspect in a crime.[18] Nevertheless, the delay was not that long as when the police
authorities investigated the witnesses in the afternoon of June 14, 1993 at Brgy. Agutayan, Sta. Barbara, Iloilo, they named appellant and accused Ronnie Abolidor as two of the perpetrators.[19]
To escape criminal liability, appellant invokes the defense of alibi and denial. He asserts that he could not have done it considering that Warlito Huesca, the common-law husband of the victim, was his good friend and at the time of the incident he was at Brgy. Dawis together with Brgy. Capt. Buñol in the house of Brgy. Capt. Gerardo Pineza watching the game of majhong.
We are not convinced.
It is well settled that positive identification, where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving weight in law.[20] Hence, the defense of denial and alibi cannot prosper in the light of the positive identification by eyewitnesses Ellyn Sobusa and Roselyn Sobusa that appellant was the one who shot their mother.
We agree with the trial court’s appreciation of the presence of qualifying circumstance of treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It is settled that there is treachery if the victim, when killed, was sleeping or had just awakened, because in such cases the victim was in no position to put up any form of defense.[21]
In the case at bar, the victim had just awakened from sleep because of the forcible opening of their door. When she was shot by appellant, she was lying down on the mat with a handkerchief tied around her mouth. Obviously, in this position she can not defend herself from the aggression of the perpetrators.
The trial court did not err in disregarding the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. To benefit an accused, the following requisites must be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance.[22] In People v. Viernes,[23] we held that going to the police station to
clear one’s name does not show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.
In the case at bar, appellant surrendered to the authorities after more than one year had lapsed since the incident and in order to disclaim responsibility for the killing of the victim. This neither shows repentance or acknowledgment of the crime nor intention to save the government the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Besides, at the time of his surrender, there was a pending warrant of arrest against him.[24] Hence, he should not be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Appellant is guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery, for the killing of Thelma Sobusa. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for Murder. The trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court awarded the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim. Said amount must be reduced to P50,000.00, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[25]
The award of actual damages must also be modified. While appellant admitted the amount of P19,000.00 as actual damages,[26] the trial court only awarded the amount of P16,000.00.[27]Ordinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages, but where the amount claimed was admitted, it should be granted.[28] Consequently, the heirs of the victim is entitled to be awarded the amount of P19,0000.00 as actual damages.
The trial court likewise erred when it awarded the amount of P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages without indicating what amount constitutes moral damages and exemplary damages. In murder and homicide cases, the award of moral damages should be substantiated by evidence.[29] In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present proof of moral damages. Therefore, the same should be deleted.
On the other hand, exemplary damages must be awarded in view of the attendance of treachery which qualified the killing to Murder. 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. The term aggravating circumstances as used therein is to be understood in its broad or generic sense since the law did not specify otherwise. The ordinary qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil liability of the offender. Thus,
the heirs of the victim are entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[30]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Iloilo City, Branch 31, in Criminal Case No. 40948, insofar as it finds Claudio Barcimo, Jr. @ “Noc-noc” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Thelma Sobusa the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P19,000.00 as actual damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The award of moral damages is DELETED.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 130650 September 10, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARIO VERCELES, FELIX CORPUZ, MAMERTO SORIANO (At large), PABLO RAMOS (At large), and JERRY SORIANO (State Witness), accused,
MARIO VERCELES and FELIX CORPUZ, accused-appellants.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Accused Mario Verceles alias "Baldog", Felix Corpuz, Mamerto Soriano alias "Merto", Pablo Ramos and Jerry Soriano were charged with the crime of Robbery with Rape committed as follows:
That on or about the 19th day of October, 1996, in the morning, in barangay Malibong, municipality of Urbiztondo, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent of gain and by means of force upon things, entered the house of one Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the grills of the window which they used as an ingress and once inside, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and cart away the following personal properties: one (1) colored T.V., one (1) VHS, assorted jewelries, one (1) alarm clock and one (1) radio cassette, all valued at SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.00) owned by the said Rosita Quilates, and that on the
same occasion, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Maribeth Bolito against her will to the damage and prejudice of the aforenamed victims.
CONTRARY to Art. 299, par. A(2) in relation to Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code.1
Of the five accused, Mamerto Soriano and Pablo Ramos remain at large. Only Mario Verceles, Felix Corpuz and Jerry Soriano were brought to the jurisdiction of the court. During arraignment, the three accused, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, the prosecution filed a motion to discharge accused Jerry Soriano as a State Witness. The court proceeded with the trial of the case pending the resolution of the said motion to discharge.1âwphi1.nêt
The trial court subsequently discharged accused Jerry Soriano and received his testimony as state witness. According to Soriano, on October 18, 1996, the five accused boarded a tricycle owned by Mario Verceles to visit his cousin in barangay Goliso, located at the boundary of Urbiztondo. At 8:00 in the evening, they proceeded to barangay Malibong to visit Pepe, a compadre of Mamerto Soriano. Before reaching Pepe’s place, they stopped at the house of Jerry’s grandmother, Rosita Quilates. Jerry sensed that his companions had an evil plan, so he and Pablo Ramos tried to leave. However, Mamerto Soriano poked a gun at Jerry and told them not to leave. Then, they tied Jerry and Pablo under a mango tree. The three proceeded to the house of Rosita Quilates. While waiting for the three, Jerry and Pablo fell asleep. When they woke up at 2:00 a.m., they saw the three accused carrying a TV set, VHS and other things. They helped the three load the items in the tricycle. Then they went home to San Jacinto, Pangasinan. Several days later, they sold the items and Jerry was given three hundred pesos.2
The prosecution witness Maribeth Bolito testified that on October 19, 1996 at around 2:00 in the morning, she was awakened by a man fondling her breast and other private parts. She tried to resist and fight back but her strength proved too weak against her aggressor. Furthermore, the man had a gun pointed at her head. She later identified her aggressor as Mamerto Soriano. While she was being ravished, she saw two men standing at the door, whom she identified as accused Mario Verceles and Felix Corpuz. Soriano undressed her then kissed her on the body and fondled her breasts for five minutes. She pretended to be thirsty, so Soriano, holding her tightly, brought her to the kitchen. There he removed his pants and laid her on the floor and tried to insert his penis inside her vagina. Maribeth lost
consciousness and when she came to, her private part was very painful and the three accused were gone.3
Dra. Revelina Millan, who examined Maribeth on October 20, 1996, made the following findings:4
- GO IMP : September 2nd week/96
3 days
- SKIN : No hematoma
No Abrasion
- IE : with healed laceration at 9 o’clock position
- For vaginal smear for presence of spermatozoa
- Result : Negative for sperm
SPO2 Eduardo Fernandez, who investigated the robbery, testified that the
malefactors entered through the window of one of the bedrooms of the house; that they took personal properties valued at P60,000.00; that Maribeth Bolito was sexually abused; and that a necklace was recovered from Felix Corpuz.5
Mrs. Rosita Quilates testified that she learned from her granddaughter, Maribeth Bolito, that her house was robbed and her personal belongings were missing; and that she was able to recover the properties from a certain Andres Tirano, who bought them from accused Mamerto Soriano.
In their defense, Felix Corpuz testified that on October 19, 1996, he was in Manila working as a carpenter in a construction firm. He stayed in Manila from October 5, 1996, and did not visit his hometown until the completion of the job contract on October 27, 1996. He first learned that he was a suspect in a crime on November 3, 1996.6
Ernesto Lambino, Jr. corroborated the testimony of Felix Corpuz. He testified that he was the one who recruited Felix to work in Tambo, Rizal, Parañaque as a mason carpenter. They arrived in Manila on October 5, 1996 and Felix started his work on October 6, 1996 until October 26, 1996.7
Accused Mario Verceles, for his part, testified that in the evening of October 18, 1996, he attended the wake of Crispulo de Guzman at Barangay San Vicente, San Jacinto, Pangasinan. There he played cards up to 4:00 a.m. of October 19, 1996. He left the place at 5:00 a.m. He only learned that the police were looking for him when his wife fetched him in Mapandan, Pangasinan. He went to the barangay captain of his place and arranged for his surrender to the authorities. Police Inspector Rodolfo Tadeo corroborated his testimony that he voluntarily surrendered to the police on November 5, 1996.8
After trial, the lower court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:9
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape defined and penalized under Article 294, 1, as
amended, of the Revised Penal Code, and there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the Court hereby sentences each to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Both Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles are likewise ordered to pay jointly and solidarily the victim Maribeth Bolito the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) for moral
damages, One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for exemplary damages and to pay Rosita Quilates the sum of Twenty One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00) on the value of the properties which were not recovered and further orders that the recovered TV, VHS appliances and necklace be returned to its lawful owner.
SO ORDERED.
Accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles interposed the instant appeal. They alleged that the trial court erred in discharging Jerry Soriano as a state witness, in appreciating conspiracy among the accused, in not considering as mitigating circumstance the voluntary surrender of Mario Verceles, and in awarding damages to the private complainants.
The appeal lacks merit.
Accused-appellants contend that the discharge of Jerry Soriano did not comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court. They contend that Soriano’s testimony does not constitute direct evidence; at most, it was circumstantial in nature and of minuscule importance.10 Moreover, Jerry Soriano was the most guilty for he
admitted his guilt with regard to the commission of the crime together with Mamerto Soriano.11
The requirements for the discharge and utilization of an accused as a state witness are enumerated in Rule 119, Section 1712 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, viz:
a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of the accused;
c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
The trial court did not err in discharging Jerry Soriano to be utilized as a state witness. First, the testimony of Jerry Soriano was absolutely necessary as the prosecution has no direct evidence to prove the identity of the malefactors Mamerto Soriano, Felix Corpuz, Mario Verceles and Pablo Ramos. The record reveals that the five accused were together on the night the robbery and rape took place. He may not have witnessed the actual robbery and rape, but he has personal knowledge of the robbery when he saw the three accused return to the place where he and Pablo Ramos were allegedly tied, carrying with them the properties said to have been stolen.Second, Jerry Soriano’s testimony was corroborated in its material points by other prosecution witnesses and physical evidence. These are: (a) the testimony of Maribeth Bolito that there were three malefactors, one of whom sexually abused her and two of whom just stood at the door; (b) the testimony of Rosita Quilates that her properties were stolen; and (c) the testimony of SPO2 Renato Solomon that they were able to recover the stolen properties from a certain Andres Tirano who bought them from accused Mamerto Soriano. Lastly, Jerry Soriano does not appear to be the most guilty for he was not a co-conspirator in the robbery with rape. He merely accompanied the accused and received three hundred pesos as his share in the proceeds of the sale of the stolen properties. Besides, the question of whether Jerry Soriano appears to be the most guilty is a factual issue. The discretionary judgment of the trial court on this matter is seldom
interfered with by appellate court except in case of grave abuse of discretion.13 We find no good reason to disturb the trial court’s findings of facts.
Granting ex gratia argumenti that not all the requisites of a valid discharge are present, the improper discharge of an accused will not render inadmissible his testimony nor detract from his competency as a witness. Any witting or unwitting error of the prosecution in asking for the discharge, and of the court in granting the petition, no question of jurisdiction being involved, cannot deprive the discharged accused of the acquittal provided by the Rules, and of the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.14
On the matter of whether rape was committed, we agree with the trial court’s ruling that neither the healed lacerations on the vagina of the victim nor the absence of spermatozoa negates rape. When an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape had been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.15
In the case at bar, the victim’s declaration of her sexual ordeal, which was given in a straightforward, convincing, credible and satisfactory manner, shows no other intention than to obtain justice for the wrong committed by accused-appellant Mamerto Soriano against her. The Court finds no reason to depart from the rule that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses is accorded great weight because it has the unique opportunity of hearing the witnesses testify and observing their deportment and manner of testifying.16 We agree with the trial court that conspiracy has been sufficiently proved by the prosecution. Accused-appellants were one in design with accused Mamerto Soriano in taking personal properties belonging to others without the latter’s consent by breaking one of the windows to be used as their ingress. In the course of the robbery, one of them, particularly Mamerto Soriano, succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while accused-appellants just stood outside the door and did nothing to prevent Mamerto Soriano. We have previously ruled that once conspiracy is established between two accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing the rape.17 The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape, although not all of them took part in the rape.18
