THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208751. February 26, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCELINO CHICA y BELALE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 26, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208751 (People of the Philippines v. Marcelino Chica y Belale). — In two separate informations, 1 Marcelino Chica y Belale was charged with two counts of rape of a then 15-year-old minor. 2 The informations read:
Criminal Case No. RTC 2004-0564:
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of August 2, 2004 at Bgy. Mangayawan, Municipality of Canaman, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of force and intimidation by threatening to stab with the use of fan knife, [AAA] a 15-year old minor succeed in having sexual intercourse with the latter against her will and without her consent to her damage and prejudice in such amount as maybe awarded to her by the Honorable Court.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 3 cTSDAH
Criminal Case No. RTC 2004-0565:
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of August 6, 2004 at Bgy. Mangayawan, Municipality of Canaman, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the use of force and intimidation by threatening to hack with the use of a bolo, [AAA] a 15-year old minor succeed in having sexual intercourse with the latter against her will and without her consent to her damage and prejudice in such amount as maybe awarded to her by the honorable Court.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Marcelino pleaded not guilty on February 9, 2005. Pre-trial took place on March 28, 2005 and then trial ensued.
According to the prosecution, AAA was on her way home at around 6:00 p.m. of August 2, 2004 when she saw Marcelino along the road waiting for her. 5 She fled from him, but Marcelino caught up with her and "poked a pocket knife at her hip." 6 She was dragged toward a nearby plantation and was forced to lie down. 7 Marcelino removed her shorts and underwear and "inserted his penis into her vagina.'' 8 AAA felt pain as blood flowed out from her vagina, but she did not scream out of fear. Afterwards, Marcelino warned her not to tell anyone; otherwise, he would kill her parents. 9
On August 6, 2004 at around 1:00 p.m., AAA was catching shrimps with some friends at the Mangayawan River. 10 She decided to go home after awhile, but along the way, she saw Marcelino standing by the riverbanks with a bolo (machete). 11 She tried to run, but he caught up with her. He then dragged her toward the forest and forced her to lie down. 12 Marcelino removed her shorts and underwear and "inserted his penis into her vagina." 13 She was afraid Marcelino would kill her so she did not scream. 14
On the same day, AAA told her friend Manay Gay Ligaya what happened to her, and together they told AAA's mother. They then reported the incident to the police. 15
AAA underwent medical examination. The rural health physician, Dr. Rhodora Roa-Perez, conducted the genital examination. 16 The findings, as interpreted by Dr. Salvador Betito, Jr., were stated in the medico-legal certificate. The findings included vaginal lacerations. 17
On the other hand, Marcelino denied raping AAA twice. According to Marcelino, he was at home having dinner at 6:00 p.m. of August 2, 2004. Later on, he watched television until 9:00 p.m., slept, and woke up at 3:00 a.m. 18 Marcelino lives in Barangay Mangayawan, Canaman, Camarines Sur.
As regards the August 6, 2004 incident, Marcelino alleged that at 1:00 p.m. that day, he was working at the farm of his uncle, Patricio Chica. 19
On July 24, 2010, the trial court 20 found Marcelino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and ordered to pay private complainant AAA damages:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 2004-0564, the prosecution having established the guilt of accused Marcelino Chica y Belale beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby convicted of the offense charged and is ordered to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; and
In Criminal Case No. 2004-0565, the prosecution having established the guilt of accused Marcelino Chica y Belale beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby convicted of the offense charged and is ordered to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
Accused Marcelino Chica y Belale is likewise ordered to pay the private complainant the following amounts as damages:
a) P50,000 as civil indemnity for each case;
b) P50,000 as moral damages for each case; and
c) P25,000 as exemplary damages for each case.
The period of time that the accused Marcelino Chica y Belale has been in detention at the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Del Rosario, Naga City shall be credited to him. 21
On May 24, 2013, the Court of Appeals 22 affirmed the decision of the trial court. 23 A notice of appeal was filed elevating the case to this court for review.
This court reduired the parties to simultaneously submit supplemental briefs. Both parties filed manifestations that they would merely adopt their briefs before the Court of Appeals. HATICc
In his brief, accused-appellant Marcelino argued that based on the records, he deserves an acquittal. 24 He contended that "there should be moral certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience that the person is really responsible for the crime being charged against him." 25
According to Marcelino, the trial court should have considered private complainant AAA's actions at the time she was allegedly molested. Marcelino emphasized how private complainant AAA had an opportunity to escape, resist, or shout for help, but she remained passive. 26
Lastly, Marcelino admitted that he was not able to provide evidence to corroborate his stand, save for his testimony denying the charges, but "this should not be taken against him." 27 He cited People v. Ortillas, 28 which ruled that "[a]lthough denial, like alibi, can be fabricated, it is not always false and without merit, and when coupled, with the improbabilities and uncertainties of the prosecution evidence, the defense of alibi deserves merit." 29
On the other hand, plaintiff-appellee argued that the prosecution was able to prove Marcelino's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Plaintiff-appellee added that the trial court's evaluation of the witnesses' testimonies should be given great respect, having been able to observe their truthfulness and candor. 30
A judge's assessment of the credibility of witnesses and testimonies is significant. This is more so for rape cases where the nature of the offense makes the victim's testimony, more often than not, the only evidence offered to establish guilt of the accused. 31
Plaintiff-appellee also raised that a rape victim's testimony is generally given full weight and credit especially when the rape victim is a minor as "the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her complaint." 32 In this case, private complainant AAA was only 17 years old when she testified in court. Plaintiff-appellee contended that "[y]outh and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." 33
Plaintiff-appellee found tenuous Marcelino's argument that private complainant AAA could have done measures for self-preservation. 34 In People v. Fraga, 35 this court declared that "[w]here resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault." 36 There is nothing in the law that imposes a burden on a rape victim to prove she resisted the sexual assault. 37
Finally, plaintiff-appellee emphasized how Marcelino stood on a weak alibi as against private complainant AAA's positive declarations. 38 For alibi as a defense to prosper, "appellant must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that he could not have been physically present at the crime scene or even its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission." 39 In this case, Marcelino was just in the immediate vicinity at the time of the crime. He lives adjacent to private complainant AAA, and the farm where he works is within walking distance from the location of the crime. 40
The issue now before this court is whether Marcelino is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.
We sustain Marcelino's conviction but clarify as to the penalty imposed.
Based on Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation.
The trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, found that the prosecution's evidence was able to prove how Marcelino succeeded in having carnal knowledge of private complainant AAA through force. Private complainant AAA's. testimony recounted how Marcelino, on two separate occasions, poked a knife/bolo (machete) at her and dragged her to a place where he succeeded in having carnal knowledge of private complainant AAA. 41 cADTSH
The lower courts gave credence to private complainant AAA's categorical and positive account of the events that took place on August 2 and 6 of 2004. This court has consistently held that "factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal." 42
Marcelino attacked private complainant AAA's credibility by insisting that she did not even cry for help or try to escape. This argument does not deserve merit. There is no requirement on the part of a rape victim to prove she exerted physical resistance against the sexual advances, more so when a knife was pointed at her and there was reason to fear for her life. 43
Marcelino's defense of alibi must similarly fail. This defense is inherently weak for being easy to contrive and for being highly unreliable. 44 He must show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime in order for this defense to prosper. 45
As found by the trial court, Marcelino's house is just adjacent to private complainant AAA's house. His uncle's fare where he allegedly worked on August 6, 2004 is only half an hour's walls from his house. 46 Marcelino did not even present anyone to substantiate his alibi. 47
As regards the penalty imposed, the trial court ruled as follows:
Minority which constitutes as a special qualifying circumstance, having been alleged and duly proven during the trial, the imposition of the death penalty on the accused is warranted.
In view however of the passage of R.A. 9346 which abolished the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua should instead be imposed upon the accused. 48
In its decision affirming the lower court, the Court of Appeals no longer discussed this point.
The penalties for the crime of rape are found in Article 266-B 49 of the Revised Penal Code. This provision includes an enumeration of the special qualifying circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty. While minority is included, this circumstance is further qualified by the victim's relationship with the accused, viz.:
Art. 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
xxx xxx xxx
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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
For simple rape to be qualified under this circumstance, "it is essential that the relationship and minority be conjointly alleged in the information and duly proved." 50 In this case, Marcelino is not in anyway related to private complainant AAA. This was neither alleged nor proved.
Minority alone is not a special aggravating circumstance as to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, reduced to reclusion perpetua only by reason of Republic Act No. 9346. In People v. Aguilar, 51 this court held as follows: AcIaST
The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender being special qualifying circumstances, which increases the penalty as opposed to a generic aggravating circumstance which only effects the period of the penalty, should be alleged in the information, because of the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. Existing jurisprudence instructs that the death penalty may be imposed only if the complaint or information has alleged and the evidence has proven both the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender by the quantum of proof required for conviction. 52 (Citations omitted)
The prosecution established that Marcelino committed simple rape, not incestuous rape. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266-B, the penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua.
It bears mentioning that under the first paragraph of Article 266-B, "whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon . . ., the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death."
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code applies when two indivisible penalties are involved. According to this provision, "when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied." Since there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in this case, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. 53
As regards the damages awarded, this court in People v. Gambao 54 has increased the amounts of civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages to a minimum of P100,000.00 each when "the penalty for the crime committed is death which, however, cannot be imposed because of the provisions of R.A. No. 9346." 55
Marcelino committed the crime of rape with the use of a deadly weapon. While the penalty imposed in this case is the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua, the imposable penalty under Article 266-B is a range with death as the higher penalty. Consequently, the increased amounts of indemnity and damages laid down in People v. Gambao may apply.
Rape is a violent crime, made more abhorrent when committed against a minor. Exemplary damages are proper to deter such repulsive acts and to protect the young from any form of sexual exploitation and abuse. 56
Thus, this court modifies the award in favor of private complainant AAA in the amounts of P150,000.00 as civil indemnity, P150,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Interest at the rate of 6% per annum "shall be imposed on all damages awarded to earn from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid." 57
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' decision dated May 24, 2013 finding the accused-appellant Marcelino Chica y Belale guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that civil indemnity is increased to P150,000.00, moral damages to P150,000.00, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00.
The award of damages shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid. (Bersamin, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1640 dated February 19, 2014 in lieu of Abad, J., who is on leave of absence.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. These separate informations were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. RTC2004-0564 and RTC2004-0565.
2. Rollo, p. 5, citing Exhibit "A", Records, p. 111. The Court of Appeals found that her age was evidenced by her birth certificate.
3. Records, p. 13, citing the trial court's joint decision.
4. Id. at 14, citing the trial court's joint decision.
5. Rollo, p. 5, Court of Appeals' decision.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 6.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Records, p. 90, appellee's brief.
17. Rollo, p. 6, Court of Appeals' decision.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Naga City, Branch 20. The trial court decision was penned by Presiding Judge Erwin Virgilio P. Ferrer.
21. Records, p. 28.
22. Special Thirteenth Division, decision penned by Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Socorro B. Inting.
23. Rollo, p. 18.
24. Records, p. 42, appellant's brief.
25. Id.
26. Id. at 44.
27. Id. at 45.
28. G.R. No. 137666, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 659.
29. Id. at 679; Records, p. 45, appellant's brief.
30. Records, p. 91, appellee's brief.
31. Id. at 92.
32. Id.
33. Id. at 93.
34. Id. at 94.
35. 386 Phil. 884 (2000) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
36. Records, p. 95, appellee's brief, citing People v. Fraga, 386 Phil. 884, 907 (2000).
37. Id., citing People v. Fraga, 386 Phil. 884, 907 (2000).
38. Id.
39. Id. at 96, citing People v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 170360, March 12, 2009, 580 SCRA 666, 683 and People v. Garte, G.R. No. 176152, November 25, 2008, 571 SCRA 570, 583; People v. Morin, 311 Phil. 831, 839 (1995); People v. Lopez, 319 Phil. 734, 748 (1995); and People v. Jose, G.R. No. 107106, November 24, 1995, 250 SCRA 319, 322.
40. Records, p. 26, trial court's joint decision; Records, p. 96, appellee's brief.
41. Rollo, pp. 9-15, Court of Appeals' decision.
42. People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 530, 537 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division]; See also People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 761, 771 [Per J. Perez, Second Division], citing Soriano v. People, G.R. No. 148123, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 595, 611.
43. People v. Cedenio, G.R. No. 201103, September 25, 2013 [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
44. People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 530, 537 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
45. People v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 715, 737 [Per J. Perez, Second Division], citing People v. Aspuria, 440 Phil. 41, 53-54 (2002).
46. Records, p. 26, trial court's joint decision; Records, p. 96, appellee's brief.
47. Records, p. 26, trial court's joint decision; Records, p. 97, appellee's brief.
48. Records, p. 27, trial court's joint decision.
49. Republic Act No. 8353, September 30, 1997, An Act Expanding the Definition of the Crime of Rape, Reclassifying the Same as a Crime Against Persons, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, and for Other Purposes.
50. People v. Mira, 561 Phil. 646, 664 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division], citing People v. Orillosa, G.R. Nos. 148716-18, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 689, 699.
51. G.R. No. 185206, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 437 [Per J. Perez, First Division].
52. Id. at 444.
53. See People v. Delabajan, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 859, 867 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
54. G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013 [Per J. Perez, En Banc].
55. Id.
56. People v. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 192239, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 470, 485 [Per J. De Castro, First Division].
57. People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 201728, July 17, 2013 [Per J. Reyes, First Division], citing People v. Cabungan, G.R. No. 189355, January 23, 2013, 689 SCRA 236, 249; People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 530, 540, citing People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 376, 395-396; People v. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 506, 540.