FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198700. April 7, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JIMMY JAMOROL Y PACAMALAN, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 7, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198700 (People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Jamorol y Pacamalan). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Cagayan de Oro City affirming the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Branch 8 (RTC), finding appellant guilty of three counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, for each count.
THE INFORMATION
Criminal Case No. 14569-04
The undersigned Prosecutor accuses JIMMY JAMOROL Y PACAMALAN who claims to have been born on February 10, 1957 at Alubijid, Misamis Oriental of the crime of RAPE committed as follows, to wit: HEacDA
That sometime in the month of July 2000, at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning, at [S]itio Nilugaran, [B]arangay [P]ocopoco, [M]unicipality of Damulog, [P]rovince of Bukidnon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, prompted by lewd design, with the use of force, sharp bladed instrument and intimidation on the person of [AAA], 3 accused['s] own daughter, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally, wrestle, box, slap, undress the latter and forcibly insert his penis into the vagina of [AAA] and have sexual intercourse with [AAA] against her will, to the damage and prejudice of [AAA] in such amount as may be allowed by law.
The crime is aggravated and qualified by the fact that the victim is only 15 years old at the time of the incident and that the offender is the father of the victim. DaTICc
Contrary to and in violation of Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and in relation to R.A. 8353.
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, September 6, 2004. 4
Filed against appellant were two more identically worded Informations for rape also committed sometime in July 2000: one in the evening 5 and another in the morning. 6
RULING OF THE RTC
On 8 January 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty of three counts of rape qualified by minority and relationship, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, for each count. 7 For each of the three counts of rape, appellant was also ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
The RTC ruled that appellant's moral authority and influence over AAA substituted for violence or intimidation in the commission of the rape. 8 According to the trial court, this ascendancy, together with constant threats employed by appellant, also explained AAA's four-year delay in reporting the rape incidents to the police authorities. 9 As to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA, particularly with regard to the time of the alleged instances of rape, the RTC ruled that these seeming inconsistencies referred to minor details, which did not take away from AAA's steadfast claim that appellant had raped her. 10 Appellant's denial was not sustained by the trial court as against AAA's straightforward and candid testimony. 11
RULING OF THE CA
On 29 June 2011, the CA rendered a Decision affirming the Decision of the RTC, with the modification that the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages for each count of rape were both increased to P75,000. 12
The CA found AAA's testimony credible and trustworthy, and her identification of appellant as the one who sexually abused her clear and consistent. 13 This appreciation of AAA's testimony was made in the light of the fact that she had no motive to testify falsely against appellant, her own father.
Regarding AAA's failure to recall the exact date and time of the incidents of rape, the CA ruled that these details are not material elements of the crime of rape. 14 Also, the four-year delay in filing a complaint for rape did not lessen her credibility. According to the CA, reporting that one has been raped by her own father is not an easy thing to do, and having been an illiterate 15-year-old at the time, AAA could not be expected to know how to seek help from the proper authorities. 15 ScCEIA
The CA did not give credence to appellant's claim that AAA only filed the rape complaints at the instigation of CCC, another daughter of appellant and AAA's older sister. The appellate court noted that appellant is no different from other persons accused of rape who usually put forward the defense that they are being persecuted due to uncorroborated claims of "family feuds, resentment or revenge." 16
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the three counts of rape.
OUR RULING
We find appellant guilty of two counts of rape, qualified by minority and relationship, charged under Criminal Case Nos. 14569-04 and 14570-04. Appellant is acquitted of the same crime of rape as charged under Criminal Case No. 14571-04.
Appellant insists that there were material inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA regarding the time and date of the commission of the rape. During her direct examination, AAA averred that she was raped for the first time in the morning, the second in the evening, and the third again in the morning. 17 When clarificatory questions were propounded by the trial judge, she answered that she was raped for the first time in the morning, the second in the afternoon, and the third in the evening. 18 During her cross-examination, she stated that she was raped for the first time in the evening, the second at noon, and the third in the evening. 19 She also stated that she did not know the date when the instances of rape took place. 20
Appellant admits that the time and the date of the commission are not essential elements of the crime of rape. However, he contends that AAA's inability to state these details with certainty and consistency affected her credibility. 21 According to appellant, another fact also affecting AAA's credibility was that she filed a complaint for the three counts of rape, four years after their alleged commission. 22
In People v. Sandico, 23 we upheld the rape conviction of accused-appellant in the face of a 10-year delay in the reporting of the commission of the first incident of rape. There we said that "it is not really all that strange that an offended party in a rape case procrastinates in coming up with a complaint to the authorities, especially when the lecherous attacker is her own father." 24 The same is true in this case. AAA even adequately explained that it tools her a long time to file a complaint against appellant, because she was never allowed to go out; 25 appellant watched her constantly; 26 and even though he would go to the farm, which was very near their house, he would check on her, effectively depriving her of the opportunity to get away. 27 She was able to report the rape only through her sister CCC, who went to the police station alone. 28 AAA was only brought there later. 29 TcADCI
At any rate, a rape victim's credibility is properly determined by the trial court, which is in a position to observe the candor, behavior and demeanor of the witness. 30 In this case, the trial court never doubted the credibility of AAA. It found her testimony "straightforward, candid and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points." 31 While it noted the inconsistency in AAA's testimony regarding the time of the commission of the rape, the RTC found it understandable that there would be minor lapses and inaccuracies when a young unschooled girl is made to give an account of her ordeal. 32 Findings of this nature by the trial court are generally accorded respect by this Court, which will only disturb those findings when there exists evidence to the contrary — evidence that has been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied. 33 Here, we do not find that the RTC has committed such a mistake.
Neither do we give credence to the allegation that CCC instigated the filing of the rape charges to get back at appellant for always beating her up. Appellant never presented evidence to support this contention. Nor can we appreciate why CCC would instigate AAA to file false rape complaints and expose the latter to the humiliation of a public trial when CCC herself could have easily filed cases for maltreatment against appellant.
A review of the testimony of AAA shows that while she vividly described the circumstances surrounding the first and the second instances of rape, we find her testimony wanting with regard to the third instance, to wit:
PROS. TORIBIO: (continuing)
Q- How did your father rape you on that another morning of July 2000?
A- Just like before, he had sexual intercourse with me. 34
Each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime, which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 35 It is imperative that the rape victim provides details on how each of the act was committed, for a bare allegation is inadequate to establish the guilt of the accused with moral certainty. 36 A general statement, like the one cited above, will not suffice to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of appellant with regard to the third rape. Thus, appellant must be acquitted of the charge under Criminal Case No. 14571-04.
The RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the twin qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship. The prosecution presented a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Damulog, Bukidnon stating that the facts of birth of AAA appear in their Register of Births. 37 The certificate shows that she was born on 26 January 1985, indicating that she was 15 years old when she was raped in July 2000. It also shows that appellant is her father. 38 The father-daughter relationship is further proven by the testimony of AAA, 39 the admission by appellant in open court, 40 and the Pre-Trial Order signed by appellant who stipulated therein that AAA is his legitimate daughter. 41 aATHES
Considering that appellant committed rape qualified by the twin circumstances of minority and relationship, the proper penalty to be imposed is death. Since the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, 42 the RTC and the CA properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape. 43
As to the award of damages, we find that the modification made by the CA in the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are in keeping with prevailing jurisprudence. 44 However, we modify the RTC's award of exemplary damages and increase it to P30,000. 45
Appellant has assigned the award of damages as error. We take this opportunity to reiterate that the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory when the fact of rape has been established. 46 Moral damages are also awarded upon a finding of rape without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to this award. 47 Finally, the award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code "to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth," 48 as in this case in which a minor was sexually abused by her own father.
The awards of civil indemnity, as well as moral and exemplary damages, shall earn interest at the rate of 6% from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 49
WHEREFORE, appellant JIMMY JAMOROL y PACAMALAN is found GUILTY of the crime of rape, qualified by minority and relationship, charged under Criminal Case Nos. 14569-04 and 14570-04 and is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in lieu of death, for each count. He is also ORDERED to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages plus legal interest at the rate of 6% from the finality of this Resolution until the amounts due are fully paid.
Appellant is ACQUITTED of the charge of rape under Criminal Case No. 14571-04 on the ground of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-22. The Decision dated 29 June 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Cagayan de Oro City Twenty-Second Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00657-MIN was penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Abraham B. Borreta concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 20-35; in Criminal Case Nos. 14569-04, 14570-04 and 14571-04 dated 8 January 2008.
3. The real name of the victim is withheld to protect her identity and privacy, pursuant to Section 29 of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act).
4. Records (Criminal Case No. 14569-04), p. 2.
5. Records (Criminal Case No. 14570-04), p. 2.
6. Records (Criminal Case No. 14571-04), p. 2
7. CA rollo, pp. 34-35.
8. Id. at 25.
9. Id. at 26-27.
10. Id. at 27-28.
11. Id. at 28-30.
12. Rollo, p. 21.
13. Id. at 9.
14. Id. at 17.
15. Id. at 17-18.
16. Id. at 18.
17. TSN, 6 June 2006, pp. 8, 11, 15.
18. Id. at 14-15.
19. Id. at 22.
20. Id.
21. CA rollo, pp. 14-15.
22. Id. at 16.
23. 366 Phil. 663 (1999).
24. Id. at 676.
25. TSN, 6 June 2000, p. 17.
26. Id. at 29.
27. Id. at 32-33.
28. Id. at 17-18.
29. Id. at 18.
30. People v. Pagurayan, Jr., 430 Phil. 903 (2002); People v. Francisco, 402 Phil. 899 (2001).
31. CA rollo, p. 24.
32. Id. at 27.
33. People v. Andrade, 458 Phil. 880 (2003).
34. TSN, 6 June 2006, p. 15.
35. People v. Delabajan, G.R. No. 192180, 21 March 2012, 668 SCRA 859.
36. People v. Olimba, G.R. No. 185008, 22 September 2010, 631 SCRA 223.
37. Records (Criminal Case No. 14569-04), p. 37.
38. The certification indicates that the "Name of Father" is "Gemmy P. Jamorol.
39. TSN, 6 June 2006, p. 6.
40. TSN, 19 March 2007, pp. 5-6.
41. Records (Criminal Case No. 14569-04), pp. 33-35.
42. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took effect on 24 June 2006.
43. Republic Act No. 9346, Section 3 states: "Person convicted of offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103 otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."
44. People v. Osma, Jr., G.R. No. 187734, 29 August 2012, 679 SCRA 428; People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15 March 2010, 615 SCRA 548.
45. Id.
46. People v. Orje, G.R. No. 189579, 12 September 2011, 657 SCRA 427.
47. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 186533, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 452.
48. People v. Masagca, Jr., G.R. No. 184922, 23 February 2011, 644 SCRA 278.
49. People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, 3 April 2013, 695 SCRA 54; People v. Mangune, G.R. No. 186463, 14 November 2012, 685 SCRA 578.