ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279 March 1, 2001 - ALICIA GONZALES-DECANO v. ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1282 March 1, 2001 - SOFRONIO DAYOT v. RODOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 112092 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 123069 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126019 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO CALDONA

  • G.R. No. 131637 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 133888 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARDO

  • G.R. No. 134330 March 1, 2001 - ENRIQUE M. BELO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135667-70 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 138666 March 1, 2001 - ISABELO LORENZANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 140511 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR AMION

  • G.R. No. 142313 March 1, 2001 - MANUEL CHU, SR., ET AL. v. BENELDA ESTATE DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142527 March 1, 2001 - ARSENIO ALVAREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144678 March 1, 2001 - JAVIER E. ZACATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & 146738 March 2, 2001 - JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113236 March 5, 2001 - FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113265 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 118680 March 5, 2001 - MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123788 March 5, 2001 - DOMINADOR DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124686 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ELLADO

  • G.R. No. 127158 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO HERIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132353 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO IBO

  • G.R. No. 126557 March 6, 2001 - RAMON ALBERT v. CELSO D. GANGAN

  • G.R. No. 138646 March 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOMER CABANSAY

  • G.R. No. 139518 March 6, 2001 - EVANGELINE L. PUZON v. STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 140249 & 140363 March 6, 2001 - DANILO S. YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140884 March 6, 2001 - GELACIO P. GEMENTIZA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143823 March 6, 2001 - JENNIFER ABRAHAM v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126168 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO

  • G.R. No. 129594 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNNIFER LAURENTE

  • G.R. No. 135945 March 7, 2001 - UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL v. COMM. ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

  • G.R. No. 136173 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ICALLA

  • G.R. Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO SALADINO

  • G.R. Nos. 139962-66 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO MANGOMPIT

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297 March 7, 2001 - JOSEFINA BANGCO v. RODOLFO S. GATDULA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March 8, 2001 - HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO v. ROQUE R SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 122611 March 8, 2001 - NAPOLEON H. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125901 March 8, 2001 - EDGARDO A. TIJING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130378 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL MATARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134279 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY ROGER AUSTRIA

  • G.R. Nos. 135234-38 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUNTANG

  • G.R. No. 137649 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLADARES

  • G.R. No. 138137 March 8, 2001 - PERLA S. ZULUETA v. ASIA BREWERY

  • G.R. No. 138774 March 8, 2001 - REGINA FRANCISCO, ET AL v. AIDA FRANCISCO-ALFONSO

  • G.R. No. 140479 March 8, 2001 - ROSENCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PATERNO INQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140713 March 8, 2001 - ROSA YAP PARAS, ET AL. v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 112115 March 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140619-24 March 9, 2001 - BENEDICTO E. KUIZON, ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 126099 March 12, 2001 - ROBERTO MITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128372 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. Nos. 130634-35 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO OYANIB

  • G.R. No. 131889 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN, ET AL. v. RICHARD G. YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136738 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN VALEZ

  • G.R. No. 137306 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA AVISADO, ET AL. v. AMOR RUMBAUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140011-16 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO MORATA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1464 March 13, 2001 - SALVADOR O. BOOC v. MALAYO B. BANTUAS

  • G.R. No. 103073 March 13, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131530 March 13, 2001 - Y REALTY CORP. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136594 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL CANIEZO

  • G.R. No. 139405 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 March 14, 2001 - EDGARDO ALDAY, ET AL. v. ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 116001 & 123943 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO GO

  • G.R. No. 130209 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY LAVAPIE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130515 & 147090 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO BARING

  • G.R. Nos. 134451-52 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO FRETA

  • G.R. No. 137036 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DE MESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138045 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETTA PATUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139300 March 14, 2001 - AMIGO MANUFACTURING v. CLUETT PEABODY CO.

  • G.R. No. 102985 March 15, 2001 - RUBEN BRAGA CURAZA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133480 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORANTE AGUILUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135201-02 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 141616 March 15, 2001 - CITY OF QUEZON v. LEXBER INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. 116847 March 16, 2001 - MANUFACTURERS BUILDING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128083 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 128922 March 16, 2001 - ELEUTERIA B. ALIABO, ET AL. v. ROGELIO L. CARAMPATAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129070 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLIE CABAIS

  • G.R. No. 131544 March 16, 2001 - EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL. v. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR

  • G.R. No. 135047 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO CACHOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137282 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALIPAR

  • G.R. Nos. 137753-56 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NILO ARDON

  • A.M. No. 01-1463 March 20, 2001 - EVELYN ACUÑA v. RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306 March 20, 2001 - ROBERT M. VISBAL v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-97-1241 March 20, 2001 - DINNA CASTILLO v. ZENAIDA C. BUENCILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108991 March 20, 2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130663 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ANGELES STA. TERESA

  • G.R. Nos. 136862-63 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 139413-15 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENDRICO GALAS

  • G.R. No. 140356 March 20, 2001 - DOLORES FAJARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140919 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUTCH BUCAO LEE

  • G.R. No. 142476 March 20, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 144074 March 20, 2001 - MEDINA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127772 March 22, 2001 - ROBERTO P. ALMARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133815-17 March 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO LIAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134972 March 22, 2001 - ERNESTO CATUNGAL, ET AL. v. DORIS HAO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1469 March 26, 2001 - ROEL O. PARAS v. MYRNA F. LOFRANCO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1624 March 26, 2001 - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE RELATIVE TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 28

  • A.M. No. 99-731-RTJ March 26, 2001 - HILARIO DE GUZMAN v. DEODORO J. SISON

  • G.R. Nos. 102407-08 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO LUCERO

  • G.R. No. 121608 March 26, 2001 - FLEISCHER COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121902 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALTER MELENCION

  • G.R. No. 125865 March 26, 2001 - JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129916 March 26, 2001 - MAGELLAN CAPITAL MNGT. CORP., ET AL. v. ROLANDO M. ZOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 131653 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133475 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. 134903 March 26, 2001 - UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136790 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GALVEZ

  • G.R. No. 137268 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIA CARMEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137590 March 26, 2001 - FLORENCE MALCAMPO-SIN v. PHILIPP T. SIN

  • G.R. No. 137739 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO B. TAN v. PHIL. BANKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137889 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 142950 March 26, 2001 - EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROSITA KU

  • G.R. Nos. 147066 & 147179 March 26, 2001 - AKBAYAN - Youth, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA March 27, 2001 - IN RE: DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1473 March 27, 2001 - GLORIA O. BENITEZ v. MEDEL P. ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 123149 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO CABUG

  • G.R. No. 131588 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 137762-65 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BARES

  • G.R. No. 137989 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SONNY MATIONG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357 March 28, 2001 - MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. ROLANDO V. RAMIREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1574 March 28, 2001 - GORGONIO S. NOVA v. SANCHO DAMES II

  • G.R. No. 100701 March 28, 2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101442 March 28, 2001 - JOSE ANGELES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110012 March 28, 2001 - ANASTACIO VICTORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112314 March 28, 2001 - VICENTE R. MADARANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117964 March 28, 2001 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122216 March 28, 2001 - ALJEM’S CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126751 March 28, 2001 - SAFIC ALCAN & CIE v. IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL CO.

  • G.R. No. 126959 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO SATURNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136965 March 28, 2001 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 137660 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 137932 March 28, 2001 - CHIANG YIA MIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138474 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO BALANO

  • G.R. Nos. 139571-72 March 28, 2001 - ROGER N. ABARDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 140153 March 28, 2001 - ANTONIO DOCENA, ET AL. v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141307 March 28, 2001 - PURTO J. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142007 March 28, 2001 - MANUEL C. FELIX v. ENERTECH SYSTEMS INDUSTRIES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143173 March 28, 2001 - PEDRO ONG, ET AL. v. SOCORRO PAREL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144169 March 28, 2001 - KHE HONG CHENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131836 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELITA SINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137564 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DOMENDED

  • G.R. No. 137648 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 140311 March 30, 2001 - DENNIS T. GABIONZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 128372   March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 128372. March 12, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA y BAGUIO, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    On appeal is the decision dated December 11, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 49, convicting appellant of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.

    Appellant Remegio dela Peña is a 63 year-old farmer residing at Casantiagoan, Laoac, Pangasinan. He stands accused of raping his niece, Vilma C. Lapeña, then 11 years old and a Grade V student.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The facts, based on the records, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sometime in February of 1989, in Casantiagoan, Laoac, Pangasinan, Vilma slept in the house of appellant upon the invitation of his granddaughter, Rochelle. She slept in a room beside Rochelle and appellant’s wife. At around 9:00 to 10:00 P.M., appellant’s wife went downstairs. Appellant went inside the room and placed himself on top of Vilma. When she awakened, appellant told her to keep quiet or he would kill her. She tried to push him away but she could not budge him. That same night, she went home and sneaked in without her parents’ knowledge. 1

    Two days later, at around 10:00 P.M., she went to a store to buy some salt upon the order of her mother. She was alone and there were no people in the street. On her way home, appellant blocked her way, pulled her hands, and poked a kitchen knife at her neck. He brought her to the back of his house, some 30 to 40 meters from her house. He placed her on the ground while still holding the knife, threatened her not to shout or he would kill her, removed her shorts and panty and spread her legs. Appellant opened the fly of his trousers and brought out his organ and inserted his penis in her vagina. She felt pain and blood on her vagina. Afterwards, he threatened her not to tell anyone or else he would kill her entire family. 2

    Some two years after the incident, Vilma went to Manila to work as a househelper. In the meantime, appellant had a fight with Vilma’s family. According to Vilma’s mother, Remegio tried to abuse his own granddaughter, Rochelle, so she wrote a letter to Vilma’s father. This angered appellant. He then tried to evict them from his land which Vilma’s family occupied, but he failed. One time, while he was drunk, he shouted "Okin nayo. Linukoc met laeng ni anak yo nga Vilma!" ("Vulva of your mother, I just made a fool of your daughter Vilma anyway!") Alarmed, the victim’s mother replied, "Why Manong, why did you abuse my daughter?" Remegio answered, "Yes. Even if you will bring this matter to the authorities, I will answer for it." Vilma’s parents went to Manila to fetch Vilma in September 1994. When confronted, Vilma admitted that appellant raped her five years ago. She explained that she was afraid to tell anyone because appellant threatened to kill her entire family. Assisted by her parents, Vilma filed a criminal complaint with the police of Laoac, Pangasinan. 3

    On April 4, 1995, the following Information 4 for rape was filed against appellant:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The undersigned, upon sworn complaint previously filed by the complainant duly assisted by her parents, accuses REMEGIO DELA PEÑA y Baguio of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That sometime in the month of February, 1989, in the evening, at barangay Casantiagoan Norte, municipality of Laoac, province of Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a knife and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with the complainant VILMA C. LAPEÑA against her will.

    CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code.

    Urdaneta, Pangasinan, March 27, 1995.

    (SGD.) JORITO C. PERALTA

    2nd Asst. Prov’l. Prosecutor

    Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. 5

    During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses (1) the victim, Vilma; (2) her mother, and (3) Dr. Alexis Mary Arenas Chuson, the physician who examined the victim on September 20, 1994 or nearly five (5) years after the rape incident. Dr. Chuson testified that the hymen was already broken, and there were no signs of external physical injuries. 6

    The defense presented the following witnesses (1) appellant, Remegio dela Peña; (2) his wife, Maria Rosquita, and (3) his neighbor, Marcelino Aquino.

    Appellant’s defense is denial. He claims the victim never slept over at his house. He contends that he was charged with rape because he was evicting the victim’s family from his land. He got angry at the victim’s mother because she accused him of abusing his own granddaughter, Rochelle. 7

    Maria Rosquita likewise testified that the victim never slept over in their house. 8

    Marcelino Aquino testified that from August to November of 1995, Vilma and he were live-in partners. He got rid of her because she brought him bad luck, especially when she lost the necklace he gave her. To his knowledge, the victim never had sexual intercourse with anyone. He himself could not have sexual intercourse with her because he just had a prostate gland operation. 9

    On rebuttal, Vilma affirmed that she did live-in with Aquino. However, she claimed that she separated from him because he once pointed a shotgun at her. They also had an argument about their joint account. Eventually, they parted ways when he gave her P5,000.00 from their savings. 10

    On December 11, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision 11 convicting appellant of the crime of rape, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused as charged. Accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. The accused is further ordered to indemnify the victim in the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Hence, the present appeal. Appellant claims that —12

    I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE, HAS BEEN PROVEN BY PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

    II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ORDERING ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE VICTIM IN THE AMOUNT OF P50,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES.

    In his brief, 13 appellant assails the credibility of the victim considering that it took her five (5) years to report the incident to her parents and the authorities. Further, he claims that the victim had a bad reputation considering that at 17 years old, she lived-in with a 72 year-old pensioner. He claims that it was not possible for him to rape the victim at the back of his house. He would have taken her to a much further place. Lastly, he denies boasting, while in a fit of drunkenness, that he abused the victim. According to him, no man in his right senses would admit to raping a niece.

    The Office of the Solicitor General, for the State, contends that the delay in reporting the rape was due to appellant’s threats on the life of the victim and her family. In fact, the victim had no intention of revealing the rape had appellant not first revealed it to her parents. In view of the positive allegations of the victim, the alleged land feud which appellant claims is the motive for the filing of the case is too shallow to merit consideration. In view of the positive testimony of the victim and her witnesses, the OSG prays for the affirmance of appellant’s conviction. In addition, the OSG recommended the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the victim.

    The main issue here concerns the credibility of witnesses. Appellate courts in general will not disturb the findings of the trial court on this score for the reason that it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. 14 An exception is when the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. 15 In this case, the trial court found the victim’s testimony candid and consistent even under grueling cross-examination. After thorough review of the records of this case including the transcripts of the stenographic notes, we find no reason to disturb the conclusion reached below.

    Delay in making a criminal accusation does not impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. 16 Considering that at the time of the rape, the victim was only eleven (11) years old and appellant was her uncle, who threatened to kill her and her entire family if she told anyone of the incident, the delay of five years is understandable. Delay in reporting rape does not undermine the charge where it is grounded on death threats by appellant against the victim and her family. 17 Note that her rape was only discovered when appellant, in a fit of drunkenness, boasted about it in public.

    Appellant paints the victim as a young whore, who at the age of 17, already lived-in with a 72 year-old pensioner. Such a fact, albeit admitted by the victim, is not material in the present case. First, such cohabitation happened long after the occurrence of the rape in 1989. Second, the rule is that the victim’s character in rape is immaterial. 18 There is absolutely no nexus between the reputation of a rape victim and the odious deed committed against her. 19 As we explained in People v. Barera 20 —

    It may be true that the offended person had theretofore had relations with other men, but that fact did not justify the appellant in having illicit relations with her against her will and consent and by force and violence. The law punishes those who have carnal knowledge of a woman by force or intimidation. Virginity is not one of the elements of the crime of rape.

    The fact that the rape was committed at the back of appellant’s house and not in some distant isolated place does not negate the commission of the rape. Rape can be committed in many different places which may be considered as unlikely or inappropriate, and that the scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter of time or place. 21

    At the time of its commission, the prevailing law on rape was Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides —

    ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. By using force or intimidation;

    2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

    3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. . . .

    Carnal knowledge clearly took place between appellant and the victim. The victim testified that after appellant removed her undergarments, he inserted his penis in her vagina and she felt pain and blood came out of her vagina. 22 However, we cannot accept the trial court’s finding that it was statutory rape. Although the prosecution presented the victim’s birth certificate that she was under 12 or 11 years old at the time of the rape, such fact was not alleged in the Information. Absent such allegation of age in the charge, it would be a violation of due process to hold appellant liable for statutory rape, simply because he could validly claim lack of sufficient information to defend himself for this grievous offense, if so qualified.

    However, the Information sufficiently alleged the element of force and intimidation, and such fact was proven during trial. The act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her into submission. 23 This element suffices to hold appellant answerable for simple rape.

    While the prosecution presented the physician who examined the victim five years after the rape, considering the length of time that lapsed, his testimony, has little probative value. Nonetheless, it is well-established that a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element in rape. 24 What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible.25cralaw:red

    The penalty for rape at the time of its commission is reclusion perpetua, an indivisible penalty, which should be imposed regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. 26

    As to damages, the trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof. 27 In addition, we find it proper to award the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, pursuant to existing jurisprudence. 28

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 49, in Criminal Case No. U-8381, finding appellant REMEGIO DELA PEÑA Y BAGUIO guilty of the crime of RAPE is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to damages. Appellant is hereby ordered to pay the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and the cost.

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. TSN, June 4, 1996, pp. 2-8.

    2. Id. at 8-15.

    3. TSN, July 23, 1996, pp. 8-23.

    4. Records, p. 1.

    5. Records. pp. 45, 47.

    6. TSN, April 30, 1996, pp. 5-10.

    7. TSN, August 13, 1996, pp. 3-12.

    8. TSN, August 26, 1996, pp. 2-3.

    9. TSN, August, 26, 1996, pp. 4-8.

    10. TSN, September 2, 1996, pp. 2-7.

    11. Records, pp. 181-190.

    12. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 51.

    13. Id. at 54-58.

    14 People v. Dizon, 312 SCRA 811, 818 (1999).

    15. Ibid.

    16. People v. Bugarin, 273 SCRA 384, 398 (1997).

    17. People v. Javier, 311 SCRA 122, 133 (1999).

    18. People v. Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557, 566 (1991).

    19. People v. Soriano, 272 SCRA 760, 768 (1997).

    20. 262 SCRA 63, 77 (1996), citing People v. Lomibao, 55 Phil. 616, 620 (1931) and People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 26150, January 15, 1927; See also People v. Poculan, 167 SCRA 176, 198 (1988).

    21. People v. Villar, G.R. No. 127572, January 19, 2000, pp. 10-11; People v. Geromo, G.R. No. 126169, December 21, 1999, p. 6; People v. Sandico, 307 SCRA 204, 214-215 (1999); People v. Sangil, Sr., 276 SCRA 532, 540 (1997).

    22. TSN, May 22, 1996, pp. 12, 14-15.

    23. People v. Baltazar, G.R. No. 115990, March 31, 2000, p. 11.

    24. People v. Brandares, 311 SCRA 159, 165 (1999).

    25. Ibid.

    26. Article 63, first par., Revised Penal Code.

    27. People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, 431 (1998).

    28. People v. Panique, G.R. No. 125763, October 13, 1999, p. 11.

    G.R. No. 128372   March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED