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
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 129236   October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 129236. October 17, 2001.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAYMUNDO DIZON Y GAROTA, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    KAPUNAN, J.:


    On automatic review before this Court is the decision dated November 29, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 44 in Criminal Case No. 96-17638 finding accused-appellant Raymundo Dizon y Garota guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act 7659 and sentencing him to the supreme penalty of death.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In a Complaint filed on April 11, 1996 by Betty D. Vergara, assisted by her mother, Lorna D. Vergara, Accused-appellant was charged as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That during the period from the middle part of 1994 to October 1995, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the herein complainant, Betty Vergara y Dahil-dahil, 13 years of age, against the latter’s will, resulting to her pregnancy.

    Act contrary to law. 1

    On arraignment, Accused-appellant pleaded "Not Guilty" and the case proceeded to trial.

    The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of complainant Betty Vergara, her mother Lorna Vergara and Dr. Arnold Anceno, medical officer at the Corazon Locsin Montelibano Memorial Hospital in Bacolod City.

    Complainant Betty Vergara testified that she was born on April 24, 1982 to the spouses Lorna Dahil-dahil and Eddie Vergara. Her parents separated when she was barely two years old. Sometime in 1988, her mother started cohabiting with accused-appellant in the latter’s house at the Reclamation Area in Bacolod City. 2

    Sometime in the same year, complainant, her mother, her two brothers, Argie, 10 and Eddie, 8, and accused-appellant paid a visit to complainant’s grandmother at Isio Cauayan. 3 One night, while complainant was urinating at the back of her grandmother’s house, Accused-appellant approached her and held her hands. He then took off her shorts and panty, removed his briefs, and tried, but failed, to insert his penis into her vagina. When accused-appellant left her, complainant ran towards her grandmother’s house. She did not report the incident to anyone because accused-appellant threatened to kill all of her family. 4

    The incident was repeated sometime in July 1994 in accused-appellant’s house at the Reclamation Area in Bacolod City when complainant was already 12 years old. 5 Complainant was watching television alone at around two o’clock in the afternoon when accused-appellant arrived and ordered her to get inside the bathroom which was attached to the house. This bathroom was located outside, with walls made of sawali and nipa roofing and with a separate door made of thick jute bags. 6 Accused-appellant followed her inside the bathroom and removed her shorts and panty. He then took off his briefs and inserted his penis into her vagina. Complainant did not shout for help because accused-appellant again threatened to kill her. She did not tell her mother about what transpired when the latter arrived home because of accused-appellant’s threat. 7

    The incident was repeated several times thereafter. The last act of violation against complainant’s honor occurred in October 1995. 8 On April 2, 1996, complainant told her mother that something was moving inside her stomach. Her mother brought her to a doctor who informed them that complainant was pregnant. Complainant was confronted by her mother and was asked to identify the person responsible for her pregnancy. Complainant revealed that it was accused-appellant, the common-law husband of her mother. 9 The following morning, complainant, accompanied by her mother, reported the matter to the police. Later on, she was brought to the Corazon Locsin Montelibano Memorial Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Arnold Anceno. On July 13, 1996, complainant gave birth to a baby girl. 10

    Lorna D. Vergara testified that on April 2, 1996, her daughter came to her complaining that there was something moving inside her stomach. She brought her daughter to the clinic of Dr. Pascua who, after examining the latter, found that she was pregnant. When they returned to their house, Lorna confronted her daughter and asked her who the father of the baby was. Complainant confessed that it was Accused-Appellant. 11 The following morning, Lorna accompanied complainant to report the matter to the police. They next went to the Corazon Locsin Montelibano Memorial Hospital where Dr. Arnold Anceno examined the complainant. 12 Later, Accused-appellant was arrested by the police at his place of work. 13 On July 13, 1996, complainant gave birth to a baby girl but they gave the baby up for adoption to one Lina Gustilo. 14

    The last witness for the prosecution was Dr. Arnold John Anceno, Medical Officer III at the Corazon Locsin Montelibano Memorial Hospital. He testified that on April 3, 1996, he made a physical and gynecological examination of a certain Betty Vergara. The findings showed, among others, an enlarged uterus, about 5 to 6 months in size, although fetal heart beat was not appreciated. He also found the presence of hymenal tag which he explained to be the result of healed hymenal lacerations. 15

    The evidence for the defense, on the other hand, consisted of the testimonies of accused-appellant Raymundo Dizon, his sister Ligaya Ladrillo and accused-appellant’s neighbors, Alice Quiatchon and Janeta Aquilesca.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In his testimony, Raymundo Dizon denied that he raped complainant Betty Vergara. He testified that he had been living with complainant’s mother, Lorna Vergara, for almost eight years and that he treated her three children, including complainant, as his own as he was the one who reared them up. 16 Accused-appellant denied that he raped complainant in 1988 in Isio, Cauayan, Negros Occidental when she was only seven years old. He declared that he could not have done such a thing because there were several people staying in the house of complainant’s grandmother at that time. The house was also surrounded by eight other neighboring houses. 17 Accused-appellant also denied that he raped complainant in the bathroom of their house at the Reclamation Area in Bacolod City sometime in 1994 and 1995. He claimed that the bathroom was situated right outside the house near the community pump where a lot of people in the neighborhood fetched water. Moreover, the bathroom was too small that it could only accommodate one person. 18 Accused-appellant asserted that he only came to know of the charge against him at the police headquarters. 19 He also denied that he was the father of the baby girl complainant gave birth to on July 13, 1996. When asked why complainant pointed to him as the person responsible for getting her pregnant, Accused-appellant stated that the only reason he could think of was that complainant wanted her parents to reconcile and live together again. 20

    Alice Quiatchon, Janeta Aquilesca and Ligaya Ladrillo, gave substantially similar testimonies to the effect that they personally knew both the accused-appellant and complainant because they also resided at the People’s Market, Reclamation Area in Bacolod City; 21 that they frequently saw complainant together with her friends at the seaside near the reclamation area or in the restaurant of witness Quiatchon; 22 and that they knew accused-appellant to be a good person. 23

    On November 29, 1996, the trial court rendered judgment convicting accused-appellant of rape and sentencing him to the penalty of death. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and finding the evidence submitted by the complainant to be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, Raymundo Dizon, beyond reasonable doubt for violation of the crime of rape as punished by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the Court hereby sentences the accused, Raymundo Dizon y Garota to suffer the penalty of death, the execution of which shall be done in accordance with law. The court further orders the accused to indemnify the complainant, Betty Vergara, the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In seeking the reversal of his conviction, Accused-appellant avers that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING DUE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT DESPITE APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS AND IMPROBABILITY IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR.

    THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND/OR MORAL CERTAINTY.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    THE LOWER COURT FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED INASMUCH AS THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT NOR SUBSTANTIAL.

    Accused-appellant alleges that the trial court erred in convicting him as the evidence for the prosecution was intrinsically weak and did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He claims that the prosecution failed to show force and intimidation on his part and resistance on the part of complainant, which are essential elements of rape. Reliance is placed on the medical examination conducted by Dr. Arnold Anceno to the effect that there were no lacerations or scars on the external portion of the vaginal orifice. Accused-appellant also maintains that there was physical impossibility in committing the crime imputed to him as the bathroom where the rape allegedly happened was only a makeshift structure measuring 2 feet by 2- feet and was made of light materials such as sawali, nipa and jute sacks. Moreover, said bathroom was located outside the house near the community pump. Finally, Accused-appellant alleges that complainant’s actuation and behavior after the rape and while testifying in court lacked manifestations of fear, depression, melancholy and anger normally displayed by rape victims.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    It bears stressing here that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded the highest respect because it is the trial court that has the direct opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness on the stand and determine if she is telling the truth or not. 24 Absent any grave or palpable error, the findings of facts of a trial court are binding upon this Court.25cralaw:red

    After a careful scrutiny of the records of the case, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the trial court.

    Force or intimidation, as an essential element of rape, is subjective and must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the crime. 26 It is addressed to the mind of the victim and its presence or absence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule. 27 The Court could not agree with accused-appellant’s contention that the prosecution failed to establish force or intimidation in the present case. Complainant categorically testified that she was twice cowed into submitting to accused-appellant’s bestial desires when he threatened to kill her and her family. She recounted:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Please tell this Honorable Court how did the accused rape you when you were still 7 years old when you were on vacation at the place of your grandmother at Isio, Cauayan?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    A While on vacation at the house of my grandmother at Isio, Cauayan sir, one night I feel something to urinate and I went at the back of the house of my grandmother to urinate and after urinating I was approached by the accused and he held my hands (At this juncture, the witness is making a demonstration pointing to her wrist.)

    FISCAL ELUMBA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q After the accused held your arms, what else had happened?

    A Then he took off my shorts and panty and after taking my panty the accused took off his brief and placed his penis inside my vagina and started on making pumping motions.

    Q After that what else had happened?

    A When I started crying sir because he cannot fully insert his penis inside my vagina, the accused placed me on the ground and I immediately ran towards the house of my grandmother.

    Q During that time when the accused placed his penis into your vagina and started pumping, did you shout for help?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    A No, sir.

    Q Why did you not shout for help?

    A Because he was threatening me that he will kill us all.

    Q Because of that incident did you not report the matter to your parents?

    A No, sir.

    Q Why?

    A Because the accused was threatening me that if I will tell anybody he will kill us all.

    x       x       x


    Q Will you please tell this Honorable Court how did the accused again rape you for the second time in 1994 here in Bacolod City?

    A While I was watching TV suddenly Toto arrived and he instructed me to get inside the bathroom.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Q This Toto is the accused in this case?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q After you went inside the bathroom what happened?

    A While inside the bathroom sir, the accused took off my shorts and panty and after removing, he too removed his brief and immediately inserted his penis into my vagina.

    Q In other words there was sexual intercourse inside the bathroom?

    A Yes, sir.

    FISCAL ELUMBA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Did you not shout for help during that time?

    A No sir because he was threatening me that he will kill me.

    Q After that did you not report this incident to your mother?

    A No, sir.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Q Why did you not report this incident that happened between you and the accused to your mother?

    A Because if I will tell my mother he will kill us all.

    x       x       x 28

    Although accused-appellant was not actually armed with a weapon at that time, to the mind of complainant, the threat to her life and to her family was so real and imminent that she was intimidated into submission. The threat and intimidation were continuing such that complainant was afraid to report the incidents to anyone. In People of the Philippines v. Sagun, 29 this Court held that if by an array of physical forces, an accused so overpowers the victim’s mind that she does not resist, or she ceases resistance through fear of greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act is rape. 30

    Accused-appellant’s reliance on the medical examination of Dr. Anceno which reported no lacerations or scars in complainant’s vaginal orifice is likewise unavailing. The Court has consistently ruled that the presence of lacerations in the victim’s sexual organ is not necessary to prove the crime of rape 31 and its absence does not negate the fact of rape. A medical report is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. 32 In fact, what could be a better evidence of penile penetration than the subsequent pregnancy of complainant?

    As to accused-appellant’s contention that there was no showing of resistance on the part of complainant, it should be emphasized that resistance is not an element of rape and the absence thereof is not tantamount to consent. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation, then offering none at all does not mean consent to the assault so as to make the victim’s submission to the sexual act voluntary. 33 In this case, the threat and intimidation used against complainant were so overpowering such that she was not able to offer any resistance. Equally significant is the fact that when complainant was raped for the first time she was only seven years old. She was already twelve when she was again ravished but accused-appellant was by then already in his thirties. This disparity alone between the ages and physical sizes of accused-appellant and complainant already produced sufficient intimidation in complainant’s mind that would explain the lack of resistance on her part. Moreover, Accused-appellant, being the common-law husband of complainant’s mother and with whom the complaint and her siblings lived for almost eight years, certainly exercised tremendous moral ascendancy over complainant and this substitutes for intimidation. 34

    As regards accused-appellant’s contention that complainant’s behavior while testifying on the witness stand did not show emotions normally displayed by rape victims, this Court has no reason to discount the trial court’s appreciation of the complainant-witnesses’ truthfulness, honesty and candor. 35 As to her conduct after the commission of rape suffice it to state that different people react differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience. 36 Contrary to accused-appellant’s contention, complainant did display anger and hatred towards accused-appellant when her mother asked her to reveal the identity of the person who made her pregnant. Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    Q After you have yourself examined by Dr. Pascua that you were pregnant what happened?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    A After we were informed that I was pregnant by Dr. Pascua, my mother asked me if who is the father (sic) and I answered that your common-law husband is the father who is boar. (botakal).

    x       x       x 37

    This was affirmed by her mother who testified as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    FISCAL ELUMBA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q After learning from Dr. Pascua that your daughter Betty Vergara was pregnant, what did you do if there was any?

    A We immediately went home to our house and I tried to make a thorough investigation on my daughter. I asked her if who is responsible of her pregnancy because for me she has no boyfriend. (sic)

    Q What did Betty tell you if there was any?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    A My daughter answered me, "your common law-husband who is boar ("botakal").

    x       x       x 38

    Finally, as to the claim that it was physically impossible for accused-appellant to have committed the crime because the bathroom where it allegedly happened was too small and too near the community pump which was a public place, this Court has taken notice of the fact that crimes against chastity have been committed in many different kinds of places which many would consider as unlikely or inappropriate, 39 even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants. 40 Lust being no respecter of time and place, the nearby presence of other people in a certain place does not guarantee that the rape will not and cannot be committed. 41

    The Court, however, finds ground for modifying the penalty imposed by the trial court. Accused-appellant was sentenced to death pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 which states in part:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    x       x       x


    Since the circumstances under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 42 are in the nature of special qualifying circumstances, they cannot be considered as such and qualify the crime of rape to warrant the penalty of death unless so alleged in the information even if they were proved during the trial. 43 While the information properly alleged the minor age of complainant, her relationship with accused-appellant (that accused-appellant was the common-law husband of victim’s mother) was not specifically pleaded in the information, albeit proven during trial. Relationship between accused and his victim, to be properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, should be specifically pleaded in the information, 44 otherwise, there would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him.

    In addition to the P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity, Accused-appellant should likewise be ordered to pay complainant moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 without need of proof, 45 since it is recognized that the victim’s injury is inherently concomitant to and necessarily results from the odiousness of the crime. 46

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Bacolod City, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Raymundo Dizon y Garota is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, he is ordered to pay complainant Betty Vergara the amount of P50,000.00 as ,moral damages in addition to the amount of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court as civil indemnity.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Records, p. 1.

    2. TSN of August 19, 1996, pp. 3 and 5.

    3. Id., at 10-11.

    4. Id., at 3-4.

    5. Id., at 4-5.

    6. Id., at 17-18.

    7. Id., at 5-6.

    8. Id., at. 6.

    9. Id., at 7.

    10. Id., at 7-9.

    11. TSN of August 20, 1996, pp. 4-5.

    12. Id., at. 5

    13. Id., at 7.

    14. Id., at 12-13.

    15. TSN of Sept. 18, 1996, pp. 1-9.

    16. TSN of Oct. 21, 1996, pp. 4-10.

    17. Id., at 11.

    18. Id., at 12.

    19. Id., at 13.

    20. Id., at 30.

    21. Id., at 23-25; TSN of Oct. 24, 1996, p. 4, 7-8.; TSN of Oct. 30 1996, pp. 3-4.

    22. Id., at 27.

    23. Id., at 30.

    24. People v. Abuel, 261 SCRA 339 (1996).

    25. People v. Maldo, 307 SCRA 424 (1999).

    26. People v. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA 312 (1998).

    27. People v. Luzorata, 286 SCRA 487 (1998).

    28. TSN of August 19, 1996, pp. 3-6.

    29. 303 SCRA 387 (1999).

    30. Ibid.

    31. People v. Macasta, 320 SCRA 668 (1999).

    32. People v. De la Cuesta, 304 SCRA 83 (1999); People v. Quinagoran, 315 SCRA 508 (1999).

    33. People v. Agbayani, 284 SCRA 315 (1998).

    34. People v. Casil, 241 SCRA 285 (1995).

    35. People v. Hernandez, 304 SCRA 186 (1999).

    36. People v. Luzorata, 286 SCRA 487 (1998).

    37. TSN of August 19, 1996, p.7.

    38. TSN of August 29, 1996, p.5.

    39. People v. Manggasin, 306 SCRA 228 (1999).

    40. People v. Agbayani, 284 SCRA 315 (1998).

    41. People v. Losano, 310 SCRA 707 (1999)

    42. Sec. 11 provides: 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 2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution; 3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity; 4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime; 5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old; 6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immune-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim, 7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime; 8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability, 9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and 10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

    43. People v. Larena, 309 SCRA 305 (1999); People v. Velasquez, G.R Nos. 132635 and 143872-75, February 21, 2001; People v. Sayao, G.R No. 124297, February 21, 2001; People v. Empante, 306 SCRA 250 (1999).

    44. People v. Ilao, 296 SCRA 658 (1998).

    45. People v. Baygar, 318 SCRA 358 (1999).

    46. People v. Tabanggay, 334 SCRA 575 (2000).

    G.R. No. 129236   October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON


    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