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. 130846   October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 130846. October 23, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    On appeal is the decision 1 dated July 23, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, finding appellant Rogelio Pamilar y Revolio guilty of three (3) counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and to pay the victims, Marivic and Cecilia Pamilar, moral damages in the total amount of P150,000.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Appellant was charged under the following Information:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Crim. Case No. Q-92-37315:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That, in or about the month of March, 1991, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with the complainant MARIVIC PAMILAR y DELA CRUZ, his daughter, a minor, 17 years old, against her will and without her consent.

    CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

    Crim. Case No. Q-92-37316:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That, on or about the 13th day of October, 1992, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with MARIVIC PAMILAR Y DELA CRUZ his daughter, a minor, 17 years old, against her will and without her consent.

    CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

    Crim. Case No. Q-92-37317:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That, in or about the month of October, 1991, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with the complainant CECILIA PAMILAR y DELA CRUZ, his daughter, a minor, 14 years of age, against her will and without her consent.

    CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

    On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial commenced.

    The prosecution presented the two complainants, Marivic Pamilar and Cecilia Pamilar, and the medico-legal officer who examined them, Dr. Susan Nieves.

    MARIVIC PAMILAR testified that she was 17 years old, residing at No. 144 Sitio Mabilog, Brgy. Culiat, Quezon City. Her mother is Corazon Pamilar and her father is Rogelio Pamilar. Sometime in March 1991, at around 12:00 midnight, she was awakened when she felt that her panty was being removed by her father. She was not able to do anything because her father threatened her that he would kill her, her siblings and their mother if she resisted. Her father was also armed with a knife which he held against her head. After removing her panty, her father then removed his shorts and inserted his penis inside her private parts. After consummating his lust, her father left her and she just cried. 5

    Marivic also claimed that she was abused several times thereafter. She recalled that she was abused by her father on October 13, 1992, between; 12:00 midnight and 1:00 o’clock in the morning. The events and circumstances of that particular rape were significantly similar to the incidents when she was first abused. 6 Marivic stated that she was not able to report the abuses immediately because of fear. She decided to report the incidents to the police only on October 17, 1992 after she felt that she had enough of her father’s abuses. 7

    CECILIA PAMILAR testified that she was 14 years old, residing at No. 144, Sitio Mabilog, Culiat, Quezon City. Her mother is Corazon Pamilar and her father is Rogelio Pamilar. Sometime in October 1991, according to her, her father raped her. He entered the room while she was sleeping with her older sister, Marivic. He undressed her by first removing her shorts, followed by her t-shirt. He then removed her panty. After doing all these, her father lowered his own shorts up to his knee, spread her legs and inserted his penis inside her private parts. He then kissed her face, her neck and her breasts. She claimed that she was not able to do anything because she was afraid. 8 She reported the incident only on October 19, 1992, after her mother had already found out that she and her elder sister had been abused by their father. 9

    DR. SUSAN NIEVES, a medico-legal officer, testified that she was the one who examined both private complainants. She reported that Marivic Pamilar was no longer a virgin, and that she had a deep healed laceration at 5:00 o’clock aside from the shallow healed lacerations at 3:00 o’clock and 9:00 o’clock which may have been caused by a penis, and possibly sustained seven days, or weeks, or years before she was examined. 10 Dr. Nieves also reported that Cecilia Pamilar was no longer a virgin, and that she had shallow healed lacerations at 3:00 o’clock and 9:00 o’clock which could have been caused by a penis. 11

    For the defense, Accused ROGELIO PAMILAR himself testified. He denied the charges that he raped his daughters, Marivic and Cecilia Pamilar. He claimed that the charges were brought upon the instigation of his wife who was mad at him, because he acquired a form of venereal disease from other women and was unable to fulfill his sexual duties to her. 12 He said that his daughters still loved him and, in fact, Marivic visited him in jail and gave him money. However, they were afraid of their mother. 13

    ROGELIO PAMILAR, JR., a son of appellant, was presented to corroborate the testimony of his father regarding the size and dimensions of their house and the room where Marivic and Cecilia slept. 14 According to him, the house was 11 by 11 feet long while the room was 8 by 4 feet long.

    CORAZON PAMILAR, appellant’s wife, corroborated Rogelio, Jr.’s testimony and confirmed also that appellant had gonorrhea in the past. 15

    On July 23, 1997, the trial court rendered a decision finding appellant guilty of three counts of rape. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Rogelio Pamilar y Revolio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as defined and punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended as principal by direct participation committed without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance and as specified in the above-quoted Informations in these cases, and in Criminal Case No. Q-92-37315, the accused Rogelio Pamilar y Revolio is sentenced to suffer a prison term of reclusion perpetua and to suffer its accessory penalties, and to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to the complaining witness Marivic Pamilar, and in Criminal Case No. Q-92-37316, the accused Rogelio Pamilar y Revolio is sentenced to suffer a prison term of reclusion perpetua and to suffer its accessory penalties and to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to the complaining witness Marivic Pamilar, and in Criminal Case No. 92-37317, the accused Rogelio Pamilar y Revolio is sentenced to suffer a prison term of reclusion perpetua and to suffer its accessory penalties, and to pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 to the complaining witness Cecilia Pamilar.

    Being a detention prisoner, the accused Rogelio Pamilar y Revolio is entitled to the benefits of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.

    SO ORDERED. 16

    Appellant interposed this present appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I. ...FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THREE (3) COUNTS OF RAPE.

    II. ...ORDERING ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO PAY MORAL DAMAGES IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF P150,000.00. 17

    In essence, appellant raises the principal issue of the credibility of the complainants as witnesses for the prosecution. He argues that the charges that they were raped is hard to believe, considering the fact that the house where they lived at was only a small one, measuring 11 by 11 feet, and the room where the alleged rapes were committed had no door separating it from the sala where the rest of the family sleeps. According to appellant, in a situation like this, it is unbelievable that the rapes could have been committed without any one knowing about it. 18

    For the State, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion 19 and that lust is no respecter of time and place. 20 The OSG also points out that the testimonies of private complainants were positive, straightforward and convincing and therefore deserve to be given full faith and credence. 21

    In reviewing rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but; even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove its (2) by reason of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape (where only two persons are usually involved), the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 22 With these principles in mind, and after reviewing the records of this case, we find that the trial court did not err in convicting appellant for three counts of rape.

    We agree with the trial court that no evidentiary weight could be given to the self-serving declarations of appellant. His ratiocination that the rapes could not have been committed in a small house where many people were living deserves scant consideration. We have held time and again that rape does not occur only in seclusion 23 and can be committed in the unlikeliest of places. 24 Situs of rape has been inside a house where there were other occupants; 25 in a room adjacent to where the victim’s family was sleeping; 26 or even in a room which the victim shared with the sisters of the accused. 27 Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters, the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of rape. 28 It is not impossible for the rape to take place inside a small house with no partition and with five occupants therein, including the accused and the victim. 29 Lust is no respecter of time and place. 30 The scenario illustrated by private complainants wherein they were raped inside their room by their own father is therefore not impossible nor incredible. It may seem improbable but as we held in one case:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    The very implausibility of the commission of the rape is itself a strong evidence of its truthfulness. Had the charge been merely concocted as the defense suggests, the complainant would have made it more acceptable by inventing more believable circumstances not encumbered by the presence of all the members of the family in the room when the rape was committed. The fact that she did not choose to do so suggests that she related the events as they really happened, without omission or embellishment, even if they might appear to be improbable. Verily, it is always possible that something improbable can happen. 31

    Well-established is the principle that factual findings of the trial court are conclusive upon the reviewing or appellate court and its evaluation regarding the credibility of witnesses are given great weight and respect unless there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. 32 The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is a matter that particularly falls within the authority of the trial court 33 as it had the opportunity to observe closely their conduct and demeanor on the stand. 34

    Appellant presents no substantial and persuasive argument which would necessitate a review of the trial court’s findings regarding the probative value to be accorded to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Absent any concrete and compelling basis to support such review, we are constrained to sustain the trial court’s findings regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

    Having met the test of credibility and reliability, we find the testimony of complainants, coupled with the testimony and medical findings of Dr. Nieves, more than sufficient to establish the essential requisite of illicit carnal knowledge under the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. 35

    It should be noted that juxtaposed against the prosecution evidence appellant’s defense is inherently weak. He interposed denial, which like alibi, cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. 36 Such weak and self-serving negative defense cannot claim more weight or worth than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who present clear and positive evidence. 37

    It is far from credible that his wife would go to the extent of making use of their two daughters in fabricating false accusations of rape just to get even with him. Note that his statement regarding his VD does not speak well of him. But no mother would sacrifice her own daughters, concoct stories of their deflorations, allow examinations of her daughters’ private parts and subject them to the ordeal of a public trial just to retaliate against her husband for his alleged transgressions as a family man. 38

    In sum, we are morally convinced of his guilt.

    However, modifications in the award of civil damages are necessary. The offended party in each case is entitled to civil indemnity of P50,000 for each rape pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 39 She is also entitled to exemplary damages at P25,000 for each count. The award of P50,000 for moral damages for each rape is justified and should be maintained. 40

    WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, finding appellant Rogelio Pamilar y Revolio guilty of three counts of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is also ordered to pay to: a) Marivic Pamilar in Crim. Case No. Q-92-37315, P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and P25,000 as exemplary damages; b) Marivic Pamilar in Crim. Case No. Q-92-37316, P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and P25,000 as exemplary damages; and c) Cecilia Pamilar in Crim. Case No. Q-92-37317, P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and P25,000 as exemplary damages.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

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

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 30-40.

    2. Id. at 11.

    3. Id. at 13.

    4. Id. at 15.

    5. TSN, January 22, 1993, pp. 1-4.

    6. TSN January 29,1993 pp. 1-3

    7. Id. at 3.

    8. TSN, March 4, 1993, pp. 1-3.

    9. TSN, March 5, 1993, pp. 2-3.

    10. TSN, March 26, 1993, pp. 2-4.

    11. Id. at 2-3.

    12. TSN, May 20, 1994, pp. 2, 5-7

    13. TSN, June 30, 1994, pp. 1-2.

    14. TSN. March 16, 1995. pp. 1-3

    15. TSN, November 16, 1995, pp. 5-10.

    16. Rollo, p. 40.

    17. Id. at 71

    18. Id. at 75.

    19. Citing People v. Burce, G.R. Nos. 108604-10, 269 SCRA 293,313 (1997).

    20. Citing People v. San Juan, G.R. No. 105556, 270 SCRA 693,709 (1997).

    21. Rollo, p. 113.

    22. People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 115191, 321 SCRA 334, 348 (1999); People v. Quijada, G.R. No. 114262, 321 SCRA 426, 431 (1999); People v. Rafales, G.R. No. 133477, 323 SCRA 13, 20-21 (2000).

    23. People v. Ramon, G.R. No. 130407, 320 SCRA 775, 789 (1999), citing People v. Sangil. Sr., G.R. No. 113689, 276 SCRA 532, 540 (1997).

    24. People v. Talaboc, G.R. No. 103290, 256 SCRA 441, 449 (1996).

    25. People v. Guibao, G.R. No. 93517, 217 SCRA 64, 74 (1993).

    26. People v. Codilla, G.R. Nos. 100720-23, 224 SCRA 104, 120 (1993).

    27. People v. Villorente, G.R. No. 100198, 210 SCRA 647, 659 (1992).

    28. People v. Geromo, G.R. No. 126169, 321 SCRA 355, 363-364 (1999).

    29. People v. Sancha, G.R. No. 131818-19, 324 SCRA 646, 665 (2000).

    30. People v. Cortes, G.R. No. 129693, 323 SCRA 131, 143 (2000).

    31. People v. Sangil, Sr., supra, at 541.

    32. People v. Ablaza, G.R. No. L-27352, 30 SCRA 173, 176 (1969); People v. Carido, G.R. No. L-32242, 167 SCRA 462, 473 (1988); People v. Tejada, G.R. No. 81520, 170 SCRA 497, 501-502 (1989).

    33. People v. Baygar, G.R. No. 132238, 318 SCRA 358, 365 (1999); People v. Venerable, G.R. No. 110110, 290 SCRA 15, 25 (1998).

    34. People v. Lomboy, G.R. No. 129691, 309 SCRA 440, 450 (1999).

    35. People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 125125-27, 324 SCRA 748, 753 (2000).

    36. People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 128888, 319 SCRA 719, 738 (1999).

    37. Supra, note 35 at 754.

    38. See People v. Flores, G.R. No. 123599, 320 SCRA 560, 570 (1999).

    39. People v. Panique, G.R. No. 125763, 316 SCRA 757, 768 (1999) citing People v. Maglente, G.R. No. 124559-66, 306 SCRA 546, 578 (1999).

    40. See People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 136398, November 23, 2001, p. 26.

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


    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