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
 

   
September-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137538 September 3, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. HON. FRANCISCO B. IBAY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1249 September 4, 2001 - PHIL. GERIATRICS FOUNDATION, ET AL. v. LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA

  • A.M. No. P-00-1373 September 4, 2001 - ELIZABETH A. TIONGCO v. ROGELIO S. MOLINA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1501 September 4, 2001 - JOSEPHINE D. SARMIENTO v. ALBERT S. SALAMAT

  • A.M. No. P-01-1502 September 4, 2001 - CRESENCIO N. BONGALOS v. JOSE R. MONUNGOLH and VICTORIA D. JAMITO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1357 September 4, 2001 - SHERWIN M. BALOLOY v. JOSE B. FLORES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1651 September 4, 2001 - PROSECUTOR LEO C. TABAO v. JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN

  • G.R. No. 125359 September 4, 2001 - ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO and HECTOR T. RIVERA v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 126859 September 4, 2001 - YOUSEF AL-GHOUL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127181 September 4, 2001 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132709 September 4, 2001 - CAMILO L. SABIO, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134490 September 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOEL BRAGAT

  • G.R. Nos. 135356-58 September 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO SAGARINO

  • G.R. No. 138923 September 4, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA AYOLA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1344 September 5, 2001 - LYDIO ARCILLA, ET AL. v. LUCIO PALAYPAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128145 September 5, 2001 - J.C. LOPEZ & ASSOCIATES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133886 September 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OSCAR PARBA

  • G.R. No. 134101 September 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELINO O. LLANITA

  • G.R. No. 136054 September 5, 2001 - SEVERINA SAN MIGUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132714 September 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 139064-66 September 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ARCE

  • G.R. No. 140529 September 6, 2001 - JOSE P. LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141400 September 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EVANGELINE GANENAS

  • Admin. Case. No. 4863 September 7, 2001 - URBAN BANK v. ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 114858-59 September 7, 2001 - COLUMBUS PHILIPPINES BUS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 126352 September 7, 2001 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127261 September 7, 2001 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129644 September 7, 2001 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131805 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO HERMOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132064 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI BAYENG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132320 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO OJERIO

  • G.R. Nos. 135402-03 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IAN GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 136779 September 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL ASUNCION

  • G.R. No. 142065 September 7, 2001 - LENIDO LUMANOG v. HON. JAIME N. SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 142875 September 7, 2001 - EDGAR AGUSTILO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144877 September 7, 2001 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. VERONICA AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1506 September 10, 2001 - GEORGE S. BICBIC v. DHALIA E. BORROMEO

  • G.R. Nos. 104769 & 135016 September 10, 2001 - AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118943 September 10, 2001 - MARIO HORNALES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130362 September 10, 2001 - INT’L FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES (PHIL.) v. MERLIN J. ARGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138485 September 10, 2001 - DR. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 141970 September 10, 2001 - METROPOLITAN BANK v. FLORO T. ALEJO

  • G.R. No. 145588 September 10, 2001 - ESPERIDION LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140398 September 11, 2001 - FRANCISCO DELA MERCED, ET AL. v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121877 September 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ERLINDA GONZALES

  • G.R. Nos. 138431-36 September 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORA M. ARABIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140903 September 12, 2001 - HENRY SY v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-1-4-03-SC September 13, 2001 - RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA and INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A.M. No. 00-4-188-RTC September 13, 2001 - REQUEST OF MR. OSCAR T. LLAMAS FOR RE-ASSIGNMENT OSCAR T. LLAMAS v. EMMANUEL LACANDOLA AND ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 120009 September 13, 2001 - DOLE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 122095 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DOMINGO DAWISAN

  • G.R. No. 127913 September 13, 2001 - RCBC v. METRO CONTAINER CORP.

  • G.R. No. 132354 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOMEDES IGLESIA

  • G.R. Nos. 136840-42 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 137250-51 September 13, 2001 - PABLO MARGAREJO v. HON. ADELARDO ESCOSES

  • G.R. No. 138972-73 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140512 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PETER PELERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142043 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON BITUON

  • G.R. No. 142430 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE QUINICIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142444 September 13, 2001 - OFELIA D. ARTUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142649 September 13, 2001 - ANTONIO C. SAN LUIS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143702 September 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 129212 September 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO LACUESTA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1575 September 17, 2001 - ISAGANI RIZON v. JUDGE OSCAR E. ZERNA

  • A.M. No. RTJ 99-1498 September 17, 2001 - VICENTE P. LIM v. JUDGE JACINTA B. TAMBAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111584 September 17, 2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES SALVADOR Y. CHUA and EMILIA U. CHUA

  • G.R. No. 135644 September 17, 2001 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. SPOUSES GONZALO and MATILDE LABUNG-DEANG

  • G.R. No. 135912 September 17, 2001 - ODIN SECURITY AGENCY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138219 September 17, 2001 - GERARDO V. TAMBAOAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138943-44 September 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY ALMAZAN

  • G.R. No. 141209 September 17, 2001 - ANTONIA HUFANA, ET AL. v. WILLIAM ONG GENATO

  • A. C. No. 5043 September 19, 2001 - ABEDIN L. OSOP v. ATTY. V. EMMANUEL C. FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. 135936 September 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR alias "GOLING"

  • G.R. No. 144400 September 19, 2001 - DOMINGO O. IGNACIO v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1369 September 20, 2001 - GUILLERMA D. CABAÑERO v. JUDGE ANTONIO K. CAÑON

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1371 September 20, 2001 - ATTY. NESCITO C. HILARIO v. JUDGE ROMEO A. QUILANTANG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1472 September 20, 2001 - SPOUSES HERMINIO, ET Al. v. HON. DEMETRIO D. CALIMAG

  • A.M. No. P-01-1483 September 20, 2001 - EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. ISABELO LAVADIA

  • G.R. No. 116938 September 20, 2001 - LEONILA GARCIA-RUEDA v. REMEDIOS A. AMOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127405 September 20, 2001 - MARJORIE TOCAO and WILLIAM T. BELO v. COURT OF APPEALS and NENITA A. ANAY

  • G.R. No. 130399 September 20, 2001 - PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT v. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA

  • G.R. Nos. 135068-72 September 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 137674 September 20, 2001 - WILLIAM GO KIM HUY v. SANTIAGO GO KIM HUY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139410 September 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SILVERIO AGUERO

  • G.R. No. 140898 September 20, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE ISHIKAWA AMBA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1289 September 21, 2001 - JUDGE NAPOLEON S. DIAMANTE v. ANTHONY A. ALAMBRA

  • G.R. Nos. 119609-10 September 21, 2001 - PCGG v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128876 September 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANOLITO FELIZAR y CAPULI

  • G.R. No. 132384 September 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARLON GADIA

  • G.R. No. 134596 September 21, 2001 - RAYMUND ARDONIO v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 142889 September 21, 2001 - EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 145416 September 21, 2001 - GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION v. SY CHUAN

  • A.M. No. 99-6-79-MTC September 24, 2001 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

  • A.M. No. P-01-1512 September 24, 2001 - TERESITA H. ZIPAGAN v. JOVENCIO N. TATTAO

  • G.R. Nos. 132442-44 September 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERNARDINO ARANZADO

  • G.R. Nos. 135524-25 September 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANOLITO AGUSTIN

  • G.R. No. 141897 September 24, 2001 - METRO CONSTRUCTION v. CHATHAM PROPERTIES

  • G.R. No. 144404 September 24, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEODEGARIO BASCUGUIN Y AGQUIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 127759-60 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PO3 NOEL FELICIANO

  • G.R. Nos. 134527-28 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SERAPIO REY alias APIONG

  • G.R. Nos. 136867-68 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO GALVEZ y JEREZ

  • G.R. No. 137612 September 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCISCO ANTINERO BERIARMENTE

  • A.C. No. 4497 September 26, 2001 - MR. and MRS. VENUSTIANO G. SABURNIDO v. ATTY. FLORANTE E. MADROÑO

  • A.C. No. 4990 September 26, 2001 - ELENA ZARATE-BUSTAMANTE and LEONORA SAVET CATABIAN v. ATTY. FLORENTINO G. LIBATIQUE

  • G.R. No. 122824 September 26, 2001 - AURORA F. IGNACIO v. VALERIANO BASILIO,

  • G.R. No. 123058 September 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NAPUD, JR.

  • G.R. No. 129107 September 26, 2001 - ALFONSO L. IRINGAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS , ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129530-31 September 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILFREDO OLARTE

  • G.R. Nos. 138308-10 September 26, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 142564 September 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HILGEM NERIO y GIGANTO

  • G.R. Nos. 143108-09 September 26, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Case. No. 5505 September 27, 2001 - SEVERINO RAMOS v. ATTY. ELLIS JACOBA and ATTY. OLIVIA VELASCO JACOBA

  • G.R. No. 131864-65 September 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN and JOSE PRECIOSO

  • G.R. Nos. 134963-64 September 27, 2001 - ALFREDO LONG and FELIX ALMERIA v. LYDIA BASA

  • G.R. No. 137676 September 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ATTY. ROBERTO DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. 144035 September 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE M. BASQUEZ

  • A.M. No. P-00-1391 September 28, 2001 - LIBRADA D. TORRES v. NELSON C. CABESUELA

  • G.R. No. 122425 September 28, 2001 - FLORDELIZA H. CABUHAT v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 124535 September 28, 2001 - THE RURAL BANK OF LIPA CITY, ET AL. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125154 September 28, 2001 - DIGNA VERGEL v. COURT OF APPEALS and DOROTEA-TAMISIN GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 125442 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERNANDO ARELLANO y ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 127232 September 28, 2001 - GOLDENROD v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PATHFINDER HOLDINGS (PHILIPPINES)

  • G.R. No. 127241 September 28, 2001 - LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE, ET AL. v. NLRC , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134128 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERARDO DE LAS ERAS y ZAFRA

  • G.R. No. 134928 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FILOMENO BARNUEVO. ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140789-92 September 28, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALIPIO CARBONELL and DIONISIO CARBONELL

  • G.R. No. 145371 September 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BEN AQUINO and ROMEO AQUINO

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. 138308-10   September 26, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLO SANTOS

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. Nos. 138308-10. September 26, 2001.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLO SANTOS, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    These cases are here on automatic review from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Palayan City, finding accused-appellant guilty of three counts of rape and sentencing him to death for each count of the crime and ordering him to pay complainant Maricel Santos y Gallema P50,000.00 as compensatory damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Three separate informations were filed against accused-appellant which are similarly worded except with reference to the dates of the commission of the crimes, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about the 12th day of August, 1995, 2 at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, in Barangay San Vicente, Municipality of Laur, Province of Nueva Ecija and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, [through] force and intimidation and taking advantage of nighttime, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his daughter, Maricel Santos, fourteen years of age, against her will and to her damage and prejudice.

    "CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged, whereupon the cases were consolidated and jointly tried.

    The prosecution presented evidence showing the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Maricel Santos is the oldest of three daughters of accused appellant Pablo Santos and Anastacia Santos y Gallema. In 1993, Anastacia went to Abu Dhabi to work as a domestic helper, leaving her three daughters to the care of Accused-Appellant. 3 She came home for a vacation sometime in July and stayed here up to September 5, 1995. 4

    Late in the evening of August 12, 1995, Maricel, then 14 years old, was sitting on a "bangkito" outside the room where she and her sisters usually slept on the second story of their house. She saw her father, herein accused-appellant, come upstairs. Suddenly, Accused-appellant embraced Maricel and kissed her on the lips and neck while touching her private parts. Maricel struggled as she pleaded with her father "Huwag po, huwag po." ("Please don’t, please don’t.") But accused-appellant did not heed her pleas. He laid her on the floor, undressed her, and then went on top of her. Maricel tried to push accused-appellant away but he threatened to kill her if she persisted in doing so. Maricel could not remember how long accused-appellant lay on top of her but she felt pain and her vagina bled as accused-appellant succeeded in raping her. She continued to plead with her father, "Huwag po, huwag po" ("Please don’t, please don’t") but her pleas fell on deaf ears. After accused-appellant was through, Accused-appellant left and went to sleep in another part of the house, but not after he had warned Maricel that he would kill her if she told anyone what had happened that night. At the time of the incident, only Maricel and her two younger sisters, Mary Rose and Malou, who were both asleep inside their room, were in their house. The records do not show the whereabouts that night of Maricel’s mother, who was then spending her vacation in the country.

    Knowing accused-appellant’s bad temper and having been warned not to tell anybody what accused-appellant had done to her, Maricel kept her silence. However, her ordeal on August 12, 1995 was not the last. It was repeated one evening in September 1995. While Maricel was watching television, Accused-appellant embraced and kissed her. As accused-appellant started to remove her clothing, Maricel pleaded with his father, but, like the first time, Accused-appellant was unmoved by his daughter’s pleas as he succeeded in raping her.

    Accused-appellant raped Maricel for the third time late in the evening of December 18, 1995. That night, as Maricel lay asleep beside her two sisters inside their room, she was suddenly awakened when accused-appellant lay beside her. Accused-appellant embraced and kissed her and then forced himself on her. She resisted but she was slapped by accused-appellant several times so that eventually she gave up. 5

    The following day, December 19, 1995, Maricel decided to report the matter as she could no longer endure her suffering at the hands of Accused-Appellant. On that day, Accused-appellant kicked her. Maricel asked her younger sister, Mary Rose, to call their maternal grandmother, Carmen Gallema, so that she could tell the latter about her ordeal. Maricel met Carmen in front of the house of another daughter of Carmen. Maricel tearfully told her grandmother, "Inang, binaboy po ako ni Tatay." ("Inang, Father raped me.") Carmen took immediate action. She asked someone to fetch accused-appellant’s parents in Bulacan so that they could take him home because she feared that her sons would kill him for what he had done to Maricel. Carmen took Maricel and her two sisters into her custody after accused-appellant was taken to Bulacan by his parents. 6

    On January 2, 1996, Carmen and Maricel reported the rapes to the police of the Municipality of Laur. 7 Maricel wrote Anastacia in Abu Dhabi to tell her about the incident. As her mother wanted, Maricel filed criminal charges against Accused-Appellant.

    On January 2, 1996, Maricel was examined by Dr. Felimon Veneracion, the Rural Health Physician of the municipality. Dr. Veneracion did not find any sign of physical injury on Maricel’s body. He concluded, however, that Maricel was no longer a virgin because of the presence of an old healed laceration on her hymen at the 3 o’clock position. 8 He explained that generally there are several causes for hymenal lacerations, such as the insertion of a hard blunt object in the vagina, like an erect penis. Although he could not estimate the time when the laceration was inflicted, considering Maricel’s disclosure and the interval between the time of examination and the dates of the alleged commission of the crimes, Dr. Veneracion said that it was possible that the laceration was caused by sexual abuse. 9

    Accused-appellant denied the allegations against him. He claimed that Carmen, his mother-in-law, fabricated the rape charges against him so that she would receive the monthly remittances of P3,000.00 which his wife, Anastacia, was sending from Saudi Arabia. He testified that Carmen had always disapproved of him because of his bad temper when drunk and that she resented him more when Anastacia had to work abroad to support their family. He claimed that since August 1995 Carmen had been trying to cause their separation as husband and wife. On the other hand, Accused-appellant claimed that Maricel was sore at him because he reprimanded her when he caught her writing a love letter to a boyfriend and because, on December 19, 1995, he kicked her for ignoring his question as to why she was sitting in their backyard with her head resting on her hand ("nakatalungko"). 10 According to accused-appellant, it was impossible for him to have raped Maricel on August 12, 1995 and in September of that year because his wife, Anastacia, was then home from her work abroad at that time." 11

    On March 23, 1999, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Pablo Santos, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of multiple rape committed on August 12, 1995, September, 1995 and December 18, 1995 upon his own daughter, Maricel Santos, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH for each of the three offenses in Criminal Case Nos. 0673-P, 0674-P, and 0675-P; to indemnify the private offended party in the amount of P50,000.00 as compensatory damages; the further amounts of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages and P30,000.00 by way of exemplary damages. The accused is further ordered to pay the costs of the suits in all these cases." 12

    Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant makes the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE APPELLANT FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE AND/OR REASONABLE DOUBT.

    "II. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANT TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF DEATH FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CRIMINAL CASES."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Accused-appellant argues that Maricel’s claim is belied by the medical report, which shows that there was no sign of physical injuries found on her body, and by the delay in reporting the crime which, he says, is inconsistent with "the natural reaction of an outraged maiden despoiled of her honor." He contends that the fact it was Carmen Gallema, his mother-in-law, who accompanied and assisted complainant in filing the criminal complaints in this case shows that Carmen merely trumped up the rape charges against him.

    After due consideration of the evidence in this case, we find no reason for reversing accused-appellant’s conviction.

    The fact that no physical injuries were found on complainant’s body and that she did not report the first rape until two months after its occurrence do not render complainant’s testimony incredible. It is settled that the absence of physical injuries does not negate a claim of sexual abuse. 13 Moreover, the only instance of physical violence by accused-appellant on the occasion of the rapes was when he slapped Maricel on December 18, 1995. Considering the two weeks which lapsed from that time and the time Maricel was examined, no sign of physical injuries on Maricel’s body could be expected. But the examination did reveal an old hymenal laceration which the physician said could have been caused by penile penetration. 14

    Nor is the delay in reporting the rapes proof that they had not been committed. Complainant had been threatened by her father with death if she reported the matter to the authorities. Indeed, in incestuous rape, the rapist employs psychological terror, which makes the victim submit to repeated acts of abuse over a period of time, rather than physical violence. The rapist takes advantage of his blood relationship, proximity, ascendancy, and influence over his victim both to commit the rape and to silence the victim. 15 The child is thus rendered helpless. In the case of older children, they understand the implications for the family once the abuse is reported: possible imprisonment of the perpetrator who may be the sole breadwinner of the family, stigmatization, shame, and the possibility that their families may hold them responsible for all these. For this reason, young girls often conceal their ordeal for as long as they can endure, which could extend even for 10 years, 16 especially when threatened with harm. 17

    It is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of behavior among rape victims. 18 Rape is both a physical and emotional assault on the victim causing her tremendous mental stress. Hence, the reaction, and even the coping behavior, of rape victims varies. 19 Maricel’s silence is understandable because accused-appellant is known for his violent temper, especially when drunk. Accused-appellant himself admitted, "Nakita po nila na barumbado po ako noon." ("They saw that I was a violent man then.") 20 Maricel thus had reason to fear her father.

    On the other hand, save for his bare assertion that Carmen had always disapproved of him and that she had been trying to break his marriage with Anastacia, Accused-appellant had not presented any concrete evidence to prove Carmen’s alleged ill will toward him. Carmen, who was presented both as a prosecution witness and as a hostile witness for the defense, denied accused-appellant’s allegations and claimed that she had always counseled her daughter to preserve her marriage with accused-appellant because marriage is a sacred institution. 21 If she did not trust accused-appellant, she would not have allowed her granddaughters, then all of tender age, to stay with him after their mother Anastacia had left to work abroad in 1993.

    Be that as it may, we find it hard to believe that a grandmother would expose her teenage granddaughter to the humiliation and stigma of a rape trial simply because of her hatred for her son-in-law 22 or her desire to get the P3,000.00 monthly remittance her daughter was sending from abroad.

    Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological and social toll. 23 On top of the humiliation of a trial and life-long stigmatization resulting from the experience, the victims and their families must deal with a crisis that goes to the very core of familial integrity. We do not think a daughter like Maricel would have sought the prosecution of her father and the imposition on him of the supreme penalty of death had it not been for her desire to seek justice. As the trial court observed, Maricel’s testimony was clear, straightforward, candid, and innocent. 24 We find no reason to doubt the correctness of the trial court’s assessment of the evidence of the prosecution and the defense.

    Coming now to the penalty, to justify the imposition of death in incestuous rape, both the relationship of the victim with the rapist and her minority must be alleged and proven by the prosecution. 25 In these cases, the three informations alleged the presence of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority and these allegations were duly proven in the trial. The birth certificate of Maricel 26 states that she was born on April 15, 1981. Thus, on the dates she was raped by accused-appellant, Maricel was only 14 years old and, therefore, a minor. Moreover, it states that accused-appellant is her father and the latter admitted that Maricel is his daughter. Hence, the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty.

    Four (4) members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People v. Echegaray 27 that R.A. No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death, is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.

    However, the award of damages to complainant should be revised. The trial court’s award of P50,000.00 to complainant as civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00 in accordance with current case law. 28 The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is correct it being assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries as a result of the rape. 29 On the other hand, the award of exemplary damages, which is granted in the case of incestuous rape because of the presence of aggravating circumstances, should be reduced to P25,000.00 in line with current rulings. 30 Moreover, these items of damages should be awarded in favor of the complainant for each count of rape.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Palayan City, finding accused-appellant guilty of three counts of rape, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay complainant Maricel Santos, for each count of rape, the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

    In accordance with Section 25 of R.A. No. 7659, amending Art. 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon the finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the President of the Philippines for the possible exercise of the pardoning power.

    SO ORDERED.

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

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Judge Erlinda Pestaño Buted.

    2. Crim. Case No. 0673-P. In Crim. Case No. 0674-P, the crime was allegedly committed on December 18, 1995 and in Crim. Case No. 0675-P, some time in September 1995.

    3. TSN (Maricel Santos) April 7, 1997, p. 5; TSN (Carmen Gallema), April 23, 1996, pp. 6-7.

    4. TSN (Carmen Gallema), Sept. 21, 1998, p. 3.

    5. TSN (Maricel Santos), April 7,1997, pp. 7-14; TSN (Maricel Santos), July 14,1997, p. 5.

    6. TSN (Carmen Gallema), April 23, 1996, pp. 7-10.

    7. TSN (SPO2 Bienvenido Carse), April 7, 1997, p. 3; TSN (SPO2 Bienvenido Carse), July 1, 1997, pp. 2-3; Exh. E (Photocopy of Police Blotter); Exh. F (Investigation Report).

    8. Exh. "B" (Medical Certificate).

    9. TSN (Dr. Felimon Veneracion), February 10, 1997, pp. 4, 7, 9-11.

    10. TSN (Pablo Santos), August 3, 1998, pp. 6-10.

    11. Id., pp. 4-5.

    12. Rollo, p. 39

    13. People v. Bohol, G.R. Nos. 141712-13, August 22, 2001.

    14. People v. Segui, G.R. No. 131532-34, November 28, 2000; People v. Sancha, 324 SCRA 646 (2000).

    15. People v. Melivo, 253 SCRA 347 (1996).

    16. E.g., People v. Sandico, 307 SCRA 204 (1999).

    17. People v. Segui, G.R. Nos. 131532-34, November 28, 2000.

    18. People v. Bali-balita, G.R. No. 134266, September 15, 2000.

    19. People v. Patriarca, 319 SCRA 87 (1999).

    20. TSN (Pablo Santos), August 31, 1998, p. 3.

    21. TSN (Cross-examination of Carmen Gallema), April 23, 1996, p. 22.

    22. E.g., People v. Obejas, 229 SCRA 549 (1994),

    23. People v. dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 131167-68, August 23, 2000.

    24. Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p.37.

    25. People v. Elpedes, G.R. Nos. 137106-07, January 31, 2001; People v. Segui, G.R. Nos. 131532-34, Nov. 28, 2000.

    26. Exh. "A."cralaw virtua1aw library

    27. 267 SCRA 682 (1997).

    28. People v. Brondial, G.R. No. 135517, October 18, 2000.

    29. People v. Segui, G.R. Nos. 131532-34, November 28, 2000.

    30. People v. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001; People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001.

    G.R. Nos. 138308-10   September 26, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLO SANTOS


    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