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
 

   
June-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 125297 June 6, 2003 - ELVIRA YU OH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143675 June 9, 2003 - SPS. ROMEO and EMILY GUDA v. ALAN A. LEYNES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145338 June 9, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY P. LABIANO

  • A.C. No. 4738 June 10, 2003 - VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG v. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA

  • Bar Matter No. 1036 June 10, 2003 - DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE v. EDWIN L. RANA

  • A.M. No. 99-6-81-MTCC June 10, 2003 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTCC OF PALAYAN CITY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203 June 10, 2003 - NELIA A. ZIGA v. RAMON A. AREJOLA

  • A.M. No. P-96-1214 June 10, 2003 - BERNARDINO M. FABIAN, ET AL. v. LEILA (LAILA) M. GALO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1751 June 10, 2003 - ANDREA D. DOMINGO v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

  • G.R. No. 111159 June 10, 2003 - NORDIC ASIA LIMITED, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116463 June 10, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. thru the DPWH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119293 June 10, 2003 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123054 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO B. OBEDO

  • G.R. No. 125778 June 10, 2003 - INTER-ASIA INVESTMENTS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125838 June 10, 2003 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126281 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO A. CARATAO

  • G.R. No. 131842 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO JACKSON

  • G.R. No. 139561 June 10, 2003 - SPS. FEDERICO & SARAH ATUEL, ET AL. v. SPS. BERNABE & CONCHITA VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 141115 June 10, 2003 - POSADAS-MOYA and ASSOC. CONST. CO. v. GREENFIELD DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142467 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO DE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143076 June 10, 2003 - PHILIPPINE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. SECRETARY, DILG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143125 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL .vs. DIOSDADO R. CORIAL

  • G.R. No. 144157 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOWELL SALUDES

  • G.R. Nos. 144523-26 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO QUIJANO SR.

  • G.R. Nos. 145452-53 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY CARITATIVO

  • G.R. Nos. 146749 & 147938 June 10, 2003 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 149154 June 10, 2003 - RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 150611 June 10, 2003 - JACINTO SAGUID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153660 June 10, 2003 - PRUDENCIO BANTOLINO, ET AL. v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1724 June 12, 2003 - RODOLFO O. MACACHOR v. ROLINDO D. BELDIA JR.

  • G.R. No. 138541 June 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LARRY COLONIA

  • G.R. No. 148327 June 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO P. DESALISA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1679 June 16, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. BEL EDUARDO F. NITAFAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. SCC-03-08 June 16, 2003 - ERMELYN A. LIMBONA v. CASAN ALI LIMBONA

  • G.R. No. 95901 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO B. SIBONGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138692 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR AREO

  • G.R. Nos. 141280-81 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY L. SODSOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144589 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO PACUANCUAN

  • G.R. No. 149683 June 16, 2003 - ILOILO TRADERS FINANCE INC. v. HEIRS OF OSCAR SORIANO JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149750 June 16, 2003 - AURORA ALCANTARA-DAUS v. SPS. HERMOSO & SOCORRO DE LEON

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1106 June 17, 2003 - CELESTINA B. CORPUZ v. ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1710 June 17, 2003 - EVANGELINA C. SAMSON v. JULES A. MEDIA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1784 June 17, 2003 - MANUEL M. ROSALES v. ROMULO S.G. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123146 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALONA BULI-E, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128225 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE A. NARRA

  • G.R. No. 137042 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE MUSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144225 June 17, 2003 - SPS. GODOFREDO and CARMEN ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO and ADELIA BORRAS

  • G.R. No. 145993 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO I. MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 148668 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TONY L. PEDRONAN

  • G.R. No. 151440 June 17, 2003 - HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO SANTIAGO v. HEIRS OF MARIANO E. SANTIAGO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1493 June 18, 2003 - RENE BOY GOMEZ v. MANUEL D. PATALINGHUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123161 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO SOLAMILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125305 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. Nos. 127756-58 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. MEDINA SR.

  • G.R. Nos. 131926 & 138991 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134981 June 18, 2003 - FREDELITO P. VITTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135857 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO ARCA

  • G.R. Nos. 140439-40 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX HERMOSA

  • G.R. No. 144975 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR SAPIGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149147 June 18, 2003 - FELIX BAROT v. COMELEC CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF TANJAY CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150327 June 18, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARILYN A. PERALTA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 01-6-314-RTC June 19, 2003 - RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA, RTC-BR. 59, SAN CARLOS CITY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-92-710 June 19, 2003 - PEDRITA M. HARAYO v. JUDGE MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • G.R. No. 154411 June 19, 2003 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1701 June 20, 2003 - BALTAZAR LL. FIRMALO v. MELINDA C. QUIERREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1594 June 20, 2003 - PASTOR SALUD v. FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

  • G.R. No. 122766 June 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ESPONILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127275 June 20, 2003 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130759 June 20, 2003 - ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CONCEPTS TRADING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 139332 June 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NOLI A. NOVIO

  • G.R. No. 140698 June 20, 2003 - ROGELIO ENGADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142503 June 20, 2003 - ROMUALDO C. PEREZ v. APOLONIO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 142820 June 20, 2003 - WOLFGANG O. ROEHR v. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143604 June 20, 2003 - PRISCO LANZADERAS, ET AL. v. AMETHYST SECURITY AND GENERAL SERVICES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146595 June 20, 2003 - CARLO A. TAN v. KAAKBAY FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152436 June 20, 2003 - NPC v. SPS. IGMEDIO CHIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152766 June 20, 2003 - LILIA SANCHEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140872 June 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO T. INGGO

  • G.R. Nos. 142683-84 June 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO JOROLAN

  • G.R. Nos. 143760-63 June 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. MANLUCTAO

  • G.R. No. 144018 June 23, 2003 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. v. TOMAS TOH, SR., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3849 June 25, 2003 - FELICIDAD VDA. DE BERNARDO v. JOSE R. RESTAURO

  • G.R. Nos. 105416-17, 111863 & 143715 June 25, 2003 - PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122109 June 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TORIO

  • G.R. No. 123896 June 25, 2003 - ROSALINDA SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126113 June 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO B. GUIHAMA

  • G.R. No. 135323 June 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDELMA LAGATA

  • G.R. No. 136773 June 25, 2003 - MILAGROS MANONGSONG v. FELOMENA JUMAQUIO ESTIMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146018 June 25, 2003 - EDGAR COKALIONG SHIPPING LINES v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147613 June 25, 2003 - ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1472 June 26, 2003 - ADRIANO V. ALBIOR v. DONATO A. AUGUIS

  • A.M. No. P-02-1544 June 26, 2003 - ERNESTO LUMANTA v. WILFREDO M. TUPAS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1670 June 26, 2003 - SPS. CAROLINA AND VILLAMOR GRAGERA v. PABLO B. FRANCISCO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1736 June 26, 2003 - SPS. ARTURO and JOSEFINA DE GUZMAN v. FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 June 26, 2003 - GREGORIO LIMPOT LUMAPAS v. CAMILO E. TAMIN

  • G.R. No. 137296 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO Q. VICENTE

  • G.R. No. 140967 June 26, 2003 - EMERITA ACOSTA v. EMILIO ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 141863 June 26, 2003 - BASILIO RIVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144090 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL S. MAGUING

  • G.R. No. 145305 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REDANTE C. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 145731 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO GERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148730 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE D. DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154705 June 26, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, ET AL. v. JAMES VINZON

  • G.R. No. 121828 June 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE GAYOT PILOLA

  • G.R. Nos. 124830-31 June 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO P. EVINA

  • G.R. No. 138993 June 27, 2003 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 139217–24 June 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON ESPERANZA

  • G.R. No. 143643 June 27, 2003 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. JOSE & MA. CLARA CAMPOS

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. 144523-26   June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO QUIJANO SR.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. Nos. 144523-26. June 10, 2003.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FLORENTINO QUIJANO, SR., Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    To prove the commission of rape, the prosecution must establish facts that clearly show all the elements of the crime. Testimonies that the complainant was "abused" or "raped" are insufficient, because these are mere conclusions. Witnesses testify on what the facts are; judges, on the other hand, draw conclusions or judgments from the established facts.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Case


    For automatic review before this Court is the June 21, 2000 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union (Branch 67) in Criminal Case Nos. 2261–2264, finding Florentino Quijano Sr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape. The decretal portion of the Decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "a) finding the accused, Florentino Quijano, Sr. guilty of the crime of Rape beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2261;

    "b) finding the accused, Florentino Quijano, Sr. guilty of the crime of Rape beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2262;

    "c) finding the accused, Florentino Quijano, Sr. guilty of the crime of Rape beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2263;

    "d) finding the accused, Florentino Quijano, Sr. guilty of the crime of Rape beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2264;

    "e) hereby sentencing Florentino Quijano, Sr. the penalty of death in each count;

    "f) ordering Florentino Quijano, Sr. to indemnify Leah Quijano in the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and

    "g) ordering Florentino Quijano, Sr. to indemnify Leah Quijano the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of rape." 2

    Four similarly worded Informations 3 charged appellant with rape as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about and sometime in 1994, in the Municipality of Bauang, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force and intimidation and actuated by lust, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his daughter LEAH QUIJANO an 18 year old girl against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party." 4

    With the assistance of his counsel, 5 appellant pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on October 13, 1999. In due course, he was tried and convicted of four counts of qualified rape.

    The Facts


    Version of the Prosecution

    The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarizes the evidence for the prosecution in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "At the time she testified in 2000, Leah Quijano (private complainant, for brevity) was 18 years old.

    "From 1994 to 1996, private complainant was residing in Acao, Bauang, La Union with her mother Lucia, sister Florita, and eight (8) brothers. During this period, private complainant was abused more or less five times a week in the single bedroom of their house by her father, Florentino Quijano, Sr.

    "Private complainant told her mother that appellant repeatedly ravished her, but the latter was not able to do anything since she was afraid of him. Even her brothers and her sister Florita knew of the incidents of rape. She noted that there were times when Florita and her brothers were about to enter the room, appellant and private complainant had just left and private complainant was crying.

    "Private complainant did not inform other people about the repeated sexual abuse by her father for fear of appellant. When the incidents of rape took place, . . . Lucia was at the market, Florita was working, while her brothers were sent out by her father. Appellant would pull private complainant who could not resist because of fear. Every time she was abused by appellant, private complainant just cried. During the times when Florita was at home, she noted that ‘everytime (private complainant) went out from the room, she was crying and she (Florita) asked her and she (private complainant) confided to (Florita) that she (private complainant) was raped by (appellant).’

    "The last rape incident occurred on May 28, 1999 when appellant abused private complainant on the wooden bed in their room. Florita, who was herself abused by appellant, escaped from their residence and went to Philex, San Fernando City, where she worked. On June 12, 1999, private complainant followed her.

    "Florita confided the rape incidents involving private complainant to her co-workers who convinced her to file a case. With the help of a neighbor from Acao, Bauang, La Union, the incidents were reported to the police.

    "Dr. Anne Nerissa S. Sanchez, a[n] obstetrician-gynecologist, examined private complainant at the Ilocos Training and Medical Center. Dr. Sanchez embodied her findings in a Medical Certificate which reads, in part:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘PELVIC EXAMINATION:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘Genitalia: . . .

    ‘Hymen — with incomplete, healed laceration at the 10 & 2 o’clock positions.’" 6

    Version of the Defense

    Appellant relates his version of the facts in this manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "For the defense, the accused was presented to testify and the following were adduced from his testimony, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Florentino Quijano, Sr., 49 years old, married[,] welder and a resident of Baccuit Sur, Bauang La Union. He testified that there is no truth to the charges of four (4) counts of Rape filed by his daughter Leah against him. In the whole year of 1994, he was with his family at Acao, Bauang, La Union . . . there was no complaint or rape case filed against him as far as he can recall. In said year, his daughter Leah remains in their residence. She was still studying at that time and is free from leaving their residence anytime she wants to. In the year 1994, there was no instance wherein he quarreled with his wife nor any unusual incident that happened in their residence. He usually leave their residence for work at 7:00 o’clock in the morning and arrives at 7:00 o’clock in the evening and usually watched TV at night. In the succeeding years up to 1998, nothing unusual happened nor was there any complaint for rape filed against him by his daughter and during all those years from 1994 to 1998, there was no problem in the family and their relationship was harmonious.

    "Accused further testified that in the year 1999 specifically on May 28, 1999, he was working with the B & J Angeles Lumber, [he left] their house at 7:00 o’clock in the morning and arrived home at 9:00 o’clock in the evening because he had an overtime work. When he arrived at home, his family (wife and children) were there. There was no unusual incident that happened particularly in the night of May 28, 1999. It was only when he was arrested on June 22, 1999 that he learned of the four (4) counts of rape filed by [his] daughter against him.

    "He further testified that between May 28 to June 22, 1999, [his] daughter Leah asked permission from his wife to attend a dance party and never came back. They looked for her but to no avail, but he was told by his wife that Leah might have gone to her elder sister’s place who was boarding then at San Fernando City. There was no truth to the allegations of his daughter Leah when she testified that he began raping her when she was still only seven (7) years old, because at that time he was assigned to different places. There is no truth also that he raped his other daughter Florita because she grew up with her grandmother and stayed with them only when she was already in high school. There is no truth as to the testimony of his wife that she was afraid of him because for all those twenty five (25) years that they have been living together, he never laid his hands on her. He denied having done those four (4) cases of rape filed against him. He does not know of any reason why his daughter filed those cases against him, except that he was very strict that he does not allow his daughter to attend dance parties and gatherings and another was that when Leah asked him that she wants to continue her studies and enroll in Hotel Restaurant Management, he told her to enroll the following year as he could not afford to send her to school, and he believed that some friends of his daughter might have coached her to file these cases against him." 7

    Ruling of the Trial Court

    The RTC found no indication of falsehood in the testimony of Leah Quijano. Although her allegations of sexual abuse lacked details, the trial court held that this deficiency did not destroy her credibility. It ruled that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies of complainant, her sister and her mother; as well as by the results of her physical examination.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Hence, this automatic review before us. 8

    The Issues


    Appellant assigns the following errors for our consideration:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    "I


    The trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty of four (4) counts of rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 2261, 2262, 2263 and 2264 despite the fact that the evidence presented by the prosecution are insufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

    "II


    The trial court erred in sentencing accused-appellant to death for the crime charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 2261, 2262, 2263 and 2264." 9

    In sum, the main issue is whether the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    The Court’s Ruling


    The appeal is meritorious; the prosecution evidence is sorely insufficient to inspire moral certainty.

    Main Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sufficiency of the Prosecution’s Evidence

    Rape is committed when carnal knowledge of a woman is obtained under any of the following circumstances: (1) when force or intimidation is used, (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious, or (3) when she is under twelve years of age. 10 Moreover, "under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, . . . actual penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ is required as an element of rape. This penetration constitutes carnal knowledge, which is synonymous with sexual intercourse." 11

    The prosecution has the burden of establishing the presence of each of the elements of the crime charged. This responsibility it failed to discharge in the present case. On record are merely the following pieces of evidence: (1) the victim’s conclusion that she was "raped," 12 (2) the testimony of her mother and her sister that she was "abused," and (3) the medical finding that she had incomplete healed lacerations on her hymen. Whether taken singly or collectively, the foregoing circumstances do not prove rape beyond moral certainty.

    Undoubtedly, "carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse is a must-element in the crime of rape." 13 In the case at bar, carnal knowledge between Leah and appellant was not established. The prosecution’s evidence referred to some kind of abuse. But as to which kind she suffered is not clear.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On direct examination, she merely testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q In 1994, where were you residing then?

    A In Acao, Bauang, La Union, sir.

    Q And who were your companions residing in Acao, Bauang, La Union?

    A My family, sir.

    Q And will you tell us who specifically among you in the family who were in Acao, Bauang, in 1994?

    A My mother, sister and my brothers, sir.

    Q All your brothers are residing there with you?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q In what part of 1994 did you reside in Acao, Bauang?

    A I cannot remember, sir.

    Q Up to when did you reside in Acao, Bauang, La Union?

    A In 1996, sir.

    Q And while you were in Acao, Bauang, La Union, in 1994, how many times were you abused by your father?

    A Many times, sir.

    Q In a week, how many times more or less?

    A Five times, sir.

    Q And when did this [abuse] take place, what specific time of the day and night?

    A In the morning or in the afternoon, sir.

    Q And where did your father [abuse] you in this time of the day?

    A In our bedroom, sir.

    Q How many rooms does your house where you were staying in Acao have?

    A One room only, sir.

    Q At that time your father is allegedly abusing you in the house where you were residing, where is your mother?

    A She is in the market, sir.

    Q How about your brothers and sister, where are they at that time you were abused by your father?

    A My sister was working and my brothers were sent out by my father.

    Q You mentioned that you have been abused by your father since you were seven (7) years old up to sometime in May 1999 do you know if your mother was aware what your father was doing . . . to you?

    A Yes, I was telling her." 14

    Even her mother and sister failed to elaborate on the alleged "abuse." Carnal knowledge cannot be sufficiently inferred from their paltry testimonies, which utterly failed to spell out exactly how appellant had abused complainant. Seemingly, the prosecution left it to the court’s imagination to supply the vital details.

    A conviction cannot be made to rest on imagination. The Constitution requires moral certainty or proof beyond reasonable doubt. The scant evidence on record cannot justify a leap to the conclusion that the "abuse" appellant perpetrated on Leah amounted to carnal knowledge under any of the three circumstances specified in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

    Admittedly, at the beginning of her direct testimony, she claimed to have been "raped" by appellant. However, what she meant when she used the word "raped" is not clear. In her Affidavit, she stated that when she was seven years old, her father had merely inserted his fingers into her vagina; 15 and when she was twelve, his penis. In court, however, she claimed that he started "raping" her when she was seven years old.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Hence, it is unclear whether Leah used the word rape in the same context as it was used in Article 335 16 of the Revised Penal Code — carnal knowledge with force or intimidation — or with a different meaning in mind. In 1994, inserting one or more fingers into a woman’s vagina without her consent was not yet considered as rape. It was only in 1997 that the law on rape was expanded to include such act.

    Furthermore," [a] witness is not permitted to testify as to a conclusion of law." 17 Whether or not complainant was raped by appellant is the issue in this case. This question must be decided by the judge — not by Leah, her mother or her sister. As it is, she cannot foist on him her own conclusion that she was "raped."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Complainant’s incompletely healed hymenal lacerations were likewise insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of carnal knowledge. As admitted by the examining physician, such lacerations could have also been caused by the passing of blood clots during menstruation, 18 not necessarily by sexual intercourse.

    The defense of denial proffered by appellant is not convincing. Nevertheless, considering that he is the accused and not the prosecutor, we do not see what else he could have posed during the trial beyond a mere denial. It was not for him, but for the prosecution, to prove that he did not rape his daughter. "It is settled jurisprudence that in criminal cases the prosecution has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat, i.e., he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove." 19

    The Court does not guarantee that appellant did not rape his daughter. He may have done so, but the evidence on hand does not prove the charge beyond moral certainty. Hence, the Court has no choice but to acquit him on reasonable doubt. This recourse is required by the Constitution, which presumes that the appellant is innocent unless proven otherwise. The prosecution miserably failed to overturn this presumption of innocence.

    WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED and the assailed Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Florentino Quijano Sr. is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. The director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause; and to inform the Court of the date of appellant’s release, or the reasons for his continued confinement, within ten days from notice.

    No pronouncement as to costs.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Judge Jose G. Paneda.

    2. Assailed Decision, pp. 20–21; rollo, pp. 51–52.

    3. All signed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Maryfrances F. Maliaman.

    4. Criminal Case No. 2261, rollo, p. 12; Criminal Case No. 2262, id., p. 13; Criminal Case No. 2263, id., p. 14; Criminal Case No. 2264, id., p. 15. All the Informations were dated August 26, 1999.

    5. Atty. Marilyn E. Hidalgo.

    6. Appellee’s Brief, pp. 5–8; rollo, pp. 128–131; Citations omitted. Signed by Solicitor General Simeon V. Marcelo, Assistant Solicitor General Nestor J. Ballacillo and Solicitor Tomas M. Navarro.

    7. Appellant’s Brief, pp. 8–10; rollo, pp. 74–76; Citations omitted. Signed by Atty. Pedro B. Baguilat Jr. of the Public Attorney’s Office.

    8. This case was deemed submitted for resolution on March 22, 2002, upon receipt by this Court of appellee’s Brief. Appellant’s Brief was filed with this Court on September 5, 2001. No reply brief was submitted.

    9. Appellant’s Brief, p. 1; rollo, pp. 67–68. Original in upper case.

    10. People v. Gaorana, 289 SCRA 652, April 27, 1998; People v. Pili, 351 Phil. 1046, April 15, 1998.

    11. People v. Masalihit, 360 Phil. 332, 342, December 14, 1998, per Bellosillo, J.

    12. TSN, February 8, 2000, p. 3.

    13. People v. Masalihit, supra.

    14. TSN, February 8, 2000, pp. 4–5.

    15. Records, p. 3.

    16. The law on rape in force in 1994 – the year when the rapes occurred, according to the Informations.

    17. People v. De Guzman, 333 Phil. 50, 68, December 2, 1996, per Davide Jr., J.

    18. TSN, February 29, 2000, p. 6.

    19. People v. Masalihit, supra.

    G.R. Nos. 144523-26   June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO QUIJANO SR.


    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