EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
131636
March 5, 2003
-versus-
ARTEMIO INVENCION
Y SORIANO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us for automatic
review[1]
is the Decision[2]
dated 22 September 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac, Tarlac,
Branch 65, in Criminal Case No. 9375, finding accused-appellant Artemio
Invencion y Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
committed against his 16-year-old daughter Cynthia P. Invencion, and
sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay Cynthia the sum of
P50,000
as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages, as well as the costs
of suit.
Artemio was charged
before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac with thirteen counts of rape
in separate complaints docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 9363 to 9375,
all
dated 17 October 1996. The cases were consolidated and jointly
tried.
At his arraignment Artemio entered a plea of not guilty in each case.cralaw:red
The witnesses presented
by the prosecution in its evidence in chief were Elven Invencion, Eddie
Sicat, Gloria Pagala, Dr. Rosario Fider, and Atty. Florencio
Canlas.
Presented as rebuttal witnesses were Gloria Pagala and Celestino
Navarro.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Elven Invencion, an
8-year-old grade two pupil of Sapang Tagalog Elementary School in
Tarlac,
Tarlac, testified that he is a half-brother of Cynthia and son of
Artemio
with his second common-law wife. Sometime before the end of the
school
year in 1996, while he was sleeping in one room with his father
Artemio,
Cynthia, and two other younger brothers, he was awakened by Cynthia's
loud
cries. Looking towards her, he saw his father on top of Cynthia, doing
a pumping motion. After about two minutes, his father put on his short
pants.[3]
Elven further declared
that Artemio was a very strict and cruel father and a drunkard. He
angrily
prohibited Cynthia from entertaining any of her suitors. Whenever
he was drunk, he would maul Elven and quarrel with his stepfather,
Celestino
Navarro.[4]
Eddie Sicat, a 40-year-old
farmer and neighbor of Artemio in Barangay Sapang Tagalog, Tarlac,
Tarlac,
testified that on the second week of March 1996, between 6:00 and 7:00
a.m., while he was passing by the house of Artemio on his way to the
field
to catch fish, he heard somebody crying. He then peeped through a small
opening in the destroyed portion of the sawali wall of Artemio's house.
He saw Cynthia lying on her back and crying, while her father was on
top
of her, doing a pumping motion. Eddie observed them for about fifteen
seconds,
and then he left and proceeded to the field to catch fish.[5]
He reported what he had witnessed to Artemio's stepfather, Celestino,
later
that morning.[6]
Gloria Pagala, the mother
of Cynthia and former common-law wife of Artemio, testified that she
and
Artemio started living together in Guimba, Nueva Ecija, in February
1969.
Out of their common-law relationship, they had six children, one of
whom
was Cynthia. In March 1982, she and Artemio parted ways permanently.
Later,
Gloria and her children lived in Pura, Tarlac. When Artemio's mother
died
sometime in 1996, Cynthia lived with Artemio in a small one-room
dwelling
owned by Celestino and located in Barangay Sapang Tagalog, Tarlac,
Tarlac.[7]
On 30 August 1996, her son Novelito told her that Cynthia was pregnant.
Gloria then went to the house of Artemio and asked Cynthia about her
condition.
The latter confessed that she had been sexually abused by her father.
Gloria
then went to the office of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
in
Tarlac and reported what Artemio had done to their daughter Cynthia.[8]
Dr. Rosario Fider of
Tarlac Provincial Hospital testified that she examined Cynthia on 16
September
1996. She found Cynthia to be five to six months pregnant and to
have incomplete, healed hymenal lacerations at 3, 5, 8 o'clock
positions,
which could have been caused by sexual intercourse or any foreign body
inserted in her private part.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Florencio Canlas,
an NBI agent, testified that on 18 September 1996, Cynthia, accompanied
by her mother, complained before him and NBI Supervising Agent Rolando
Vergara that she was raped by her father Artemio. She then
executed
a written statement,[10]
which she subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Canlas.[11]
The defense did not
present Artemio as a witness. Instead, his counsel de parte, Atty.
Isabelo
Salamida, took the witness stand and testified for the defense. He
declared
that on 24 June 1997 (the same day when he testified before the court),
between 10:45 and 11:00 a.m., he and his secretary went to the house of
Artemio in Barangay Sapang Tagalog. The hut was made of sawali.
Its
door was padlocked, and its windows were shut. When he went around the
house and tried to peep through the old sawali walls on the front and
left
and right sides of the hut, he could not see anything inside the room
where
Artemio and his children used to sleep. Although it was then about
noontime,
it was dark inside.[12]
Atty. Salamida then concluded that prosecution witness Eddie Sicat was
not telling the truth when he declared having seen what Artemio did to
Cynthia when he peeped through a small opening in the sawali wall of
the
house in the early morning sometime on the second week of March 1996.cralaw:red
On rebuttal, Gloria
Pagala testified that the house where Artemio used to live was a small
hut with some destroyed portions in its sawali walls. When she went
there
to visit her children sometime in December 1995, there was a hole in
front
and at the sidewall of the hut facing a vacant lot where people passed
by to fish in a nearby brook.[13]
When she went to the place again sometime in September 1996 after she
was
informed of Cynthia's pregnancy, she noticed that the destroyed
portions
of the hut's sawali walls were not yet repaired.[14]
The second rebuttal
witness Celestino Navarro, stepfather of Artemio, testified that he is
the owner of the small house where Artemio and his children used to
reside.
At the time that Artemio and his children, including Cynthia, were
living
in that house, the hut's old sawali walls had some small holes in them,
thus confirming the testimony of Eddie Sicat. After Artemio was
arrested
on the basis of Cynthia's complaint before the NBI, Celestino made some
repairs in the hut by, among other things, placing galvanized iron
sheets
to cover the holes at the destroyed portions of the sawali walls.
Thereafter,
a person named Alvin occupied the house.[15]
In its Decision of 22
September 1997, the trial court convicted Artemio in Criminal Case No.
9375. It, however, acquitted him in all the other twelve cases for lack
of evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Appellant's Brief,
Artemio contends that the trial court erred in
I
BELIEVING THE
TESTIMONIES
OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES;
II
NOT DISMISSING THIS
CASE FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE [HIS] GUILTBEYOND
REASONABLE
DOUBT.
Artemio attacks the
competency and credibility of Elven as a witness. He argues that Elven,
as his son, should have been disqualified as a witness against him
under
Section 20(c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.[16]
Besides, Elven's testimony appears not to be his but what the
prosecution
wanted him to say, as the questions asked were mostly leading
questions.
Moreover, Elven had ill-motive in testifying against him, as he
(Artemio)
was cruel to him.cralaw:red
In another attempt to
cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, Artemio
points
to the following inconsistencies in their testimonies: (1) as to the
time
of the commission of the crime, Elven testified having seen Artemio on
top of his sister one night in March 1996, while Eddie Sicat testified
having seen them in the same position between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. in the
second week of March 1996; (2) as to the residence of Cynthia in 1996,
Gloria testified that the former was living with her in Guimba from
November
1995 to September 1996, while Elven and Eddie declared that she was in
Sapang Tagalog in March 1996; and (3) as to the residence of Artemio,
Jr.,
Gloria stated that he was living with the appellant, but later she
declared
that he was living with her in Pura.cralaw:red
Artemio also argues
that since his house had no electricity and was dark even at daytime,
it
was impossible for Elven and Eddie to see him allegedly doing pumping
motion
on top of Cynthia. In his Reply Brief, he likewise urges us to
disregard
the testimonies of rebuttal witnesses Celestino and Gloria.
According
to him, Celestino had an ax to grind against him (Artemio) because he
had
been badgering Celestino for his share of the lot where the hut stands,
which was owned by Artemio's deceased mother. On the other hand,
Gloria wanted to get rid of Artemio because she was already cohabiting
with another man.cralaw:red
In the Appellee's Brief,
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) prays for the affirmation of
Artemio's conviction and sentence, but recommends that a civil
indemnity
in the amount of P75,000 be awarded in addition to the awards of moral
and exemplary damages.cralaw:red
We find no cogent reason
to overturn the findings of the trial court on the culpability of
Artemio.cralaw:red
It is doctrinally settled
that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
credibility
of the witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be
disturbed on appeal. This is so because the trial court has the
advantage
of observing the witnesses through the different indicators of
truthfulness
or falsehood, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the
sudden
pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer,
the forthright tone of a ready reply, the furtive glance, the blush of
conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack
of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, or
the
carriage and mien.[17]
This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as where there exists a fact
or circumstance of weight and influence that has been ignored or
misconstrued
by the court, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its
appreciation
of the facts.[18]
We do not find any of these exceptions in the case at bar.cralaw:red
As to the competency
of Elven to testify, we rule that such is not affected by Section 25,
Rule
130 of the Rules of Court,[19]
otherwise known as the rule on "filial privilege." This rule is
not
strictly a rule on disqualification because a descendant is not
incompetent
or disqualified to testify against an ascendant.[20]
The rule refers to a privilege not to testify, which can be invoked or
waived like other privileges. As correctly observed by the lower court,
Elven was not compelled to testify against his father; he chose to
waive
that filial privilege when he voluntarily testified against
Artemio.
Elven declared that he was testifying as a witness against his father
of
his own accord and only "to tell the truth."[21]
Neither can Artemio
challenge the prosecution's act of propounding leading questions on
Elven.
Section 10(c) of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court[22]
expressly allows leading questions when the witness is a child of
tender
years like Elven.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The alleged ulterior
motive of Elven in testifying against his father also deserves scant
consideration.
Such insinuation of ill-motive is too lame and flimsy. As observed by
the
OSG, Elven, who was of tender age, could not have subjected himself to
the ordeal of a public trial had he not been compelled by a motive
other
than to bring to justice the despoiler of his sister's virtue. There is
no indication that Elven testified because of anger or any ill-motive
against
his father, nor is there any showing that he was unduly pressured or
influenced
by his mother or by anyone to testify against his father. The rule is
that
where there is no evidence that the principal witness for the
prosecution
was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so
actuated and his testimony is entitled to full credence.[23]
We find as
inconsequential
the alleged variance or difference in the time that the rape was
committed,
i.e., during the night as testified to by Elven, or between 6:00 and
7:00
a.m. per the testimony of Eddie. The exact time or date of the
commission
of rape is not an element of the crime. What is decisive in a rape
charge
is that the commission of the rape by the accused has been sufficiently
proved. Inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters
irrelevant
to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal.[24]
In this case, we believe that the crime of rape was, indeed, committed
as testified to by Elven and Eddie.cralaw:red
The alleged inconsistencies
in the testimonies of both Elven and Gloria do not impair the
credibility
of these witnesses. We agree with the trial court that they are minor
inconsistencies,
which do not affect the credibility of the witnesses. We have held in a
number of cases that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses
that
refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy the witnesses'
credibility.[25]
On the contrary, they may even be considered badges of veracity or
manifestations
of truthfulness on the material points in the testimonies. What
is
important is that the testimonies agree on essential facts and
substantially
corroborate a consistent and coherent whole.[26]
Artemio's allegation
that it was impossible for both Elven and Eddie to have seen and
witnessed
the crime because the room was dark even at daytime was convincingly
disputed
by rebuttal witnesses Gloria Pagala and Celestino Navarro. Furthermore,
as observed by the OSG, even if the hut was without electricity, Elven
could not have been mistaken in his identification of Artemio because
he
had known the latter for a long time. Moreover, Elven was at the time
only
two meters away from Cynthia and Artemio. Even without sufficient
illumination,
Elven, who was jostled out of his sleep by Cynthia's loud cry, could
observe
the pumping motion made by his father.[27]
The alleged ill-motives
on the part of Gloria and Celestino were not sufficiently proved.
Nothing in the records suggests any reason that would motivate Gloria
to
testify falsely against Artemio, who is the father of her other
children.
Moreover, we have repeatedly held that no mother would subject her
child
to the humiliation, disgrace, and trauma attendant to the prosecution
for
rape if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the person
responsible for her child's defilement incarcerated.[28]
As for Celestino, he testified that the lot where the hut stands is
owned
by his daughter Erlinda, and not by Artemio's mother.[29]
At any rate, even without Celestino's testimony, Artemio's conviction
would
stand.cralaw:red
The remaining issue
for our resolution is the correctness of the penalty of death imposed
by
the trial court. The death penalty was imposed because of the trial
court's
appreciation of the special qualifying circumstances that Artemio is
the
father of the victim and the latter was less than 18 years old at the
time
the crime was committed.cralaw:red
Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, which is the governing law in
this case, pertinently reads:
Article 335. When
and how rape is committed. -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The crime of rape shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
The death penalty shall
also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following
circumstances:
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.cralaw:red
To justify the imposition
of the death penalty in a rape committed by a father on a daughter, the
minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender, which
are
special qualifying circumstances, must be alleged in the complaint or
information
and proved by the prosecution during the trial by the quantum of
proof required for conviction. The accusatory portion of the complaint
in Criminal Case No. 9375 reads as follows:
That on or about the
month of March 1996 at Sapang Tagalog, Municipality of Tarlac, Province
of Tarlac, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the said accused Artemio S. Invencion did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously by using force and intimidation have carnal knowledge
of
his daughter Cynthia P. Invencion who was sixteen (16) years old, in
their
house.cralaw:red
CONTRARY TO LAW.[30]
Although the relationship
of Cynthia with her father Artemio was alleged in the complaint and
duly
established by evidence during trial, the allegation in the complaint
regarding
her age was not clearly proved.cralaw:red
In the very recent case
of People v. Pruna,[31]
we set the guidelines in appreciating age either as an element of the
crime
or as a qualifying circumstance:
1. The best evidence
to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true
copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.cralaw:red
2. In the absence of
a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as
baptismal
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the
victim
would suffice to prove age.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. If the certificate
of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or
destroyed
or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the
victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or
consanguinity
who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the
exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section
40,
Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the
following
circumstances:
a. If the victim is
alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that
she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is
alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that
she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is
alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that she is less than 18 years old.cralaw:red
4. In the absence of
a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of
the
victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the
complainant's
testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted
by the accused.cralaw:red
5. It is the prosecution
that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The
failure
of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age
shall
not be taken against him.cralaw:red
6. The trial court should
always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.cralaw:red
In the present case,
no birth certificate or any similar authentic document was presented
and
offered in evidence to prove Cynthia's age. The statement in the
medical
certificate showing Cynthia's age is not proof thereof, since a medical
certificate does not authenticate the date of birth of the
victim.
Moreover, pursuant to Pruna, Gloria's testimony regarding Cynthia's age
was insufficient, since Cynthia was alleged to be 16 years old already
at the time of the rape and what is sought to be proved is that she was
then 18 years old. Moreover, the trial court did not even make a
categorical finding on Cynthia's minority. Finally, the silence of
Artemio
or his failure to object to the testimonial evidence regarding
Cynthia's
age could not be taken against him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It must be stressed
that the severity of death penalty, especially its irreversible and
final
nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital
offenses
aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.[32]
Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient proof of Cynthia's minority,
Artemio cannot be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to suffer
the
death penalty. He should only be convicted of simple rape and meted the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
As regards the civil
liability of Artemio, the awards of moral damages in the amount of
P50,000
and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 are insufficient. Civil
indemnity, which is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape,[33]
should also be awarded. In simple rape, the civil indemnity for
the
victim shall not be less than P50,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Tarlac, Tarlac, in Criminal
Case
No. 9375 is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that that accused
Artemio
Invencion y Soriano is held guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal
of the crime of simple rape, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim Cynthia Invencion the sums of
P50,000 as indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages; and P25,000 as
exemplary
damages.cralaw:red
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, and
Corona, JJ., on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
No.
7659.
[2]
Per Judge Angel J. Parazo. Original Record (OR), 147-156; Rollo, 29-38.
[3]
TSN, 8 April 1997, 7-10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., 10-11; TSN, 15 April 1997, 2.
[5]
TSN, 7 May 1997, 4-10
[6]
Id., 19-20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, 15 April 1997, 6-13.
[8]
Id., 9-12; Sinumpaang Salaysay, OR, 6.
[9]
TSN, 15 May 1997, 4-5; Exhibit "B," OR, 126.
[10]
Exhibit "A," OR, 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, 21 May 1997, 3-5.
[12]
TSN, 24 June 1997, 4-7.
[13]
TSN, 5 August 1997, 8.
[14]
Id., 12. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, 7 August 1997, 4-6.
[16]
Section 25, Rule 130, 1991 Rules on Evidence.
[17]
People v. Bertulfo, G.R. No. 143790, 7 May 2002, citing People v.
Abella,
339 SCRA 129, 144-145 [2000].
[18]
Id., citing People v. Quejada, 223 SCRA 77 [1993].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
SEC.25. Parental and filial privilege. - No person may be compelled to
testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other
direct descendants.
[20]
See 2 Florenz Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium 583 (7th rev. ed. 1995).
[21]
TSN, 8 April 1997, 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
SEC. 10. Leading and misleading questions. - A question which suggests
to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a
leading
question. It is not allowed, except:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
When
there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a
witness
who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is a feeble mind, or a
deaf-mute
[23]
People v. Ramos, 312 SCRA 137, 148 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People v. Matugas, G.R. Nos. 139698-726, 20 February 2002. See also
People
v. Alba, 305 SCRA 811 [1999]; People v. Montejo, 355 SCRA 210, 226
[2001].
[25]
People v. Palomar, 278 SCRA 114, 147 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People v. Gaspar, 318 SCRA 649, 671 [1999].
[27]
See Appellant's Brief, 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. Oliva, 282 SCRA 470, 482 [1997]. See also People v. Sanchez,
250 SCRA 14, 27 [1995]; People v. Dela Cruz 251 SCRA 77, 85 [1995];
People
v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658, 676 [1996].
[29]
TSN, 7 August 1997, 7-8.
[30]
Rollo, 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
G.R. No. 138471, 10 October 2002.
[32]
People v. Pruna, supra, citing People v. Liban, 345 SCRA 453 [2000].
[33]
People v. Rebato, 358 SCRA 230, 238 [2001]; People v. Panganiban, 359
SCRA
509, 524 [2001]. |