SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
131842
June 10, 2003
-versus-
DIONISIO JACKSON,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is an appeal
from the Decision[1]
dated March 17, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City
(Branch 102) convicting accused Dionisio Jackson of rape in Criminal
Case
No. Q-96-66112, sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and
ordering
him to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P50,000.00.
In a Complaint dated
May 15, 1996, twelve-year old April del Valle y Labaco, assisted by her
father Delfin del Valle y Alcantara, accused Dionisio Jackson of rape,
committed as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
That on or
about the 5th day of May 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named
accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there,
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously drag the complainant, one APRIL DEL VALLE Y
LABACO, a minor 12 years of age, inside a bathroom, and then and there,
undressing her and thereafter put himself on top of her, and had carnal
knowledge of her, without her consent and against her will, to the
damage
and prejudice of the said offended party.
Contrary to law.[2]
When arraigned on July
8, 1996, the accused pleaded not guilty.[3]
At the ensuing trial,
the prosecution presented the complainant April del Valle and six other
witnesses, namely: Irenea Alcantara, Delfin del Valle, Dr. Jesusa
Nieves-Vergara,
Carmen Sunico-Quesada, PO1 Ernesto Albero and Dr. Pablo Reyes.cralaw:red
The prosecution evidence
established the following facts:
At around 8:00 p.m.
of May 4, 1996, accused Jackson and six other male companions were
having
a drinking session at the back of the house of Erlinda del Valle at 338
Marian Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City. Waiting on them was
Erlinda’s granddaughter, twelve-year old April who collected the empty
liquor bottles. At around 1:00 a.m. of May 5, 1996, the accused
invited
April to the comfort room, which is located a few meters outside of the
house of Erlinda. When April and the accused were near the
comfort
room, the accused dragged April inside the comfort room. The
accused
punched her, then pushed her down to the cemented floor where she hit
her
head. A rope was tied on her neck and her hands. When
accused
saw that April could not breathe, he removed the rope around her
neck.
While she lay on the floor, the accused lowered her short pants,
straddled
("sinakyan") her and then inserted his penis inside her vagina.
April
felt pain but she did not shout because the accused warned her not to
shout
or else she would be beheaded. After the rape, April pulled the
rope
from her hands, pulled up her short pants and placed the rope on the
side
of the comfort room. She then returned to where the drinking
session
was going on and waited for the empty liquor bottles.[4]
Six days later, on May
11, 1996, April went to Irenea Alcantara, her grand-aunt, who lived a
few
meters from her grandmother’s house. April told Irenea that the
accused
inserted his penis inside her vagina. Upon hearing this, Irenea
called
April’s father, Delfin del Valle. Delfin del Valle brought April
to the Barangay but they were referred to the Quezon City General
Hospital.
The hospital, in turn, referred them to Camp Crame for medical
examination.[5]chanrobles virtual law library
On May 11, 1996, Dr.
Jesusa Nieves-Vergara, a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory
in Camp Crame, conducted a medico-legal examination on April. She
found the "hymen with shallow healed lacerations at 2, 5, and 10
o’clock
positions." Dr. Vergara concluded that April is in a "non-virgin
state physically."[6]
On May 13, 1996, April and her father went to the Novaliches Police
Station
where PO1 Ernesto Albero took their sworn statements, on the basis of
which
a criminal complaint for rape was filed.[7]
April was brought to
the Psychiatric Department of the Quezon City General Hospital. The
Psychiatric
Department referred April to Carmen Sunico-Quesada, a child
psychologist
at the Child Development Unit-Pediatrics Department of the Quezon City
General Hospital, for psychiatric examination. The psychiatric
examination
revealed that April has an I.Q. of 52 which is "comparatively fit for
an
average 6 year old girl".[8]
The psychiatric findings of Carmen Sunico-Quesada were affirmed by Dr.
Pablo Reyes, a Physician-Psychiatrist of the Quezon City General
Hospital,
who also examined April. Dr. Reyes added that April is suffering
from "mild mental retardation".[9]
The evidence for the
defense consisted of denial and alibi. The witnesses for the
defense
were Erlinda del Valle, accused Dionisio Jackson, Francisco Leysis and
Agustina Calvero.cralaw:red
Erlinda del Valle testified:
She is April’s grandmother. April lives with her. She knew
the accused who formerly rented a room in her house. On May 4,
1996,
she did not see the accused because he went to work. On May 5,
1996,
he arrived in the afternoon and had a drinking spree. When she
woke
up on May 5, 1996, she did not notice any contusions on the face of
April.
April did not narrate to her the alleged rape but she learned about it
from his son, Delfin del Valle. The comfort room does not have a
light and it is dark inside, that at nighttime, she cannot see who is
inside
or outside.[10]
For his part, the accused
testified: On May 4, 1996, he went to work at Isuzu Sales Phils., Inc.
located at Caloocan City and left the office at about 5:30 p.m. and
proceeded
to his residence at San Francisco Compound, Tandang Sora Extension,
Quezon
City. He arrived home at about 8:00 p.m. and after he took his
supper
at around 9:00 p.m., he rested for a while listening to music till he
fell
asleep. He woke up at about 5:00 o’clock the following morning of
May 5, 1996 and washed his clothes before he took his breakfast.
Then, he rested for a while before he took his lunch together with his
companions in the house. He learned of the criminal accusation of
rape against him only when his sister, Editha Jackson, called him up on
May 11, 1996 at around 12:30 noon at his office at Isuzu Sales Phils.,
Inc. and told him that their father, Emiliano Jackson, wanted to talk
to
him about the matter.[11]
Francisco Leysis testified:
He was the companion of the accused in the house at 259 Tandang Sora
Extension,
Sangandaan, Quezon City. On May 4, 1996, accused arrived at the
house
at 8:00 p.m. and he saw the accused asleep at around 1:00 a.m. of May
5,
1996 when the alleged rape took place.[12]
Agustina Calvero testified:
She has been a co-worker of the accused for thirteen years in Isuzu
Sales
Phils., Inc. She is the timekeeper of the company. Based on
her notebook, the accused reported to work on May 4, 1996 from 8:25
a.m.
until 5:30 p.m. Accused is a good family man and has no
derogatory
record at work.[13]
The prosecution presented
Mario Bojo as rebuttal witness. He testified that he saw the
accused
on the evening of May 4, 1996 at Marian Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon
City.[14]
After evaluating the
evidence adduced by the opposing parties, the trial court rendered
judgment
convicting the accused of the crime of rape. The dispositive
portion
of the decision reads:chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE,
the Court Finds the accused Dionisio Jackson guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the crime of rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the complainant in the amount of
P50,000.00
SO ORDERED.
Accused did not file a
motion for reconsideration.[15]
Instead, he interposed the present appeal to this Court.
In his Brief, appellant
bewails the decision of the trial court and submits the following
Assignment
of Errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, APRIL
DEL
VALLE WAS PUNCTURED WITH MATERIAL IMPROBABILITY, CONTRADICTION AND
UNRELIABILITY
THEREBY CASTING DOUBT ON THE CRIMINAL CULPABILITY OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE
NOTWITHSTANDING
THE PRESENCE OF EXCULPATORY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SAME.[16]
Anent the first assigned
error, appellant argues that the trial court "reluctantly" gave weight
and credence to the testimony of April notwithstanding that the trial
court
itself acknowledged in its Decision that April "gave a somewhat
confused
testimony". He points to contradictory statements which escaped
the
proper appreciation of the trial court, namely: (a) to whom and when
did
she report the crime; (b) when did the crime happen, on a Saturday or a
day that televised basketball is shown; (c) was she sleeping when the
crime
happened; and, (d) how was force exerted on her.cralaw:red
As to the second assigned
error, he claims that the alleged rape could not have occurred on May
5,
1996 since the medico-legal officer, Dr. Vergara, on cross-examination,
revealed that the lacerations in the hymen of April could have been
inflicted
or could have occurred more than seven days prior to the date of
examination
on May 11, 1996.cralaw:red
We have held time after
time that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
credibility
of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be
disturbed
on appeal.[17]
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, or 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, the carriage and mien.[18]
Only when there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of
weight
and influence which the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated
and which, if properly considered, would have altered the results of
the
case, will we depart from this rule.[19]
The appeal is without
merit. A close and detailed examination of the entire record of
the
instant case impels us to affirm the assailed decision of the RTC.cralaw:red
The trial court indeed
had observed that April gave a "somewhat confused testimony".
However,
it attributed her manner of testifying to the fact that she was
suffering
from mental deficiency - "mild mental retardation".
Significantly,
when the matter of April’s mental retardation cropped up at the trial,
the appellant did not challenge her competence as a witness and ability
to testify in court. Indeed, we find no reason to doubt her
competency.
Even a mental retardate could qualify as a competent witness,[20]
for as long as, she could perceive and is capable of making known her
perception
to others.[21]
It has long been settled that a person should not be disqualified on
the
basis of mental handicap alone.[22]
He or she can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to relate
what
he or she knows. If the testimony of a mental retardate is
coherent,
the same is admissible in court.[23]
Despite her mental retardation, we agree with the trial court that
April
adequately showed she could convey her ideas by words and could give
sufficiently
intelligent answers to the questions propounded by her counsel, the
counsel
for the defense and the court. Enlightening are the following
excerpts
from her candid and unequivocal testimony which we quote verbatim:
Q: Who is
that person whom you said who raped you?
A:
Diony, ‘yan’. (witness pointing to accused)
PROSECUTOR CONCHA:
Witness is pointing
to the person of the accused.chanrobles virtual law library
Q: You said
that this person by the name of Diony raped you, what did he do to you?
A:
‘Yong titi niya inilagay sa akin.’
He put his penis to
my organ.cralaw:red
Q: You point
to the part of your body where he put his penis?
A:
Here, inside (witness pointing to her sex organ).cralaw:red
‘Dito po, sa may loob.’[24]
Q: When
you said ‘here’, what do you mean?
A:
Inside the vagina, sir.cralaw:red
Q: What
do you feel?
A:
It was painful, sir.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CONCHA:
Q: Where
did that happen?
A:
He dragged me to the comfort room, sir.cralaw:red
Q: How did
it happen that you were in the comfort room?
COURT:
She answered ‘Hinila
niya ako sa comfort room.’ There was already an answer. ‘He
dragged me’
PROSECUTOR CONCHA:
Q: Madam
Witness, you said that you were made to lie down in the comfort room.cralaw:red
COURT:
She said ‘Hinila ako
sa comfort room,’ so she was dragged to the comfort room.cralaw:red
WITNESS:chanrobles virtual law library
A:
I was pushed to the comfort room, sir.cralaw:red
PROSECUTOR CONCHA:
Q: What
happened to you after you were pushed to the comfort room?
A:
‘Sinakyan po.’
Q: After
you were brought to the comfort room and the person sexually abused
you,
after that what happened?
Q: After
that what happened?
A:
He inserted his penis.[25]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
April remained steadfast
and unwavering on cross-examination despite persistent efforts by
defense
counsel to throw her off track, thus:
Q: When
you say the word ‘rape’, what do you mean by that?
A:
He put his penis on my sex organ (Titi niya lagay niya sa akin).cralaw:red
Q: So that
you mentioned that it is very dark, how would you know that it was the
penis that was inserted on your organ?
A:
Because I saw him.cralaw:red
Q: You saw
him?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: So what
did you see?
A:
His penis was inserted.cralaw:red
Q: So that,
even if it was very dark, you know that it was his penis that was
inserted?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: It was
not his hands?
A:
‘Daliri po.’
Q: So that,
you are not sure what was inserted in your vagina?
A:
‘Sigurado po.’chanrobles virtual law library
Q: You are
sure that the finger was inserted in your vagina?
A:
No, Ma’am, his penis.cralaw:red
Q: But you
mentioned that he inserted his fingers?
A:
Yes, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: So that,
did Dionisio Jackson, the accused in his case, try to inflict physical
injuries on you?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: When
you say that he tried to inflict injuries to you, what do you refer to?
A:
When I went ahead inside the comfort room he gave me fistic blows.
(pinagsusuntok
po niya ako.)
Q: He boxed
you? Where did he box you?
A:
On my face.cralaw:red
Q: Was it
strong?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: Very
strong?
A:
Yes, Ma’am
Q: How many
times did he try to hit you?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Once, ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: Not twice?
A:
No, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: How did
he hit you?
A:
(Witness demonstrated how she was boxed with a closed fist on her left
cheek.)
Q: So that,
you did not shout for help even if he boxed you very hard?
A:
He said, ‘pupugutin daw niya ang ulo ko pag sumigaw ako.’
Q: When
he said he will ‘pupugutin ang ulo mo’, what do you mean?
A:
(no answer).cralaw:red
COURT:
‘Paano niya pupugutin
ang ulo mo?’
A:
‘Dito Po.’ (witness pointing to her neck.)
COURT:chanrobles virtual law library
How will he ‘pugot your
ulo?’
Do you know the meaning
of ‘pugot’?
A:
Like this (witness pointing her fingers around her neck.).[26]
(Emphasis supplied).cralaw:red
On re-direct examination,
April further fortified her testimony:
Q: A while
ago you said that you were raped, and when you said by the word raped,
you mean that ‘yong ari niya inilagay sa iyo?’
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And then
you also mentioned that time he also inserted his finger?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: That
was when you were raped?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: In other
words, when you were raped, beside putting his ‘pag-aari sa iyo’ he was
putting his finger?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And that
was inside the bathroom?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And a
while ago you mentioned that you were not able to shout because you
said
‘pupugutin ang ulo mo?’
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: How did
you know that ‘pupugutin niya ang ulo mo?’chanrobles virtual law library
A:
If I shout.cralaw:red
Q: What
did he tell you?
A:
‘Pag sumigaw daw ako pupugutin niya ang ulo ko.’
COURT:
Q: How were
you raped? ‘Nakahiga ka?’
A:
Yes, Ma’am
Q: Inside
the comfort room?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: If the
comfort room is smaller than this comfort room, is it not there is a
bowl?
Where is the Bowl? Does your comfort room has a bowl?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: How was
it placed? Where do you sit? Where is the door?
A:
I cannot remember.cralaw:red
Q: ‘Inihiga
ka ba niya?’
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: ‘Papaano
ka niya inihiga?’
A:
‘Itinulak niya ako.’chanrobles virtual law library
Q: ‘Nang
itinulak ka, bumagsak ka?’
A:
‘Opo, nauntog po ako.’
Q: ‘Saan
ka nauntog?’ ‘Ano ang nauntugan ng ulo mo?’
A:
‘Sa semento po.’
Q: ‘Sa sahig?’
‘Doon tumama ang ulo mo?’
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: Then
you said he tied you, when did he tie you?
A:
He tied my neck.cralaw:red
Q: How did
he tie you? ‘Ano ang nauna, pagtumba sa iyo o pagtali sa iyo sa
ulo?’
A:
‘Pagtali po sa leeg.’
Q: ‘Saan
ka itinali?’ ‘Dito?’
A:
‘Una po leeg, tapos paganyan sa kamay.’
Q: ‘Una
leeg, tapos itinali kang paganyan?’
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: Then,
what happened?
A:
Then he removed the rope.
chan
robles virtual law library
Q: When
did he remove the rope?
A:
Because I cannot breathe, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: You cannot
breathe anymore, so he removed the rope?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: Then
what happened?
A:
Then he told me, ‘apo niya ako.’
Q: Then,
‘itinumba ka niya?’
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: ‘Kailan
ka niya sinuntok?’
A:
‘Anong oras po?’chanrobles virtual law library
Q: ‘Ano
ang nauna, ni-rape ka or sinuntok ka muna?’
‘Sinuntok ka muna, bago
ka niya ni-rape?’
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: ‘Alin
ang nauna, ang pagsuntok sa iyo o pagtali sa leeg mo?’
A:
‘Sinuntok niya ako.’
Q: ‘Sinuntok
ka muna, tapos itinali ka sa leeg?’
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: ‘Pagkatapos
itinali ka sa kamay?’
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: ‘Tapos,
itinumba ka?’
chan
robles virtual law library
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: ‘Sinong
nag-alis ng tali sa leeg mo?’
A:
‘Siya po.’
Q: ‘Sabi
mo kanina, inalis mo?’
‘Sa kamay mo, sinong
nag-alis ng tali mo?’
A:
‘Ako, po, hinila ko po.’
Q: ‘Anong
tali ba ang pinangtali niya?’
A:
‘Lubid po.’
Q: ‘Malaki
ba ang lubid?’chanrobles virtual law library
A:
‘Opo, mahaba.’
Q: When
did you pull the rope from your hands, after the rape?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: What
did you do with the rope?
A:
I put it on the side (gilid).cralaw:red
Q: ‘Gilid’
of what?
A:
Of the comfort room.cralaw:red
Q: Then,
what did you do? Were you wearing pants?
A:
No, Ma’am, I was wearing shorts.chanrobles virtual law library
Q: After
you were raped, you stood up?
A:
Yes, Ma’am.cralaw:red
Q: ‘Alam
mo ba ang ikinuwento mo rito? Alam mo yan?’
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: ‘Totoo
bang lahat yang sinasabi mo?’chanrobles virtual law library
A:
‘Opo.’
Q: After
you were raped, where did you go?
A:
I returned to the place where there was drinking?
Q: What
did you do there?
A:
I waited for the bottles.[27]
(E mphasis supplied).cralaw:red
Appellant belabors on
alleged inconsistencies in April’s testimony as to whom, Irenea or
Erlinda,
and when she narrated her ordeal, whether a basketball game was
televised
on a Saturday, and whether she was indeed raped at 1:00 a.m. of May 5,
1996 since she also testified that she went to sleep on May 4, 1996 and
woke up at 7:00 a.m. the next day - these alleged
contradictions
easily dissipate to naught when the testimony of April is considered
and
calibrated in its entirety and not only based on truncated portions or
isolated passages.[28]
The true meaning of answers to isolated questions propounded to a
witness
is to be ascertained by due consideration of all the questions
propounded
to the witness and his answers thereto.[29]
The whole impression or effect of what had been said or done must be
considered
and not individual words or phrases alone.[30]
It should be noted that April is a mental retardate and, hence, her
testimony
must be treated with the broadest understanding without, however, in
any
way sacrificing the quest for truth.cralaw:red
The alleged contradictory
statement of April as to whether a basketball game is held on a
Saturday
is not sufficient to render April's testimony doubtful nor does it
negate
the commission of rape. Said contradiction is inconsequential
considering
that it refers to a trivial detail which has nothing to do with the
essential
fact of the commission of the crime of rape, that is, carnal knowledge
through force or intimidation. A rape victim, especially a mental
retardate, cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an
accurate
account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone.[31]
Truly, April's failure to give a perfect and flawless account of every
grisly detail of the crime for which she seeks retribution should not
be
taken against her.chanrobles virtual law library
With respect to the
physical evidence of lacerations on the hymen of April, Dr. Vergara
testified
that the lacerations could have been inflicted or could have occurred
more
than seven days prior to the date of examination on May 11, 1996, or on
May 3, 1996 or earlier. However, such testimony does not help the
defense since Dr. Vergara did not foreclose that the rape did not
occur.
She merely assessed the probability of the date of its
occurrence.
She also stated that the laceration could have been inflicted less than
seven days prior to the examination.[32]
Besides, it bears stressing that, in cases of rape, the date of
commission
is not an essential element of the offense, what is material being the
occurrence thereof and not the time of its commission.[33]
Appellant’s defense
of alibi, although corroborated by two witnesses, has no merit.
His
alibi fails in the light of the positive and unequivocal declaration of
April. It is an oft-quoted doctrine that positive identification
prevails over denial and alibi.[34]
Furthermore, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must
establish
that (a) he was in another place at the time of the commission of the
offense;
and (b) he was so far away that he could not have been physically
present
at the place of the crime, or its immediate vicinity, at the time of
its
commission.[35]
Appellant failed to establish both requirements. Aside from the
testimony
of April, the clear and categorical testimony of rebuttal witness Mario
Bojo established that appellant was at the scene of the incident on May
4, 1996. The defense failed to show Bojo had any motive to
falsely
testify against the appellant. When there is no evidence to
indicate
that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motives, the
presumption
is that they were not so actuated and that their testimonies are
entitled
to full faith and credit.[36]
Appellant’s conviction
was based on the positive and direct testimony of April. The
absence
of evidence of any improper motive on her part to testify as principal
witness of the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion
that
no such improper motive existed at the time she testified and her
testimony
is worthy of full faith and credit.[37]
When the victim’s testimony of her violation is corroborated by the
physical
evidence of penetration, there is sufficient foundation for concluding
that there was carnal knowledge.[38]
Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, provides:chanrobles virtual law library
Art.
335.
When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by
having
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1.
By using force or intimidation;
2.
When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
When the woman is
under
twelve years of age or is demented.
We note that the trial
court convicted the appellant of rape without specifying under which
paragraph
of Article 335 was the crime committed.
Sexual intercourse with
a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape, which
does
not require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having
carnal knowledge of the victim for conviction.[39]
However, the fact of her mental retardation was not alleged in the
Information
and, therefore, cannot be the basis of conviction.[40]
However, the Information
sufficiently alleged that appellant, by means of force and
intimidation,
raped 12-year old April del Valle. The prosecution has proven
beyond
reasonable doubt that appellant used force and intimidation in
committing
the crime of rape in this case. April’s testimony sufficiently
demonstrated
that the sexual act was forced on her as she was dragged to the comfort
room, punched, pushed down to the cemented floor, tied with a rope
around
her neck and both hands, and was warned not to shout or else she will
be
beheaded.chanrobles virtual law library
Indeed, appellant is
guilty of rape, under paragraph 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code
which is punishable with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
There are no aggravating
or mitigating circumstances.cralaw:red
With respect to the
civil liability of appellant, the trial court correctly awarded to the
offended party the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. In
addition,
we grant moral damages of P50,000.00 even without need of further
proof,
considering that the victim April del Valle, in fact, sustained mental,
physical and psychological suffering.[41]
WHEREFORE, the decision,
dated March 17, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
(Branch
102) convicting appellant Dionisio Jackson of rape in Criminal Case No.
Q-96-66112, sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and ordering
him
to indemnify the offended party April del Valle in the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that he is
ordered
to pay to the victim another Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral
damages.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Perlita J. Tria Tirona (now Associate Justice of the
Court
of Appeals).
[2]
Original Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id., p. 24.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
TSN, August 12, 1996, pp. 5-9; TSN, August 14, 1996, pp. 2-5; September
23, 1996, pp. 18-23.
[5]
TSN, August 14, 1996, pp. 10-14.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
TSN, September 13, 1996, pp. 7, 13; Exhibit "C".
[7]
TSN, September 18, 1996, pp. 18-19.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
TSN, September 13, 1996, p. 22; Exhibit "G".
[9]
TSN, September 26, 1996, pp. 6, 13; Exhibit "H".
[10]
TSN, October 7, 1996, pp. 3-19.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
TSN, October 9, 1996, pp. 4-10.
[12]
TSN, October 10, 1996, pp. 29-32.
[13]
TSN, October 14, 1996, pp. 3-10.
[14]
TSN, October 21, 1996, pp. 12-15.
[15]
Original Records, pp. 146-147.
[16]
Rollo, p. 69.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
People vs. Bertulfo, G.R. No. 143790, May 7, 2002, p. 8.
[18]
People vs. Abella, 339 SCRA 129, 144-145 (2000).
[19]
People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 139341-45, July 25, 2002, p. 11.
[20]
People vs. Lagarto, 326 SCRA 693, 731 (2000).
[21]
People vs. Baid, 336 SCRA 656, 666 (2000).
[22]
Id., p. 671.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
People vs. Padilla, 301 SCRA 265, 270 (1999).
[24]
TSN, August 12, 1996, p. 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
TSN, August 14, 1996, pp. 2-5.
[26]
TSN, September 12, 1996, pp. 8-11.
[27]
TSN, September 12, 1996, pp. 18-23.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
People vs. Pailanco, 322 SCRA 790, 797(2000).
[29]
People vs. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003, citing Francisco,
Revised Rules of Court, Part II, Vol. VII, 1991 ed.
[30]
People vs. Rosario, 246 SCRA 658, 668 (1995).chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
People vs. Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142, 149 (1997).
[32]
TSN, September 13, 1996, p. 14.chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
People vs. Cabigting, 344 SCRA 86, 92 (2000); People vs. Brondial, 343
SCRA 600, 614 (2000); People vs. Cutamora, 342 SCRA 231, 240 (2000);
People
vs. Magtrayo, 342 SCRA 73, 89 (2000).
[34]
People vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 143660, June 5, 2002, p. 19.chanrobles virtual law library
[35]
People vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. 139695, August 26, 2002, pp. 13-14.
[36]
People vs. De la Rosa, Jr., 341 SCRA 425, 438 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[37]
People vs. Banela, 301 SCRA 84 (1999); People vs. Sotto, 275 SCRA 191,
201 (1997).
[38]
People vs. Segui, 346 SCRA 178, 186 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[39]
People vs. Lopez, 346 SCRA 469, 474 (2000); People vs. Padilla, 301
SCRA
265, 273 (1999).
[40]
People vs. Capinpin, 344 SCRA 420, 429 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[41]
People vs. Alcantara, 355 SCRA 601, 607 (2001); People vs. Sarmiento,
344
SCRA 345, 357 (2000). |