EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
145305
June 26, 2003
-versus-
REDANTE SANTOS Y
CRUZ,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The
Case
Before this court for
automatic review is the decision[1]
dated 18 October 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch
166, in Criminal Case No. 114100-H. The trial court found
appellant
Redante Santos y Cruz ("Appellant") guilty of the crime of Qualified
Rape
and imposed on him the death penalty.
The Charge
The Amended Information
charging appellant with the crime of rape reads:
On or about
April 9, 1998, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the accused, with lewd designs and by means of force and
intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of his step-daughter Danly Santos y Gonzales, twelve years of age,
against
her will and consent.
Contrary to law.[2] Arraignment
and Plea
When arraigned on 8
October 1998, appellant, with the assistance of his counsel de oficio,
entered a plea of not guilty.[3]
The Trial
Version of the
Prosecution
The prosecution presented
three witnesses: (1) Dr. Tomas Suguitan of the Medico-Legal Division of
the PNP Crime Laboratory, who conducted the physical examination on
complainant;
(2) complainant Danly Santos ("Danly"); and (3) Danly’s mother Dolores
Santos ("Dolores").cralaw:red
In the People’s Brief,
the Solicitor General summarized the prosecution’s version of the
incident
as follows:
On April 9, 1998, around
ten o’clock in the evening, the victim Danly Santos, then only thirteen
(13) years old, was sleeping with her younger half-sister in the rented
house of her stepfather, appellant herein, located at Mais Street,
Manggahan,
Pasig City. Danly woke up when she felt someone fondling her
private
parts. She saw that it was appellant fondling her.
Appellant
then told Danly not to make any noise otherwise he would kill
her.
Thereafter, appellant covered Danly’s mouth with his hand, removed her
shortpants and t-shirt, spread Danly’s legs, and raped her. Danly
felt pain at the penetration. This was, however, already the
second
time appellant raped Danly. The first rape occurred on March 25,
1998 which is the subject of another appeal taken by appellant before
this
Honorable Court, Third Division in G.R. No. 144994 (pp. 11-12, tsn,
November
12, 1998).cralaw:red
On April 12, 1998, appellant
figured in a stabbing incident and was brought to the Rodriguez
Hospital.
Appellant insisted that Danly should stay and look after him
there.
A neighbor of Danly’s mother saw both appellant and victim at the
hospital
by chance. The neighbor reported this matter to Dolores, Danly’s
mother, because the latter has been looking for her young children all
this time. Upon learning of this information, Dolores went to the
hospital and fetched Danly (p. 18, ibid.; p. 12, tsn, August 5, 1999).cralaw:red
Thereafter, Danly told
her mother that appellant raped her. They promptly went to the
police
authorities in Pasig City to file the corresponding complaint against
appellant
herein. Appellant was arrested on April 13, 1998 (p. 3, tsn,
January
14, 1999).cralaw:red
Minor victim Danly submitted
herself for genital examination. According to Tomas D. Suguitan,
M.D., the medico-legal officer who prepared the Medico-Legal Report
dated
April 14, 1998, the following are the results of this examination:
FINDINGS:
GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed, fairly
nourished and coherent female subject. Breasts are conical with
pinkish
brown areola and nipples from which no secretions could be
pressed.
Abdomen is flat and soft.chanrobles virtual law library
GENITAL:
There is scanty growth
of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated, with
the pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between. On
separating
the same disclosed an elastic, fleshy-type with deep healed laceration
at 3 o’clock position. External vaginal orifice offers strong
resistance
to the introduction of the examining index finger. Vaginal canal
is narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix is firm and closed.cralaw:red
CONCLUSION:chanrobles virtual law library
Subject is in non-virgin
state physically.cralaw:red
There are no external
signs of application of any form of violence.cralaw:red
(Exh. "H" for the prosecution)[4]
Version of the
Defense
The defense likewise
presented three witnesses: (1) Romualdo Bernardino, (2) Juvelyn
Laureto,
and (3) appellant Redante Santos.cralaw:red
The Public Attorney
summarized the defense’s version as follows:
ROMUALDO BERNARDINO,
a resident of Libis Concepcion, Marikina City testified on April 9,
1998
at 6:00 o’clock in the morning, accused-appellant, together with
private
complainant and the latter’s little sister arrived in his house in
order
to borrow One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P1,500.00) from him.
As
security for the loan, accused-appellant pledged the T.V. set owned by
his mother, who resides in Antipolo. At around 7:00 o’clock in the
morning,
they proceeded to Antipolo to get the T.V. set. They arrived
therein
at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning. They were back at noon in
Marikina. Later in the afternoon, accused-appellant and the two
(2)
girls returned to Bernardino’s house. Accused-appellant told herein
witness
that they were hiding from Danly’s mother because they were not in good
terms with each other. At around 7:00 o’clock in the evening,
Bernardino
accompanied them to the house of his sister-in-law where they
slept.
After about a month, herein witness learned that accused-appellant was
charged of rape. (TSN, March 29, 1999, pp. 2-21)
JUVELYN LAURETO, 14
years of age and a resident of Tumana, Concepcion, Marikina, testified
that on April 9, 1998 at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening,
accused-appellant
together with private complainant Danly Santos and her sister arrived
in
their house. At around 10:00 o’clock after eating supper and
playing
cards, they slept side by side with each other near the kitchen
area.
She recalled that she was not able to sleep well that night, because
Danly’s
sister suffered asthma and she had to wake up to give her a glass of
water.
She saw that accused-appellant and private complainant were taking
turns
in massaging and rubbing the back of the child so that the latter would
feel better. (TSN, June 30, 1999, pp. 2-13)chanrobles virtual law library
Accused-appellant REDANTE
SANTOS testified that, on April 9, 1998 at about 6:00 o’clock in the
morning,
he, together with private complainant Danly Santos and her little
sister
went to the house of his friend, Romualdo Bernardino and obtained from
the latter a loan in the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos
(P1,500.00).
As security for the said loan, he pledged the T.V. set of his mother,
which
they picked up in Antipolo. They arrived thereat at around 10:00
o’clock in the morning and was able to return to Marikina by
noon.
Accused-appellant and the two (2) girls stayed in the town of Marikina
at the Sports Center until late in the afternoon. They spotted
private
complainant’s mother in the area so the three of them went into
hiding.
They returned to Bernardino’s house and requested if they could spend
the
night therein but the latter refused. Nevertheless, Bernardino
accompanied
them into a nearby house of his sister-in-law where accused-appellant
and
the two (2) girls spent the night. They woke at around 5:30 in
the
morning and left right after eating their breakfast.cralaw:red
On April 12, 1998 at
around 3:30 in the afternoon, accused-appellant figured in a stabbing
incident
and was confined at the Rodriguez Hospital. When Dolores came to
visit, she saw Danly taking care of the accused-appellant.
Dolores
got mad and forcibly took Danly with her. The following day,
April
13, 1998, accused-appellant was arrested and detained at the Pasig
Police
Station. (TSN, August 5, 1999, pp. 2-23)[5]
The Trial Court’s
Ruling
The trial court gave
full faith and credence to the evidence of the prosecution. The trial
court
found that the prosecution sufficiently established the following facts:
1. On April
9, 1998, private complainant Danly Santos y Gonzales was 12 years and 7
months old.chanrobles virtual law library
2. Accused Redante
Santos
y Cruz is the stepfather of Danly Santos.chanrobles virtual law library
3. On April 9,
1998,
at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, in the house of accused in
Manggahan,
Pasig City, accused had carnal knowledge of Danly Santos by using force
and intimidation.[6]
Appellant raised the
defense
of alibi and asserted that Danly’s mother Dolores merely fabricated the
charge against him. On this, the trial court stated:
Accused was positively
identified by Danly Santos as the person who raped her, so that
accused’s
defense of alibi is unavailing.cralaw:red
Accused’s assertion
that the charge against him was fabricated by his wife and the latter’s
relatives because they have a grudge against him, finds no support in
the
record. Even assuming in gratia argumenti that accused’s wife and
his in-laws disliked and hated him, it is unthinkable and definitely
inconsistent
with human experience that they would utilize as instrument of revenge
their own flesh and blood, a young and innocent girl, and consign her
to
a life of shame, embarrassment and ridicule.cralaw:red
The prosecution has
sufficiently overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in
favor
of the accused.[7]
Thus, the trial court
rendered a judgment of conviction on 18 October 1999. The dispositive
portion
of the trial court’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds accused REDANTE SANTOS Y CRUZ Guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape, as charged in the Amended Information and
defined
and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by
R.A. 7659, better known as the Death Penalty Law, and he is hereby
sentenced
to suffer the supreme penalty of Death, and indemnify the victim Danly
Santos y Gonzales the sum of P50,000.00, plus the costs of suit.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.[8]
Hence, this automatic
review. The Issues
Appellant seeks the
reversal of his conviction by contending that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS
BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN IMPOSING ON APPELLANT THE DEATH PENALTY DESPITE THE FAILURE BY
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE WITH CERTAINTY THE ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP OF
PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT WITH APPELLANT.[9]
The Court's Ruling
The Court sustains the
conviction of appellant, but the correct penalty is reclusion perpetua
and not death.cralaw:red
We agree with the trial
court that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt
appellant’s
guilt for the crime of rape.cralaw:red
This Court has consistently
observed the following guidelines in deciding rape cases: (1) to
accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove the accusation is
difficult
even if the accused is innocent; (2) since rape usually involves only
two
persons, the testimony of the complainant must be examined with extreme
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merit and should not draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence
for the defense.[10]
Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,[11]
provides:
Article
266-A.
Rape. When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —
1)
By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following
circumstances:
a) Through force,
threat
or intimidation;chanrobles virtual law library
x
x x.
To show that appellant
had carnal knowledge of her by means of threat or intimidation, Danly
testified
thus:
Q
Where were you on April 9, 1998 at around 10 p.m.?
A
Yes, I was at Mais St., Manggahan, Pasig City.cralaw:red
Q
At [sic] particular, were you in a house or what?
A
In a house sir.cralaw:red
Q
Who was your companion at that time inside the house?
A
My stepfather Redante Santos.cralaw:red
Q
How about your mother where was she at that time?
A
She was not in the house. I was told she was in Marikina.cralaw:red
Q
Why were you in that house at Pasig City at that time?
A
I was brought there by Redante.cralaw:red
Q
From where did he take you?
A
From Marikina.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
Where is your actual residence?
A
75 Bantayog St., Marikina.cralaw:red
Q
So you were brought in Pasig by your stepfather now at around 10 p.m.,
while you were inside the house was there anything unusual that
happened?
A
None sir.cralaw:red
Q
What happened?
A
He committed a rape against me.cralaw:red
Q
Who raped you?chanrobles virtual law library
A
My stepfather Redante Santos.cralaw:red
Q
Will you point to him if he is in court.cralaw:red
A
There he is. (Witness pointed to a person who when asked gave his
name as Redante Santos).cralaw:red
Q
You pointed to a man by the name of Redante Santos as the one who raped
you. How did he rape you?
A
At about 10 p.m. I was already asleep and then I woke up because I felt
somebody was touching my private part.cralaw:red
Q
And then what happened?
A
When I woke up I saw him and he told me not to make any noise otherwise
he will kill me.cralaw:red
Q
After that what happened?
A
He covered my mouth.cralaw:red
Q
What else[?]
A
[He] removed my shortpants and t-shirt.cralaw:red
Q
Then what happened?
A
He was trying to spread my legs.cralaw:red
Q
Then what happened?
A
And he was trying to insert his private organ.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
Was he able to insert his private organ to yours?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
Where did he insert his penis?
A
In my vagina.cralaw:red
Q
What did you feel?
A
I felt pain.cralaw:red
Q
How long did he insert his penis into your vagina?
A
A long time, I do not recall the exact time.cralaw:red
Q
Did you feel anything when he inserted his sex organ?chanrobles virtual law library
Court
She said she felt pain.cralaw:red
Q
What else did you feel aside from being painful?
A
As if my vaginal canal [was] large.[12]
Dr. Tomas Suguitan,
who conducted the medico-legal examination on Danly, corroborated
Danly’s
testimony. Dr. Suguitan testified:
Q
When [was complainant referred to you]?
A
April 13, 1998.cralaw:red
Q
Did you conduct any examination upon the victim?chanrobles virtual law library
A
Yessir [sic].cralaw:red
Q
What kind of examination?
A
General inspection of the whole body and [then I] proceeded to examine
the genitalia.cralaw:red
Q
And what was your finding?
A
On the hymen there was a deep healed laceration at [the] 3:00 o’clock
[position].cralaw:red
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
Q
When you say deep healed laceration, what do you mean?
A
Since the hymen is a round organ, we compared it to the face of the
clock,
so the laceration was located at 3:00 o’clock position.cralaw:red
Q
Was the victim a virgin?
A
During the time of the examination, she was no longer a virgin.cralaw:red
Q
What is the healing period of this laceration?
A
Within.three to five days.[13]chanrobles virtual law library
Carnal knowledge is
proven by two details: pain in the victim’s genitalia and the findings
of the medico-legal officer.[14]
Danly was certain that appellant penetrated her genitalia because she
felt
pain in her genitalia. She also stated that appellant spread her
legs and inserted his penis in her vagina.[15]
The testimony of a rape victim, who is barely in her teens, is credible
and deserves full credit, especially where the sexual assault on her is
proven as in this case.[16]
The pain in the victim’s genitalia could only be caused by the
penetration,
even though slight, of the male organ into its opening.[17]
Moreover, Dr. Suguitan’s medical findings of penetration corroborated
Danly’s
testimony. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to conclude the
existence
of the essential element of carnal knowledge.cralaw:red
This Court has repeatedly
noted in rape cases that it is common for a girl of tender age to be
intimidated
by the mildest threat against her life.[18]
Rape is committed when the accused intimidates the victim who submits
to
sexual intercourse out of fear for her life or personal safety.[19]
Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim, and being
subjective,
its presence cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule. Instead,
intimidation should be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception
and
judgment at the time of the commission of the rape.[20]
Danly described appellant’s acts of intimidation on her as follows:
Q
Could you tell the court how you were able to go to Pasig?
A
Redante wanted me to be with him in Pasig but I refused. So he
warned
me that if I will refuse he will be with us in Marikina.cralaw:red
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
Q
Why did you go if you did not like at first?
A
Because according to him if I will not go with him in Pasig he will
come
to Marikina and ruin my life.cralaw:red
x
x x
Q
You narrated in this affidavit what according to you was done by your
stepfather,
did you not shout for help, Ms. Witness?
A
I was not able to shout because he was covering my mouth.cralaw:red
Q
What hand did he use?
A
Left hand.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
You said that after allegedly you claimed that you are sexually abused
you were asked by your father to sleep?
A
Yes mam [sic].cralaw:red
Q
And why did you sleep in that house?
A
Because I was scared because he threats [sic] me that if I will ask for
help he will kill me.cralaw:red
x
x x
Q
You mentioned awhile ago "nung itakas niya po kami," what do [sic] you
mean?
A
Yes, I said itakas because he did not want anybody to know that he was
bringing us to Pasig.cralaw:red
Q
And why did you not tell him that you do not want to go with him?chanrobles virtual law library
A
I told him that I did not want to go but he said that if I will not go
he will come back to Marikina and ruin my life.cralaw:red
x
x x
Q
Before doing what you said he did to you did he not tell you that he
wanted
to do it?
A
No he did not ask me.chanrobles virtual law library
Q
So you mean without talking to you at all he just started undressing
you?
A
He told me if I will shout he will kill me.cralaw:red
Q
And what did you answer him if any?
A
I can not talk then because he was covering my mouth.[21]
Danly was five years
old when appellant started living with her mother.[22]
Appellant and her mother have been living as husband and wife for seven
years.[23]
Since appellant was Danly’s father figure when she was growing up,
appellant’s
moral ascendancy and influence over Danly can even take the place of
threat
or intimidation.[24]chanrobles virtual law library
The trial court found
Danly’s testimony to be credible and straightforward. We give
great
weight to the trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of a witness
because
the trial court can observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of
voice of a witness while testifying. The trial court is in a
better
position to determine whether a witness is lying or telling the
truth.
We also find no basis to deviate from the settled rule that testimonies
of rape victims who are young and immature are credible.[25]
Appellant’s elaborate
explanation, raising the twin defenses of denial and alibi, fail to
hold
up against Danly’s testimony. Many persons convicted of rape have
attributed the charges against them to family feuds, resentment, or
revenge.
However, such supposed motives have never swayed the Court from lending
full credence to the testimony of a rape victim who remained steadfast
throughout her direct and cross-examination.[26]
It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as a battering ram to
extract revenge, especially if it will subject them to disgrace and
humiliation.[27]
No mother in her right mind would expose her daughter to the stigma and
trauma resulting from a prosecution for rape if she did not have a
genuine
desire to seek justice against the person responsible for her
daughter’s
defilement.[28]
Appellant also asserted
that he could not have raped Danly on 9 April 1998 as they were
actually
in Marikina and not in Pasig on this date and he had witnesses to
prove such fact.[29]
Danly refuted this, stating that they were in Marikina on 7 April 1998
and that they were in Pasig on 9 April 1998.[30]
Even if appellant and Danly were in Marikina on 9 April 1998, such fact
does not preclude the commission of the crime of rape. It is sufficient
that the information alleges that the crime was committed on or about a
specific date since time is not a material element of rape.[31]
The death penalty imposed
by the trial court on appellant is not correct. Article 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, states:
Article
266-B.
Penalties. — x
x
xchanrobles virtual law library
The death penalty
shall
also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following
aggravating/qualifying 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; x
x
x
To justify imposing the
death penalty in this case, the qualifying circumstances of the
minority
of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be specifically
alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.
The Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which took effect on 1 December 2000, expressly
require
both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be specifically
alleged
in the Information. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provide:
Section 8.
Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information shall state
the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.chanrobles virtual law library
Section 9. Cause
of
the accusation. — The acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the
offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated
in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language
used
in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding
to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
The prosecution bears
the
burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances that characterize
the
offense as qualified rape.[32]
The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to
the
offender, as a qualifying circumstance that increases the penalty to
death,
should be alleged in the Information to warrant imposing the death
penalty.[33]
Where the prosecution fails to allege and prove minority and
relationship,
which transform rape to its qualified state, the accused should only be
held liable for the crime of simple rape.[34]
The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges
against
him[35]
prevents his conviction for a crime that is not adequately described in
the Information.chanrobles virtual law library
For the qualifying circumstance
of minority to be appreciated, it must be alleged in the Information
and
proved beyond reasonable doubt. There must be independent evidence
proving
the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses
and the absence of denial by the accused.[36]
In this case, the prosecution presented Danly’s birth certificate to
show
that she was born on 11 September 1985. Hence, when appellant
raped
Danly on 9 April 1998, she was only 12 years and almost 7 months old.cralaw:red
The relationship between
a stepfather and a stepdaughter assumes the existence of a legitimate
relationship,
that is, the stepfather should be legally married to the stepdaughter’s
mother.[37]
In contrast, a common-law husband is not legally married to his
common-law
wife. If such common-law wife has a daughter by another man, the
daughter is not a stepdaughter of the common-law husband.[38]
A common-law husband is subject to punishment by death if he commits
rape[39]
against his common-law wife’s daughter by another man. However,
the
death penalty cannot be imposed on the common-law husband if the
relationship
alleged in the information is that of a stepfather and stepdaughter,
and
what is proven is the relationship between a common-law husband and the
daughter of his common-law wife by another man.[40]
The prosecution failed
to establish the relationship of Danly as the stepdaughter of appellant
since the prosecution did not offer in evidence the marriage
certificate
between appellant and Danly’s mother. If appellant and Danly’s
mother
were not legally married, a common-law relationship between appellant
and
Danly’s mother would obviously exist. However, the Information
did
not allege a common-law relationship between appellant and Danly’s
mother
but rather a legitimate relationship since the Information described
Danly
as appellant’s stepdaughter.[41]chanrobles virtual law library
The prosecution even
tampered with the original copy of Danly’s birth certificate to make it
appear that appellant and Danly’s mother, Dolores Santos, are married
to
each other. This would have justified that "Dante Santos,"
instead
of "Danilo Esmouth," is the registered father of Danly.[42]
The prosecution, however, failed to present the marriage contract
between
appellant and Dolores Santos. References by Dolores Santos and
Danly
to appellant as the stepfather of Danly, and references by appellant to
Dolores as his "wife," cannot be considered as evidence of the legality
of the union between appellant and Dolores. Neither can such
references
be considered as evidence of the legality of the
stepfather-stepdaughter
relationship between appellant and Danly.cralaw:red
Because of the disparity
between the facts alleged in the Information and the facts proven in
court
on the real relationship between appellant and Danly, we cannot hold
appellant
liable for qualified rape but only for simple rape. Hence, reclusion
perpetua,
and not death, is the correct penalty.cralaw:red
We affirm the trial
court’s award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, following prevailing
jurisprudence
in rape cases. We also award P50,000.00 as moral damages, which in rape
cases may be awarded to the victim without need of pleading or proof of
its basis.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Decision
dated 18 October 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch
166, in Criminal Case No. 114100-H, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION.
Appellant REDANTE SANTOS y CRUZ is adjudged guilty only of SIMPLE RAPE
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
complainant
Danly Santos P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
damages.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Jesus G. Bersamira.
[2]
Rollo, p. 4. Emphasis in the original.
[3]
Records, pp. 18-19.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Rollo, pp. 101-104.
[5]
Ibid., pp. 36-39.
[6]
Ibid., pp. 16-17.
[7]
Ibid., p. 17.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Ibid., p. 34.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 141782, 14 December 2001, 372 SCRA 421.
[11]
Effective 22 October 1997.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
TSN, 12 November 1998, pp. 10-12.
[13]
TSN, 12 November 1998, pp. 4, 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
See People v. Managbanag, G.R. No. 140101, 7 December 2001, 371 SCRA
615.
[15]
TSN, 12 November 1998, p. 12.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
See People v. Pine, G.R. No. 133441, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 383.
[17]
See People v. Dagaojo, G.R. No. 137834-40, 3 December 2001, 371 SCRA
321.
[18]
People v. Ombreso, G.R. No. 142861, 19 December 2001, 372 SCRA 576.
[19]
People v. Paranzo, G.R. No. 107800, 26 October 1999, 317 SCRA 367, 384.
[20]
People v. Nogar, G.R. No. 133946, 27 September 2000, 341 SCRA 206, 217.
[21]
TSN, 12 November 1998, pp. 15, 18, 21.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
TSN, 12 November 1998, p. 20.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
TSN, 14 January 1999, p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
People v. Maglente, 366 Phil. 221 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
People v. Cortes, G.R. No. 129693, 24 January 2000, 323 SCRA 131.
[26]
People v. Itdang, G.R. No. 136393, 18 October 2000, 343 SCRA 624.
[27]
People v. Bayona, G.R. No. 133343-44, 2 March 2000, 327 SCRA 190.
[28]
People v. Quilatan, G.R. No. 132725, 28 September 2000, 341 SCRA 247.
[29]
TSN, 5 August 1999, p. 3.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
TSN, 23 September 1999, p. 2.chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 117406, 16 January 2001, 349 SCRA 67.
[32]
People v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 126538-39, 20 November 2001, 369 SCRA 661.
[33]
People v. Cantos, Sr., 365 Phil. 341 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[34]
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 130713, 20 January 2000, 322 SCRA 779.
[35]
People v. Bernaldez, G.R. No. 132779-82, 19 January 2000, 322 SCRA 462.
[36]
People v. Bation, G.R. No. 134769-71, 12 October 2001, 367 SCRA 211.
[37]
People v. Tolentino, 369 Phil. 755 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[38]
People v. Torio, G.R. Nos. 132216 & 133479, 17 November 1999, 318
SCRA
345.
[39]
Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.
8353,
speaks of an offender who is "the common-law spouse of the parent of
the
victim."
[40]
People v. Manggasin, 365 Phil. 683 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[41]
People v. Alcoreza, G.R. No. 135452-53, 5 October 2001, 366 SCRA 655.chanrobles virtual law library
[42]
See Exhibit "E"; TSN, 14 January 1999, p. 3. There were no signs
of tampering as to complainant’s date of birth. However, "Danilo
[illegible]" was replaced by "Dante Santos," presumably for Redante
Santos;
Danly’s surname, Dolores’ signature, and Dolores’ surname were
all
likewise changed. |