Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > February 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 177214 : February 12, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, V. FELIX MAURING, APPELLANT.:

Quoted hereimder; for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated Febmary 12, 2008

G.R. No. 177214 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, v. FELIX MAURING, appellant.

Felix Mauring, appellant, was charged with two (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness and one (1) count of rape committed against a seven (7) year old girl (AAA). Appellant is the common-law spouse of AAA's paternal grandmother.

AAA testified that when her father died, she was left in the care of her father's brother, while her mother worked in Manila. In the early evening of June 30. 2001, she was left alone with her "lolo," herein appellant, in the latter's house. Appellant took off her shorts and parity, kissed her face, cuddled her and then brought her to his room. On July 1. 2001. the same thing happened. Appellant touched her vagina three (3) times. On July 3, 2001, he inserted his penis into her vagina which bled, causing her to cry as it was painful. She did not tell her mother about the incidents because she was scared.

In school, AAA was unusually silent and inattentive. When asked by her teacher to explain, she would only cry. This prompted her teacher to report the matter to the barangay chairwoman to whom AAA confided that she was sexually abused by appellant.

Two (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness. docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 4072 and 4073. and one (1) count of rape, docketed as Criminal Case No. 4074, were filed against appellant with the Regional Trial Court. Branch 13, Carigara. Leyte.

In its Decision in Criminal Case No. 4074 for rape, the trial court held;

The accused, vehemently denied that in the evening of July 3. he sexually molested the minor. AAA. by pushing her on the floor and placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. because. AAA was not in his house. Besides he had visitors, his father and Joma Sabuya. alias Tiling. This denial and alibi, however, cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by his victim. AAA. as the person who sexually molested her in several occasions. In both instances, however, the denial and alibi of the accused were not substantiated by any evidence to support the veracity of such assertions to deserve credence and weight in law.

x x x

For denial or alibi to prosper, it must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt about the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident.

The trial court then declared appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Cases Nos. 4072 and 4073 and sentenced him to suffer 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years of prision correccional for each count. In Criminal Case No. 4074, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and was sentenced to death. He was further ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75.000.00 as moral damages.

In a Decision dated November 30, 2006. the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment with modifications. In Criminal Cases Nos. 4072 and 4073 for acts of lasciviousness, it awarded P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P20.000.00 as moral damages in each count. In Criminal Case No. 4074 for rape, the appellate court convicted appellant of simple rape only and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of death. It modified the award of damages by reducing the civil indemnity and moral damages from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00. Appellant was further ordered to pay AAA P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

In convicting appellant of simple rape, the appellate court held:

However, the Court finds that the trial court erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death instead of reclusion perpeiita for the crime of rape. We find merit in appellant's contention, to which the solicitor general agrees, that the relationship between the appellant and AAA is not among those enumerated under Section 335 (par. 1) of the Revised Penal Code.

Appellant himself admitted that lie cohabited and lived with the grandmother of AAA without the benefit of marriage, thus, he can be best described as the common law husband of the latter. This does not make him a "parent ascendant step-parent guardian, relative hy consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent" of AAA. For this reason, we cannot bring this instant case within the provision of a law which is not embraced by it to the end that no person who is clearly not within the terms ol statutes can be brought within them. Inclusion unios est exclusion alterius.

We agree with the Court of Appeals in holding that the relationship between appellant and AAA is not among those enumerated under Section 335 (par. 1) of the Revised Penal Code wherein the penalty of death should be imposed. The appellate court cited People v. Atop^[1] where the offender was the common-law husband of the victim's grandmother. In that case, we ruled that the law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relationships. There is no blood relation or legal bond that links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the modifying circumstance of relationship cannot be considered against him.

However, the qualifying circumstance of minority should have been considered by the appellate court considering that AAA was only seven (7) years old when appellant committed the crime. Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659 provides that when the victim is under 18 years of age, the death penalty shall be imposed. Considering that R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of death penalty, appellant should only be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Likewise, he should be ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; PP75,000.00 as moral damages, consistent with prevailing; jurisprudence; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to People v. Catubig.^[2]

Relative to Criminal Cases Nos. 4072 and 4073 for acts of lasciviousness. the trial judge imposed the wrong penalty. Pursuant to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, acts of lasciviousness are punishable by prision correccional In view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of minority, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty should be anywhere within 2 years. 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months; and the maximum should be anywhere within 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years. Hence, the penalty of 4 years and 2 months, as minimum, to 6 years, as maximum, should be imposed upon appellant.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals with the following; modifications:

In Criminal Case No. 4074 for rape, the penally of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole: and appellant is ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

In Criminal Cases Nos. 4072 and 4073 for acts of lasciviousness, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of 4 years and 2 months, as minimum, to 6 years, as maximum.

(advl37)

Endnotes:

---

^[1] G.R. Nos. 124303-05. February 10. 1W8. 286 SCRA 157.

^[2] G.R.No. 137842. August 23. 2001. 363 SCR A 621