December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 173470 : December 02, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DANILO AROJO Y JALATA:
[G.R. No. 173470 : December 02, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DANILO AROJO Y JALATA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 December 2009:
G.R. No. 173470 - People of the Philippines v. Danilo Arojo y Jalata
On January 19, 1999, an Information was filed charging appellant Danilo Arojo y Jalata with the crime of Rape, the accusatory portion of which reads:
Appellant pleaded "not guilty" when arraigned. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
The prosecution presented "Maria" as its first witness. . "Maria" testified that she was staying at the house of appellant who was also the former live-in partner of her aunt. On January 10, 1999, at around midnight, "Maria" was roused from her sleep when she felt appellant undress her and touch her breasts. "Maria" tried to ward off the advances of the appellant but the latter proved too strong for her. Appellant thereafter forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. Thereafter, appellant threatened to kill "Maria" if she would disclose to anyone what had just happened.
A few days after, "Maria" told her grandmother about her unfortunate experience in the hands of appellant. Thereupon, her grandmother brought "Maria" to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Thereafter, they reported the incident to the barangay and police authorities. On January 15, 1999, Maria underwent medical examination at the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City.
"Maria" further testified that the appellant had previously raped her sometime in September 1998 which resulted in her pregnancy.
The prosecution also presented the medico-legal officer who examined "Maria". He testified that "Maria's" hymen had deep healed lacerations and that she was carrying a child.
"Maria's" mother also took the witness stand. She testified that "Maria" was 15 years old when the rape incident happened. As proof, she presented "Maria's" Certificate of Baptism which bore an entry that "Maria" was bom on May 7, 1984.
Appellant denied the allegations against him. He claimed that on January 10, 1999, he was at the house of his daughter in Makati City and that he returned to Quezon City only on January 13, 1999. He also alleged that the case against him was filed upon the initiative of "Maria's" aunt, his former live-in partner. He also insinuated that "Maria" had a boyfriend and that it was possible that he was the one who impregnated "Maria".
The defense also presented appellant's daughter, Marilou, who testified that her father would occasionally go to her house in Makati City to get his allowance and to engage in cockfighting.
On June 29, 2004, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, rendered judgment[3] finding appellant guilty as charged. The trial court found that the evidence clearly showed that appellant had carnal knowledge of "Maria" without the latter3s consent. It did not lend credence to appellant's alibi considering that the distance between Makati City and Quezon City could be traversed in less than an hour. Thus, appellant failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.
Anent the allegation that "Maria" was pregnant, the trial court held that appellant was only being charged with the rape incident that happened on January 10, 1999 and not with the one which allegedly happened in September 1998.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the trial court in its Decision[5] dated December 1, 2005. It held that "Maria's" testimony that she was ravished by appellant through force and intimidation and against her will was forthright and credible. There was no indication that she concocted the story against herein appellant. Moreover, the results of the medical examination which showed that "Maria" suffered hymenal lacerations corroborated her testimony. As regards appellant's alibi and denial, the Court of Appeals disregarded the same for being weak, self-serving and unsubstantiated.
Pertinent portions of the Decision of the Court of Appeals read:
Hence, this appeal.
On September 6, 2006, we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs[7] but both manifested that they are repleading and adopting the allegations/arguments in their respective appellant's/ appellee's briefs and would thus no longer submit their supplemental briefs.[8]
We DENY the appeal and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
We agree with the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that on January 10, 1999 appellant had sexual intercourse with "Maria" committed through force and intimidation. Both the trial court and the appellate court found the victim's testimony to be straightforward and convincing. In People v. Arcosiba,[9] we held that "if a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. Moreover, we held that "[a]bsent any showing that the lower courts had overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered might affect the result of the case, we find no basis to doubt or dispute, much less overturn the findings of credibility by both courts".[10]
In this case, the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with "Maria" is in accord with law and evidence. Under Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat or intimidation.
The lower courts likewise properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 266-B of the same Code. Likewise, the award of civil indemnity and moral damages each in the amount of P50,000.00 is proper and in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[11] However, we find that appellant must likewise be ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 considering the minority of the victim. In People v. Arcosiba[12] we held that "the Court of Appeals correctly modified the award by including an award for exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in conformity with Article 2230 of the Civil Code which provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances which in this case is AAA's minority".
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 1, 2005 finding appellant Danilo Arojo y Jalata guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay his victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellant is further ordered to pay his victim the amount of P25;000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
G.R. No. 173470 - People of the Philippines v. Danilo Arojo y Jalata
On January 19, 1999, an Information was filed charging appellant Danilo Arojo y Jalata with the crime of Rape, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 10th day of January, 1999, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused with force and intimidation did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously undress "Maria" [1]a minor 15 years of age inside their residence located at x x x, this City and thereafter have carnal knowledge of her against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Appellant pleaded "not guilty" when arraigned. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
The prosecution presented "Maria" as its first witness. . "Maria" testified that she was staying at the house of appellant who was also the former live-in partner of her aunt. On January 10, 1999, at around midnight, "Maria" was roused from her sleep when she felt appellant undress her and touch her breasts. "Maria" tried to ward off the advances of the appellant but the latter proved too strong for her. Appellant thereafter forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. Thereafter, appellant threatened to kill "Maria" if she would disclose to anyone what had just happened.
A few days after, "Maria" told her grandmother about her unfortunate experience in the hands of appellant. Thereupon, her grandmother brought "Maria" to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Thereafter, they reported the incident to the barangay and police authorities. On January 15, 1999, Maria underwent medical examination at the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City.
"Maria" further testified that the appellant had previously raped her sometime in September 1998 which resulted in her pregnancy.
The prosecution also presented the medico-legal officer who examined "Maria". He testified that "Maria's" hymen had deep healed lacerations and that she was carrying a child.
"Maria's" mother also took the witness stand. She testified that "Maria" was 15 years old when the rape incident happened. As proof, she presented "Maria's" Certificate of Baptism which bore an entry that "Maria" was bom on May 7, 1984.
Appellant denied the allegations against him. He claimed that on January 10, 1999, he was at the house of his daughter in Makati City and that he returned to Quezon City only on January 13, 1999. He also alleged that the case against him was filed upon the initiative of "Maria's" aunt, his former live-in partner. He also insinuated that "Maria" had a boyfriend and that it was possible that he was the one who impregnated "Maria".
The defense also presented appellant's daughter, Marilou, who testified that her father would occasionally go to her house in Makati City to get his allowance and to engage in cockfighting.
On June 29, 2004, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, rendered judgment[3] finding appellant guilty as charged. The trial court found that the evidence clearly showed that appellant had carnal knowledge of "Maria" without the latter3s consent. It did not lend credence to appellant's alibi considering that the distance between Makati City and Quezon City could be traversed in less than an hour. Thus, appellant failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.
Anent the allegation that "Maria" was pregnant, the trial court held that appellant was only being charged with the rape incident that happened on January 10, 1999 and not with the one which allegedly happened in September 1998.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Finding the accused Danilo Arojo y Jalata GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and hereby .sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; and
2. Accused is ordered to pay the offended party P50,000.00 as moral damages in addition to the civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[4]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the trial court in its Decision[5] dated December 1, 2005. It held that "Maria's" testimony that she was ravished by appellant through force and intimidation and against her will was forthright and credible. There was no indication that she concocted the story against herein appellant. Moreover, the results of the medical examination which showed that "Maria" suffered hymenal lacerations corroborated her testimony. As regards appellant's alibi and denial, the Court of Appeals disregarded the same for being weak, self-serving and unsubstantiated.
Pertinent portions of the Decision of the Court of Appeals read:
From the foregoing, We sustain the trial court's conviction of appellant of the crime of rape as his guilt was proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. We also sustain the trial court's imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and the award of Php 50,0000.00 as civil indemnity and Php 50,000.00 as moral damages. Moral damages, vis-a-vis compensatory damages or civil indemnity, are different from each other and should thus be awarded separately from each other. Moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding, in such amount as the court deems just, without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as has heretofore been the practice.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 29 June 2004, promulgated on 16 August 2004, of Hon. Romeo F. Zamora of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94 in Crim. Case No. O-99-80536 finding accused-appellant DANILO AROJO Y JALATA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay the offended party "Maria" the amounts of Php 50,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php 50,000.00 as moral damages is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Hence, this appeal.
On September 6, 2006, we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs[7] but both manifested that they are repleading and adopting the allegations/arguments in their respective appellant's/ appellee's briefs and would thus no longer submit their supplemental briefs.[8]
We DENY the appeal and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
We agree with the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that on January 10, 1999 appellant had sexual intercourse with "Maria" committed through force and intimidation. Both the trial court and the appellate court found the victim's testimony to be straightforward and convincing. In People v. Arcosiba,[9] we held that "if a victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. Moreover, we held that "[a]bsent any showing that the lower courts had overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered might affect the result of the case, we find no basis to doubt or dispute, much less overturn the findings of credibility by both courts".[10]
In this case, the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with "Maria" is in accord with law and evidence. Under Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat or intimidation.
The lower courts likewise properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 266-B of the same Code. Likewise, the award of civil indemnity and moral damages each in the amount of P50,000.00 is proper and in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[11] However, we find that appellant must likewise be ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 considering the minority of the victim. In People v. Arcosiba[12] we held that "the Court of Appeals correctly modified the award by including an award for exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in conformity with Article 2230 of the Civil Code which provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances which in this case is AAA's minority".
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 1, 2005 finding appellant Danilo Arojo y Jalata guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay his victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellant is further ordered to pay his victim the amount of P25;000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children, effective November 5, 2004.
[2] CA rollo, p. 5.
[3] Id. at 38-43; penned by Judge Romeo F. Zamora.
[4] Id. at 43.
[5] Id. at 72-102; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucas P. Bersamin (now a Member of this Court).
[6] Id. at 99-100.
[7] Rollo, p. 33.
[8] Id. at 34-35 &38-39.
[9] G.R. No. 181081, September 4, 2009.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
