March 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > March 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 184793 : March 09, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. EDUARDO CABILING Y SALAMEDRA ALIAS "EKWA":
[G.R. No. 184793 : March 09, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. EDUARDO CABILING Y SALAMEDRA ALIAS "EKWA"
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 March 2009:
G.R. No. 184793 (People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Cabiling y Salamedra alias "Ekwa"). - This is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 18, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02553. The assailed decision affirmed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Antipolo City, in Criminal Case No. 02-22841 finding appellant Eduardo S. Cabiling guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The facts of the case follow:
On November 23, 2001, at around 6:00 in the evening, AAA, then fifteen years old, while walking along Sitio Kasoy in Antipolo City, was pulled and dragged into a vacant lot by appellant.[4] After closing the gate, appellant placed himself on top of AAA, tore her blouse, then kissed her on the lips and all over her body. Since he could not remove her bra, he removed her panty instead and tried to insert his penis into her vagina,[5] Appellant succeeded in penetrating AAA's vagina but he was not able to insert his penis entirely because of the resistance employed by AAA,[6]
As AAA continually shouted for help, a man heard the commotion and banged the gate and uttered, "Hoy, anong ginagawa mo dyan?" Upon hearing the man, appellant stood up and got dressed; while AAA ran towards the gate.[7] AAA, however, failed to locate the gate's lock; and it was the appellant himself who opened it for her and said, "Sige, lumabas ka na"[8]
Thereafter, AAA and her parents reported the incident to the police authorities. She was referred to the PNP Crime Laboratory for medical examination.[9]
An information for rape was then filed against appellant charging him with rape as defined and penalized under Articles 266-A [10] and 266-B [11] of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded "Not Guilty," Trial on the merits ensued.[12]
In his defense, appellant admitted that he dragged AAA into a yard. Imitating what he saw on television, he placed himself on top of AAA and pulled down her panty. He, however, denied attaining an erection. He explained that he had a mental problem, as he was then confined at the Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong City.[13]
On September 8, 2006, the RTC rendered a decision convicting appellant of rape. He was meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.[14] The same was affirmed by the CA,[15]
Hence, the instant appeal.
In fine, appellant submits the following arguments: 1) that the court erred in the assessment of the facts of the case, as well as the credibility of the victim's testimony; 2) that the crime committed, if any, was only in the attempted stage, citing People v. Campuhan;[16] and 3) that the mitigating circumstance provided for in Article 13(9)[17] of the RPC should have been appreciated.
The first argument essentially challenges the credibility of the prosecution witness, whose testimony was relied upon by the trial court in convicting the appellant. It should be borne in mind that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[18] This rule holds true especially when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court.[19]
Anent the second issue, appellant's reliance on Campuhan is misplaced. In that case, it was held that the crime was merely attempted rape because all that the victim said was that the accused's penis "touched her organ, but did not penetrate it."
In the present case, the victim categorically stated that appellant succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina, except that he was not able to insert all. Undoubtedly, there was at least partial entry so as to make the crime consummated rape. Full or deep penetration is not necessary to consummate sexual intercourse; it is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ. The mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of the woman's private part is sufficient to consummate rape.[20]
As to the defense of insanity, we quote with approval the conclusion of the CA in this wise:
Pursuant to Article 266-B of the RPC, appellant was correctly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The trial and appellate courts were also correct in holding that appellant is liable for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00; and in not making him liable for exemplary damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[22]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 18, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02553 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Honorable Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Diosdado M. Peralta, Members, Third Division, this 09th day of March 2009.
G.R. No. 184793 (People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Cabiling y Salamedra alias "Ekwa"). - This is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 18, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02553. The assailed decision affirmed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Antipolo City, in Criminal Case No. 02-22841 finding appellant Eduardo S. Cabiling guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The facts of the case follow:
On November 23, 2001, at around 6:00 in the evening, AAA, then fifteen years old, while walking along Sitio Kasoy in Antipolo City, was pulled and dragged into a vacant lot by appellant.[4] After closing the gate, appellant placed himself on top of AAA, tore her blouse, then kissed her on the lips and all over her body. Since he could not remove her bra, he removed her panty instead and tried to insert his penis into her vagina,[5] Appellant succeeded in penetrating AAA's vagina but he was not able to insert his penis entirely because of the resistance employed by AAA,[6]
As AAA continually shouted for help, a man heard the commotion and banged the gate and uttered, "Hoy, anong ginagawa mo dyan?" Upon hearing the man, appellant stood up and got dressed; while AAA ran towards the gate.[7] AAA, however, failed to locate the gate's lock; and it was the appellant himself who opened it for her and said, "Sige, lumabas ka na"[8]
Thereafter, AAA and her parents reported the incident to the police authorities. She was referred to the PNP Crime Laboratory for medical examination.[9]
An information for rape was then filed against appellant charging him with rape as defined and penalized under Articles 266-A [10] and 266-B [11] of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded "Not Guilty," Trial on the merits ensued.[12]
In his defense, appellant admitted that he dragged AAA into a yard. Imitating what he saw on television, he placed himself on top of AAA and pulled down her panty. He, however, denied attaining an erection. He explained that he had a mental problem, as he was then confined at the Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong City.[13]
On September 8, 2006, the RTC rendered a decision convicting appellant of rape. He was meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.[14] The same was affirmed by the CA,[15]
Hence, the instant appeal.
In fine, appellant submits the following arguments: 1) that the court erred in the assessment of the facts of the case, as well as the credibility of the victim's testimony; 2) that the crime committed, if any, was only in the attempted stage, citing People v. Campuhan;[16] and 3) that the mitigating circumstance provided for in Article 13(9)[17] of the RPC should have been appreciated.
The first argument essentially challenges the credibility of the prosecution witness, whose testimony was relied upon by the trial court in convicting the appellant. It should be borne in mind that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and is in the best position to discern whether they are telling the truth.[18] This rule holds true especially when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court.[19]
Anent the second issue, appellant's reliance on Campuhan is misplaced. In that case, it was held that the crime was merely attempted rape because all that the victim said was that the accused's penis "touched her organ, but did not penetrate it."
In the present case, the victim categorically stated that appellant succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina, except that he was not able to insert all. Undoubtedly, there was at least partial entry so as to make the crime consummated rape. Full or deep penetration is not necessary to consummate sexual intercourse; it is enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ. The mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of the woman's private part is sufficient to consummate rape.[20]
As to the defense of insanity, we quote with approval the conclusion of the CA in this wise:
In the case under consideration, the defense did not present any proof of the alleged diminished mental state of accused-appellant. It should be remembered that during the trial, the court a quo, upon Motion of the defense, allowed accused-appellant to be examined at the National Center for Mental Health [NCMH for brevity] with the order to submit the result of the examination conducted. However, despite the Order or at the very least, the impelling need to submit his psychological evaluation as he was .raising his mental instability as a defense, none was submitted. Neither were his medical records relating to his past mental condition adduced in evidence.
xxx Verily, his alleged mental infirmity, not having been sufficiently established by convincing evidence, cannot exempt him or mitigate his liability for the crime committed.[21]
Pursuant to Article 266-B of the RPC, appellant was correctly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The trial and appellate courts were also correct in holding that appellant is liable for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00; and in not making him liable for exemplary damages, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[22]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 18, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02553 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Honorable Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura and Diosdado M. Peralta, Members, Third Division, this 09th day of March 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court.
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court.
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with Associate Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring, rollo, pp. 2-18.
[2] Penned by Executive Judge Ruth D. Cruz-Santos, CA rollo, pp. 63-67.
[3] In the Information, it was alleged that AAA was thirteen years old. It appears, however, in her birth certificate that she was fifteen years old at the time of the commission of the felony. (Rollo, p. 3.)
[4] Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[5] Id. at 4
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] CA rollo, p-64.
[10] Art. 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.
X X X.
[11] Art. 266-B. Penalties.- Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx.
[12] Rollo, p. 3.
[13] Id. at 6-7.
[14] Supra note 2.
[15] Supra note 1.
[16] 385 Phil-912 (2000).
[17] Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;
xxx
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
[18] The People of the Philippines v. Jose Balinas, Jr., G.R. No. 181631, September 30, 2008; People v. Cerilla, G.R. No. 177147, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 251, 259-260; Rebucan v. People, G.R. No. 164545, November 20, 2006,507 SCRA 332, 347.
[19] People v. Cerilla, supra, at 260.
[20] People of the Philippines v. Mario Castro, G.R. No. 172874, December 17, 2008,
[21] Rollo, pp. 16-17. (Citations omitted.)
[22] People v. Opong, G.R. No. 177822, June 17, 2008,554 SCRA 706, 729.
