February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 188842 : February 17, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ARNEL ODOCADO Y RONDA :
[G.R. No. 188842 : February 17, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ARNEL ODOCADO Y RONDA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 February 2010:
G.R. No. 188842 (People of the Philippines v. Arnel Odocado y Ronda).-
This case is about the need for substantial evidence to support the sweetheart defense that many of those accused of rape invoke to avoid criminal liability.
The Facts and the Case
The public prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged the accused Arnel Odocado with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City in Criminal Cases 2003-0091 and 2003-0092.
LV[1] was, based on her birth certificate, born on June 14, 1989. She was the sister of CK, accused Odocado's common-law wife. LV testified that Odocado raped her twice when she was 12 years old going on 13 at her parents' house on March 10, 2002 at around 10:00 in the morning and again at Odocado's house on May 5, 2002 at around 3:00 in the afternoon.
On March 10, 2002 CK brought her son to her parents' house at Barangay AB so her sister, LV, could look after him. Later, accused Odocado came to take his son allegedly so they could buy some cigarettes together. LV went to a nearby house but she later noticed that Odocado was not looking after his child after all. This prompted LV to return to their house to keep the child company.
Suddenly, accused Odocado grabbed LV's hair and dragged her into the house. Once inside, he forced LV down on the mat, took off his shorts, rubbed spit on his penis, and then mounted LV. He also stripped her of her underwear, plunged his penis into her private parts, and ravished her. Odocado threatened LV with a knife, telling her that he would kill her if she told on him. Thus, LV kept quiet about it.
On May 5, 2002 CK asked her sister LV to come to their (Odocado's) house to baby-sit for her because she had to do some laundry. At about 3:00 in the afternoon, LV was asleep with her nephew when she suddenly woke up to discover that accused Odocado had tied her feet and hands with ropes. He had already removed her panties and her nephew was no longer by her side. Once again, Odocado forced himself on her and repeated his threat to kill her if she told on him.
Eventually, however, LV told her sister, CK, about it since she suspected that she had become pregnant after she missed her period and had vomiting spells. CK confided the matter to RL, Odocado's sister, who decided to take LV to LM City to take her place as housemaid for the Punzalan couple who had no child. The latter agreed to adopt LV's baby but, because she had an unstable pregnancy, they brought her back to Barangay AB where she eventually gave birth on February 20, 2003.
When LV was yet in LM City, she eventually told her mother about her misfortune. Thus, they filed criminal charges against accused Odocado as soon as they had returned to Barangay AB. A DNA[2] test was done on Odocado and the child and it showed that the probability that Odocado was the father of LV's child was 99.8335%.
For his part, accused Odocado testified that he had been working on a stay-in basis at a farm in Barangay IT from March 10 to April 8, 2002. Consequently, he never had an opportunity to go home to Barangay AB to visit his family. He denied having raped LV on March 10, 2002 since he was then in Barangay IT.
Accused Odocado testified, however, that on May 5, 2002 he was at his house in Barangay AB. His wife was away washing their clothes. LV arrived and played with his son. While Odocado was lying in bed, LV approached and began kissing him. He told her to stop since he was married but she told him that he and her sister were just living together and it was possible for them to still separate. LV then took off her clothes and continuously seduced him.
No longer able to resist what she was doing, Odocado had sex with LV. From then on, they would have sex when they see each other. The last time was on June 3, 2002 when LV wanted them to begin living together. Because Odocado refused, only LV left for LM City to look for a job. On learning that he got LV pregnant, Odocado married LV's sister, CK.
On November 7, 2006 the RTC rendered a decision that found accused Odocado guilty of the two rapes of which he was charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in both cases. The RTC also ordered him to pay LV the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each of the two rapes.
On April 30, 2009 the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02637, affirming the decision of the RTC but ordering accused Odocado to instead pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, another P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of rape. This prompted Odocado to come to this Court on appeal.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA correctly found sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Odocado raped LV on the two occasions she mentioned in her testimony.
The Ruling of the Court
Accused Odocado claims that he was in Barangay IT as a stay-in worker on March 10, 2002 and so could not have committed the first rape of which he was charged. But, as the RTC said, this defense of denial cannot overcome LV's candid testimony. Besides, it was not impossible for him to go to Barangay AB since this was but about two kilometers away. In fact, he could get there from Barangay IT in just 10 minutes.
Defending himself against the second rape, accused Odocado claims that it was LV who, on May 5, 2002, undressed in his presence and seduced him. And from then on, he and she carried on with their illicit relations.
But this claim is not entitled to belief. LV was just 12 years old, going on 13. Accused Odocado was 31 and was living with LV's sister, CK, as his common-law wife with whom he had a child. He was more than twice her age. It was highly improbable for LV, a young barrio girl, to fall for him, let alone to undress and seduce him in her sister's house.
The "lovers' theory," which accused Odocado lamely invokes, must be supported by convincing proof.[3] Having admitted that he had sex with LV, the burden of proving his defense with substantial evidence shifted to him.[4] But, other than his bare claim that he and LV had become lovers, Odocado presented no evidence that this was so. There were no letters or notes, no photos or mementos, nothing at all to prove that such romantic relationship existed.[5] He also presented no evidence that LV was of loose morals.[6] Indeed, Odocado's defense was too ridiculous that nobody dared lie for him.
Since accused Odocado married LV's sister after the rapes occurred, he cannot be said to be LV's relative by affinity. Thus, this case is one of simple rape, justifying the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and another P50,000.00 as moral damages[7]
As for the CA's additional award of exemplary damages, the same cannot be justified since the informations[8] in these cases do not allege any aggravating circumstance.[9]
Further, since LV begot a child as a result of the rape, Odocado must likewise acknowledge and support that child pursuant to Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 201 of the Family Code.[10]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02637 dated April 30, 2009 that upheld the Regional Trial Court's judgment of conviction against the accused Arnel Odocado for two counts of rape in Criminal Cases 2003-0091 and 2003-0092, with the MODIFICATION that the Court of Appeals' additional awards in each of the two cases be deleted.
The Court further DIRECTS Odocado to acknowledge and support the offspring born of the rape. The amount of support shall be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing, called only to detemiine the amount and terms of support, with support in arrears to be reckoned from November 7, 2006 or the date the appealed decision was promulgated by the trial court.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 17th day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 188842 (People of the Philippines v. Arnel Odocado y Ronda).-
This case is about the need for substantial evidence to support the sweetheart defense that many of those accused of rape invoke to avoid criminal liability.
The Facts and the Case
The public prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged the accused Arnel Odocado with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City in Criminal Cases 2003-0091 and 2003-0092.
LV[1] was, based on her birth certificate, born on June 14, 1989. She was the sister of CK, accused Odocado's common-law wife. LV testified that Odocado raped her twice when she was 12 years old going on 13 at her parents' house on March 10, 2002 at around 10:00 in the morning and again at Odocado's house on May 5, 2002 at around 3:00 in the afternoon.
On March 10, 2002 CK brought her son to her parents' house at Barangay AB so her sister, LV, could look after him. Later, accused Odocado came to take his son allegedly so they could buy some cigarettes together. LV went to a nearby house but she later noticed that Odocado was not looking after his child after all. This prompted LV to return to their house to keep the child company.
Suddenly, accused Odocado grabbed LV's hair and dragged her into the house. Once inside, he forced LV down on the mat, took off his shorts, rubbed spit on his penis, and then mounted LV. He also stripped her of her underwear, plunged his penis into her private parts, and ravished her. Odocado threatened LV with a knife, telling her that he would kill her if she told on him. Thus, LV kept quiet about it.
On May 5, 2002 CK asked her sister LV to come to their (Odocado's) house to baby-sit for her because she had to do some laundry. At about 3:00 in the afternoon, LV was asleep with her nephew when she suddenly woke up to discover that accused Odocado had tied her feet and hands with ropes. He had already removed her panties and her nephew was no longer by her side. Once again, Odocado forced himself on her and repeated his threat to kill her if she told on him.
Eventually, however, LV told her sister, CK, about it since she suspected that she had become pregnant after she missed her period and had vomiting spells. CK confided the matter to RL, Odocado's sister, who decided to take LV to LM City to take her place as housemaid for the Punzalan couple who had no child. The latter agreed to adopt LV's baby but, because she had an unstable pregnancy, they brought her back to Barangay AB where she eventually gave birth on February 20, 2003.
When LV was yet in LM City, she eventually told her mother about her misfortune. Thus, they filed criminal charges against accused Odocado as soon as they had returned to Barangay AB. A DNA[2] test was done on Odocado and the child and it showed that the probability that Odocado was the father of LV's child was 99.8335%.
For his part, accused Odocado testified that he had been working on a stay-in basis at a farm in Barangay IT from March 10 to April 8, 2002. Consequently, he never had an opportunity to go home to Barangay AB to visit his family. He denied having raped LV on March 10, 2002 since he was then in Barangay IT.
Accused Odocado testified, however, that on May 5, 2002 he was at his house in Barangay AB. His wife was away washing their clothes. LV arrived and played with his son. While Odocado was lying in bed, LV approached and began kissing him. He told her to stop since he was married but she told him that he and her sister were just living together and it was possible for them to still separate. LV then took off her clothes and continuously seduced him.
No longer able to resist what she was doing, Odocado had sex with LV. From then on, they would have sex when they see each other. The last time was on June 3, 2002 when LV wanted them to begin living together. Because Odocado refused, only LV left for LM City to look for a job. On learning that he got LV pregnant, Odocado married LV's sister, CK.
On November 7, 2006 the RTC rendered a decision that found accused Odocado guilty of the two rapes of which he was charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in both cases. The RTC also ordered him to pay LV the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each of the two rapes.
On April 30, 2009 the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02637, affirming the decision of the RTC but ordering accused Odocado to instead pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, another P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of rape. This prompted Odocado to come to this Court on appeal.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA correctly found sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Odocado raped LV on the two occasions she mentioned in her testimony.
The Ruling of the Court
Accused Odocado claims that he was in Barangay IT as a stay-in worker on March 10, 2002 and so could not have committed the first rape of which he was charged. But, as the RTC said, this defense of denial cannot overcome LV's candid testimony. Besides, it was not impossible for him to go to Barangay AB since this was but about two kilometers away. In fact, he could get there from Barangay IT in just 10 minutes.
Defending himself against the second rape, accused Odocado claims that it was LV who, on May 5, 2002, undressed in his presence and seduced him. And from then on, he and she carried on with their illicit relations.
But this claim is not entitled to belief. LV was just 12 years old, going on 13. Accused Odocado was 31 and was living with LV's sister, CK, as his common-law wife with whom he had a child. He was more than twice her age. It was highly improbable for LV, a young barrio girl, to fall for him, let alone to undress and seduce him in her sister's house.
The "lovers' theory," which accused Odocado lamely invokes, must be supported by convincing proof.[3] Having admitted that he had sex with LV, the burden of proving his defense with substantial evidence shifted to him.[4] But, other than his bare claim that he and LV had become lovers, Odocado presented no evidence that this was so. There were no letters or notes, no photos or mementos, nothing at all to prove that such romantic relationship existed.[5] He also presented no evidence that LV was of loose morals.[6] Indeed, Odocado's defense was too ridiculous that nobody dared lie for him.
Since accused Odocado married LV's sister after the rapes occurred, he cannot be said to be LV's relative by affinity. Thus, this case is one of simple rape, justifying the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and another P50,000.00 as moral damages[7]
As for the CA's additional award of exemplary damages, the same cannot be justified since the informations[8] in these cases do not allege any aggravating circumstance.[9]
Further, since LV begot a child as a result of the rape, Odocado must likewise acknowledge and support that child pursuant to Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 201 of the Family Code.[10]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02637 dated April 30, 2009 that upheld the Regional Trial Court's judgment of conviction against the accused Arnel Odocado for two counts of rape in Criminal Cases 2003-0091 and 2003-0092, with the MODIFICATION that the Court of Appeals' additional awards in each of the two cases be deleted.
The Court further DIRECTS Odocado to acknowledge and support the offspring born of the rape. The amount of support shall be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing, called only to detemiine the amount and terms of support, with support in arrears to be reckoned from November 7, 2006 or the date the appealed decision was promulgated by the trial court.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 17th day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours;
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] These and other fictitious initials have been used in this decision to protect her privacy.
[2] Deoxyribonucleic acid.
[3] People v. Monfero, 367 Phil. 675, 693 (1999).
[4] People v. Mantis, G.R. Nos. 150613-14, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 236, 246-247.
[5] People v. Marabillas, 362 Phil. 688, 694 (1999).
[6] People v. Tejada, 413 Phil. 211,228(2001).
[7] People v. Araojo, G.R. No. 185203, September 17, 2009.
[8] CA rollo, pp. 14-15.
[9] People v. Casitas, Jr., 445 Phil. 407, 427 (2003).
[10] People v. Alfeche, 355 Phil. 776, 803 (1998), citing People v. Bayani, 331 Phil. 169, 203 (1996).
