February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 174865 : February 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BILLY TINAMPAY :
[G.R. No. 174865 : February 15, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BILLY TINAMPAY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 February 2010:
G.R. No. 174865 (People of the Philippines v. Billy Tinampay) -
This case is about the charge of rape in the face of the absence of hymenal lacerations based on the evidence of the medico-legal expert.
The Facts and the Case
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos, Bulacan charged the accused Billy Tinampay of multiple rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City m Criminal Cases 132-M-01 and 133-M-01.
At the trial, XYZ,[1] one of accused Tinampay's nine children, testified that sometime in August 2000 she was in the house with Tinampay. Her siblings were outside taking a bath while their mother was doing laundry work somewhere. XYZ decided to lie down since she was having dysmenorrheal pains. Suddenly, Tinampay approached and mounted her, simultaneously removing her shorts and underwear. Tinampay lowered his shorts and although XYZ struggled and tried to shout, Tinampay covered her mouth and overcame her resistance. She felt his penis entering her private part.
After accused Tinampay had ravished her, XYZ felt something warm in her genitals. She bled from it. Tinampay stood but XYZ remained lying due to abdominal pains. XYZ later washed off the blood that wet her clothes. When her siblings came into the house, they found her weeping. But she did not tell them what happened because Tinampay had threatened to kill her if she did.
On December 11, 2000, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, accused Tinampay sexually abused her again. It was XYZ's monthly period and she did not feel well like before. Tinampay approached XYZ and removed her shorts and underwear. Thereafter, he succeeded in abusing XYZ for the second time.
On the next day, XYZ told her aunt about it and the latter accompanied her to the police station and later to the National Bureau of Investigation where a medico-legal officer examined her.
For his defense, Tinampay claims that as a water delivery boy, he usually left their house at 6:00 in the morning and finished his work at 7:00 in the evening. Tinampay maintains that at the time of the alleged incidents, he was at work and could not have gone home for he had no deliveries in their area. Tinampay contends that XYZ filed the charges because she hated it when he stopped sending her to school due to lack of money. The defense also presented Tinampay's employer who testified that, after he had suspended him from work for less than a month due to frequent absences in the years 1998 and 1999, Tinampay had always made it a point never to be absent.
On April 21, 2004 the RTC found Tinampay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the two rape charges and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection in both instances. The RTC also ordered him to indemnify XYZ in the amount of P100,000.00, or P50,000.00 for each count of rape.
On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02161, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment on July 18, 2006,[2] affirming the decision of the RTC but reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act 9346.[3] The CA also ordered Tinampay to pay XYZ 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. Tinampay then appealed to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding sufficient evidence to affirm accused Tinampay's conviction for rape.
The Ruling of the Court
The defense anchors its claim mainly on the allegation that the testimony of the lone witness, XYZ, is not credible and in fact seriously contradicts the other evidence of the prosecution.
In rape, the conviction of the accused invariably depends on the credibility of the victim since she is oftentimes the only witness to the crime. Yet, the accused may be convicted on account of such testimony.[4] For this reason, the court must pay attention to what she says, putting her testimony against the test of common experience. It must subject her testimony to the most rigid and careful scrutiny, not overlooking details which are essential to the outcome of the case.[5] Here, the trial court and the CA are of one voice: XYZ's testimony passed that test even in the face of an extensive and rigid cross-examination. This Court finds no reason to rule otherwise.
Tinampay insists that XYZ's testimony is contradicted by the medico-legal certificate[6] which said that XYZ's private parts had no lacerations and that her hymen remained intact. But that fact is not conclusive evidence that rape did not take place. This Court has ruled in People v. Gabayron[7] that, based on medical researches, negative findings of lacerations are of no significance. Many cases of pregnancy had even been reported about women with unruptured hymen, and that there could still be a finding of rape even if, despite repeated coitus over a period of years, the victim still retained an intact hymen without signs of injury. The Court made the same ruling in People v. Castro[8]
As a final attempt to escape liability, Tinampay feebly asserts that at the time of the supposed incidents, he was at work. But this claim cannot prevail over XYZ's unequivocal testimony.[9]
This Court likewise finds the penalty imposed and the damages awarded proper under the circumstances. In view of Republic Act (R.A.) 9346, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper, without eligibility for parole.[10] The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is justified for the crime was committed by a parent against his daughter and the latter is under 18 years of age, a circumstance which would justify the imposition of the death penalty.[11] The award of another P75,000.00 as moral damages is in order for qualified rape,[12] as well as the P30,000.00 by way of exemplary damages[13] in accordance with the latest jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02161 dated July 18, 2006, sustaining the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Cases 132-M-01 and 133-M-01 dated April 21, 2004 which found Billy Tmampay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape but reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. 9346, for each count of rape, without eligibility for parole, and ordering him to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, another P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of rape.
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 15th day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 174865 (People of the Philippines v. Billy Tinampay) -
This case is about the charge of rape in the face of the absence of hymenal lacerations based on the evidence of the medico-legal expert.
The Facts and the Case
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos, Bulacan charged the accused Billy Tinampay of multiple rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City m Criminal Cases 132-M-01 and 133-M-01.
At the trial, XYZ,[1] one of accused Tinampay's nine children, testified that sometime in August 2000 she was in the house with Tinampay. Her siblings were outside taking a bath while their mother was doing laundry work somewhere. XYZ decided to lie down since she was having dysmenorrheal pains. Suddenly, Tinampay approached and mounted her, simultaneously removing her shorts and underwear. Tinampay lowered his shorts and although XYZ struggled and tried to shout, Tinampay covered her mouth and overcame her resistance. She felt his penis entering her private part.
After accused Tinampay had ravished her, XYZ felt something warm in her genitals. She bled from it. Tinampay stood but XYZ remained lying due to abdominal pains. XYZ later washed off the blood that wet her clothes. When her siblings came into the house, they found her weeping. But she did not tell them what happened because Tinampay had threatened to kill her if she did.
On December 11, 2000, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, accused Tinampay sexually abused her again. It was XYZ's monthly period and she did not feel well like before. Tinampay approached XYZ and removed her shorts and underwear. Thereafter, he succeeded in abusing XYZ for the second time.
On the next day, XYZ told her aunt about it and the latter accompanied her to the police station and later to the National Bureau of Investigation where a medico-legal officer examined her.
For his defense, Tinampay claims that as a water delivery boy, he usually left their house at 6:00 in the morning and finished his work at 7:00 in the evening. Tinampay maintains that at the time of the alleged incidents, he was at work and could not have gone home for he had no deliveries in their area. Tinampay contends that XYZ filed the charges because she hated it when he stopped sending her to school due to lack of money. The defense also presented Tinampay's employer who testified that, after he had suspended him from work for less than a month due to frequent absences in the years 1998 and 1999, Tinampay had always made it a point never to be absent.
On April 21, 2004 the RTC found Tinampay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the two rape charges and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection in both instances. The RTC also ordered him to indemnify XYZ in the amount of P100,000.00, or P50,000.00 for each count of rape.
On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02161, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment on July 18, 2006,[2] affirming the decision of the RTC but reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act 9346.[3] The CA also ordered Tinampay to pay XYZ 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. Tinampay then appealed to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding sufficient evidence to affirm accused Tinampay's conviction for rape.
The Ruling of the Court
The defense anchors its claim mainly on the allegation that the testimony of the lone witness, XYZ, is not credible and in fact seriously contradicts the other evidence of the prosecution.
In rape, the conviction of the accused invariably depends on the credibility of the victim since she is oftentimes the only witness to the crime. Yet, the accused may be convicted on account of such testimony.[4] For this reason, the court must pay attention to what she says, putting her testimony against the test of common experience. It must subject her testimony to the most rigid and careful scrutiny, not overlooking details which are essential to the outcome of the case.[5] Here, the trial court and the CA are of one voice: XYZ's testimony passed that test even in the face of an extensive and rigid cross-examination. This Court finds no reason to rule otherwise.
Tinampay insists that XYZ's testimony is contradicted by the medico-legal certificate[6] which said that XYZ's private parts had no lacerations and that her hymen remained intact. But that fact is not conclusive evidence that rape did not take place. This Court has ruled in People v. Gabayron[7] that, based on medical researches, negative findings of lacerations are of no significance. Many cases of pregnancy had even been reported about women with unruptured hymen, and that there could still be a finding of rape even if, despite repeated coitus over a period of years, the victim still retained an intact hymen without signs of injury. The Court made the same ruling in People v. Castro[8]
As a final attempt to escape liability, Tinampay feebly asserts that at the time of the supposed incidents, he was at work. But this claim cannot prevail over XYZ's unequivocal testimony.[9]
This Court likewise finds the penalty imposed and the damages awarded proper under the circumstances. In view of Republic Act (R.A.) 9346, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is proper, without eligibility for parole.[10] The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is justified for the crime was committed by a parent against his daughter and the latter is under 18 years of age, a circumstance which would justify the imposition of the death penalty.[11] The award of another P75,000.00 as moral damages is in order for qualified rape,[12] as well as the P30,000.00 by way of exemplary damages[13] in accordance with the latest jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02161 dated July 18, 2006, sustaining the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Cases 132-M-01 and 133-M-01 dated April 21, 2004 which found Billy Tmampay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape but reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. 9346, for each count of rape, without eligibility for parole, and ordering him to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, another P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of rape.
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 15th 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] A fictitious name to conceal her real identity.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Magdangal M. de Leon.
[3] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
[4] People v. Tismo, G.R. No. 44773, December 4,1991, 204 SCRA 535, 553.
[5] People v. Salidaga, G.R. No. 172323, January 29, 2007, 513 SCRA 306, 318.
[6] Records, p. 16.
[7] 343 Phil. 593, 607 (1997).
[8] 274 Phil. 80, 88(1991).
[9] People v. Malate, G.R. No. 185724, June 5, 2009.
[10] People v. Cabral, G.R. No. 179946, December 23, 2009.
[11] People v. Caraang, 463 Phil. 715,765(2003).
[12] People v. Arellano, G.R. No. 176640, August 22, 2008, 563 SCRA 181, 190.
[13] People v. Cabral, supra note 10; People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106, November 25, 2009; People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 187531, October 16, 2009.
