January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 170364 : January 13, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JONIE DELA CRUZ @ JONJON:
[G.R. No. 170364 : January 13, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JONIE DELA CRUZ @ JONJON
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 13 January 2010:
G.R. No. 170364(People of the Philippines v. Jonie Dela Cruz @ Jonjon).-
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00808, promulgated on July 28, 2005, which affirmed and modified the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Ecija, m Criminal Cases 194-SD(97), 195-SD(97), and 196-SD(97), dated August I, 2001, convicting the accused-appellant of two counts of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness.
The Indictment
Appellant Jonie Dela Cruz (alias Jonjon) was indicted for three counts of rape. Except for the different dates of the commission of the crimes, February 12, 27 and 28, 1997, the three informations are identical:
The Facts and the Case
The prosecution's case is that in February 1997 AJ, 16 years of age, lived with her family at Barangay RC, Nueva Ecija. At the back of their house was a nipa hut where accused Jonjon lived with his mother. Jonjon's mother was cousin to AJ's maternal grandfather, making Jonjon somewhat an uncle of AJ.[3]
At around 2:00 p.m. on February 12, 1997, AJ was at home when Jonjon suddenly walked in. His eyes looked menacing ("nanlilisik"). He pulled AJ by her hair, forced her to lie down, and undressed her. Holding a knife to her neck, he succeeded in ravishing her. Before leaving, Jonjon threatened to kill AJ's entire family if she would report what happened.[4] But AJ's younger sister, BJ, who had just come from school, saw what happened.[5]
Fifteen days later, on February 27, 1997, at around 2:00 p.m., AJ was feeding pigs at their pigpen when Jonjon arrived. He tried to hug her but she kicked him and ran into the house. That night, however, Jonjon took advantage of her again. He entered the house with the same menacing eyes, laid her down, and began kissing the different parts of her body.[6]
BJ testified that she saw what happened at the pigpen on February 27, 1997. She was at the back of Jonjon's house when she saw him trying to remove her sister's panty. Having kicked Jonjon, AJ ran into their house. Seeing BJ, Jonjon threatened to kill her family if she would report what she saw. Later that evening, BJ again saw Jonjon ravish her sister while pointing a knife at the latter.[7]
The next day, February 28, 1997, while AJ was fixing the beddings, Jonjon came into the house and forced AJ down on the bed. AJ resisted him but he boxed her thigh. And he was again able to have sex with her, threatening to kill her and her entire family if she would report the matter.[8]
On July 9, 1997 AJ's mother, DD, noticed that her daughter was not acting like her usual self ("para po siyang hibang").[9] Touching her daughter's abdomen, DD felt a round mass, prompting her to take AJ to a doctor who said that she was five months pregnant. DD confronted her daughter about who made her pregnant but AJ could not give her a straight answer. She just mentioned several names. Unable to get a definite answer, DD brought AJ to the barangay captain of RC.
Before the barangay captain, AJ still would not say who made her pregnant. She gave the names Ed or Edgar dela Cruz, Freda, Lito dela Cruz, Michael dela Cruz, and Joey or Junior dela Cruz. Edgar was summoned but he denied having been responsible for the pregnancy. He even asked for a medical examination to prove his innocence. He talked with AJ, who then admitted that it was not Edgar. Freda, a gay friend who used to live with AJ's family, was summoned, too, but at the confrontation, AJ also admitted that Freda had nothing to do with her situation.
The barangay captain also called for Lito dela Cruz, Michael dela Cruz, and Joey or Junior dela Cruz. Despite police assistance, no persons with those names could be found. Eventually, BJ told her mother and the barangay captain that it was Jonjon who raped AJ.
For his part, Jonjon admitted having lived with AJ's family but denied the charges against him. He claimed that on the dates mentioned, he was with AJ's father, working as his truck helper or "pahinante" in haulmg chalk in Villasis, Pangasinan. On July 8, 1997 DD woke him up, accused him of getting AJ pregnant, and told him to admit it or else, she would have him killed.[10]
The RTC found Jonjon guilty of all three counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The RTC also ordered him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in regard to Criminal Cases 194-SD(97) and 196-SD(97), involving the first and the third incidents. As to the second incident, the CA held that AJ's testimony did not sufficiently prove the charge. AJ merely testified that on February 27, 1997 the accused "raped" her in the "same manner" as the first. The CA held that each charge of rape is separate and distinct and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt apart from the others.
The CA observed, however, that in the second incident, the prosecution sufficiently proved that Jonjon undressed and kissed AJ on different parts of her body, which constituted an act of lasciviousness punishable under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, for Criminal Case 195-SD(97), the CA sentenced Jonjon to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six years of prision correctional, as maximum, and to pay �50,000.00 in moral damages. Appellant Jonjon appealed to this Court from the CA decision.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in these cases is whether or not appellant Jonjon raped AJ on each of the three occasions subject of the charges against him.
The Court's Ruling
Jonjon's defense rests on his claim of lack of credibility of the testimonies of AJ and BJ. But this Court has consistently held that the issue of credibility of witnesses should primarily be resolved by the trial judge who personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment as well as manner of testifying.[11]
On the face of the records, AJ and BJ appear to have given straightforward and candid testimonies, abundant with details that were peculiar to the circumstances of each charge. Their stories were consistent in every material point. And rigid cross-examinations did not shake their stories. The trial judge, who heard, watched, and believed them, contributes the presence that makes such testimonies persuasive to the reviewing appellate Court. There is no reason to reverse the factual findings of the RTC on appeal.
1. Appellant Jonjon points out that the failure of AJ and BJ to report the supposed rapes he committed casts serious doubts on the charge. But as these two minors testified, Jonjon threatened to kill them and their family. And their fears were founded. AJ testified that she had heard Jonjon's mother say that one of his other sons had already killed someone and that Jonjon and some of his brothers were drug addicts. Indeed, AJ often saw Jonjon's friends at the back of their house smoking shabu.[12] BJ herself often saw Jonjon smoke something wrapped in foil. And, at the time he threatened her, he seemed drunk.[13] Jonjon had, therefore, effectively terrorized the kids.
2. Appellant Jonjon capitalizes on the fact that, when DD and the barangay captain confronted AJ about who made her pregnant, the latter gave several names that did not include Jonjon. But the Court can understand her predicament. She was five months pregnant and no one shared her confusion and agonies over it. Now she was suddenly exposed when her mother discovered her situation. She was gripped by mixed feelings of fear and terror for Jonjon's wrath if she told on him and the intense mental pressure of having to provide some name that her mother and the barangay captain demanded of her. She was practically a child still. She must have thought in her desperation that giving them any name, except Jonjon's, would make her problems go away. But BJ, reluctant at first, eventually stepped forward and put the fmger on Jonjon. At some time, the truth must come out. BJ can easily be believed because she had no motive to lie about him. She just had to tell her mother when her sister could not.
3. Jonjon also argues that the medical examiner's findings that AJ had old healed lacerations at several positions of her hymen showed that she had an active sex life before the rape. But Jonjon presented no evidence at all that AJ was sexually promiscuous. Those lacerations, already healed, are consistent with AJ and BJ's story that he had earlier abused AJ, resulting in her pregnancy.
4. Finally, Jonjon points out further that the prosecution never rebutted his claim that he was with AJ's father in February 1997, hauling chalk, and this should thus be regarded as admitted fact. But AJ categorically testified that Jonjon did not help her father haul chalk in February 1997.[14] BJ corroborated this when she testified that their father did not make any trips to Pangasinan in (hat month.[15]
As to Criminal Case i95-SD(97), the CA correctly held that AJ's bare statement that Jonjon raped her on February 27, 1997 amounted to a mere conclusion. Such statement does not establish the elements of the offense of rape. Each count of rape is separate and distinct from the other, and each count should be separately proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not enough for a woman to claim that she was raped without showing how it happened.[16]
The prosecution was unable to prove in this particular incident that Jonjon had carnal knowledge of AJ. The latter's testimony merely proved that Jonjon forcibly undressed her and afterwards kissed her on various parts of her body.[17] Even BJ did not categorically state that Jonjon succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her sister. BJ merely testified that Jonjon was atop of AJ "as if he was making sex." BJ did, however, testify that Jonjon touched different parts of AJ's body while pointing a knife at her. And when she resisted, he slapped her face, pulled her hair and choked her.[18]
A charge of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in a complaint for rape.[19] Since the elements of lewd design and force and intimidation upon the victim were clearly established in this case, the CA correctly convicted Jonjon of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case 195-SD(97).
With regard to the award of moral damages, however, the amount of P50,000.00 should be reduced to P30,000.00 following prevailing jurisprudence.[20] On the other hand, AJ is also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P2,000.00, considering that the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000.00.[21]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00808 dated July 28, 2005 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS with regard to Criminal Case 195-SD(97):
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 13th day of January, 2010.
G.R. No. 170364(People of the Philippines v. Jonie Dela Cruz @ Jonjon).-
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00808, promulgated on July 28, 2005, which affirmed and modified the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Ecija, m Criminal Cases 194-SD(97), 195-SD(97), and 196-SD(97), dated August I, 2001, convicting the accused-appellant of two counts of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness.
The Indictment
Appellant Jonie Dela Cruz (alias Jonjon) was indicted for three counts of rape. Except for the different dates of the commission of the crimes, February 12, 27 and 28, 1997, the three informations are identical:
"That on or about the 12th day of February, 1997, at Brgy. [RC], Province of Nueva Ecija, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AJ], in her dwelling place, against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW."[2]
The Facts and the Case
The prosecution's case is that in February 1997 AJ, 16 years of age, lived with her family at Barangay RC, Nueva Ecija. At the back of their house was a nipa hut where accused Jonjon lived with his mother. Jonjon's mother was cousin to AJ's maternal grandfather, making Jonjon somewhat an uncle of AJ.[3]
At around 2:00 p.m. on February 12, 1997, AJ was at home when Jonjon suddenly walked in. His eyes looked menacing ("nanlilisik"). He pulled AJ by her hair, forced her to lie down, and undressed her. Holding a knife to her neck, he succeeded in ravishing her. Before leaving, Jonjon threatened to kill AJ's entire family if she would report what happened.[4] But AJ's younger sister, BJ, who had just come from school, saw what happened.[5]
Fifteen days later, on February 27, 1997, at around 2:00 p.m., AJ was feeding pigs at their pigpen when Jonjon arrived. He tried to hug her but she kicked him and ran into the house. That night, however, Jonjon took advantage of her again. He entered the house with the same menacing eyes, laid her down, and began kissing the different parts of her body.[6]
BJ testified that she saw what happened at the pigpen on February 27, 1997. She was at the back of Jonjon's house when she saw him trying to remove her sister's panty. Having kicked Jonjon, AJ ran into their house. Seeing BJ, Jonjon threatened to kill her family if she would report what she saw. Later that evening, BJ again saw Jonjon ravish her sister while pointing a knife at the latter.[7]
The next day, February 28, 1997, while AJ was fixing the beddings, Jonjon came into the house and forced AJ down on the bed. AJ resisted him but he boxed her thigh. And he was again able to have sex with her, threatening to kill her and her entire family if she would report the matter.[8]
On July 9, 1997 AJ's mother, DD, noticed that her daughter was not acting like her usual self ("para po siyang hibang").[9] Touching her daughter's abdomen, DD felt a round mass, prompting her to take AJ to a doctor who said that she was five months pregnant. DD confronted her daughter about who made her pregnant but AJ could not give her a straight answer. She just mentioned several names. Unable to get a definite answer, DD brought AJ to the barangay captain of RC.
Before the barangay captain, AJ still would not say who made her pregnant. She gave the names Ed or Edgar dela Cruz, Freda, Lito dela Cruz, Michael dela Cruz, and Joey or Junior dela Cruz. Edgar was summoned but he denied having been responsible for the pregnancy. He even asked for a medical examination to prove his innocence. He talked with AJ, who then admitted that it was not Edgar. Freda, a gay friend who used to live with AJ's family, was summoned, too, but at the confrontation, AJ also admitted that Freda had nothing to do with her situation.
The barangay captain also called for Lito dela Cruz, Michael dela Cruz, and Joey or Junior dela Cruz. Despite police assistance, no persons with those names could be found. Eventually, BJ told her mother and the barangay captain that it was Jonjon who raped AJ.
For his part, Jonjon admitted having lived with AJ's family but denied the charges against him. He claimed that on the dates mentioned, he was with AJ's father, working as his truck helper or "pahinante" in haulmg chalk in Villasis, Pangasinan. On July 8, 1997 DD woke him up, accused him of getting AJ pregnant, and told him to admit it or else, she would have him killed.[10]
The RTC found Jonjon guilty of all three counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The RTC also ordered him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in regard to Criminal Cases 194-SD(97) and 196-SD(97), involving the first and the third incidents. As to the second incident, the CA held that AJ's testimony did not sufficiently prove the charge. AJ merely testified that on February 27, 1997 the accused "raped" her in the "same manner" as the first. The CA held that each charge of rape is separate and distinct and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt apart from the others.
The CA observed, however, that in the second incident, the prosecution sufficiently proved that Jonjon undressed and kissed AJ on different parts of her body, which constituted an act of lasciviousness punishable under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, for Criminal Case 195-SD(97), the CA sentenced Jonjon to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six years of prision correctional, as maximum, and to pay �50,000.00 in moral damages. Appellant Jonjon appealed to this Court from the CA decision.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in these cases is whether or not appellant Jonjon raped AJ on each of the three occasions subject of the charges against him.
The Court's Ruling
Jonjon's defense rests on his claim of lack of credibility of the testimonies of AJ and BJ. But this Court has consistently held that the issue of credibility of witnesses should primarily be resolved by the trial judge who personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment as well as manner of testifying.[11]
On the face of the records, AJ and BJ appear to have given straightforward and candid testimonies, abundant with details that were peculiar to the circumstances of each charge. Their stories were consistent in every material point. And rigid cross-examinations did not shake their stories. The trial judge, who heard, watched, and believed them, contributes the presence that makes such testimonies persuasive to the reviewing appellate Court. There is no reason to reverse the factual findings of the RTC on appeal.
1. Appellant Jonjon points out that the failure of AJ and BJ to report the supposed rapes he committed casts serious doubts on the charge. But as these two minors testified, Jonjon threatened to kill them and their family. And their fears were founded. AJ testified that she had heard Jonjon's mother say that one of his other sons had already killed someone and that Jonjon and some of his brothers were drug addicts. Indeed, AJ often saw Jonjon's friends at the back of their house smoking shabu.[12] BJ herself often saw Jonjon smoke something wrapped in foil. And, at the time he threatened her, he seemed drunk.[13] Jonjon had, therefore, effectively terrorized the kids.
2. Appellant Jonjon capitalizes on the fact that, when DD and the barangay captain confronted AJ about who made her pregnant, the latter gave several names that did not include Jonjon. But the Court can understand her predicament. She was five months pregnant and no one shared her confusion and agonies over it. Now she was suddenly exposed when her mother discovered her situation. She was gripped by mixed feelings of fear and terror for Jonjon's wrath if she told on him and the intense mental pressure of having to provide some name that her mother and the barangay captain demanded of her. She was practically a child still. She must have thought in her desperation that giving them any name, except Jonjon's, would make her problems go away. But BJ, reluctant at first, eventually stepped forward and put the fmger on Jonjon. At some time, the truth must come out. BJ can easily be believed because she had no motive to lie about him. She just had to tell her mother when her sister could not.
3. Jonjon also argues that the medical examiner's findings that AJ had old healed lacerations at several positions of her hymen showed that she had an active sex life before the rape. But Jonjon presented no evidence at all that AJ was sexually promiscuous. Those lacerations, already healed, are consistent with AJ and BJ's story that he had earlier abused AJ, resulting in her pregnancy.
4. Finally, Jonjon points out further that the prosecution never rebutted his claim that he was with AJ's father in February 1997, hauling chalk, and this should thus be regarded as admitted fact. But AJ categorically testified that Jonjon did not help her father haul chalk in February 1997.[14] BJ corroborated this when she testified that their father did not make any trips to Pangasinan in (hat month.[15]
As to Criminal Case i95-SD(97), the CA correctly held that AJ's bare statement that Jonjon raped her on February 27, 1997 amounted to a mere conclusion. Such statement does not establish the elements of the offense of rape. Each count of rape is separate and distinct from the other, and each count should be separately proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not enough for a woman to claim that she was raped without showing how it happened.[16]
The prosecution was unable to prove in this particular incident that Jonjon had carnal knowledge of AJ. The latter's testimony merely proved that Jonjon forcibly undressed her and afterwards kissed her on various parts of her body.[17] Even BJ did not categorically state that Jonjon succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her sister. BJ merely testified that Jonjon was atop of AJ "as if he was making sex." BJ did, however, testify that Jonjon touched different parts of AJ's body while pointing a knife at her. And when she resisted, he slapped her face, pulled her hair and choked her.[18]
A charge of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in a complaint for rape.[19] Since the elements of lewd design and force and intimidation upon the victim were clearly established in this case, the CA correctly convicted Jonjon of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case 195-SD(97).
With regard to the award of moral damages, however, the amount of P50,000.00 should be reduced to P30,000.00 following prevailing jurisprudence.[20] On the other hand, AJ is also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P2,000.00, considering that the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and civil indemnity in the amount of P20,000.00.[21]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00808 dated July 28, 2005 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS with regard to Criminal Case 195-SD(97):
1. The award of moral damages is REDUCED to P30,000.00.
2. Appellant Jonie Dela Cruz is ORDERED to PAY P2,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
3. Appellant Jonie Dela Cruz is ORDERED to PAY P30,000.00 as civil indemnity.
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 13th day of January, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
�(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos, and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente Q. Roxas.
[2] The names and addresses of the victim and her relatives, except the appellant, have been replaced with fictitious initials in accordance with Section 29 of R.A. 7610 and Section 44 of R.A. 9262, and the ruling in People v. Cabalquinio, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[3] TSN, February 5,1999, pp. 4-5.
[4] Id. at 8-10.
[5] TSN, December 2, 1998, pp. 8-9.
[6] TSN, February 5, 1999, pp. 12-13.
[7] TSN, December 2, 1998, pp. 10-13.
[8] TSN, February 5,1999, p. 14.
[9] TSN, August 21, 1998, p. 6.
[10] TSN, May 29, 2000, pp. 9-12.
[11] People of the Philippines v. Gragasin, G.R. No. 186496, August 27, 2009.
[12] TSN, February 5, 1999. pp. 6-8 and pp. 19-20.
[13] TSN, January 6, 1999, pp. 12-13.
[14] TSN, March 15, 1999, pp. 11-12.
[15] TSN, January 6, 1999, p. 4.
[16] People v. De Castro, 459 Phil. 518, 529 (2003).
[17] TSN, February 5, 1999, p. 13; TSN, June 21,1999, pp. 18-20; Records (Folder 3), pp. 36-37.
[18] TSN, December 2, 1998, pp. 12-13.
[19] People v. Abulon, G.R. No. 174473, August 17, 2007, 530 SCRA 675, 704.
[20] People v. Ortoa, G.R. No. 174484, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 80, 104-105.
[21] Id.