January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 188131 : January 11, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CUSTODIO ROXAS Y CALLES :
[G.R. No. 188131 : January 11, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CUSTODIO ROXAS Y CALLES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is, a resolution of this Court dated 11 January 2010:
G.R. No. 188131 (People of the Philippines v. Custodio Roxas y Calles).�Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1] dated October 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02288.
The antecedents of the case are as follows:
Two (2) separate criminal informations were filed against Custodio Roxas y Calles (Roxas), which read:
On May 31, 2002, Roxas was arraigned. He pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. On July, 24, 2002, pre-trial was held, and the following stipulations were uncontested:
A joint trial of the cases ensued. The prosecution presented the following as witnesses: (1) X, the private complainant; (2) X's aunt, the sister of X's mother; (3) the older sister of X; (4) Dr. Annie Zoreta-Umil, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, who issued the medical certificate of X; and (5) Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Adonis L. Lomatao, who conducted the police investigation of these cases.
At the trial, it was proven that X's ordeal began in July 1993 when she was just eleven (11) years old. Roxas arrived home drunk and X was alone in the house. Roxas poked a knife at X, punched her on the stomach, undressed her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her against her will. Because of Roxas' threat that he would kill X and her mother, she did not report what happened to her. The incident was repeated several times but X kept silent because of Roxas' threats. The last time Roxas forced himself on X was on April 10, 1997, when X was already fifteen (15) years old.
The defense presented the accused himself as the sole witness. In his defense, Roxas denied the accusations against him. He averred that the cases were filed, as his niece held a grudge against him because he refused to send her to school.
On May 9, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Joint Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
On appeal before the CA, Roxas maintained that he was charged due to ill motives. He impugned X's inability to recall the exact dates of the commission of the rape, allegedly, in violation of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.
On October 31, 2008, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC
Decision, The dispositive portion of the Decision[6] reads:
Hence, this petition.
The sole issue in this case is whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the conviction of Roxas in the rape cases filed against him.
We sustain the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reached by the trial court and affirmed by the CA. The fact of commission of the offenses charged, the minority of the victim at the time of the commission of the offense, and the relationship of the victim with the accused were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The denial of the accused and his flimsy excuse that the victim held a grudge against him is weak, in light of the positive testimony of the victim on the commission of the offense. A denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving, and it merits no weight in law.[8]
In the instant case, Roxas is the uncle of X and was considered by X as her father because X's father died when she was only two years old. Roxas became the common-law husband of X's mother. Roxas, X's mother and X lived together under one roof as a family. The deplorable acts of Roxas in deflowering his niece, who was only in Grade V at the time of its first commission, and repeating the same bestial act several times each month until X reached the age of 15 are highly unpardonable.
In People of the Philippines v. Leodegario G. Gregorio, Jr.,[9] the accused was the father of the complainant. In an effort to discredit the victim, the father claimed that his daughter had long harbored a grudge against him for being strict with her, suggesting that his daughter fabricated the rape story to get back at him. In denying the claim of the accused, the Court ruled in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court �of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02288 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 11th day of January 2010.
G.R. No. 188131 (People of the Philippines v. Custodio Roxas y Calles).�Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1] dated October 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02288.
The antecedents of the case are as follows:
Two (2) separate criminal informations were filed against Custodio Roxas y Calles (Roxas), which read:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. IR-4753
(Statutory Rape)
That sometime in the months of July up to October 1993, at (PPP), Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, Custodio Roxas y Calles, while armed with a bladed weapon, by means of violence and intimidation, with lewd designs did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge for several times with (sic) the private complainant, his niece-stepdaughter, (X), who was then only eleven (11) years old, and a Grade V pupil, against her will and without her consent, as shown by the medical certificate attached to the records of this case to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be determined by the Honorable Court.
CONTRARY TO LAW.CRIMINAL CASE NO. IR-4754
(Simple Rape)
That sometimes (sic) in November 1993 up to April 10, 1997, at (PPP), Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, Custodio Roxas y Calles, while armed with a bladed weapon, by means of violence and intimidation, with lewd designs did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge for several times with (sic) the private complainant, his niece-stepdaughter, (X), while she was then 12 years old up to when she was already fifteen (15) years old, against her will and without her consent, as shown by the medical certificate attached to the records of this case to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be determined by the Honorable Court.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
On May 31, 2002, Roxas was arraigned. He pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. On July, 24, 2002, pre-trial was held, and the following stipulations were uncontested:
1. The identities of the accused (appellant) and the private complainant, (X);
2. (That) the accused Custodio Roxas is the uncle by blood of the private complainant because the accused is the brother of the father of the private complainant;
3. That after the death of the father of the victim, the accused became her stepfather;
4. The accused was previously convicted for Acts of Lasciviousness in Laguna, the complainant of which is (X), the complainant in these cases.[3]
A joint trial of the cases ensued. The prosecution presented the following as witnesses: (1) X, the private complainant; (2) X's aunt, the sister of X's mother; (3) the older sister of X; (4) Dr. Annie Zoreta-Umil, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, who issued the medical certificate of X; and (5) Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Adonis L. Lomatao, who conducted the police investigation of these cases.
At the trial, it was proven that X's ordeal began in July 1993 when she was just eleven (11) years old. Roxas arrived home drunk and X was alone in the house. Roxas poked a knife at X, punched her on the stomach, undressed her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her against her will. Because of Roxas' threat that he would kill X and her mother, she did not report what happened to her. The incident was repeated several times but X kept silent because of Roxas' threats. The last time Roxas forced himself on X was on April 10, 1997, when X was already fifteen (15) years old.
The defense presented the accused himself as the sole witness. In his defense, Roxas denied the accusations against him. He averred that the cases were filed, as his niece held a grudge against him because he refused to send her to school.
On May 9, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Joint Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for committing the crime of statutory rape in Criminal Case No. Ir- 4753, there being an aggravating circumstance of relationship and mitigating circumstance of intoxication, and [in] Criminal Case No. Ir- 4754, [there being] no aggravating circumstance [that could] be attributed to the accused, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby imposed against the accused in Criminal Case No. Ir-4753 and also reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. Ir-4754 pursuant to the same article. Accused is also ordered to pay the complainant the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each case and also P75,000.00 as moral damages for each case.
SO ORDERED.[5]
On appeal before the CA, Roxas maintained that he was charged due to ill motives. He impugned X's inability to recall the exact dates of the commission of the rape, allegedly, in violation of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.
On October 31, 2008, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC
Decision, The dispositive portion of the Decision[6] reads:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 37, dated May 9, 2006, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that an additional amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) is awarded in each case, as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Hence, this petition.
The sole issue in this case is whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming the conviction of Roxas in the rape cases filed against him.
We sustain the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reached by the trial court and affirmed by the CA. The fact of commission of the offenses charged, the minority of the victim at the time of the commission of the offense, and the relationship of the victim with the accused were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The denial of the accused and his flimsy excuse that the victim held a grudge against him is weak, in light of the positive testimony of the victim on the commission of the offense. A denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving, and it merits no weight in law.[8]
In the instant case, Roxas is the uncle of X and was considered by X as her father because X's father died when she was only two years old. Roxas became the common-law husband of X's mother. Roxas, X's mother and X lived together under one roof as a family. The deplorable acts of Roxas in deflowering his niece, who was only in Grade V at the time of its first commission, and repeating the same bestial act several times each month until X reached the age of 15 are highly unpardonable.
In People of the Philippines v. Leodegario G. Gregorio, Jr.,[9] the accused was the father of the complainant. In an effort to discredit the victim, the father claimed that his daughter had long harbored a grudge against him for being strict with her, suggesting that his daughter fabricated the rape story to get back at him. In denying the claim of the accused, the Court ruled in this wise:
XXX's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to humiliating medical examination and her willingness to pass through, as she did, a public trial where she could and was compelled to dish out details of an assault against her very womanhood, dignity and honor cannot be dismissed as mere concoction.: Incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily fabricated or manufactured. The very parties involved in it, let alone the psychological toil, social scandal and humiliation it is likely to generate, are already deterrent factors against its concoction. The victim, the perpetrator, nay, the entire family must deal with a crisis that goes to the very core of familial integrity. In fine, the Court has every reason to believe that in going to court, XXX is simply seeking justice for the bestial acts done to her even if the ax has to fall � against her very own father.[10]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court �of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02288 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 11th day of January 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-13.
[2] The name and the exact address of private complainant are withheld to protect her identity and privacy, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as "The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004," and Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, also known as "The Supreme Court Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children"; rollo, no. 3-4.
[3] Rollo, p. 4.
[4] Penned by Presiding Judge Rogelio LI. Dacara, RTC, Branch 37, Iriga City; CA rollo, pp. 72-86.
[5] Id. at 86.
[6] Supra note 1.
[7] Id. at 12-13.
[8] People v. Gregorio, Jr., G.R. No. 174474, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 216.
[9] Id. at 228.