June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177301 : June 16, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NICANOR MISAGAL :
[G.R. No. 177301 : June 16, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NICANOR MISAGAL
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 177301 (People of the Philippines v. Nicanor Misagal).-
Before this Court is an appeal from the November 8, 2006 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. CR-HC 00259, which affirmed with modification the March 26, 2003 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court[3] (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Cases 99-183 to 99-185, convicting the appellant Nicanor Misagal (Misagal) of three counts of rape.
The city prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City charged appellant Misagal for thrice raping his common-law spouse's 12-year-old daughter on August 17, 19 and 21, 1999.[4]
The evidence for the prosecution shows that CM,[5] the offended party m this case, and her brother lived in the same house with Misagal, their mother's common-law spouse, in Cagayan de Oro City while their mother worked in Manila.[6]
At around 3:00 a.m. on August 17, 1999, accused Misagal suddenly woke up CM by embracing her, mashing her breast, and kissing her face. He covered her mouth and pulled down her shorts. CM resisted by kicking her legs and moving her buttocks but Misagal succeeded in ravishing her. She felt intense pain in her private part and noted the sticky substance that came from Misagal.
At daybreak, CM woke up, took a bath, and went to school. Shortly after 4:00 p.m, she went home just to change her clothes and proceeded to the house of her classmate, Ranela Jaudian. Her brother later called her to come home but, since CM was afraid to face Misagal, she slept at Ranela's place that night.
On the next day, August 18, 1999, CM went home from school, worked on her assignments, and went to bed a little after 7:00 p.m. At around 3:00 a.m. of August 19, Misagal sexually abused her for the second time, under the same circumstances as the first. A few hours later, CM went to school and stayed there the whole day. That night, she again slept at Ranela's place for, fear of another encounter with Misagal.
On August 20, 1999 CM eventually went home because Misagal scolded her. At around 3:00 a.m. of August 21, he again forcibly undressed and raped her.
On August 22, 1999 CM finally told Ranela about what Misagal had done. The following Monday in school, Ranela told her teacher, Mrs. Judith Fuentespina, about CM's confession. Mrs. Fuentespina informed the school principal, who in turn confirmed the story with CM who was then accompanied by her pastor. Together, CM and her pastor then fetched her grandmother and brought her to the principal's house. The principal recounted CM's story and, thereafter, they reported the matter to the police.
Both Ranela and Mrs. Fuentespina corroborated CM's testimony.
The defense, on the other hand, presented Misagal as its lone witness. He denied having committed the crimes of which he was charged and claimed that CM's grandmother initiated the cases against him since she disapproved of his relationship with CM's mother.
In a decision[7] dated March 26, 2003, the RTC rejected Misagal's defense of denial and found him guilty of the crimes charged. Considering that CM was only 12 years old when the crimes were committed and that Misagal was her mother's common-law spouse, the RTC sentenced Misagal to death and to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Appellant Misagal appealed to this Court. But, pursuant to its ruling in People v. Mateo,[8] the Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for adjudication.[9] On November 8, 2006 the latter court affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC.[10]
The appeals' court gave credence to the testimony of CM who, it found, could not have concocted a story of defloration and subjected herself to a public trial unless she was motivated solely by the desire to have Misagal apprehended and punished. As to the penalties, it reduced the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole, in accordance with Republic Act 9346.[11] It affirmed the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, but increased the award of moral damages to P75,000.00 and added an award of exemplary damages of P25,000.00, for each count of rape.
Appellant Misagal seeks by notice of appeal this Court's review of the decision of the CA.
The key issue here is whether or not appellant Misagal raped CM on each of the three occasions subject of the charges against him.
In assailing the factual findings of the RTC, Misagal claims that CM's testimony had been rehearsed and contrived considering that she described the three rape incidents as transpiring in almost exactly the same manner. But, that the crimes occurred under similar circumstances does not negate their commission. Moreover, this Court must defer to the trial court's evaluation of CM's credibility since it was in a position to observe her demeanor.
On the witness stand, CM testified on the details of the rape with sincerity and candor. Thus:
Misagal contends that, in CM's testimony, there was no mention of force and intimidation or that she put up any resistance against the assaults alleged to have been committed against her. But, as CM testified, she tried to pull up her shorts and continuously resisted by kicking her legs and moving her buttocks.[14] Also, she could not shout for help because Misagal covered her mouth with his hand while raping her.[15]
At any rate, Misagal being the common-law spouse of CM's mother, moral ascendancy, substituted for intimidation. In People v. Corpuz,[16] the Court held that in jape committed by close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.
Likewise, the Court cannot accept Misagal's claim that CM's grandmother pressed charges against him because she disapproved of his relationship with CM's mother. Alleged motives of family feuds and revenge have hardly influenced the Court to discredit the testimonies of victims who remained steadfast throughout their direct and cross-examinations. It is also unbelievable that a grandmother would expose her young and innocent granddaughter to the stigma of a rape trial if it were not true.[17]
Finally, that the prosecution alleged in the informations and proved during trial both CM's minority and Misagal's common-law relationship with her mother is beyond question. CM's birth certificate,[18] which was offered in evidence, shows that she was bora on January 30, 1987 and was just 12 years old at the time the crimes were committed. What is more, Misagal's counsel of record agreed in open court that CM's mother is his common-law wife.[19] In fact, Misagal himself also testified that CM called him "Papang,"[20] that he had been living with her mother since June 1991, and that they never married.[21]
In sum, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the factual findings of the RTC and the CA. But, while the appeals' court awarded P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, prevailing jurisprudence dictates an award of P30,000.00.[22] All other monetary awards are sustained.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the November 8, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR- HC 00259. The Court finds appellant Nicanor Misagal GUILTY of three counts of rape in Criminal Cases 99-183 to 99-185 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility of parole. He shall pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of rape. Mendoza, J., on leave; Perez, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 842.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 177301 (People of the Philippines v. Nicanor Misagal).-
Before this Court is an appeal from the November 8, 2006 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. CR-HC 00259, which affirmed with modification the March 26, 2003 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court[3] (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City in Criminal Cases 99-183 to 99-185, convicting the appellant Nicanor Misagal (Misagal) of three counts of rape.
The Facts and the Case
The city prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City charged appellant Misagal for thrice raping his common-law spouse's 12-year-old daughter on August 17, 19 and 21, 1999.[4]
The evidence for the prosecution shows that CM,[5] the offended party m this case, and her brother lived in the same house with Misagal, their mother's common-law spouse, in Cagayan de Oro City while their mother worked in Manila.[6]
At around 3:00 a.m. on August 17, 1999, accused Misagal suddenly woke up CM by embracing her, mashing her breast, and kissing her face. He covered her mouth and pulled down her shorts. CM resisted by kicking her legs and moving her buttocks but Misagal succeeded in ravishing her. She felt intense pain in her private part and noted the sticky substance that came from Misagal.
At daybreak, CM woke up, took a bath, and went to school. Shortly after 4:00 p.m, she went home just to change her clothes and proceeded to the house of her classmate, Ranela Jaudian. Her brother later called her to come home but, since CM was afraid to face Misagal, she slept at Ranela's place that night.
On the next day, August 18, 1999, CM went home from school, worked on her assignments, and went to bed a little after 7:00 p.m. At around 3:00 a.m. of August 19, Misagal sexually abused her for the second time, under the same circumstances as the first. A few hours later, CM went to school and stayed there the whole day. That night, she again slept at Ranela's place for, fear of another encounter with Misagal.
On August 20, 1999 CM eventually went home because Misagal scolded her. At around 3:00 a.m. of August 21, he again forcibly undressed and raped her.
On August 22, 1999 CM finally told Ranela about what Misagal had done. The following Monday in school, Ranela told her teacher, Mrs. Judith Fuentespina, about CM's confession. Mrs. Fuentespina informed the school principal, who in turn confirmed the story with CM who was then accompanied by her pastor. Together, CM and her pastor then fetched her grandmother and brought her to the principal's house. The principal recounted CM's story and, thereafter, they reported the matter to the police.
Both Ranela and Mrs. Fuentespina corroborated CM's testimony.
The defense, on the other hand, presented Misagal as its lone witness. He denied having committed the crimes of which he was charged and claimed that CM's grandmother initiated the cases against him since she disapproved of his relationship with CM's mother.
In a decision[7] dated March 26, 2003, the RTC rejected Misagal's defense of denial and found him guilty of the crimes charged. Considering that CM was only 12 years old when the crimes were committed and that Misagal was her mother's common-law spouse, the RTC sentenced Misagal to death and to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Appellant Misagal appealed to this Court. But, pursuant to its ruling in People v. Mateo,[8] the Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for adjudication.[9] On November 8, 2006 the latter court affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC.[10]
The appeals' court gave credence to the testimony of CM who, it found, could not have concocted a story of defloration and subjected herself to a public trial unless she was motivated solely by the desire to have Misagal apprehended and punished. As to the penalties, it reduced the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole, in accordance with Republic Act 9346.[11] It affirmed the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, but increased the award of moral damages to P75,000.00 and added an award of exemplary damages of P25,000.00, for each count of rape.
Appellant Misagal seeks by notice of appeal this Court's review of the decision of the CA.
The Issue Presented
The key issue here is whether or not appellant Misagal raped CM on each of the three occasions subject of the charges against him.
The Court's Ruling
In assailing the factual findings of the RTC, Misagal claims that CM's testimony had been rehearsed and contrived considering that she described the three rape incidents as transpiring in almost exactly the same manner. But, that the crimes occurred under similar circumstances does not negate their commission. Moreover, this Court must defer to the trial court's evaluation of CM's credibility since it was in a position to observe her demeanor.
On the witness stand, CM testified on the details of the rape with sincerity and candor. Thus:
She recounted the succeeding incidents in the same straightforward manner which belies Misagal's claims of untruthfulness or fabrication. Besides, when the victim is of tender age and immature as in this case, courts are inclined to give credit to her testimony in view of her relative vulnerability and the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[13]
Misagal contends that, in CM's testimony, there was no mention of force and intimidation or that she put up any resistance against the assaults alleged to have been committed against her. But, as CM testified, she tried to pull up her shorts and continuously resisted by kicking her legs and moving her buttocks.[14] Also, she could not shout for help because Misagal covered her mouth with his hand while raping her.[15]
At any rate, Misagal being the common-law spouse of CM's mother, moral ascendancy, substituted for intimidation. In People v. Corpuz,[16] the Court held that in jape committed by close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.
Likewise, the Court cannot accept Misagal's claim that CM's grandmother pressed charges against him because she disapproved of his relationship with CM's mother. Alleged motives of family feuds and revenge have hardly influenced the Court to discredit the testimonies of victims who remained steadfast throughout their direct and cross-examinations. It is also unbelievable that a grandmother would expose her young and innocent granddaughter to the stigma of a rape trial if it were not true.[17]
Finally, that the prosecution alleged in the informations and proved during trial both CM's minority and Misagal's common-law relationship with her mother is beyond question. CM's birth certificate,[18] which was offered in evidence, shows that she was bora on January 30, 1987 and was just 12 years old at the time the crimes were committed. What is more, Misagal's counsel of record agreed in open court that CM's mother is his common-law wife.[19] In fact, Misagal himself also testified that CM called him "Papang,"[20] that he had been living with her mother since June 1991, and that they never married.[21]
In sum, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the factual findings of the RTC and the CA. But, while the appeals' court awarded P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, prevailing jurisprudence dictates an award of P30,000.00.[22] All other monetary awards are sustained.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the November 8, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR- HC 00259. The Court finds appellant Nicanor Misagal GUILTY of three counts of rape in Criminal Cases 99-183 to 99-185 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility of parole. He shall pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of rape. Mendoza, J., on leave; Perez, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 842.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-13. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and concurred in by Associate Justices Sixto C. Marella, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 17-22. Penned by Judge Jose L. Escobido.
[3] Branch 37.
[4] Records, pp. 3, 7 and 10.
[5] The victim's name has 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. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006,502 SCRA 419.
[6] TSN, August 22, 2000, p. 6.
[7] Supra note 2.
[8] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[9] CA rollo, p. 91.
[10] Supra note 1.
[11] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, June 30, 2006.
[12] TSN, August 22, 2000, pp. 9-11.
[13] People v. Achas, G.R. No. 185712, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 341, 352.
[14] Supra note 12, at 21-22.
[15] Id. at 11.
[16] G.R. No. 175836, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 465, 473.
[17] People v. Andales, 466 Phil. 873, 891 (2004).
[18] Records, p. 52.
[19] TSN, August 22, 2000, pp. 2-3.
[20] TSN, May 30, 2001, p, 9.
[21] Id. at 14.
[22] People v. Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010.
