Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 182552 (People of the Philippines v. Narciso B. Arpon).  - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Narciso B. Arpon (appellant), from the October 26, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00240.^[1]  The CA decision modified the July 4, 2003 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Carigara, Leyte, Branch 13, by finding the appellant guilty of simple rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The RTC Ruling 

In its July 4, 2003 decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty of qualified rape. It gave credence to the testimony of the victim, AAA,^[2] as corroborated by her mother, BBB. The RTC rejected the appellant's denial and alibi for failure to show that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the rape. The RTC imposed the death penalty and ordered him to indemnify AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages.^[3]

The CA Ruling 

On intermediate appellate review, the CA modified the RTC's decision. Since the evidence adduced by the prosecution showed that the appellant is not the stepfather of AAA (as alleged in the information) but the common law spouse of BBB, the CA downgraded the appellant's crime to simple rape and consequently lowered the penalty to reclusion perpetua. It likewise lowered the amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages to P50,000.00 each. In addition, the CA awarded P25,000.00 as exemplary damages by reason of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and abuse of confidence.

Our Ruling 

The appellant's conviction for simple rape stands.

The RTC and the CA found that the appellant forced AAA to have sexual intercourse with him on July 17, 1999. We find no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The records are replete with evidence establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The CA correctly downgraded the appellant's crime to simple rape. Since the appellant is not the stepfather of AAA, he cannot be convicted of rape in its qualified form.^[4] The CA likewise correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua^[5] and the proper civil indemnity and moral damages of P50,000.00 each, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.^[6]  We similarly affirm the award of exemplary damages, but increase the amount to P30,000.00 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the October 26, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00240 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Narciso B. Arpon is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Sereno, J., on official leave; Peralta, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1040.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier of the Twentieth Division; rollo, pp. 4-15.

^[2] Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; Republic Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real name of the rape victim is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, is not disclosed. 

^[3] CA rollo, pp. 52-62. 

^[4] People v. Begino, G.R. No. 181246, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 189. 

^[5] People v. Resuma, G.R. No. 179189, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 728; and People v. Aguilar, G.R. No. 177749, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 509. 

^[6] People v. Arcosiba, G.R. No. 181081, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 517; People v. Impas, G.R. No. 176157, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 565; and People v. Montesclaros, G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 320. 

^[7] People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 807; and People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 187531, October l6, 2009, 604 SCRA 285.