Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 184178 (People of the Philippines v. Mario D. Sarmiento). - We decide the appeal filed by accused Mario D. Sarmiento (appellant) from the July 31, 2007 decision^[1]  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01570.

The RTC Ruling 

In its September 7, 2000 decision, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, Branch 36, found the appellant guilty of rape with the use of a deadly weapon committed against AAA^[2] on August 5, 1997. It gave credence to the testimony of AAA, which it found to be straightforward and consistent. It rejected the appellant's denial as it was weak and unconvincing, corroborated only by the self-serving testimonies of his wife and his cousin. The RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.^[3]

The CA Ruling 

On intermediate appellate review,^[4] the CA affirmed the RTC decision, giving more weight to AAA's positive testimony which stood up well to the rigorous examinations made during the trial.

Our Ruling 

In this appeal, we affirm the RTC's and the CA's factual findings and legal conclusions, although we modify the awarded indemnities.

The foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the medical findings. Indeed, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict in a prosecution for rape.^[5]  As the lower courts did, we find that AAA was categorical and straightforward in narrating the sordid details of her horrid experience with the appellant. Between her positive testimony and the self-serving testimonies of the appellant and his witnesses, we agree that her story deserves greater credence.

Since the appellant committed the crime of rape with the use of a deadly weapon, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.^[6] Article 63 of the same Code provides that where the penalty prescribed by law is composed of two indivisible penalties, and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. Other than the use of a deadly weapon (which is already taken into account to raise the penalty to reclusion perpetua to death), no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was alleged and proven in the present case. Thus, tile RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

On the civil liabilities, AAA is entitled not only to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, but also to P50,000.00 as moral damages and to P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,^[7] based on prevailing jurisprudence. Moral damages are awarded to rape complainants without the need of a pleading or proof of their factual basis; it is assumed that a rape complainant actually suffered moral injuries, entitling her to this award.^[8] Exemplary damages should also be awarded since the qualifying circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon was present in the commission of the rape.^[9]

WHEREFORE, the July 31, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01570 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.  Appellant Mario D. Sarmiento is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with the Use of a Deadly Weapon and accordingly 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 Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.; rollo, pp. 4-21.

^[2] Pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse. Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; RA 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] Original records, pp. 343-368. 

^[4] The RTC forwarded the records of the case to the Court for automatic review. However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo (G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640), we referred the case to the CA for intermediate review. 

^[5] People v. Cadap, G.R. No. 1 90633, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 655, 663; and People v. Llanas, Jr., G.R. No. 190616, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 602, 613. 

^[6] The rape occurred prior to the effectivity on October 22, 1997 of RA 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997." 

^[7] People of the Philippines v. Jose Pepito D. Combate a.k.a. "Peping," G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010; and People of the Philippines v. Arnel Macafe y Nabong, G.R. No. 185616, November 24, 2010. 

^[8] People v. Canares, G.R. No. 174065, February 18, 2009, 579 SCRA 588, 606; and People v. Dimaano, 506 Phil. 630, 652 (2005). 

^[9] People v. Tonyacao, G.R. Nos. 134531-32, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 513; and People v. Manambay, 466 Phil. 661, 682 (2004).