February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 196430 : February 29, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARVILOUS FRANCISCO
G.R. No. 196430 (People of the Philippines v. Marvilous Francisco). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Marvilous Francisco (appellant), from the September 29, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03351.[1] The CA decision affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, of Baler, Aurora.[2]
In its March 1, 2008 decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty of the crimes of rape, committed on October 10, 2005, and of two (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness, committed on October 30, 2005 and December 12, 2005 against AAA[3] - thirteen (13) years of age. The RTC gave full credence to AAA's testimony, which it found to be straightforward, convincing and replete with details. It rejected the appellant's denial and alibi for failure to show that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the crimes.
For the rape committed, the RTC imposed on the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs of suit. For each of the acts of lasciviousness committed, the RTC imposed on the appellant an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and ordered him to indemnify the victim the amount of P10,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs of suit.
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the appellant's guilt and the awarded indemnities. Similar with the RTC, the CA found AAA's testimony to be credible. Further, it rejected the appellant's claims that AAA's failure to resist or cry for help during the alleged incidents and her delay in reporting them to the authorities placed doubts on or negated the commission of the crimes.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal, but modify the penalty imposed and the awarded indemnities.
After a careful review of the records, we see no reason to disturb the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, regarding the appellant's guilt. Based on the victim's credible and positive testimony, we entertain no doubt that the appellant had committed the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness by having carnal knowledge of AAA, and by mashing the victim's breasts and private parts, against her will.
We find the inconsistencies of AAA's statements on the dates and times of the commission of the crimes and on the markings on the appellant's face to be immaterial and do not at all adversely affect her credibility, in fact, minor testimonial discrepancies caused by the natural fickleness of human memory tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, credibility because they erase suspicions of a rehearsed testimony.[4] We belie the appellant's claim that AAA failed to positively identify him because the victim was a witness to a previous robbery involving the appellant,[5] hence, she is familiar with the appellant's face.
We, likewise, reject the appellant's other claims. AAA's failure to physically resist or cry for help at the time of the alleged incidents does not negate the commission of the crimes, when intimidation and threats were exercised against her.[6] In this case, the appellant poked a knife at the victim when she was abducted, raped and molested.[7] The well-settled rule is that where the victim's life is threatened, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful desires of the rapist.[8] Also, we have consistently ruled that delay in reporting incidents of rape, in the face of threats of physical violence, should not be taken against the victim.[9]
We now proceed to the penalties imposed and the damages awarded by the RTC.
On the rape committed, we sustain the RTC in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarding damages in the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, for being in accord with law and prevailing jurisprudence.[10]
On the two (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness, however, we modify the RTC's decision. The imposable penalty for the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is prision correccional in its full range. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of arresto mayor, which has a range of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. In the absence of any modifying circumstances, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision correccional or two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months. Thus, the maximum penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months imposed by the RTC in this case is incorrect.
We, likewise, modify the RTC's award of damages in these two counts. Based on prevailing jurisprudence, a victim of acts of lasciviousness is entitled to the amounts of P20,000,00 as civil indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages.[11]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 29, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03351, finding the appellant guilty of rape and two (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. We find appellant Marvilous Francisco:
(a) GUILTY of rape, defined and penalized under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. We sentence him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ORDER him to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages; and
(b) GUILTY of two counts of acts of lasciviousness, defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. For each count, we sentence him to suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and ORDER him to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages.
Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier; rollo, pp. 2-12.[2] CA rollo, pp. 55-74.
[3] In 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.
[4] People v. Antonio, 388 Phil. 869, 876 (2000); and People v. Santito, Jr., G.R. No. 91628, August 22, 1991, 201 SCRA 87.
[5] TSN, March 5, 2007, pp. 23-27.
[6] People v. Marcos, 368 Phil 143, 158 (1999): People v. Sagucio, 342 Phil. 863, 872 (1997); and People v. Rabosa, 339 Phil. 339, 347 (1997).
[7] TSN, March 5, 2007, pp. 11, 14-15, and 17-19.
[8] People v. Cristobal, 428 Phil. 1022 (2002); People v. Anonuevo, 419 Phil. 519 (2001); People v. Bation, 419 Phil. 495 (2001); People v. Aguero, Jr., 417 Phil. 836 (2001); and People v. Ferrer, 415 Phil. 188 (2001).
[9] People v. Cortes, 380 Phil. 89 (2000); and People v. Melivo, 323 Phil. 412 (1996).
[10] 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.
[11] People v. Ortoa, G.R. No. 174484, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 80, citing People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 176265, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 698, and People v. Palma, 463 Phil. 767 (2003).