Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > June 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 128384 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO SAHOR BAÑAGO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 128384. June 29, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO SAHOR BAÑAGO, Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


PUNO, J.:


Accused-appellant Reynaldo Sahor Bañago was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan with the crime of rape committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 15th day of October, 1993, in the municipality of Marilao, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a gun, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge to (sic) said Dolores C. Jaurigue, against her will and without her consent." 1

Accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. 2 Hence, trial proceeded in due course.

The prosecution presented the testimony of the thirteen-year-old victim, Dolores Jaurigue. She testified that on October 15, 1993, she visited her sister, Dorotea Jaurigue-Mejico, who was staying with her husband at the bodega of Bauer Company in Marilao, Bulacan. That evening, she was left alone in the bodega as her sister attended a party. She went to bed at around seven o’clock. She was later roused from her sleep when she felt someone embracing her. It turned out to be Accused-Appellant. Accused-appellant poked a gun at her and started to remove her short pants and underwear. She tried to shout but accused-appellant slapped her twice. Then, he took off his pants and underwear and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Dolores. He admonished her not to tell anybody about the incident. Thereafter, Accused-appellant put on his pants and left the room. 3

When Dorotea arrived from the party, she saw accused-appellant coming out of the bodega zipping his pant. Dorotea asked Dolores what happened but she did not answer. 4

The following day, Dorotea again asked Dolores what happened the previous night. Dolores told her sister that accused-appellant raped her. Afraid of what accused-appellant might do to them, Dolores and Dorotea kept the incident to themselves. 5

It was only on March 18, 1994 that Dolores had the courage to tell her aunt, Lourdes Corcuera, about the assault on her womanhood. Lourdes tried to talk to accused-appellant but nothing happened. 6

During an altercation with Dolores’ mother, Antonina Jaurigue, Lourdes divulged that Dolores was no longer a virgin. Shocked about the revelation, Antonina sought for an explanation. Dolores was compelled to tell her mother about the rape incident. 7

Antonina brought Dolores to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for physical examination on March 29, 1994. The medico-legal report executed by Dr. Jesusa N. Vergara of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory revealed that Dolores was "in a non-virgin state physically" and that "there (were) no signs of recent application of any form of violence" 8

On July 14, 1994, Dolores, assisted by her mother, filed a criminal complaint for rape against Accused-Appellant.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

For their part, the defense presented the testimonies of accused-appellant and Delfin Castillo.

Accused-appellant testified that he was a welder at Bauer Company. In the afternoon of October 15, 1993, he, together, with Delfin Castillo and Rolando Pambico, went to the office of their employer, Mr. Mariano Takbas, in Quezon City to get their salary. They left the office at about six o’clock in the evening and then they went home to Marilao, Bulacan. They reached Marilao at about eight o’clock in the evening. Accused-appellant proceeded to his residence in Constantino Street, Poblacion, Marilao, Bulacan. Accused-appellant denied having raped Dolores Jaurigue on the evening of October 15, 1993. 9

Defense witness Delfin Castillo corroborated accused-appellant’s testimony. Castillo testified that he was with accused-appellant in the afternoon of October 15, 1993 when they went to Quezon City to get their salary. From Quezon City, they proceeded to Marilao, Bulacan. He spent the night at the bodega of Bauer Company but he did not see private complainant there. He also stated that accused-appellant did not go to the bodega that evening. 10chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages. 11

Accused-appellant appealed the decision of the trial court. He raised the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The court a quo erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape; and

2. The court a quo erred in ordering accused-appellant to indemnify (the) victim in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. 12

Accused-appellant assailed the credibility of private complainant who alone testified for the prosecution. In his brief, Accused-appellant harped on the alleged flaws in the testimony of private complainant. He contended that it was unlikely for Dorotea Jaurigue-Mejico and her husband to use the bodega as their living quarters since the bodega had no division and was open to anyone who wished to enter; that although private complainant testified that her sister saw accused-appellant coming out of the bodega, the prosecution did not present her sister to testify on such fact; and that private complainant admitted that she never saw accused-appellant again after the rape although she earlier testified that she told her aunt about the incident only on March 18, 1994 because she was afraid of what accused-appellant might do to her. Accused-appellant also cited the nine-month delay in the filing of the criminal complaint.

Accused-appellant’s contentions deserve scant consideration as they pertain merely to minor details and do not negate private complainant’s positive testimony that accused-appellant violated her on the evening of October 15, 1993. Even the delay in the filing of the complaint does not favor accused-appellant’s cause. The records show that private complainant did not report the incident to the authorities because accused-appellant threatened to harm her if she tells anybody about it. It is understandable for any woman, especially a young girl, to hide such a traumatic and horrible experience even from the persons closest to her because of shame and fear.

The parameters for scrutinizing the credibility of witnesses have been sent forth as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"First, the appellate court will not disturb the factual findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case;

"Second, the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect since it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they testified on the witness stand; and

"Third, a witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness." 13

We find no reason in the case at bar to disturb the findings of the trial court regarding private complainant’s credibility. A reading of the transcript of the trial shows that private complainant, young and innocent as she was, was able to recount clearly and candidly before the court how accused-appellant ravished her on the evening of October 15, 1993. Her testimony must be given full weight, especially since it is supported by the medical report submitted by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. As a rule, testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. 14 Hence, we affirm accused-appellant’s conviction.

We likewise affirm the award of moral damages to private complainant. In rape cases, the court may, in its discretion, award moral damages to the victim without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof. We held in People v. Prades 15 that "the conventional requirement of allegata et probata in civil procedure and for essentially civil cases should be dispensed with in criminal prosecutions for rape with the civil aspect included therein, since no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made." As the fact of rape has been sufficiently proved in this case, we find the award of moral damages proper and correct.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

We note, however, that the trial court failed to award civil indemnity to private complainant. Time and again, we have held that moral damages is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims. The moral damages cannot take the place of the civil indemnity. While the award of moral damages is discretionary on the part of the court, the civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. 16 Hence, in addition to the P50,000.00 moral damages, Accused appellant is ordered to pay private complainant the amount of P75,000.00 by way of civil indemnity.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in addition to the P50,000.00 moral damages, Accused-appellant is also ordered to pay private complainant P75,000.00 as civil indemnity.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Criminal Complaint, Original Records, p. 2.

2. Order dated September 15, 1994, Original Records, p. 16.

3. TSN, February 1, 1995, pp. 4-7; TSN, March 21, 1995, pp. 6-9.

4. TSN, March 21, 1995, p. 10.

5. Ibid.

6. TSN, February 1, 1995, p. 11.

7. Id.

8. Exhibit "B", Original Records, p. 63.

9. TSN, March 12, 1996, pp. 4-5.

10. Id.

11. Rollo, pp. 18-19.

12. Id., pp. 38-39.

13. People v. Galimba, 253 SCRA 722 (1996).

14. People v. Dacoba, 289 SCRA 265 (1998); People v. Auxtero, 289 SCRA 75 (1998); People v. Galimba, supra.

15. 293 SCRA 411 (1998).

16. People v. Gementiza, 285 SCRA 478 (1998); People v. , supra; People v. Victor, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





June-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 90419 June 1, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMANO VIDAL ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124491 June 1, 1998 - ROQUE VICARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122107 June 2, 1998 - CMP FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119359 June 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO D. PAYOT

  • G.R. No. 128899 June 8, 1998 - AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121462-63 June 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 127815 June 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN SANTILLANA

  • A.C. No. 4411 June 10, 1998 - JAIME CURIMATMAT v. FELIPE GOJAR

  • A.C. - CBD No. 471 June 10, 1998 - LT. LAMBERTO P. VILLAFLOR v. ALVIN T. SARITA

  • G.R. No. 115794 June 10, 1998 - ANASTACIO MANANGAN v. ANGEL DELOS REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122909-12 June 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR REÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 123417 June 10, 1998 - JAIME MORTA, SR. v. JAIME OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126143 June 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BADON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128181 June 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO RADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131692 June 10, 1998 - FELIPE YULIENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118985 June 14, 1998 - COCA COLA BOTTLERS v. JOSE S. ROQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121739 June 14, 1998 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 121930 June 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOREDO REAL

  • G.R. No. 137172 June 15, 1998 - UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. v. MASAGANA TELAMART

  • G.R. No. 118423 June 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 120270 June 16, 1998 - MANOLITO BARLES, ET AL. v. BENEDICTO ERNESTO BITONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126768 June 16, 1998 - ELISEO FAVILA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103949 June 17, 1998 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104319 June 17, 1998 - CAROLINA CASTILLO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106648 June 17, 1998 - AUDION ELECTRIC CO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122423 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO PUERTOLLANO

  • G.R. No. 123109 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN TACLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124097 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BONGHANOY

  • G.R. No. 126367 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO S. MONFERO

  • G.R. No. 127452 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI LUARTES

  • G.R. No. 128222 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA HO SAN

  • G.R. No. 128818 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO U. SAGAYSAY

  • G.R. Nos. 130206-08 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO PALMA

  • G.R. No. 130514 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. 131104 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZALINO P. REBOSE

  • G.R. No. 132024 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO BIHISON

  • G.R. No. 124605 June 18, 1998 - ENRIQUITO SERNA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1165 June 21, 1998 - EXEQUIEL P. DOMINGO v. LUIS ENRIQUEZ REYES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1445 June 21, 1998 - VENTURA B. AYO v. LUCIA VIOLAGO-ISNANI, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-1-16-RTC June 21, 1998 - REQUEST OF JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 101439 June 21, 1998 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106060 June 21, 1998 - EMILIE T. SUMBAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112539 June 21, 1998 - NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117685 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO R. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 121646 June 21, 1998 - CLARO L. MONTECER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126116 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDO YAM-ID

  • G.R. No. 128892 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO TEJERO

  • G.R. No. 128986 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130379 June 21, 1998 - GSIS v. ANGELITA L. GABRIEL

  • G.R. No. 130640 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHAREFF ALI EL AKHTAR

  • G.R. No. 130652 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL S. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 132774 June 21, 1998 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 132841 June 21, 1998 - CARMEN ALIPAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134293 June 21, 1998 - KAISER B. RECABO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116196-97 June 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO ADOVISO

  • G.R. No. 120473 June 23, 1998 - ULTRA VILLA FOOD HAUS v. RENATO GENISTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121345 June 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SY BING YOK

  • G.R. No. 129676 June 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BOCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1314 June 25, 1998 - ROSANNA V. CASALME, ET AL. v. MARVIN S. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100812 June 25, 1998 - FRANCISCO MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127105 June 25, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. S.C. JOHNSON AND SON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127969 June 25, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129033 June 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130030 June 25, 1998 - EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130189 June 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO R. MULETA

  • G.R. No. 132593 June 25, 1998 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 105912 June 28, 1998 - TEOFILO C. VILLARICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110855-56 June 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEWING V. CAÑETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112451 June 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BITOON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124005 June 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS ABLOG

  • G.R. No. 125212 June 28, 1998 - EUGENIO BALUGO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130421 June 28, 1998 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO. v. ANTONIO CHUA

  • A.M. No. P-96-1183 June 29, 1998 - LUCINA L. REGALADO v. LILIA S. BUENA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-96-1347 & RTJ-96-1348 June 29, 1998 - LEO C. TABAO v. PEDRO S. ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 95405 June 29, 1998 - SEMIRARA COAL CORP. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121205-09 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LARENA

  • G.R. Nos. 124449-51 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL ALITAGTAG

  • G.R. No. 125465 June 29, 1998 - AUGUSTO HONTIVEROS, ET AL. v. GREGORIO HONTIVEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125473 June 29, 1998 - CONSTANCIO ESPIRITU v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127356 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SILVANO

  • G.R. No. 128315 June 29, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PASCOR REALTY AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128384 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO SAHOR BAÑAGO

  • G.R. No. 129449 June 29, 1998 - CISELL A. KIAMCO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129691 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LOMBOY

  • G.R. No. 130800 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. 131109 June 29, 1998 - INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132369 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 133317 June 29, 1998 - ANTONIO R. AGRA, ET AL. v. PNB

  • G.R. No. 119974 June 30, 1998 - RUPERTO L. VILORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124049 June 30, 1998 - RODOLFO P. VELASQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.