Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > February 2008 Resolutions > Name[G.R. No. 167996 : February 26, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, V. SALVADOR PAJAVERA Y CORNELIO, APPELLANT:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 26, 2008

G.R. No. 167996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, v. SALVADOR PAJAVERA Y CORNELIO, appellant.

In a Decision dated March 30, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Binan, Laguna, convicted Salvador Pajavera y Cornelio, appellant, of the crime of rape committed against his own daughter, AAA, a 15-year old minor. He was sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death and to indemnify AAA the amounts of P75.000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and �50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

The Information for rape against appellant reads:

That on or about December 16. 1996. in the Municipality of Cabuyao. Province of Laguna. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused SALVADOR PAJAVERA. with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his daughter AAA. a fifteen (15) year old minor, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

AAA testified that she is appellant's daughter with his former live-in partner. On December 16, 1996 at 3:30 o'clock in the morning, she was raped by appellant inside their house in Cabuyao, Laguna. While sleeping, she was awakened when she felt appellant was kissing and embracing her. She resisted and asked him why he was doing it to her. Appellant did not answer. Instead, he continued kissing and embracing her. He removed her pants and parity and went on top of her. She struggled and tried to push him away but to no avail because he is strong and heavy.
AAA further testified that at the time of the incident, she and appellant were the only persons in their house; that she did not know where her stepmother and stepbrothers went.

The following day, or on December 17, 1996, alone, AAA proceeded to the Cabuyao Police Station to report the incident. She also went to the Ospital ng Cabuyao to have a medical check-up.

Appellant denied having committed the crime imputed to him. According to him, at the time of the incident, he was at home sleeping with his live-in partner, the latter's two (2) sons with another man, and AAA.

In convicting appellant, the RTC held:

Private complainant's testimony deserves the badge of credence. No improper motive can be ascribed to her other than a sincere desire to tell the truth and to tell it all. Imagine. AAA did not waste her lime. The following day (December 17. 1996). as the records bear it out. she went to the Office of the PNP. Cabuyao. Laguna alone and gave her statement (Exhibit "B"). Basically, this Court cannot envisage any evil motive behind the filing of this rape charge against the accused under the present circumstances of this case. It is inconceivable that a woman of tender age xxx would fabricate a rape charge against her own father and. of course. to submit herself to a doctor voluntarily for a physical examination on her genitalia. It was held in a series of cases, and to mention one. that "no woman especially one who is of tender age would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter permit herself to be subjected to a public trial, if she is not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished (People v. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 335).

xxx         xxx         xxx

On the other hand, the string of events lucidly and logically lead to the conclusion that accused did have carnal knowledge with AAA against the latter's consent and free will. AAA. as herein above-stated, was able to clearly establish that she was raped by accused since she actually saw him while kissing and embracing her. The lights then were still on. Besides, she heard him telling that she should transfer to the place where he usually sleeps with his live-in partner. flow could she possibly be mistaken as to his true identity? She is her own flesh and blood. This Court also gives credence to her testimony that at the time of the incident, the accused's live-in partner and the latler's children were not in their house.

In imposing the death penalty on appellant, the RTC ruled:

Under R.A. No. 7659. one of the circumstances enumerated therein (Sec. 11. amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code) is that "when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent." which is present in the case at bar and. ergo, "takes the case out of the purview of simple rape and effectively qualifies the same by increasing the penalty one degree higher. This crime is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death, which must be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending to the commission of the crime. (People v. Ramos, G.R.Nos. 131261-62. August 10. 1999).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged with modification in the sense that the crime committed was simple rape only. It reduced the penalty imposed by the RTC from death to reclusion perpetiia. The appellate court ratiocinated as follows:

In this case, the prosecution was not able to present competent and independent evidence that would establish the fact that private complainant AAA was a minor at the time of the incident and that accused-appellant Salvador is her father. Aside from the bare testimonies of private complainant AAA that she was then a minor and that accused-appellant is her father, no other independent evidence was ever presented to establish the fact of minority and their relationship. Even if accused-appellant Salvador admitted that he is the father of private complainant AAA, still this admission should not be used against him to impose upon him the supreme penalty of death. The said facts should be established by competent and independent evidence other than the testimony of witnesses and/or admissions by accused-appellant. Therefore, the imposition of death penalty is erroneous.

We do not agree.

That AAA was 15 years old when she was raped and appellant is her father have been established by the prosecution during the trial. On cross-examination, appellant admitted that AAA is his daughter with his former live-in partner, BBB, and that she was still a minor in 1996. As found by the RTC:

There is no doubt that the accused Salvador Pajavera Y Cornelio is the father of private complainant AAA. the latter a minor, who was only fifteen (15) years old when raped by his father, which relationship and minority were alleged in the Information and not disputed by the defense during the trial. It is worth to note that the crime was committed by the accused on December 16. 1996 when the death penalty was eventually restored by virtue of R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) which took effect on January 1. 1994. (People v. Patalin. G.R. No. 125539. July 27. 1999).

After a careful review of the records of the case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the RTC that appellant is guilty of qualified rape. Thus, we are constrained to affirm the death penalty it imposed upon appellant. In People v. Ocumen^[1] and in People v. Abon^[2] the concurrence of minority and relationship, both specifically alleged in the Information and duly proved during the trial, raises the penalty for the crime to death.

WHEREFORE, we find appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape punishable by death. In view of the prohibition on the imposition of death penally under Republic Act No. 9346, the penalty of death imposed by the RTC on appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

Appellant is ordered to pay AAA civil indemnity of P75,000.00. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of moral damages of P50.000.00 is increased to P75.000.00. The exemplary damages of P50,000.00 is reduced to P25,000.00. Quisumbing, J., on official leave. (adv77)

Endnotes:

---

^[1] G.R. No. 135559. September 17.2003.41 I SCRA27I.
^[2] G.R. No. 130662. October 15.2003,413 SCRA416.