September 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions >
Name[G.R. No. 182233 : September 17, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RODOLFO RONQUILLO :
[G.R. No. 182233 : September 17, 2008]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RODOLFO RONQUILLO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 September 2008:
G.R. No. 182233 (People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Ronquillo)
This is an appeal from the October 23, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01685 which affirmed the October 19, 2000 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36 in Santiago City, Isabela in Criminal Case No. 36-2857, convicting accused-appellant Rodolfo Ronquillo of the crime of rape.
The facts culled from the records follow.
On October 12, 1998, private complainant AAA, then thirteen (13) years old, was alone in her room in her family's home. Accused-appellant, her father, entered her room and pulled her close to him. He touched her private parts and laid her on the floor. He warned her not to resist or report him to the police or he would kill her. He then had sexual intercourse with her in spite of her pleas. After the rape, he again warned her that if she reported the matter to the police, he would kill them all and she would be the first one to die.
In February 1999, AAA and her mother reported the rape to the police when her father, who was not living with them in Isabela, came back to bring her and her younger sister to live with him in Nueva Ecija. A medical examination was conducted on AAA.
An Information for rape against accused-appellant was later filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of Isabela. It reads:
Accused-appellant entered a "not guilty" plea upon arraignment.
During trial, accused-appellant denied raping AAA. He testified that his wife and mother-in-law fabricated the rape charge to drive him away from his house so that his wife could continue her illicit relationship with a certain policeman. He also stated that he was in Isabela on the date the rape was allegedly committed to get clearance from the police, the court, and the barangay captain so he could work as a security guard in Nueva Ecija. Thus, he could not have committed the rape.
The RTC found AAA a credible witness against her father. It dismissed accused-appellant's charge against his wife as uncorroborated by evidence other than his bare testimony. His claim that he was in Nueva Ecija at the time of the rape was belied by the fact that the rape was committed months before he left Isabela.
The dispositive portion of the October 19, 2000 RTC Decision reads:
On December 13, 2000, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision.
On September 22, 2004, this Court issued a Resolution ordering the records of the case to be transferred to the CA for intermediate review, in accordance with People v. Mateo.[3]
The CA held against accused-appellant. In its October 23, 2007 Decision, it ruled that:
(1) The private complainant's testimony was "straightforward and candid in narrating the manner by which the sexual assault was carried out by accused-appellant, which was not at all rebutted in her cross-examination."[4] The alleged inconsistencies in her statements were minor and
did not affect the substance of her testimony;
(2) The medical findings on private complainant are consistent with her testimony, and there is thus sufficient basis to conclude that "the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established"[5]
(3) The delay in filing the criminal complaint against accused-appellant does not raise doubts on the veracity of the victim's claim of rape. She and her mother cannot be faulted for the delay considering that accused-appellant was the victim's father and her mother, accused-appellant's wife, could not immediately send him away;
(4) Accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi cannot prosper in light of his positive identification as the rapist. There was no strong evidence of non-culpability or serious corroboration from other witnesses to support his defenses; and
(5) In conformity with recent jurisprudence, the private complainant is entitled to moral damages of PhP 50,000 and exemplary damages of PhP 25.000.
On October 23 2007, the CA disposed of the case as follows:
On November 27, 2007, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of the CA Decision.
Accused-appellant presents two issues before this Court:
We find the appeal without merit.
The defense points out to the following inconsistencies as eroding the victim's credibility: First, she stated during the preliminary investigation that on the date of the rape she arrived at their house and went to her bedroom to change clothes. Her testimony during cross-examination, however, shows that she was changing her clothes because she had just taken a bath. Second, she testified on cross-examination that she arrived from school because she did not want to go to school anymore, contradicting her earlier statement during direct examination that it was her father who ordered her to stop going to school.
The inconsistencies the defense maintains are substantial are, as the appellate court has found, actually minor and have no material bearing on the credibility of the complainant. It is also pertinent to keep in mind that a rape victim cannot be required to accurately narrate every ugly detail of the offense against her especially since she might have been trying not to remember them.[7] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen a witness' testimony as they show that the testimony has not been rehearsed.[8]
Accused-appellant likewise argues that it is highly incredible and doubtful for the sexual assault on AAA to last for about one to two hours and for her not to ask for help from relatives who were living nearby. Nevertheless, the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate the commission of rape.[9] Furthermore, the length of time involved in the rape is a minor detail. We agree with plaintiff-appellee that the complainant's testimony on the duration of the rape may have been a "simple miscalculation brought about by [the complainant's] age or lack of schooling."[10]
It is also alleged that the motive for filing the rape complaint is questionable since it took AAA four months to file it. However, in People v. Dimaano, we held that the delay in reporting a rape, especially when threatened by physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim, more so when the lecherous attacker is her own father.[11]
Accused-appellant similarly claims that his testimony that he was in Nueva Ecija at the time of the rape was corroborated by witness Dagul Erang and unrebutted by the prosecution. We, however, note the well-settled rule that for the defenses of alibi and denial to prosper, accused-appellant must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for him to have been physically present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. [12] Accused-appellant failed to provide such positive, clear, and satisfactory proof especially as against his daughter's positive identification of him as her rapist.
The determination of the outcome of every rape case hinges upon the credibility of the complainant's testimony,[13] and we sustain the findings of the CA that the complainant's testimony was credible, candid, and straightforward.
On accused-appellant's pecuniary liability, we modify the award of damages by the appellate court in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Civil indemnity of PhP 75.000 is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[14] The award of PhP 75,000 as moral damages is warranted in this case without need of pleading or proof of basis.[15] We, however, find the award of PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages proper due to the existence of the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship.[16]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The October 23, 2007 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01685 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant
shall pay the victim PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 75,000 as moral damages, and PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 182233 (People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Ronquillo)
This is an appeal from the October 23, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01685 which affirmed the October 19, 2000 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36 in Santiago City, Isabela in Criminal Case No. 36-2857, convicting accused-appellant Rodolfo Ronquillo of the crime of rape.
The facts culled from the records follow.
On October 12, 1998, private complainant AAA, then thirteen (13) years old, was alone in her room in her family's home. Accused-appellant, her father, entered her room and pulled her close to him. He touched her private parts and laid her on the floor. He warned her not to resist or report him to the police or he would kill her. He then had sexual intercourse with her in spite of her pleas. After the rape, he again warned her that if she reported the matter to the police, he would kill them all and she would be the first one to die.
In February 1999, AAA and her mother reported the rape to the police when her father, who was not living with them in Isabela, came back to bring her and her younger sister to live with him in Nueva Ecija. A medical examination was conducted on AAA.
An Information for rape against accused-appellant was later filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of Isabela. It reads:
That on or about the 12th day of October, 1998 in the Municipality of Ramon, Province of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lay with, and have carnal knowledge and with [AAA], a girl of 13 years of age, thereby subjecting her to exploitation and sexual abuse, against her will and consent.
With the aggravating circumstances that the victim is below 18 years of age, and the accused is her own father.[1]
Accused-appellant entered a "not guilty" plea upon arraignment.
During trial, accused-appellant denied raping AAA. He testified that his wife and mother-in-law fabricated the rape charge to drive him away from his house so that his wife could continue her illicit relationship with a certain policeman. He also stated that he was in Isabela on the date the rape was allegedly committed to get clearance from the police, the court, and the barangay captain so he could work as a security guard in Nueva Ecija. Thus, he could not have committed the rape.
The RTC found AAA a credible witness against her father. It dismissed accused-appellant's charge against his wife as uncorroborated by evidence other than his bare testimony. His claim that he was in Nueva Ecija at the time of the rape was belied by the fact that the rape was committed months before he left Isabela.
The dispositive portion of the October 19, 2000 RTC Decision reads:
AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ALE THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape provided for and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to undergo or suffer RECLUSION PERPETUA, together with all the accessory penalties provided for by law, lo pay the victim the sum of P50,000.00 without, however, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the cost.
SO ORDERED.[2]
On December 13, 2000, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision.
On September 22, 2004, this Court issued a Resolution ordering the records of the case to be transferred to the CA for intermediate review, in accordance with People v. Mateo.[3]
The CA held against accused-appellant. In its October 23, 2007 Decision, it ruled that:
(1) The private complainant's testimony was "straightforward and candid in narrating the manner by which the sexual assault was carried out by accused-appellant, which was not at all rebutted in her cross-examination."[4] The alleged inconsistencies in her statements were minor and
did not affect the substance of her testimony;
(2) The medical findings on private complainant are consistent with her testimony, and there is thus sufficient basis to conclude that "the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established"[5]
(3) The delay in filing the criminal complaint against accused-appellant does not raise doubts on the veracity of the victim's claim of rape. She and her mother cannot be faulted for the delay considering that accused-appellant was the victim's father and her mother, accused-appellant's wife, could not immediately send him away;
(4) Accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alibi cannot prosper in light of his positive identification as the rapist. There was no strong evidence of non-culpability or serious corroboration from other witnesses to support his defenses; and
(5) In conformity with recent jurisprudence, the private complainant is entitled to moral damages of PhP 50,000 and exemplary damages of PhP 25.000.
On October 23 2007, the CA disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the challenged Decision of the RTC of Santiago City, Isabela, Branch 36, dated October 19, 2000, in Criminal Case No 36-2857, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00, accused-appellant is ordered to pay private complainant P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The rest of the Decision stands.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On November 27, 2007, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of the CA Decision.
Accused-appellant presents two issues before this Court:
I
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
II
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF THE INCREDIBLE, INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY OF THE
COMPLAINANT
We find the appeal without merit.
The defense points out to the following inconsistencies as eroding the victim's credibility: First, she stated during the preliminary investigation that on the date of the rape she arrived at their house and went to her bedroom to change clothes. Her testimony during cross-examination, however, shows that she was changing her clothes because she had just taken a bath. Second, she testified on cross-examination that she arrived from school because she did not want to go to school anymore, contradicting her earlier statement during direct examination that it was her father who ordered her to stop going to school.
The inconsistencies the defense maintains are substantial are, as the appellate court has found, actually minor and have no material bearing on the credibility of the complainant. It is also pertinent to keep in mind that a rape victim cannot be required to accurately narrate every ugly detail of the offense against her especially since she might have been trying not to remember them.[7] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen a witness' testimony as they show that the testimony has not been rehearsed.[8]
Accused-appellant likewise argues that it is highly incredible and doubtful for the sexual assault on AAA to last for about one to two hours and for her not to ask for help from relatives who were living nearby. Nevertheless, the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate the commission of rape.[9] Furthermore, the length of time involved in the rape is a minor detail. We agree with plaintiff-appellee that the complainant's testimony on the duration of the rape may have been a "simple miscalculation brought about by [the complainant's] age or lack of schooling."[10]
It is also alleged that the motive for filing the rape complaint is questionable since it took AAA four months to file it. However, in People v. Dimaano, we held that the delay in reporting a rape, especially when threatened by physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim, more so when the lecherous attacker is her own father.[11]
Accused-appellant similarly claims that his testimony that he was in Nueva Ecija at the time of the rape was corroborated by witness Dagul Erang and unrebutted by the prosecution. We, however, note the well-settled rule that for the defenses of alibi and denial to prosper, accused-appellant must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for him to have been physically present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. [12] Accused-appellant failed to provide such positive, clear, and satisfactory proof especially as against his daughter's positive identification of him as her rapist.
The determination of the outcome of every rape case hinges upon the credibility of the complainant's testimony,[13] and we sustain the findings of the CA that the complainant's testimony was credible, candid, and straightforward.
On accused-appellant's pecuniary liability, we modify the award of damages by the appellate court in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Civil indemnity of PhP 75.000 is awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[14] The award of PhP 75,000 as moral damages is warranted in this case without need of pleading or proof of basis.[15] We, however, find the award of PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages proper due to the existence of the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship.[16]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The October 23, 2007 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01685 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant
shall pay the victim PhP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 75,000 as moral damages, and PhP 25,000 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] CA rollo, p. 4.
[2] Id. at 18. Penned by Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan.
[3] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[4] Rollo, pp. 5-6.
[5] Id. at 7; citing People v. Cadampog, G.R. No. 148144, April 30, 2004: 428 SCRA 336.
[6] Id. at 8-9. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and Lucas P. Bersamin.
[7] People v. Luna, G.R. No. 135241, January 22, 2003, 395 SCRA 647, 663.
[8] People v. Paredes, G.R. No. 136105, October 23, 2001, 368 SCRA 102, 108.
[9] People v. Emilio, G.R. Nos. 144305-07, February 6, 2003, 397 SCRA 62, 70.
[10] CA rollo, p. 73.
[11] G.R. No. 168168, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA. 647, 663.
[12] People v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 136299, August 29, 2003, 410 SCRA 183, 190.
[13] People v. Corral, G.R. Nos. 145172-74, February 28, 2003, 398 SCRA 494; 501.
[14] People v. Barcena, G.R. No. 168737; February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 543, 561.
[15] CIVIL CODE, Art. 2230. See People v. Arsayo, G.R. No. 166546, September 26, 2001, 503 SCRA 275; People v. Bonghanoy, G.R. No. 124097, June 17, 1999, 308 SCRA 383, 394.
[16] People v. Alfaro, 458 Phil. 942, 963 (2003).
