April 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 184060 : April 27, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ANDRES CESARIO :
[G.R. No. 184060 : April 27, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ANDRES CESARIO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, s a resolution of this Court dated 27 April 2009:
G.R. No. 184060 (People of the Philippines v. Andres Cesario).- Appellant was charged of having committed two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape against his then thirteen-year-old daughter, AAA.[1] The physical examination of AAA by Dr. Soledad Vengco, a resident physician at the Tarlac Provincial Hospital, revealed one healed incomplete laceration at the 4 o'clock position and one healed complete laceration at the 9 o'clock position in her genitalia, and that AAA was pregnant.[2] Despite positive identification by AAA, appellant denied involvement in the said crimes under the pretext that that he was drunk on the dates in question and knew nothing of what transpired on those nights.
As positive assertions that bear a ring of truth deserve more credence and entitled to greater evidentiary weight than bare denials, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.[3] The trial court appreciated the special qualifying circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to appellant as properly alleged in the informations and sufficiently proved at the trial. For the offense of qualified rape, the trial court sentenced him to suffer twice the penalty of death. For the offense of attempted rape, appellant was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. Appellant was further ordered to pay AAA P50,000.00 in each case of rape as moral damages and another P50,000.00 each as exemplary damages.
On intermediate appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the penalty for both offenses.4 For qualified rape, it sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole for each case, in view of the intervening enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 on 24 June 2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty; increased the award of moral damages to P75,000.00; and further ordered appellant to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00. For attempted rape, the appellate court held that the proper penalty is reclusion temporal which is two degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated rape. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it held that appellant may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty whose minimum is within the range of prision mayor and whose maximum shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period. Thus, it sentenced appellant to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment term often (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In addition, appellant was ordered to pay AAA P30,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as moral damages.
The case is now before us on automatic review. The Court directed the parties to simultaneously file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice.[5] Appellant and the Solicitor General both manifested that they are dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief and that they are adopting their respective briefs submitted before the appellate court.[6]
We agree with the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court that the prosecution was able to sufficiently discharge its burden of proving appellant's guilt. AAA's narration of her harrowing experience was straightforward, categorical and consistent amidst rigorous cross-examination. Her testimony was corroborated by the result of the medico-legal examination.
As correctly held by the appellate court, her testimony against her own father deserves great weight and credit for it is unlikely that a daughter would fabricate such a serious charge against her own father, subject herself to an examination of her private parts and to a humiliating and emotionally draining process of public trial, if she was not grievously violated.[7] Furthermore, it is settled that when a woman says that she had been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her; so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[8]
We cannot give credence to appellant's bare claim that he did not know anything about the charges against him because he was too drunk. It is hard to believe that he knew nothing of the rape when it happened twice and he would have succeeded a third time had his wife not been roused by the cries of another daughter whom AAA pinched. Denial being a weak defense cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony that appellant was the culprit.[9]
In sum, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the appellate court as they are folly supported by the evidence on record. We disagree, however, with the penalty imposed for attempted rape. In People v. Alfredo Bon,[10] we have made the pronouncement that since those convicted of qualified rape are spared the death sentence by reason of R.A. No. 9346, the determination of the penalty for attempted rape shall be.reckoned not from two degrees lower than death, but two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua. Hence, the maximum term of appellant's penalty for attempted rape shall no longer be reclusion temporal but instead, prision mayor which should be imposed in its medium period there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The appellate court's modification of the award of damages is in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[11] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000.00 must likewise be awarded as a deterrent to others with similar perverse tendencies.[12]
One final note. Rape violates a person in the most grievous and revolting way imaginable. Perpetrators of this outrage are slaves of their lust, devoid of human dignity and reduced to lower than beasts in category.[13] They must suffer the severest of penalty provided by law. The appellant repeatedly ravished and violated his own minor daughter. The Court shall grant him no mercy.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 22 February 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02018. Appellant Andres Cesario is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape and one count of attempted qualified rape and sentenced as follows:
G.R. No. 184060 (People of the Philippines v. Andres Cesario).- Appellant was charged of having committed two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape against his then thirteen-year-old daughter, AAA.[1] The physical examination of AAA by Dr. Soledad Vengco, a resident physician at the Tarlac Provincial Hospital, revealed one healed incomplete laceration at the 4 o'clock position and one healed complete laceration at the 9 o'clock position in her genitalia, and that AAA was pregnant.[2] Despite positive identification by AAA, appellant denied involvement in the said crimes under the pretext that that he was drunk on the dates in question and knew nothing of what transpired on those nights.
As positive assertions that bear a ring of truth deserve more credence and entitled to greater evidentiary weight than bare denials, appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.[3] The trial court appreciated the special qualifying circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to appellant as properly alleged in the informations and sufficiently proved at the trial. For the offense of qualified rape, the trial court sentenced him to suffer twice the penalty of death. For the offense of attempted rape, appellant was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. Appellant was further ordered to pay AAA P50,000.00 in each case of rape as moral damages and another P50,000.00 each as exemplary damages.
On intermediate appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction but modified the penalty for both offenses.4 For qualified rape, it sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua without possibility of parole for each case, in view of the intervening enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 on 24 June 2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty; increased the award of moral damages to P75,000.00; and further ordered appellant to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00. For attempted rape, the appellate court held that the proper penalty is reclusion temporal which is two degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated rape. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it held that appellant may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty whose minimum is within the range of prision mayor and whose maximum shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its medium period. Thus, it sentenced appellant to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment term often (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In addition, appellant was ordered to pay AAA P30,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as moral damages.
The case is now before us on automatic review. The Court directed the parties to simultaneously file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice.[5] Appellant and the Solicitor General both manifested that they are dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief and that they are adopting their respective briefs submitted before the appellate court.[6]
We agree with the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court that the prosecution was able to sufficiently discharge its burden of proving appellant's guilt. AAA's narration of her harrowing experience was straightforward, categorical and consistent amidst rigorous cross-examination. Her testimony was corroborated by the result of the medico-legal examination.
As correctly held by the appellate court, her testimony against her own father deserves great weight and credit for it is unlikely that a daughter would fabricate such a serious charge against her own father, subject herself to an examination of her private parts and to a humiliating and emotionally draining process of public trial, if she was not grievously violated.[7] Furthermore, it is settled that when a woman says that she had been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her; so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[8]
We cannot give credence to appellant's bare claim that he did not know anything about the charges against him because he was too drunk. It is hard to believe that he knew nothing of the rape when it happened twice and he would have succeeded a third time had his wife not been roused by the cries of another daughter whom AAA pinched. Denial being a weak defense cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony that appellant was the culprit.[9]
In sum, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the appellate court as they are folly supported by the evidence on record. We disagree, however, with the penalty imposed for attempted rape. In People v. Alfredo Bon,[10] we have made the pronouncement that since those convicted of qualified rape are spared the death sentence by reason of R.A. No. 9346, the determination of the penalty for attempted rape shall be.reckoned not from two degrees lower than death, but two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua. Hence, the maximum term of appellant's penalty for attempted rape shall no longer be reclusion temporal but instead, prision mayor which should be imposed in its medium period there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The appellate court's modification of the award of damages is in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[11] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P10,000.00 must likewise be awarded as a deterrent to others with similar perverse tendencies.[12]
One final note. Rape violates a person in the most grievous and revolting way imaginable. Perpetrators of this outrage are slaves of their lust, devoid of human dignity and reduced to lower than beasts in category.[13] They must suffer the severest of penalty provided by law. The appellant repeatedly ravished and violated his own minor daughter. The Court shall grant him no mercy.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 22 February 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02018. Appellant Andres Cesario is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape and one count of attempted qualified rape and sentenced as follows:
- For each count of qualified rape, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
- For attempted qualified rape, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and to pay AAA P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages. Quisumbing, J., on official business without possibility of parole, and to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages,and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] The identities of the victim and her immediate family members, including any identifying information, are withheld pursuant to the Decision dated 19 September 2006 in G.R. No. 167693 entitled People v. Cabalquinto.
[2] CA rollo, pp.20-21.
[3] In a Decision dated 1 April 2005 in Criminal Case Nos. 1562-64 rendered by Judge Cesar M. Sotero of the Regional Trial Court, Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67.
[4] In a Decision dated 22 February 2008 of the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02018 penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. CA rollo, pp. 108-122.
[5] In a Resolution dated 22 September 2008. Rollo, pp. 23-24.
[6] Id. at 29-31 and 36-38.
[7] People v. Bataller, 413 Phil. 620 (2001); People v. Llamo, 380 Phil. 759 (2000).
[8] People v. Agunos, 375 Phil. 315 (1999).
[9] People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, 30 October 2006; People v. Calongui, G.R. No. 170566, 3 March 2006, 484 SCRA 76; People v. Santos, 397 Phil. 564 (2000); People v. Cambi, 388 Phil. 978 (2000); People v. Burce, 336 Phil. 283 (1997).
[10] Supra.
[11] People v. Brioso, G.R. No. 182517, 13 March 2009; People v. Santos, G.R. No. 172322, 8 September 2006, 501 SCRA 325; People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 169078, 10 March 2006, 484 SCRA 555; People v. Quiachon, G.R. No. 170236, 31 August 2006, 500 SCRA 704; People v. Canoy, G.R..Nos. 148139-43, 15 October 2003,413 SCRA 490.
[12] People v. Brioso, supra; People v. Miranda, supra.
[13] People v. Lucban, 379 Phil. 325 (2000).
