July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 175331 : July 02, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ANTONIO MUNTON:
[G.R. No. 175331 : July 02, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ANTONIO MUNTON
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 02 July 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 175331* (People of the Philippines v. Antonio Munton).
This case is about a finding that rape has been committed despite the absence of hymenal lacerations in the victim.
The State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice charged the accused Antonio Munton with statutory rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-00-92219.
The evidence for the prosecution showed that RC,[1] seven years old when this case began,[2] had been abandoned by her mother to a certain Nida who in turn gave her to accused Antonio Munton, an electrician, and Margarita with whom he was living. At some point, Munton drove Margarita away from their house but kept custody of RC.
RC testified that in June 1999, Munton often got mad at RC and whipped her with his belt. He would come home drunk and at times use shabu. When RC had fallen asleep, he would sexually abuse her. She would wake up feelign something heavy on top of her and then see Munton naked, trying to shove his penis into her private part. At times, Munton would join her in the bathroom when she was bathing. He would make her rub gas on his back, then he would remove her clothes and ravish her. RC reported the incidents to her teacher, Mrs Marzan and to her Ate Tere.
Ma. Aquilisa Ongleo, a social worker from Bantay Bata 163, ABS-CBN Foundation, narrated that on May 27, 1999 one of their counselors received a call from a concerned citizen, reporting the physical abuses that RC was getting from Munton. On June 25, 1999 Ongleo and several Barangay Kagawads went to see Munton at his house. He was preparing RC for school. Munton admitted beating the child but claimed that this was his way of disciplining her, something he did to his own children. Ongleo tried to talk to RC but she did not respond, always looking at Munton, apparently afraid of him.
On June 29, 1999 Ongleo visited the Bago Bantay Elementary School to see RC but she was absent. On July 20, 1999 Ongleo got a call the RC had come to school. After an interview by the principal, RC admitted that Munton had sexually abused her. On being alerted, a Bantay Bata rescue team went to RC's school to rescue her.
For his defense, Munton admitted having beaten and spanked RC as part of disciplining her for the wrong things she did. But he denied raping her. He claimed that his neighbors, who begrudged him for not allowing them to tap through his electrical and water supply connections, merely invented the accusation of rape.
On February 20, 2003 the RTC found Munton guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment dated June 19, 2006. affirming the decision of the RTC and ordering Munton to pay RC P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, another P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
Munton then appealed to this Court.
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding Munton guilty of raping RC on the occasions she mentioned.
Munton claims that the witnesses against him could not be trusted to tell the truth. But, in this regard, the Court must defer to the judgment of the trial court, which had the opportunity to listen to the witnesses face to face and observe their tiniest responses and reactions as they are examined by counsels from both sides as well as by the judge. Appellate courts are necessarily hindered in their judgments by their remoteness from those who have stories to tell about what they saw and heard.
An exception to such reliance on the trial court's findings is of course when it is shown that it had ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts that, if considered, would change the outcome of the case.[3] After reviewing the records of the case, however, the Court sees no reason to reverse those findings.
Munton further claims that the medico-legal findings[4] that RC's private part did not have signs of lacerations and that her hymen had remained intact contradicted her testimony. But as the Court said in People v. Opong,[5] an intact hymen does not altogether preclude the fact of rape of the victim. Medical researches show that negative findings of lacerations are of no significance, as they may not be torn despite repeated coitus. Many cases of pregnancy had been reported about women with unruptured hymens.[6] The strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastice as to stretch without laceration during intercourse. On the other hand, it may be so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue.
In a final attempt to escape liability, Munton asserts that two of his neighbors instigated the filing of the rape charges against him out of spite for his refusal to allow them to tap through his electrical and water supply connections. But apart from being an unlikely motive for filing false charges of rape, Munton's assertion remained uncorroborated.
Except for the CA's award of exemplary damages, which should be increased to P30,000.00 in accordance wih the lates jurisprudence on statutory rape,[7] the Court finds the penalties adn damages it imposed on Munton essentially correct under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00049 dated June 19, 2006, which affirmed that of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-00-92219, finding the accused Antonio Munton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of STATUTORY RAPE as defined by Republic Act 8353,[8] with the sole modification that the award of exemplary damages imposed against him by the Court of Appeals is increased to P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 175331* (People of the Philippines v. Antonio Munton).
This case is about a finding that rape has been committed despite the absence of hymenal lacerations in the victim.
The Facts and the Case
The State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice charged the accused Antonio Munton with statutory rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-00-92219.
The evidence for the prosecution showed that RC,[1] seven years old when this case began,[2] had been abandoned by her mother to a certain Nida who in turn gave her to accused Antonio Munton, an electrician, and Margarita with whom he was living. At some point, Munton drove Margarita away from their house but kept custody of RC.
RC testified that in June 1999, Munton often got mad at RC and whipped her with his belt. He would come home drunk and at times use shabu. When RC had fallen asleep, he would sexually abuse her. She would wake up feelign something heavy on top of her and then see Munton naked, trying to shove his penis into her private part. At times, Munton would join her in the bathroom when she was bathing. He would make her rub gas on his back, then he would remove her clothes and ravish her. RC reported the incidents to her teacher, Mrs Marzan and to her Ate Tere.
Ma. Aquilisa Ongleo, a social worker from Bantay Bata 163, ABS-CBN Foundation, narrated that on May 27, 1999 one of their counselors received a call from a concerned citizen, reporting the physical abuses that RC was getting from Munton. On June 25, 1999 Ongleo and several Barangay Kagawads went to see Munton at his house. He was preparing RC for school. Munton admitted beating the child but claimed that this was his way of disciplining her, something he did to his own children. Ongleo tried to talk to RC but she did not respond, always looking at Munton, apparently afraid of him.
On June 29, 1999 Ongleo visited the Bago Bantay Elementary School to see RC but she was absent. On July 20, 1999 Ongleo got a call the RC had come to school. After an interview by the principal, RC admitted that Munton had sexually abused her. On being alerted, a Bantay Bata rescue team went to RC's school to rescue her.
For his defense, Munton admitted having beaten and spanked RC as part of disciplining her for the wrong things she did. But he denied raping her. He claimed that his neighbors, who begrudged him for not allowing them to tap through his electrical and water supply connections, merely invented the accusation of rape.
On February 20, 2003 the RTC found Munton guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment dated June 19, 2006. affirming the decision of the RTC and ordering Munton to pay RC P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, another P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.
Munton then appealed to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding Munton guilty of raping RC on the occasions she mentioned.
The Ruling of the Court
Munton claims that the witnesses against him could not be trusted to tell the truth. But, in this regard, the Court must defer to the judgment of the trial court, which had the opportunity to listen to the witnesses face to face and observe their tiniest responses and reactions as they are examined by counsels from both sides as well as by the judge. Appellate courts are necessarily hindered in their judgments by their remoteness from those who have stories to tell about what they saw and heard.
An exception to such reliance on the trial court's findings is of course when it is shown that it had ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts that, if considered, would change the outcome of the case.[3] After reviewing the records of the case, however, the Court sees no reason to reverse those findings.
Munton further claims that the medico-legal findings[4] that RC's private part did not have signs of lacerations and that her hymen had remained intact contradicted her testimony. But as the Court said in People v. Opong,[5] an intact hymen does not altogether preclude the fact of rape of the victim. Medical researches show that negative findings of lacerations are of no significance, as they may not be torn despite repeated coitus. Many cases of pregnancy had been reported about women with unruptured hymens.[6] The strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastice as to stretch without laceration during intercourse. On the other hand, it may be so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue.
In a final attempt to escape liability, Munton asserts that two of his neighbors instigated the filing of the rape charges against him out of spite for his refusal to allow them to tap through his electrical and water supply connections. But apart from being an unlikely motive for filing false charges of rape, Munton's assertion remained uncorroborated.
Except for the CA's award of exemplary damages, which should be increased to P30,000.00 in accordance wih the lates jurisprudence on statutory rape,[7] the Court finds the penalties adn damages it imposed on Munton essentially correct under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00049 dated June 19, 2006, which affirmed that of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-00-92219, finding the accused Antonio Munton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of STATUTORY RAPE as defined by Republic Act 8353,[8] with the sole modification that the award of exemplary damages imposed against him by the Court of Appeals is increased to P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* J. Nachura, no part. C.J. Corona, additional member, per raffle dated June 2, 2010.
[1] A fictitious name to protect complainant's privacy.
[2] Birth Certificate, folder of exhibits, p. 4.
[3] People v. Ayade, G.R. No. 188561, January 15, 2010.
[4] Records, p. 12.
[5] G.R. No. 177822, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 706, 725, citing People v. Gabayron, 346 Phil. 593, 607 (1997).
[6] See also People v. Capt. Llanto, 443 Phil. 580, 594 (2003), citing People v. Aguinaldo, 375 Phil. 295, 312 (1999)
[7] People v. Rante, G.R. No. 184809, March 29, 2010.
[8] Otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997," amending the Revised Penal Code.
