Republic
of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- Edgardo ogarte y OCOB,
Accused-Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 182690
Present:
CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, PERALTA,* and PEREZ, JJ.
Promulgated: May 30, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
Accused-appellant
Edgardo Ogarte y Ocob (Ogarte) is now before Us on review after the Court of
Appeals, in its Decision[1]
dated November 20, 2007, in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00100, affirmed with
modification the March 9, 2000 Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 9th Judicial Region, Branch 28,
Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, in Criminal Case Nos. L-0043
and L-0044, wherein Ogarte was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
counts of Rape, qualified by relationship and age, as defined and penalized
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death and the payment of
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, and Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, for each count of rape.
On May 2, 1997, two separate Informations were filed before the RTC, charging Ogarte with two separate counts of Rape. The accusatory portions of the respective Informations read:
Criminal Case No. L-0043[3]:
That, in
the evening, on or about the 1st day of November, 1996, in the
municipality of xxx, within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, moved by lewd and
unchaste desire and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse
with one [AAA],[4] his
16[-]year[-]old daughter, against her will and without her consent.[5]
Criminal Case No. L-0044[6]:
That, in
the morning, on or about the 3rd day of November, 1996, in the
municipality of xxx, within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, moved by lewd and
unchaste desire and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse
with one [AAA], his 16[-]year[-]old daughter, against her will and without her
consent.[7]
On October 15,
1997, Ogarte was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the two charges.[8] Joint trial on the merits ensued after the
termination of the pre-trial conference.[9]
The
prosecution’s first witness was the private complainant herself, AAA. She confirmed that it was she who had filed
the two complaints for rape against her own father Ogarte, whom she identified
in open court. According to AAA, the
first instance of rape happened at around ten o’clock in the evening of
November 1, 1996, in their home in xxx. AAA claimed that while she was sleeping
beside her four younger sisters, Ogarte woke her up, held her hands, grabbed
her head, and brought her to the kitchen wherein she was forced to lie down on
the floor. AAA said that her struggles
were no match for Ogarte’s strength[10]
who proceeded to take off her pants and underwear, climb on top of her, and
insert his penis into her vagina. AAA
averred that she cried in pain and pleaded with her father “not to do it”[11]
but Ogarte told her “to be silent because he will do it slowly”[12]
and “not to worry because nothing will happen to [her].”[13] AAA said that after Ogarte ejaculated - which
she knew because of the white fluid she saw on his penis after he removed it
from her vagina - he threatened to kill her if she told her mother, who was at
that time in Guinabucan, Zamboanga del Sur,[14]
or anybody else of what had happened.
For fear that Ogarte is capable of carrying out his threats, AAA kept
her silence even when her mother arrived the following day.[15]
At around nine
o’clock in the morning of November 3, 1996, AAA alleged that she was again
raped by Ogarte. This occurred when,
upon her mother’s order, she reluctantly obeyed to help Ogarte gather some
firewood in the wooded area near their house.
AAA narrated that upon carrying some of the wood pieces Ogarte had cut,
Ogarte, still carrying the bolo he
used to cut the wood, pulled her shoulders and told her not to make any noise
as he missed her very much. AAA
recounted how Ogarte then went on to remove her undergarments, and ignoring her
cries, once again placed himself on top of her and with a “push and pull
motion,”[16]
consummated his sexual desires. After
Ogarte was done, he again warned and threatened AAA against breaking her
silence.[17]
AAA described
how in the following days and weeks she was able to foil Ogarte’s attempts, by
avoiding him and by pinching and waking up her sleeping sisters whenever Ogarte
tried to make advances. She had managed
to keep the incidents to herself up until December 5, 1996, when her mother
again asked her to help her father Ogarte gather some wood. AAA, believing that she would again be
violated by Ogarte in the woods, mustered the courage to reveal to her mother
the events that transpired on November 1 and 3, 1996. Upon learning about this, Ogarte, in his
anger, pulled AAA and was about to stab her when he was stopped by AAA’s mother
who arrived just in time. Thereafter,
AAA’s mother told her to keep quiet about what her father did to her.[18]
On March 20,
1997,[19]
AAA told her grandmother BBB her ordeal in the hands of her own father.[20] On April 2, 1997, AAA and BBB went to the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Dipolog City where they executed the
sworn affidavits[21]
that were used as bases for the charges against Ogarte.[22]
BBB, AAA’s
grandmother, was presented next. BBB
identified Ogarte in open court and said she knew Ogarte because he is her
son-in-law, being the husband of her daughter, AAA’s mother. BBB confirmed that AAA was her granddaughter,
that she was only 16 years old when the rapes happened, and that AAA told her
about the rapes on March 20, 1997, when AAA went to see her in Zamboanga del
Sur.[23]
Before resting
their case, the prosecution also submitted the following Medico-Legal Findings
made on April 2, 1997 by Dr. Milagros M. Cavan, whose testimony was deemed no
longer necessary by the RTC, in view of the fact that the medical certificate
she submitted was admitted by the defense, subject to rebuttal.[24]
DIAGNOSIS/FINDINGS:
- Examined conscious, coherent,
ambulatory:
Weight: 49.6 kgs. Height:
162 C.M.
Pertinent PE Findings:
Breast: Conical in shape; areola pinkish
Chest and Lungs: Clear breath sounds
CVS – Regular rate and rhythm
Abdomen – Flat, soft, no masses,
no normoactive bowel sounds
Genitalia:
Introitus: Admits two examining fingers with ease.
Hymen
– With old healed lacerations, at 5 0’clock and 7 0’clock positions[25]
Ogarte,
addressing the first charge against him, vehemently denied that he had raped
his own daughter on the night of November 1, 1996. He said that although it was true that he was
at their residence that evening, his wife, AAA’s mother, was also there that
night, contrary to AAA’s allegations.
Ogarte described the layout of their house and argued that because AAA
slept at the other end of the room, beside the wall, thus, at the farthest side
to the kitchen where the rape allegedly took place, it would have been
impossible to pull her and bring her to the kitchen without stepping on or
awakening his other children who were sleeping right beside AAA.[26]
Ogarte likewise
claimed innocence on the second charge of rape and averred that he was not in
the wooded area with AAA on November 3, 1996 as he was plowing his farm that
day. Ogarte contended that AAA filed
these charges against him as an act of revenge because he and his wife slapped
her sometime in February 1997[27]
when she adamantly denied having sexual intercourse with three men at her
school, as reported by Ogarte’s cousin who worked as a teacher in AAA’s school.[28]
Ogarte, invoking
his love for AAA, his eldest child,[29]
whom he admitted to being 16 years old at the time the alleged incidents
happened,[30]
asserted that for the very reason that AAA is his child, he could not commit
these crimes as charged.[31]
Ogarte’s close
friend Modesto Capalac, who was also their Barangay
Captain at that time, attested to Ogarte’s well-being and good moral
character. He said that he knew Ogarte
because they have been neighbors for a long time, even before they became
neighbors in San Roque. He said that
Ogarte had no criminal record in their Barangay
and that since Ogarte was a cooperative man, nobody had ever filed a complaint
against him.[32]
On March 9,
2000, the RTC found Ogarte guilty as charged in both criminal cases and imposed
on him the supreme penalty of death for each count of rape:
WHEREFORE,
finding the accused Edgaro Ogarte Y Ocob guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
counts of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as charged, aggravated by relationship and age, in relation
to Art. 47 of the same Code, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of DEATH for each count and orders him to pay the private offended
party the sums of P75,000.00 as indemnity for each count and P50,000.00
as moral damages for each count, or a total of P250,000.00.[33]
The RTC said
that the constitutional presumption of innocence that Ogarte originally enjoyed
was sufficiently overcome by AAA’s clear, straightforward, credible, and
truthful declaration that on two separate occasions, he succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with her, without her consent and against her will, in
violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC also debunked Ogarte’s imputation of
ill motive on AAA, stating that while the supposed “whipping and slapping”
happened only in February 1997, AAA had exposed Ogarte’s appalling acts as
early as December 5, 1996. Citing People v. Victor,[34]
the RTC held that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot
prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses
that the accused committed the crime.[35] Moreover, Ogarte, in interposing the defense
of denial and alibi, “failed to demonstrate and show that ‘he was somewhere
else at the time of the commission of the crime and that is why it is
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission and commit the crime.’”[36] The RTC also held that AAA’s delay in filing
a case against Ogarte is not uncommon and is justified in light of the threats
made against her life if she told anyone about the rapes, on top of the fact
that her own mother told her to keep quiet about it.[37]
On intermediate
appellate review,[38]
the Court of Appeals “synthesized for coherence”[39]
the errors assigned by Ogarte as follows: “(1) credibility of the
victim-witness, (2) appellant’s defense of denial, and (3) aggravating
circumstance of minority.”[40] Ogarte argued AAA’s testimony was replete
with inconsistencies, her minority was never duly established, and his credible
alibi should have been believed in view of the weakness of the prosecution’s
evidence.[41]
The Court of
Appeals gave full weight to the RTC’s determination that AAA’s testimony was
“credible, worthy of full faith and credit,” since there was nothing in the
records, which showed that the RTC misappreciated the facts or was arbitrary in
giving probative value on AAA’s testimony.
The Court of Appeals also held that the “allegation of inconsistency
does not detract AAA’s credibility”[42]
as sworn statements, not being conclusive proofs, cannot prevail over AAA’s
testimonies given in open court. On the
issue of delay in filing this case, the Court of Appeals said it was justified
“considering the intimidation, threat, and force employed”[43]
by Ogarte against AAA. The Court of
Appeals also agreed with the RTC that Ogarte’s defense of denial, being an
inherently weak and unreliable defense, could not prevail over AAA’s positive
and categorical statements. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the RTC’s appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of
minority and relationship, as they were alleged in the information and duly
proven during the trial.[44]
On November 20,
2007, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, modifying the RTC’s decision
in so far as the current law and jurisprudence are concerned, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is
found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of rape in Crim. Case No.
L-0043 and Crim. Case No. L-0044 and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of
rape. Appellant shall indemnify AAA in
the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P75,000.00
as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, also for each
count of rape.[45]
Ogarte
is now before this Court with the same assignment of errors he posed before the
Court of Appeals, viz:
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN IMPOSING
THE DEATH PENALTY ON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE MINORITY
OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WAS NEVER DULY ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RULING IN PEOPLE VS. MANUEL LIBAN, G.R. NO. 136247 & 138330, NOVEMBER 22,
2000.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
ACCORDING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS REPLETE WITH MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES
AND THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DELAY BEFORE SHE INSTITUTED THE INSTANT CASE, WHICH
SHE ONLY DID SO ON ACCOUNT OF ILL-MOTIVE ON HER PART.
III
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF TWO (2) COUNTS OF RAPE AND NOT FINDING
CREDIBLE THE ALIBI INTERPOSED BY THE DEFENSE IN VIEW OF THE PATENT WEAKNESS OF
THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE.[46]
In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three
settled principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and
while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the
person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic
nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony of
the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence
for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[47]
Rape is a serious transgression
with severe consequences for both the accused and the complainant. Using the above guiding principles in the
review of rape cases, this Court is thus obligated to conduct a comprehensive
and extensive assessment of a judgment of conviction for rape.[48]
This Court has thoroughly
scrutinized the entire records of the case, and has found no reason to reverse
the courts below.
Ogarte was charged in the
information under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The pertinent portions of this Article are
emphasized as follows:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By using
force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under
twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape
is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the
occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.
When the rape is attempted
or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the
occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime
of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim.
2. When the victim is under the custody of the police
or military authorities.
3. When the rape is committed in full view of the
husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree
of consanguinity.
4. When the victim is a religious or a child below
seven (7) years old.
5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement
agency.
7. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the
victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation.[49]
(Emphases supplied.)
Ogarte was convicted of two counts
of rape by using force and intimidation, qualified by the concurrent
circumstances of AAA’s minority and Ogarte’s relationship with AAA. In an effort to escape the penalty of death,
as imposed by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code when the crime of simple
rape is qualified, Ogarte claims that the courts below erred in appreciating
AAA’s minority as a qualifying circumstance, because it was never duly proven
by the prosecution.
We disagree.
While we are aware of the
divergent rulings on the proof required to establish the age of the victim in
rape cases, this has already been addressed by this Court in People v. Pruna,[50]
wherein we established certain guidelines in appreciating age, either as an
element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. We have reiterated these guidelines in the
more recent case of People v. Flores,[51]
as follows:
1. The best evidence to prove the
age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the
certificate of live birth of such party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of
live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and
school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to
prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth
or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s mother or a
member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to
testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth
of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence
shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:
a.
If the victim is alleged to be below 3
years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years
old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years
of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years
of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate
of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim’s mother or
relatives concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice
provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has
the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the
testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.[52]
The qualifying
circumstances of age and relationship were not only properly alleged in the
information but were also duly established by the prosecution during the trial
of the cases against Ogarte. Records
show that AAA submitted a certification from the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of Labason, Zamboanga del Norte that her birth records appear in its
Register of Births and that her date of birth is listed as “June 24, 1980.”[53] Under the above guidelines in establishing
the victim’s age, this certification qualifies as an authentic document. Moreover, Ogarte himself admitted, not only
on cross examination, but also to his own counsel during his direct
examination, that AAA is his eldest child and was 16 years old on November 1,
1996:
On direct
examination:
Q: How old was [AAA] on November 1, 1996?
A: Sixteen.
x x x x
Q: [AAA] according to you was sixteen years old at that time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was she the eldest child sleeping with you on November 1,
1996?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So the other five children of yours were younger than [AAA]?
A: Yes, sir.[54]
And again on
cross-examination:
Q: What was the age of your daughter?
A: [AAA] is sixteen.
x x x x
Q: How many children do you have?
A: Eight.
Q: How young is your eldest?
A: Sixteen.
Q: Who is your eldest?
A: [AAA].[55]
Ogarte insists that both the RTC
and the Court of Appeals erred in giving full weight and credence to AAA’s
testimony considering that it was uncorroborated and was replete with
inconsistencies. However, he only gave a
general statement and failed to specifically identify the alleged
inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony.
Nevertheless, this Court has declared that inconsistencies in a victim’s
testimony will not weaken her credibility because we cannot expect a rape
victim to remember every ugly detail of her appalling experience.[56] In People
v. Del Rosario,[57]
we said:
Etched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that a victim of a savage crime cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every lurid detail of a frightening experience - a verity born out of human nature and experience. This is especially true with a rape victim who is required to utilize every fiber of her body and mind to repel an attack from a stronger aggressor. x x x.[58]
Again,
this Court is compelled to repeat the well-entrenched rule that the trial
court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to the
highest respect absent a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would
affect the result of the case.[59] This is because the trial court is deemed to
be in a better position to decide the question of credibility, since it had the
opportunity to observe the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their furtive
glances, calmness, sighs and the scant or full realization of their oath.[60]
The
RTC was “convinced, without reservation”[61]
in AAA’s credibility especially since her testimony was “clear,
straightforward, credible and truthful.”[62] We also agree with the RTC’s assessment that
the ill motive Ogarte imputed on his daughter is baseless and concocted only to
escape liability, to wit:
Although this Court noted that the
accused, in an attempt to exculpate himself from any liability brought about by
the couple of charges leveled against him, imputed ill-motive on the part of
the private complainant in indicting him of the crimes as charged, the same deserves scant consideration
in view of the fact that the accused had
whipped or slapped the herein private complainant only sometime in February
1997 as testified to by the accused (p-10, TSN, April 22, 1999) which incident was considered by the
defense as the source of the ill-motive of the prosecution witness [AAA], while
the private complainant had reported the rapes to her mother on December 5 yet (p-10,
TSN, March 3, 1998).[63]
(Emphasis ours.)
AAA’s
delay in reporting the incident to the proper authorities is also insignificant
and does not negate the veracity of her charges.[64] It should be remembered that Ogarte
threatened to kill her if she revealed the rapes to anyone. Moreover, her own mother told her to keep her
silence when AAA told her about the rapes a month after their occurrence. This Court reiterates that:
The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement
without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the
authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually
molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and
fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the
offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file
criminal charges against the rapists.
They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their
shame to the world or risk the offenders’ making good their threats to kill or
hurt their victims.”[65]
Since
there are usually only two witnesses in rape cases, it is also a settled rule
that rape may be proven by the lone uncorroborated testimony of the offended
victim, as long as her testimony is clear, positive, and probable.[66]
As
we have established that AAA was a credible witness, her clear, positive, and
probable, uncorroborated testimony is enough to convict Ogarte of the crime of
rape. As the Court held in People v. Tayaban[67]:
[I]t is
settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight
and credit, since when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed
committed.[68]
Ogarte
is trying to persuade this Court to believe that he could not have committed
the crimes on the bases of his denial and alibi.
The
RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in disregarding Ogarte’s
defenses. This Court has uniformly held,
time and again, that both “denial and alibi are among the weakest, if not the
weakest, defenses in criminal prosecution.”[69] It is well-settled that denial, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion
that deserves no weight in law.[70]
In
People v. Palomar,[71]
we explained why alibi is a weak and unreliable defense:
Alibi is one of the weakest defenses
not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable, but also because it is
easy to fabricate and difficult to check or rebut. It cannot prevail over the positive identification
of the accused by eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely. x
x x.[72]
We
have also declared that in case of alibi, the accused must show that he had
strictly complied with the requirements of time and place:
In
the case of alibi, it is elementary case law that the requirements of time and
place be strictly complied with by the defense, meaning that the accused must
not only show that he was somewhere else but that it was also physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was
committed. x x x.[73]
This
Ogarte utterly failed to do. While he
merely denied the rape on November 1, 1996, his alibi for the November 3, 1996
rape failed to show that it was impossible for him to have committed the
crime. Ogarte testified that he was at
his farm, plowing the field instead of at the wooded area with AAA on November
3, 1996. He further stated that his farm
was just a kilometer away from their house and would not even take half an hour
to traverse.[74] Clearly, the proximity of the farm to the
wooded area and to their house refutes the defense of alibi.[75]
Aside
from his testimony, Ogarte never presented any other evidence to prove that he
could not have committed the rapes. He
did not present any other witness, let alone his wife, whom he claimed was with
him on November 1, 1996 and whom AAA claimed to have ordered her to go with
Ogarte to gather wood on November 3, 1996.
This Court cannot over-emphasize the repeatedly quoted doctrine that
positive identification prevails over denial and alibi. [76]
The RTC was correct in imposing upon Ogarte
the penalty of death as it found Ogarte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
counts of qualified rape, AAA being
Ogarte’s 16-year-old daughter when the rapes were committed. However, although under the Death Penalty
Law,[77]
the crime of qualified rape is punishable by death, Republic Act No. 9346,[78]
which took effect on June 24, 2006, prohibits the imposition of the death
penalty. Under this Act, the proper penalty
to be imposed upon Ogarte in lieu of the death penalty is reclusion perpetua,[79]
without eligibility for parole.[80]
Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding
of the fact of rape. Moral damages are
automatically awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that
a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such
award.[81]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 00100, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant
Edgardo Ogarte y Ocob is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED
RAPE in Criminal Case No.
L-0043 and Criminal Case No. L-0044 and sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
in lieu of death, without eligibility for parole, for each count of rape. He is ordered to pay the victim AAA
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity,
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages and Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, for each count of
rape, ALL with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality
of this judgment. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
* Per Special Order No. 994 dated May 27, 2011.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-26; penned by Associate Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 18-32; penned by Judge Mariano S. Macias.
[3] Formerly Criminal Case No. S-2867.
[4] Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victim’s privacy.
[5] Records,
Vol. I, p. 12.
[6] Formerly Criminal Case No. S-2868.
[7] Records, Vol. II, p. 1.
[8] Id., Vol. I, p. 28.
[9] Id.
at 52.
[10] TSN, March 17, 1998, p. 7.
[11] TSN, March 3, 1998, p. 6.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] TSN,
March 17, 1998, p. 2.
[15] TSN, March 3, 1998, pp. 3-7.
[16] Id.
at 9.
[17] Id. at 7-9.
[18] Id. at 9-11.
[19] Records,
Vol. II, p. 13.
[20] TSN,
March 3, 1998, p. 11.
[21] Records,
Vol. II, pp. 9-13.
[22] TSN, March 3, 1998, p. 11.
[23] TSN,
June 16, 1998, pp. 2-6.
[24] Records,
Vol. I, p. 79.
[25] Id.,
Vol. II, p. 15.
[26] TSN, April 22, 1999, pp. 2-5.
[27] Id.
at 10-11.
[28] Id. at 5-8.
[29] Id.
at 12.
[30] Id.
at 5, 12.
[31] Id. at 8.
[32] TSN, September 22, 1999, pp. 2-3.
[33] CA rollo, p. 32.
[34] 354 Phil. 195 (1998).
[35] Id. at 207.
[36] CA rollo, pp. 28-29.
[37] Id.
at 24-30.
[38] This case, docketed as G.R. Nos.
143000-01, has reached this Court by way of automatic review on August 25,
2000. However, conformably with the
decision promulgated on July 7, 2004 in G.R. Nos. 147678-87, entitled People
v. Mateo, which allowed for intermediate review by the
Court of Appeals, this Court resolved to transfer this case to the Court of
Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. (CA records, p. 192.)
[39] Rollo, p. 12.
[40] Id.
[41] Id.
at 8.
[42] Id.
at 20.
[43] Id. at 21.
[44] Id.
at 12-23.
[45] Id. at 25.
[46] CA rollo, pp. 54-55.
[47] People v. Antivola, 466 Phil. 394, 408 (2004).
[48] People v. Celocelo, G.R. No. 173798,
December 15, 2010.
[49] As
amended by Sec. 11, Republic Act No. 7659.
[50] People v. Pruna, 439 Phil. 440, 470-471
(2002).
[51] G.R.
No. 177355, December 15, 2010.
[52] Id.
[53] Records,
Vol. II, p. 14.
[54] TSN,
April 22, 1999, p. 5.
[55] Id.
at 12.
[56] People v. Ruiz, 368 Phil. 805, 827
(1999).
[57] 398 Phil. 292 (2000).
[58] Id. at 301.
[59] People v. Ibay, 371 Phil. 81 (1999).
[60] People v. Fernandez, 426 Phil. 169, 173 (2002).
[61] CA
rollo, p. 26.
[62] Id.
at 24.
[63] Id.
at 27.
[64] People v. Julian, 337 Phil. 411, 425
(1997).
[65] People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, 314-315
(1996).
[66] People v. Buenviaje, 408 Phil. 342, 354 (2001).
[67] 357
Phil. 494 (1998).
[68] Id. at 508.
[69] People v. Espinosa, 476 Phil. 42, 62 (2004).
[70] Id.
at 62.
[71] 343 Phil. 628 (1997).
[72] Id. at 663-664.
[73] People v. Pili, 351 Phil. 1046, 1068-1069
(1998).
[74] TSN,
April 22, 1999, p. 9.
[75] People v. Pili, supra note 73.
[76] People v. Espinosa, supra note 69.
[77] Republic Act No. 7659.
[78] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty, June 24, 2006.
[79] Republic Act No. 9346, Section 2.
[80] Id., Section 3.
[81] People v. Flores, supra note 51.