Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 75954 October 22, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. DAVID G. NITAFAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 52, Manila, and K.T. LIM alias MARIANO
LIM, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Failing in his argument that B.P. 22, otherwise known as the
"Bouncing Check Law", is unconstitutional, 1 private respondent
now argues that the check he issued, a memorandum check, is
in the nature of a promissory note, hence, outside the purview of
the statute. Here, his argument must also fail.
The facts are simple. Private respondent K.T. Lim was charged
before respondent court with violation of B.P. 22 in an Information
alleging
That on . . . January 10, 1985, in the City of Manila . . .
the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously make or draw and issue to Fatima Cortez Sasaki . . .
Philippine Trust Company Check No. 117383 dated February 9,
1985 . . . in the amount of P143,000.00, . . . well knowing that at
the time of issue he . . . did not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank . . . which check . . . was subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds, and
despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to
pay said Fatima Cortez Sasaki the amount of said check or to
make arrangement for full payment of the same within five (5)
banking days after receiving said notice. 2
On 18 July 1986, private respondent moved to quash the
Information of the ground that the facts charged did not constitute
a felony as B.P. 22 was unconstitutional and that the check he
issued was a memorandum check which was in the nature of a
promissory note, perforce, civil in nature. On 1 September 1986,
respondent judge, ruling that B.P. 22 on which the Information
was based was unconstitutional, issued the questioned Order
quashing the Information. Hence, this petition for review
on certiorari filed by the Solicitor General in behalf of the
government.
Since the constitutionality of the "Bouncing Check Law" has
already been sustained by this Court in Lozano v.Martinez 3 and
the seven (7) other cases decided jointly with it, 4 the remaining
issue, as aptly stated by private respondent in his Memorandum,
is whether a memorandum check issued postdated in partial
payment of a pre-existing obligation is within the coverage of B.P.
22.
Citing U.S. v. Isham, 5 private respondent contends that although
a memorandum check may not differ in form and appearance
Dura lex, sed lex, interpreted as: The law is harsh (sic) but that
(sic) is the law.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The penalty of death having been imposed, the decision is
now before us for automatic review, pursuant to Article 47 of the
Revised Penal Code and Section 1(e), Rule 122 of the Rules of
Court. The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) Anti-Death
Penalty Task Force submitted a brief on behalf of the accusedappellant. In seeking a reversal of the September 27, 1996
decision, it raises the following as errors of the trial court:
1. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
AN OFFENSE NOT CHARGED IN THE
INFORMATION;
2. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT
AND
IN
DISREGARDING
ITS
INCONSISTENCIES;
3. THE TRIAL COURT MANIFESTED BIAS,
THEREBY
DEPRIVING
THE
ACCUSEDAPPELLANT OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL TRIAL AND VIOLATING HIS RIGHT
TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT, WHEN IT LED
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO ADMIT A
MEDICO-LEGAL EXAMINATION REPORT THAT
IT LATER USED TO CONVICT HIM;
4. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
HAD THE PROPENSITY TO SEXUALLY ABUSE
HIS CHILDREN ON THE BASIS OF A PENDING
CASE OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS FILED
AGAINST HIM BY ANOTHER CHILD, AND IN
USING SAID FINDING TO CONVICT THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
After a thorough and painstaking review of the evidence on
record, as well as of the arguments advanced by the FLAG AntiDeath Penalty Task Force and by the Solicitor General, we
resolve to affirm the judgement of conviction.
In support of his allegation that he was convicted of an
offense not charged in the information, accused-appellant notes
that he was charged with having committed rape sometime in
May 1995, in Barangay Alipangpang, Municipality of
Polyzoarium, Pangasinan. He, however, asserts that the
prosecution failed to prove that he had committed rape sometime
in May 1995. If ever accused-appellant raped his daughter, he
claims that this did not occur in May but much later. In support of
his argument, accused-appellant points to the medico-legal
report, which puts the time of commission of the alleged rape at
sometime in August 1995. Furthermore, accused-appellant
alleges that the congestion and inflammation at the vestibular
mucosa and the hymenal area coupled with intense pain and
[5]
A: Yes, sir.
Atty. Padilla
Q: Can you recall what your father did to you which is now
the subject of your complaint?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did your father Jovito Losano did (sic) to you?
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
rape, she certainly would have heard the cries of pain of her
granddaughter.
A: Yes, sir.
This Court has time and again ruled that the sole testimony
of the victim in a rape case is sufficient to sustain a conviction if
such testimony is credible.[15] By the very nature of rape cases,
conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility
of the complainants testimony, the fact being that usually only the
participants thereto can testify as to its occurrence. [16] In the
instant case, the trial court found the testimony of Rowena to be
credible, possessing as they did all the semblance of truth. We
find no compelling reason to disturb the trial courts reliance on
Rowenas testimony, it being hornbook doctrine that the findings
of fact of the trial court is entitled to the highest respect, it being
in the best position to determine questions of credibility of
witnesses, having heard them and observed their department
and manner of testifying.[17]
Likewise, whether or not Veronica awoke when accusedappellant took his daughter out of the room will not and cannot
affect Rowenas credibility, as the same does not disprove that
the rape was not committed. And even if it were true that
Veronica awoke at the time accused-appellant carried his
daughter out of the room, no protest could have been
forthcoming, as the former probably did not know that accusedappellant was out to rape his own flesh and blood. Again, the
allegation that the rape could not have taken place due to the
proximity of Veronicas presence holds no water. The nearby
presence of people in a certain place is no guarantee that rape
will not and cannot be committed, [19] lust being no respecter of
time and place.
It may also be observed that for his defense, accusedappellant could only deny having raped his daughter. Wellentrenched is the rule that denial is inherently weak and easily
fabricated.[20] It becomes even weaker in the face if the positive
identification by the victim, Rowena, of accused-appellant as her
assailant.
We also reject accused-appellants contention that the rape
charge was due to the bad blood between him and his mother
and sister. No sister would be so depraved as to condemn a
brother to possible death for failure to sell a karaoke, Walkman
and watches at bargain basement prices. Neither would a mother
be so callous as to seal her sons doom for his refusal to sell a
piece of land. Lastly, it would be unlikely for Rowena, a sevenyear old, to fabricate a story of rape which would put her own
father on Death Row. As aptly stated by the trial court, [v]eritas
simplex oration est, the language of truth is simple, it can come
from the mouth of a child and the lips of the poor, simple and
unlettered.
thus, denounce the judge for bias for the improvidence of his
counsel in adopting said medico-legal report.
Neither may accused-appellant repudiate the actions of his
counsel, it being within the competence of the latter to stipulate
on the existence of said medico-legal report, the same being a
mere procedural question. Well-settled is the rule that such
questions as what action or pleading to file, where and when to
file it, what are its formal requirements, what should be the
theory of the case, what defenses to raise, how the claim of
defense may be proved, when to rest the case, as well as those
affecting the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy,
materiality or immateriality of certain evidence and the burden of
proof are within the authority of the attorney to decide.
[24]
Whatever decision an attorney makes on any of these
procedural questions, even if it adversely affects a clients case,
will generally bind a client. More importantly, accused-appellants
conviction does not rest on this piece of evidence alone but on
the testimony of the victim herself.
Lastly, accused-appellant scores the trial court for holding
that he had the propensity to sexually abuse his children on the
basis of a pending case for acts of lasciviousness filed against
him by another child. Upon this particular, accused-appellant
raises a valid point. The trial court, in its assessment of the
evidence, found that accused-appellant had admitted that a case
for acts of lasciviousness had been filed against him. Based on
Section 34 of Rule 130 [25] providing that similar acts may be
received to prove a specific intent, plan, system, scheme, and the
like, the trial court drew the conclusion that the accused-appellant
had the propensity to prey on his daughters.
The admission of the accused-appellant that he was facing
a charge of acts of lasciviousness filed by his eleven-year old
daughter only proves that such a case was filed and pending with
the municipal court. It does not prove the propensity of the
accused-appellant to crave for his children. The pendency of the
case of acts of lasciviousness is not equivalent to evidence that
the accused-appellant was guilty of the same. In equating the
pendency of said case to his guilt thereof, the trial court ignored
the constitutional presumption of innocence afforded to the
accused-appellant.
The trial courts error on this point does not, however,
obliterate the fact that the prosecution was able to prove that
indeed, accused-appellant raped his daughter. In sum, we find no
reason to disturb the finding of the trial court that the guilt of the
accused-appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
As to the penalty imposed, Article 335, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659, provides that the death penalty shall be
imposed if the rape victim is under eighteen years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or a
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The case at hand
is clearly within the ambit of Article 335, accused-appellant being
the father of the victim. Rowena who was only six years of age at
the time of the rape incident. The supreme penalty of death was,
thus, properly imposed upon accused-appellant.
EN BANC
[A.C. No. 4017. September 29, 1999]
GATCHALIAN
PROMOTIONS
INC., complainant,
vs.
NALDOZA, respondent.
TALENTS
POOL,
ATTY.
PRIMO
R.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
On April 19, 1993, Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc.,
filed before this Court a Petition for disbarment against Attorney
Primo R. Naldoza. The precursor of this Petition was the action of
respondent, as counsel for complainant, appealing a Decision of
the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). In relation
to the appeal, complainant asserts that respondent should be
disbarred for the following acts:
1. Appealing a decision, knowing that the same was
already final and executory
2. Deceitfully obtaining two thousand, five hundred
and fifty-five US dollars (US$2,555) from
complainant, allegedly for cash bond in the
appealed case
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 116738. March 22, 1999]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. RODRIGO
DOMOGOY,
ALLAN
CUIZON
and
ELMER
FRAGA, defendants.
RODRIGO DOMOGOY, defendant-appellant.
DECISION
KAPUNAN, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Bislig, Surigao del Sur,[1] the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, accused Rodrigo Domogoy is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, defined and
penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay the
private complaint, Angeles Adorable the amount of P30,000.00
as moral damages, P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to
pay the cost.
He shall serve sentence in the National Penitentiary of
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.
Accused Allan Cuizon and Elmer Fraga, for lack of evidence, are
hereby acquitted.
SO ORDERED.[2]
Rodrigo Domogoy, Allan Cuizon and Elmer Fraga were
charged with the rape of Angeles Adorable in an information
stating:
That on or about 10:30 oclock [sic] in the evening, September 25,
1992, in Poblacion Bislig, municipality of Bislig, province of
Surigao del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Hows your life going on? Still fine? I hope so. . . Well if you ask
me naman Im fine, although its hard for me to forget, hard to
accept and not easy to recover the pain in my heart; But Im
trying myself to forget the past moments when I have been
failured. Yes I cant deny myself that Im broken hearted and I
realized at all that its not easy to full in love. Kaya nga bigla
nalang ako sumama sa iyo dahil na crush ako sa iyo for the first
time when I saw you. But I did not expect na hahantong tayo sa
hindi magandang pangyayari. [p]ero tapos na yon, lets forget the
past moments that we have; and lets go on to the new world of
friendship. In francly speaking inlove ako sa iyo pero ayaw kong
sundin ang puso ko dahil alam kong na tripingon mo lang ako. At
and sabi pa nga ni Monmon papuntapunta ka lang daw dito dahil
natakot ka lang daw sa kanya, ngunit hindi mo naman talagang
tipong (ka) makipag usap sa akin. But dont worry because youre
already forgiven. The bible said you must do first to forgive your
brother/sister before you ask the forgiveness your sin to the
heavenly father. If God can forgive the sinners, how much more
we are?. . . Romans 2:6 God will give to each person according
to what he has done.
Your friend N Christ
Angel
God Bless you!
The letter itself was enclosed in a greeting card allegedly
bought by Monmon. On the face of the greeting card were printed
in script the words:
While all these were taking place, Elmer and Allan were
about a meter away from the couple, looking and laughing.
A I told her that, because you went with me, that means, you
will agree what will happen to us now.
Q Then, what happen [sic]?
Dear Igoy,
Now I realize
that theres no one else
I need,
theres no one else
I want,
theres no one else for me
but you
Your friend N-Christ
Angel
Finally, at the lower part of the back cover were printed the
words:
I Love You
Angeles attributed most of the words in the letter to
Monmon who allegedly dictated the same to Angeles. The
Biblical quotes found in both the letter and the greeting card, as
well as that part of the letter relating to forgiveness, were
however Angeles own.
Angeles nonetheless denied forgiving Rodrigo. She likewise
denied that she had a crush on Rodrigo or that she was in love
with him. According to Angeles her purpose in writing Rodrigo the
letter was (s)o that he will believe and he could not defend
whatever action I may take.[13]
Upon Angeles request, Rowema Bagaan, another of the
Yus house helpers, delivered the card and the letter to Rodrigo.
Angeles happened to see the three (3) accused viewing a
beta show at Lilys Pharmacy after she sent Rodrigo her
letter. The three (3) mocked and laughed at her. Rodrigo even
approached her and puffed cigarette smoke on her face. Angeles
felt afraid and left them.
In his defense, Rodrigo claimed that he and Angeles were
sweethearts and the sexual intercourse between them
consensual. The twenty-one (21) year old student testified that
he first met Angeles on the first week of September 1992 at the
Bislig market Site. Monmon, his former classmate, introduced
him to Angeles. The second time they met, he courted her and
she readily accepted his offered affection.
On the evening of September 25, 1992, he went to Lilys
Pharmacy and invited Angeles to take a walk with him. Angeles
told him to go ahead, and she would just follow him. Rodrigo did
not agree so they walked together to the Bislig Municipal High
School instead. They talked along the way.
Q What was the nature of your conversation?
First. The tone and the contents of the letter and the card
indicate a greater degree of familiarity than complainant claimed
to have existed between her and appellant, belying complainants
claims that she was introduced to appellant on the evening of the
alleged rape. (Even this claim is inconsistent. Complainant
testified that she was introduced by Monmon to the three (3)
accused on the night of September 25, 1992.[20] But in her
affidavit executed before SPO4 Cristeta dela Cruz, complainant
stated that she came to knowthier [sic] names only after the
incident when she asked thier [sic] identities from [her] house cooccupants.[21]) In her letter, complainant did not attempt to
disguise her feelings towards appellant. She candidly admitted
having had a crush on appellant the first time she saw
him. Fran[k]ly speaking, she unabashedly declared, inlove
[sic] ako sa iyo. This statement virtually confirms the fact that
complainant and appellant were lovers, thereby giving credence
to the latters defense.
We disagree with the trial court when it observed that:
Relative to the letter which contains some love expressions, the
Court is of the belief that it has nothing [sic] to show that Angeles
Adorable had given herself up voluntarily on her own free
will. The letter is dated October 25, 1992, exactly one month after
the commission of the crime of rape on September 25,
1992[.] [F]or a woman who has been deflowered, [it] is but
natural to pretend to hide her ill feelings. This expression of love
in the letter are [sic] the aftermath of that harrowing experience in
the hands of the accused. The letter is mixed with some biblical
verses or quotations, the purpose of which as explained by
Angeles Adorable, is to try to put in the mind of the accused fear
of God and to disuade [sic] him from committing carnal
knowledge for the second time. xxx.[22]
On the contrary, it is highly unusual and inconsistent with human
experience for a woman who has been ravished to feign love for
her persecutor, especially when, according to her, she hardly
knew the latter. Moreover, we have serious doubts whether said
letter would put in the mind of the accused fear of
God. Complainants words are not exactly fire-and-brimstone
exhortations that would send appellant praying for divine
mercy. Nor do we think that her use of saccharine words would
the least bit dissuade her purported rapist from molesting her
again. Complainants picture which was pasted on the card would
probably produce just the opposite effect.
Complainants claims that the card was bought, and that the
letter was dictated by, Monmon, if true, would not work against
appellants acquittal. Complainant had every opportunity to read
the card. She admits that the handwriting thereon is hers. It is
highly unlikely that she wrote on it without reading and approving
of its contents. If the card was not to her liking, she could have
easily discarded it but she did not. Likewise, complainant could
have rejected the words supposedly dictated by Monmon if she
felt that these did not express her true sentiments. Complainant
is not illiterate. She is a high school graduate and was already of
legal age at the time the letter was written. It cannot be said that
she was unduly influenced by Monmon, a house helper like her
and approximately the same age.
Second. This Court has found in some cases that some
supposed victims (or their relatives) resort to filing unfounded
complaints for rape in an attempt to redeem the lost honor of
complainant, the latter having been caught in flagrante in premarital,[23] if not extra-marital,[24] intercourse with their alleged
rapists.
The rationale for the presumption of guilt in rape cases has been
explained in this wise:
In rape cases especially, much credence is accorded the
testimony of the complaining witness, on the theory that she will
not choose to accuse her attacker at all and subject herself to the
stigma and indignities her accusation will entail unless she is
telling the truth. The rape victim who decides to speak up
exposes herself as a woman whose virtue has been not only
violated but also irreparably sullied. In the eyes of a narrowminded society, she becomes a cheapened woman, never mind
that she did not submit to her humiliation and has in fact
denounced her assailant. At the trial, she will be the object of
lascivious curiosity. People will want to be titillated by the intimate
details of her violation. She will squirm through her testimony as
she described how her honor was defiled, elating every
embarassing movement of the intrusion upon the most private
parts of her body. Most frequently, the defense will argue that she
was not forced to submit but freely conjoined in the sexual
act. Her motives will be impugned. Her chastity will be challenged
and maligned. Whatever the outcome of the case, she will remain
a tainted woman, a pariah because her purity has been lost,
albeit through no fault of hers. This is why many a rape victim
chooses instead to keep quiet, suppressing her helpless
indignation rather than denouncing her attacker. This is also the
reason why, if a woman decides instead to come out openly and
point to her assailant, courts are prone to believe that she is
telling the truth regardless of its consequences. x x x.
The presumption of innocence, on the other hand, is founded
upon the first principles of justice, and is not a mere form but a
substantial part of the law. It is not overcome by mere suspicion
or conjecture; a probability that the defendant committed the
crime; nor by the fact that he had the opportunity to do so. Its
purpose is to balance the scales in what would otherwise be an
uneven contest between the lone individual pitted against the
People and all the resources at their command. Its inexorable
mandate is that, for all the authority and influence of the
prosecution. The accused must be acquitted and set free if his
guilt cannot be proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. This is in
consonance with the rule that conflicts in evidence must be
resolved upon the theory of innocence rather than upon a theory
of guilt when it is possible to do so.
On the basis of the forgoing doctrinal tenets and principles, and
in conjunction with the overwhelming evidence in favor of herein
appellant, we do not encounter any difficulty in concluding that
the constitutional presumption on the innocence of an accused
must prevail in this particular indictment.
Likewise, in People vs. Sandagon,[29] this Court held that:
It is not enough to say that a girl would not expose herself to the
humiliation of a rape complaint unless the charge is true. That is
putting things too simply. For the prosecution to succeed, it is
also necessary to find that the complainants story is by itself
believable independently of the presumption. Otherwise, if all that
mattered was that presumption, every accusation of rape would
inevitably result, without need of further evidence, in the
conviction of the accused. This would militate against the rule
that in every criminal prosecution, including rape cases, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby
reversed and set aside. Appellant Rodrigo Domogoy is hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 1266-B of
the Regional Trial Court of Surigao del Sur, Branch 29. The
3. Edgar Fulleros:
One Seiko chronograph valued at P600.00
4. Victoriano Madrigal:
Cash money representing his earnings
as driver of the jeepney robbed (in
different denominations) P180.00
5. Pat. Casiano Pedrana (should be Pedrano)
Cash money in different denominations P14.00
One pistol, caliber .45 colt, SN No.
1638482 with seven rounds of
ammunition Undermined amount
in the following manner, to wit: the said accused,
pursuant to their conspiracy, rode in a passenger jeepney driven
by the offended party Victoriano Madrigal at Blumentritt Street,
Manila bound for Novaliches, and when said passenger jeepney
was near 11th Avenue, A. Bonifacio Street, this City, said
accused brought out their unlicensed firearm and bladed
weapons and told the passengers that it was a hold-up and
threatened said passengers with death if they resisted or cried for
help and thereafter with intent of gain, take, rob and carry away
the personal properties of the offended parties mentioned above
and when Pat. Casiano Pedrano resisted, said accused with
intent to kill, stab (sic) him on different parts of his body and fired
at him with their firearm thereby inflicting upon Pat. Casiano
Pedrano serious and mortal wounds which could have produced
his death were it not for the damage prejudice of offended parties
in the aforesaid sum indicated above and in such other amount
as may be awarded to them under the provisions of the Civil
Code. (Rollo, pp. 6-7)
After trial, the court rendered a conviction, the dispositive potion
of which reads:
In Criminal Case No. Q-15193, the court finds the
accused Conrado Lagmay y Garces, Fernando Baetiong y
Campopos and Francisco O. Padollana (should be Padullana)
GUILTY as principals and beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Robbery with Frustrated Homicide under Section 2, Article 294
of the Revised Penal Code with the attending aggravating
circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm and no attending
mitigating circumstance and hereby sentences all three of them
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua)
together with all the accessories attendant thereto. Since the
articles subject of the offense appear to have been recovered, no
civil indemnity is imposed for the value thereof. However, they
are sentenced to indemnify jointly and severally Pat. Casiano
Pedrano in the amount of P36,000.00. Also, they are sentenced
to pay jointly the costs of the proceedings. (Rollo, p. 10)
The evidence on which the conviction was based is summarized
in the decision as follows:
In Criminal Case No. Q-15193, the case for the
prosecution was testified to by two of the passengers, Pat.
Casiano Pedrano and Adela Alfonso.
Alfonso and Pat. Casiano Pedrano who were victims of the crime
at first answered in the negative in their respective direct
examinations regarding the participation of Padullana, but after
further questioning and more lucid differently and particularly
attested to Padullana's presence and act of collecting the items
with intent to rob the passengers.
The testimony of each of the prosecution witnesses is shown to
be characterized by candor that normally accompanies an
unrehearsed and honest delivery of facts personally and vividly
known to a witness. Minor discrepancies caused by the needed
deeper reflection do not affect the veracity of a testimony for as
long as the fact of participation was duly established. The
credibility of the witnesses are even reinforced. (People v. Lucille
Sendon, G.R. No. 95903-05, June 8, 1992; People v. Bautista
147 SCRA 500 [1987]; People v. Alfredo Hoble y Leornardo, G.R.
No. 96091, July 22, 1992)
The pertinent portion of the testimony of Adela Alfonso, the victim
who was slapped by accused-appellant Lagmay and who fell
from the jeepney, is as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
Q Now you said there were three persons involved in the robbery
hold-up. You mentioned Fernando Baetiong, you identified
Conrado Lagmay as the person who took your calculator, watch
and shoulder bag. Now could you recognize that 3rd person if
you see him again?
A Yes, sir. (Witness pointing to Francisco Padollana)
Q What did Francisco Padollana do?
A He did not do anything.
Q What was he doing all the while from the start that this Lagmay
drew his gun, slapped and got your calculator and shoulder bag?
A He was the one who got the jewelries of my companions.
COURT:
Do you want to impress to the Honorable Court that all the wound
sustained in your body were inflicted by accused Baetiong?
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL:
While you were being stabbed by Baetiong do you still recall
what the other passengers were doing?
A The other passengers cannot move because Padollana has a
gun.
(TSN, July 13, 1981, p. 3; Emphasis supplied)
It can be seen that the prosecution witnesses were able to
positively identify Padullana as one of the three men responsible
for the robbery. The mere presence of accused-appellant
Padullana instilled fear among the passengers. Moreover, his act
in collecting the personal belongings against the will of the
owners makes him a co-conspirator to the unlawful taking of
property. Hence, the allegations that he was a provinciano from
Leyte who came here several days before the robbery took place
to look for a job, and that he was forcible asked by accused
Baetiong to go to a house in Tondo are mere denials which do
not overturn the strength of the prosecution evidence.
The Court agrees with the argument of the Solicitor General that
if indeed accused-appellant Padullana was forced against his will
by the accused Baetiong to accompany him to a house in Tondo,
why could he not devise a scheme to escape? (Appellee's Brief,
p. 16; Rollo, p. 51)
The second and third assigned errors refer to the propriety of the
admission in evidence of the extrajudicial confessions (exhibits
"H" and "I"; Original Records, pp. 208-211) of the two accusedappellants allegedly obtained in violation of the constitutional
right to remain silent and to counsel, and by means of mauling
and electrocution administered by policemen in civilian clothes.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accusedappellants are sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10)
years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and
four (4) months as maximum. The accused-appellants shall
likewise be credited in the service of their sentence with the full
time of their preventive imprisonment provided that they
previously agreed voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners; however, if
they did not so abide, then they shall be credited with four-fifths
of the time.
SO ORDERED
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119307. August 20, 1999]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
RENANTE SISON alias DANTE, accused-appellant.
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
We note that the offense was committed under at least two (2) of
the circumstances mentioned in Article 295. The robbery was
consummated by attacking a moving motor vehicle such that the
passengers thereof were taken by surprise. It was likewise
committed along a street on the regular route taken by the
passenger jeepney with the use of a firearm. According to Article
295, the offenders shall be punished by the maximum period of
the prescribed penalty in Section 4, Article 294, or reclusion
temporal in its medium period.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED, with the modification that the accused-appellants
Conrado Lagmay y Garces and Francisco O. Padullana are held
guilty of the offense of robbery defined in Section 4, Article 294,
in the course of the execution of which serious physical injuries
enumerated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 263 were inflicted
and the circumstances mentioned in Article 295 were present.
xxx
In defense, accused-appellant testified that at about 7 p.m.
of 21 May 1993, he left his house to work as a carpenter in the
Bliss Housing Project. He returned to his house at about 11:30
a.m. to eat his lunch. At 1 p.m. he went back to work. At about
12:30 midnight, he repaired to the house of Barangay Captain de
Guzman of Barangay Matic-Matic to borrow an icebag because
his son had a fever. On his way back, he saw a light coming from
the housing project and waited for the person carrying it. It was
Alfredo Cervantes. As they walked together, Cervantes asked
him to inform Jessie Sison that Edwin Abrigo is missing and he is
the suspect. When they reached his house, he applied the icebag
to his son. Thereafter, they went to the house of Jessie, woke
him up, and told him about the disappearance of Edwin
Abrigo. Jessie was mum.
Accused-appellant also declared that he had a
misunderstanding with Jessie. It was allegedly brought about by
Jessies use of marijuana and his daughters report that Jessie
was fooling her. He scolded Jessie who apologized. On 22 May
1993, Alfredo Cervantes informed him about the death of Edwin
Abrigo. On 23 May 1993, he learned that the body of Edwin
Abrigo was dug up at Barangay Matic-Matic beside the Sinucalan
River. Later, he and two (2) other men were picked up and jailed
by the policemen of Sta. Barbara. They asked him if he had any
difference with Edwin Abrigo. The three of them were released at
about 8:30 in the evening. After some time, he was again
apprehended and detained together with Jessie Sison in the
municipal jail of Sta. Barbara.
He denied the testimonies of Jonathan Abrigo Aurora Sison
implicating him to the crime at bar. He claimed that he was
wearing a black shirt and a pair of blue pants when he went out
to borrow the icebag on the evening of 21 May 1993. He
admitted that he has been charged previously with the crime of
robbery with rape.[10]
Remedios Sison, accused-appellants wife, corroborated the
testimony of her husband that he went to the house of Barangay
Captain De Guzman on 21 May 1993, at past 12 oclock midnight,
to borrow an icebag for their sick son. She declared, however,
that Cervantes went to their house after the arrival of her
husband from the house of the said barangay captain. She
likewise stated that Jessie Sison and her husband have no
misunderstanding, and the relationship of her husband with
Aurora Sison is pleasant.[11]
DECISION
BUENA, J.:
Sir William Blackstone once said, It is better that ten guilty
persons escape than one innocent suffer.[1]
Appellants Glen Ala, Romano Vidal and Alexander Padilla
were charged with, tried for and thereafter convicted of
kidnapping with rape under an amended Information reading:
"That on or about the 19th day of September, 1987, in the
municipality of Marikina, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and
aiding one another, while armed with a knife and ice pick, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap
Geraldine Camacho y Sibarutan by then and there forcing the
latter to a waiting automobile and bringing her against her will to
an uninhabited house in Rodriguez Rizal, Philippines and while in
said uninhabited house, the accused, by means of violence,
intimidation and by the use of noxious chemical substance, one
after the other in conspiracy with each other, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge of Geraldine Camacho y
Sibarutan against her will.",[2]
They were sentenced by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
Branch 156, to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the complainant-victim Geraldine
Camacho, in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay
their proportionate share of the costs;[3] while the other accused,
Christopher Cristobal, Henson Salas and Meliton Reyes were
acquitted. The dispositive portion of the decision a quo reads:
"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the
accused ROMANO VIDAL y Daniel, GLEN ALA y Rodriguez and
ALEXANDER PADILLA y Lazatin guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the offense charged and hereby sentences said accused to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify, jointly and
severally, the complainant-victim, Geraldine Camacho y
Sibarutan, in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00) in compliance with the mandate in Articles 100,
104(3), 107 and 345 of the Revised Penal Code without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay their
proportionate share of the costs.
"In the service of their sentence, the accused shall be credited in
full with the period of their preventive imprisonment.
"On the other hand, accused CHRISTOPHER CRISTOBAL y
Masagana, MELITON RAYOS y Santos and HENSON SALAS y
Calderon are hereby acquitted of the offense charged with costs
de oficio.
"The Warden of the Marikina Municipal Jail and the OIC, National
Training School for Boys, Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal are hereby
ordered, respectively, to release the persons of accused
CHRISTOPHER CRISTOBAL y Masagana, MELITON RAYOS y
Santos and HENSON SALAS y Calderon from
custody/confinement unless there exists any other order or
orders to the effect that they should remain confined under
detention.
"SO ORDERED.[4]
COURT:
Witness:
Q Who is he?
Atty. Farcon:
INTERPRETER:
A Yes, sir.
Q The two of them?
A No sir, I do not know the face of the other one.
Q So, it is not true that you know the two persons by
their faces?
Court:
Witness may answer the question.
A What was asked this morning was if he was one of those
who boarded the vehicle so I identified him who boarded
the vehicle.[16]
If complainant was so positive that one of the knife wielders
boarded the vehicle, pointing to appellant Ala, why did she insist
that she only recognized one of the two men who jabbed a knife
at her?
Still on another point, complainants identification of the
other abductors in like manner is indistinct. In her testimony of
February 10, 1988, complainant narrated that after her abductors
removed her blindfold at the NGI Market, somebody opened the
door of the car for her. When asked who opened the door, she
said she could not recognize him because the sun was glaring.
[17]
However, when asked the same question on May 17, 1988,
she identified accused-appellant Glen Ala explaining that the
glare of the suns rays were not hitting her eyes because her
head was bent and she was looking back at them. She said:
Q According to you when the car reached the NGI market
where you were made to alight, will you tell the Court
where was your blindfold removed. Was it after or you
were already alighted from the car?
A I have not alighted yet from the car. The door was opened. I
was facing the door when they removed my blindfold,
sir?
Q You were the one who opened the door before you
alighted?
A No, Sir.
Q Who opened the door for you?
A I do not know the name, sir.
Q But you know the face?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you look among these people inside?
A He is there.
Interpreter:
Witness pointing a person who answered in the name of Glen
Ala, one of the accused in this case.
Q When you testified on February 10, 1988 you were asked
also who opened the door for you and you said you
could not recognize him because of the glare of the
sun. Now you tell the Court and point to Glen Ala. When
did you come to know it was Glen Ala who opened the
door for you?
A When he entered the car, sir.
Q And the glare of the suns rays was hitting your eyes?
A My head was bend and I was looking back at them, sir.
Q I read to you the transcript of the hearing of February 10,
1988 page 13 and I quote: Q: Could you look at the
courtroom and tell us now if you can see the person
who opened the door? A: I was not able to recognize
who was the one because the sun was glaring, sir. Do
you remember having asked that question and gave the
same answer?
A Because when that question was first asked to me I was
not able to recall exactly what happened but when I
interviewed the incident this hearing I was able to recall,
sir.[18]
The obvious contradictions in the complainants testimony
are further shown when she was asked about the manner she
was raped. Complainant narrated that she was brought to a
room, still blindfolded, where she was tied to a bench (which she
later said to be rattan chair). The accused entered the room,
untied her, made her smell a substance which made her
dizzy.She was ordered to lie down on the floor and it was in that
position that the accused undressed her. Few minutes later, she
fell asleep and did not know what had happened the whole night.
[19]
She woke up at seven oclock the following morning and felt
hungry and pain in her private parts.[20]
Again, on further questioning by the defenses counsel,
complainant controverted her previous statement asserting that
after she was made to smell something, she remained
conscious[21] and even described in detail how the accused
molested her.[22] Not only that, complainants testimony in court
also substantially repudiated material points in her Sinumpaang
Salaysay given before the Marikina Police Station.
"Q - Will you please take your time, Mr. Magayon and
examine this sketch and tell before this Court if this is
the fix place in which you were living as you said?
"A - This is my house, sir ( witness referring to a portion of the
sketch with the written word, Administration Office Toll
gate).
xxxxxxxxx
"Q - In this sketch, there appears a gate, is this correct?
"A - Yes, sir.
xxxxxxxxx
"Q - Mr. Magayon, how wide is this gate?
"A - It's just a small gate, it's good for two persons to pass
there.
"Q - How about the line appearing parallel to the gate, what
line is this?
"A - It's a fence, sir.
xxxxxxxxx
"Q - How tall is this fence?
"A - It's quite tall, sir.
"A - No, sir, we have to pass this gate to reach that Exhibit 3E.
"Q - There is no other way in reaching this resthouse except
thru this gate?
"A - Yes, sir.
"Q - The gate which you have identified as Exh. 3-B, can a
car pass thru this?
"A - No, sir.
SECOND DIVISION
"Q - From what time to what time did you work or did you stay
in that position of yours in that house of yours, outside
your house?
"A - Until about 5:00 o'clock, sir.
"Q - How about your other companion, as you stated earlier,
how long did they stay there?
"A - Others went home, others, slept, sir.
xxxxxxxxx
"Q - Between 5:00 o'clock when you stopped working up to
8:00 o'clock in the evening, when you said your wife and
you slept, did you notice any person that went inside
that place of yours?
[3]
Shock
Antecedent cause: b. Gunshot wound, left post
auricular
The prosecutions next witness was Arnel Marasigan
Aranas, a fellow member of the deceased Antonio Mercene, Jr. in
the Sangguniang Bayan of Pola. Aranas knew both Mercene, Jr.
and accused-appellant. He testified[7] that Mercene, Jr. was a
member of the Task Force Dagat of the Sangguniang
Bayan. According to him, Mercene, Jr. wrote to SPO4 Romeo V.
Delmo, accused-appellants superior, charging accused-appellant
with grave misconduct (Exh. C).[8] Mercene, Jr.s complaint was
based on an incident which happened on August 25,
1992. Aranas said that he and Rosie Rivas accompanied the
deceased on an inspection trip along the Casiligan river in Pola
because of Rivas complaint that accused-appellant had been
poaching in the area in which she had been granted the
exclusive right to catch lapu-lapu. Rivas had asked Mercene, Jr.
for assistance. Aranas said that they saw accused-appellant with
companions at the riverbank, and that Rosie Rivas alighted from
the banca they were riding on to talk to accusedappellant. Aranas said he heard accused-appellant telling
Rivas, Bakit may kasama ka pang Konsehal fry at CAFGU
fry (Why do you have to be accompanied by a councilor and
gun. Pajaron said he and his helpers then unloaded the sand
from their truck and then left as quickly as they could.
SPO1 Froilan Rivera of the PNP at Pola was one of the
investigators. He and SPO2 Ferdinand Abog and a photographer
went to the scene of the crime. He said[13] that they found the
deceased sprawled on the ground (nakabulagta). They took
pictures of Mercene, Jr. (Exhs. H-H-4).[14] Together with Abog,
Rivera made a sketch of the scene of the crime (Exh. J). [15]Rivera
testified that they found no gun or deadly weapon on Mercene,
Jr.s person.
Oscar Coballes is a crime investigator of the Criminal
Investigation Service Command (CIS) stationed at Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro. He testified[16] that upon the request of
Mercene, Jr.s widow, he conducted an investigation of the
killing. The gun (Exh. O) which accused-appellant had
surrendered was given to him. It had four bullets and one empty
shell (Exh. P).Coballes prepared a report (Exh. Q)[17] which
became the basis of the criminal complaint filed in the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro against
accused-appellant (Exh. R).[18]
The widow of the deceased, Alita Patulot Mercene,
testified[19] that they have two children, aged 9 and 5; that her
husband was a B.S.E. and B.S.E.Ed graduate, a former teacher,
and, at the time of his death, a municipal councilor
receiving P6,000.00/month; that she spent P40,000.00 for the
six-day wake for her husband and P50,000.00 for his coffin and
funeral services; that for this case she hired the services of the
private prosecutor who charged P20,000.00 for his acceptance
fee and P2,000.00 for his appearance fee; that her children faced
an uncertain future because of the loss of their father; and that
after her husbands death, she had trouble sleeping because it is
really difficult to be alone.
Accused-appellant testified in his behalf.[20] He said that at 2
p.m. on October 17, 1992, he met Mercene, Jr., who was a little
bit drunk, as he was about to leave for work. He claimed that
Mercene, Jr. threatened to kill him, saying Putang Ina mo
Patrolman, papatayin kita ngayon (You s.o.b. Patrolman, Ill kill
you now). Accused-appellant said he raised his hands and
begged the deceased for mercy, saying Huwag po konsehal,
maawa ka sa aking mga anak, at maliliit pa ang mga anak
ko (Dont kill me Councilor. Have pity on my children, they are still
so young). He said he then turned to open the door to his house
with his left hand, his right hand still raised. However, the
deceased threw a box of matches at him and tried to grab his
service pistol which was tucked at his waist. Accused-appellant
said he held the cylinder of his revolver with his right hand. As
accused-appellant and the deceased grappled for possession of
the gun, they fell to the ground. According to accused-appellant,
the deceased tried to put his finger on the trigger but he was not
able to do so because accused-appellant had a finger inside the
trigger guard. He claimed that as they were lying, his right hand
was holding the barrel of the gun while his left hand was holding
the right hand of the deceased. Mercene Jr.s left hand was
allegedly holding accused-appellants
right
waist. Accusedappellant said he tried to point the barrel of the gun upwards,
even as Mercene, Jr. tried to point it towards accusedappellant. At that point, the gun went off, hitting Mercene, Jr. on
the left nape below the ear. According to accused-appellant, at
that time, the deceaseds finger was on the trigger. Accusedappellant said he then picked up the gun and tucked it at his
waist, and stepped out towards the road.
(SIGNED)
Bonifacio Nagulom, a copramaker, corroborated accusedappellants account. He testified[22] that he witnessed the incident
as he was on his way to the public market.
The testimony of Menardo Ramos was dispensed with as
the prosecution agreed that if he testified this witness would say
he was the one who took Mercene, Jr. to the hospital.[23]
Romelyn Merjan also testified.[24] He said that while on his
way to the bus terminal, he noticed somebody cursing Putang
Ina mo, Mulong mag-away tayo (You s.o.b. Mulong, lets fight)
even as accused-appellant, with his hands raised,
pleaded, Huwag ho konsehal maawa ka sa mga anak ko,
kaliliitan pa (Dont councilor, have pity on my young
children). Merjan said he noticed a gun tucked at accusedappellants waist as he raised his hands. As accused-appellant
turned away to go inside his house, Mercene, Jr. threw
something at him and then tried to seize accused-appellants
gun. Both of them fell as they grappled for possession of the
gun. A moment later, Merjan heard a gunshot. He noticed
Mercene, Jr. trying to stand up only to fall down again.
Enrique Dajoyag, a member of the Philippine National
Police of Pola, testified[25] that he was the one who took down the
report of the incident in the police blotter because the
investigator, Alvin de Ramos, who interviewed accused-appellant,
had poor eyesight. Pages of the blotter containing the report
were later found missing and the Station Commander, Romeo
Delmo, in a memorandum (Exh. T), [26] stated his belief that the
loss of the missing pages was not accidental.
However, testifying in his turn,[27] Alvin de Ramos could not
recall whether he had asked Dajoyag to write the investigation
report in the police blotter for him. Nor could he explain the fact
that the pages of the police blotter containing his alleged report
were missing. He remembered that what accused-appellant said
was that Mercene, Jr. went to his house and that they had an
argument and grappled for the possession of accused-appellants
firearm.
On rebuttal, the prosecution presented Mercene, Jr.s widow
Alita and SPO3 Rafael Tagulalap. Alita testified[28] that the
Municipality of Pola is a sixth class municipality and that the
salary of councilors is P7,095.00 a month. Tagulalap for his part
identified the spot report (Exh. U) referred to in accusedappellants testimony as the one sent by him to the PNP
Provincial Director and said that it was in fact prepared by SPO2
Alvin de Ramos.[29]
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty. It noted that
the witnesses for the prosecution were frank and straightforward
and credible. Hence, this appeal.
Order of Trial
on him. Rule 119, 3(e), however, does not require such a change
in the order of trial but only allows it in the discretion of the
court. This can be seen in the use of the permissive may.
At any rate, in the case at bar, although accused-appellant
pleaded self-defense, he did not really admit the killing because
his claim was that it was the deceased who accidentally shot
himself. There is, therefore, no basis for reversing the order of
trial. The burden was on the prosecution to prove that it was
accused-appellant who really fired his gun at the deceased.
(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and
damages, if any, arising from the issuance of any provisional
remedy in the case.
A. Yes, sir.
Defendants Liability
x = 2(80-34)
______________ x [85,140 - 42,570.00]
3
= 30.67 x 42,570.00
= P1,305,621.90
An award of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages is also
justified under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code which provides:
ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of
the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are
separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
party.
The award of moral damages and attorneys fees [60] is also
justified under Arts. 2219(1) and 2206(3), and 2208(1) and (11) of
the
Civil
Code,
respectively. However,
the
amount
of P100,000.00 for moral damages, which the trial court ordered
accused-appellant to pay, is excessive, in light of the purpose for
making such award, which is to compensate the heirs for injuries
to their feelings and not to enrich them. An award of P50,000.00
would be adequate for the purpose.[61]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro (Branch 42) is SET ASIDE and
another one is RENDERED finding accused-appellant guilty of
murder with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public
position and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the heirs of Antonio Mercene, Jr., the
amounts
of P50,000.00
as
indemnity
for
his
death; P1,305,621.90 for loss of earnings; P20,000.00 as
exemplary
damages; P50,000.00
as
moral
damages;
and P20,000.00 as attorneys fees; and the costs.
SO ORDERED.
gross less