EN BANC
[G.R. No. 134768. October 25, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO SARMIENTO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
For review is the
decision[1] dated April 29, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court of
Mandaue City, Branch 28, convicting appellant Mariano Sarmiento, and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of death, for the rape of a nine-year-old girl,
Jocelyn Soquiño, allegedly committed as follows:
That on September, 1996, and or prior thereto, at Milagrosa
Village, Sitio Sambag, Barangay San Vicente, Municipality of Liloan, Province
of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeed in
having carnal knowledge with Jocelyn Soquiño, nine (9) years of age, against
her will and consent.[2]
Jocelyn Soquiño was only
two (2) years old when her father, Roberto and mother, Teofila separated.
Roberto thereafter entrusted Jocelyn to the care of his sister Alicia
Sarmiento, wife of appellant.[3] According to the
prosecution, sometime in September 1996, when Jocelyn was already nine years
old, while Alicia and her children were out at work, appellant tied Jocelyn’s
legs separately to the wall while her hands were tied to a piece of wood and
gagged her with a handkerchief to prevent her from shouting.[4] While she was tied
and lying on the floor, appellant removed her dress and panty. Then he took off his underwear. Jocelyn
clearly saw his whole body, his testicles and his erect penis. When he mounted
her, she felt severe pain as his penis penetrated her vagina several times.
Later, she saw blood on her vagina.[5] Jocelyn told her
aunt, Alicia, about the incident but fearing that appellant might hurt Jocelyn,
Alicia did not confront her husband.[6]
After this incident,
appellant and his family would regularly leave for work. Jocelyn would be left at home, locked up
alone inside the house. Their
neighbors, who pitied her, later helped
her escape. They brought her to the
nearest Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) office.[7]
A few days afterwards, a
DSWD employee informed Jocelyn’s father about her ordeal.[8] On October 2,
1996, Dr. Susan Lai-Casiño
of VSMMC Obstetric-Gynecological Department conducted a medical examination on
Jocelyn and found that her genitalia bore an old healed hymenal laceration at
6:00 o’clock position.[9]
On February 25, 1997,
appellant was charged of rape in a complaint filed by Jocelyn, assisted by her
father. On May 27, 1997 appellant,
assisted by his counsel, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
Appellant denied that he
sexually molested Jocelyn and said that the charge was just manufactured by her
father. Appellant claimed that in September 1996, he was working at Cebu
Country Club as caddie and he left their house at around 4:30 or 5:00 o’clock
A.M. as he usually does.[10] His wife, Alicia,
corroborated this and added that her husband was never absent from work during
the whole month of September. Further, she claimed that Jocelyn had been in their custody from the
time she was four months old. Her father had tried to get her back but they
refused, that was why they falsely charged her husband with rape.[11] They refused to
give Jocelyn to her father because she was studying and they could still
support her education.[12]
Betty Sarmiento,
appellant’s daughter-in-law, also testified in appellant’s behalf. She said
that she and her husband were staying with her in-laws and in the whole month
of September, she was always in the house
and never went out, even to the market. She only went out to hear mass
on Sundays and everytime she did so, Jocelyn was with her. Further she said
that when all the people in the house went out for work, she and Jocelyn were
left behind.[13]
On April 29, 1998, the
trial court rendered its decision, thus:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the herein accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape, said accused is hereby sentenced to the penalty of death, with accessories of the law and to indemnify the offended party, Jocelyn Soquiño, the amount of P50,000.00 by reason of the commission of the offense of rape upon her and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Hence this appeal. Appellant avers that the trial court erred:
I. ... IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENSE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT SUCH IS THE BARE TRUTH.
II. ... FOR PENALIZING HIM WITH DEATH. THE INFORMATION CHARGED HIM
OF SIMPLE RAPE ONLY AS DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE 335 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE.[15]
The first issue concerns
primarily the credibility of witnesses. Appellant argues that the testimony of
private complainant that he raped her in their house had no basis. At the time of the incident he was busy
working as a caddie at Cebu Country Club.
He claims he always leaves the house early in the morning and returns
home late in the evening. There was no testimony that he returned home between
morning and evening. Further, he
insists that the rape story was a mere concoction. Such a concoction was highly
probable, he said. For at the time of
the alleged incident Jocelyn, who was nine (9) years old, could already be
useful to her father. It would have
been difficult for her father to get her from the Sarmientos since they took
care of her from infancy, without the concocted charge.
Appellee discounts
appellant’s attack on Jocelyn’s credibility as weak. For the trial court’s
evaluation of the credibility of a witness and her testimony is entitled to
great respect, since it is the trial judge who observed the demeanor of the
witnesses and is in a better position to assess the truthfulness of the
testimonies.[16] In the absence of
any clear showing that the trial judge has overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance, this Court
should not disturb the trial court’s evaluation of witnesses’ credibility. In this case, private complainant with
simplicity, spontaneity and candidness vividly recounted in detail her ordeal
at the hands of the appellant. Her testimony was clear, unequivocal and
straightforward. She positively
identified appellant as her rapist.
In reviewing the records,
we find that appellant for his part merely denied he raped the victim. Denials,
if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and
self-serving and deserve no weight in law.
They cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the testimony
of a credible witness who testified on
affirmative matters. Between the positive declaration of the prosecution
witness and the negative statements of the accused, it is the former that
deserves more credence.[17]
As found by the trial
court, in which we concur, private complainant Jocelyn was a credible
witness. She was very direct, clear and
spontaneous in relating how her uncle-in-law, Mariano, raped her. Her testimony
reads:
Fiscal to witness:
Q : Why did you say that Mariano
Sarmiento did not treat you well?
x x x
A : Because he raped me.
Q : Now, can you tell this
Honorable Court when did Mariano Sarmiento rape you? Was it last September,
1996 or prior to this date?
x x x
A : Before September.
Q : On September, can you remember
whether you were raped by Mariano Sarmiento?
A : Yes.
Q : Can you tell the Honorable
Court as to how did Mariano Sarmiento rape you?
A : He tied my hands and my feet
with a piece of rope, and gagged me with a piece of handkerchief.
Q : When Mariano Sarmento did this
to you, covering your mouth and tying you with a rope-both hands and feet- what
did he do to you?
A : He immediately rode astride me.
Q : Before he mounted on top of you
did Mariano Sarmiento take off your
clothes as well as your panties, if you were wearing panties during that time?
A : Yes.
Q : And when Mariano Sarmiento
mounted on top of you, did Mariano Sarmiento take off his clothes, his jocky,
if he was wearing any jockey?
x x x
A : Yes.
Q : And then were you lying on the
floor when he mounted on top of you?
A : Yes.
x x x
Q : And was his penis erect or just
dangling?
A : It was erect.
Q : And when he mounted on top of
you did his penis penetrate your vagina?
A : Yes.
Q : And what did you feel when his
penis penetrated your vagina?
A: Pain.
Q : How many times did his penis
penetrate your vagina?
A : Several times.
Q : And did you find any blood in
your vagina after the penis of Mariano Sarmiento penetrated your vagina?
A : Yes.”[18]
Jocelyn was able to
sustain this clarity and spontaneity and remained consistent in answering the
clarificatory questions posed by the judge.
Thus:
Court to Jocelyn Sarmiento:
Q : You said that you were raped by
your uncle, the accused Mariano Sarmiento.
Where was your aunt when this happened?
A : She left (nilakaw).
Q : You also stated a while ago
that when the accused raped you he tied your legs. How were your legs tied?
A : Like that.
Court Interpreter: Witness demonstrating by spreading her legs.
Court to Jocelyn:
Q : In that position it seems that
each leg was tied to an object, where was it tied to?
A : My legs were tied separately to
the wall.
Q : What about your hands, how were
they tied?
A : Like that.
Court interpreter: Witness demonstrating by spreading her arms.
Court to Jocelyn:
Q : To what object was each hand
being tied?
A : To the piece of wood.
Q : In that position, with your
hands and your legs being tied each to an object or to the wall, how did he
mount you?
A : Like that.
Court interpreter: Witness placing her palm over her other
palm.
Court to witness:
Q : And in that position did you
feel whether his penis was able to penetrate your vagina?
A : Yes.
Q : How did you know?
A : It was inserted fully.
Q : Was there complete penetration
of his penis to your vagina?
A : Yes.
Q : What did you feel?
A : Pain.
Q : Did he make any push and pull
movement?
A : Yes.
Q : How did you feel when he did
that movement?
A : Intense pain.
Q : What did you do when there was
already a complete penetration of his penis to your vagina and you feel very
painful?
A : I cried.”[19]
Note that, in the direct
examination earlier cited, the victim had affirmed that appellant removed her
clothes including her panties and then his own clothes before mounting
her. On this score, the defense failed
to ask clarification on how exactly her panties were removed, fully or partly,
either before or after her legs were tied to the wall. In any event, the defense utterly failed to
rebut or discredit that portion of her testimony. Her cross-examination by the defense, instead of aiding
appellant’s case, incriminates him in fact even more by a revelation of other
acts of rape he committed. Thus:
Atty. Suralta to Jocelyn:
Q : You mentioned that you were
locked inside. Was that in the room of
the said house, or in the entire house where you were being locked?
A : Inside the whole house.
Q : Together with the children?
A : No.
Court to witness:
Q : Where were the children at the
time when you were being locked up?
A : At work already.
Q : During the time that you were
raped by your uncle, the accused, where were the children?
A : Working.
Court to counsel: Proceed
Atty. Suralta to Jocelyn:
Q : And the alleged rape took place
only once?
A : Several times.
Q : When you said several times you
were also tied several times?
A : Yes.
Q : You were told by the Honorable
Fiscal that to tell a lie...or Jesus Christ, the Lord, would not want that a
child tell a lie. Do you understand
that?
A : Yes.
Q : You mean to say that everytime
that you were allegedly raped your legs were tied separately and also you saw
the penis of the accused erect?
A : Yes.
Q : You must have been accustomed
to see the size of his penis?
A : Yes.
Q : Would it be like this one?
(Defense counsel indicating his wrist.)
A : Yes.
Court: Two inches in diameter.
Atty. Suralta: That is all, Your
Honor.”[20]
Appellant’s assertion
that he was charged with rape because her father wanted her back is unworthy of
belief. It goes against common sense
and human experience. A father would
not put his daughter to an ordeal of a court trial, risking the family’s honor
and putting herself open to public ridicule, if he were not convinced that his
daughter was really raped by appellant.[21]
Considering the
testimonies of the witnesses as well as the medical report which corroborated
the fact of rape, we see no reason to doubt Jocelyn’s credibility. Nor do we find any flaw in her identification
of appellant as her cruel ravisher.
In his second assigned
error, appellant states that the trial court erred in imposing the death
penalty on him. Although the
prosecution had introduced evidence to prove that appellant was the victim’s
guardian, we must note that here the Information did not allege the qualifying
circumstance of relationship. Thus, on
this ground, we find that the appellant could not be convicted of qualified
rape but only of simple rape, as argued by the defense. The Office of the Solicitor General agrees
with the defense, and recommends that the penalty of death be reduced to reclusion
perpetua. However, the OSG
recommends that, in addition to civil indemnity, appellant should also be held
liable for moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00
In People vs. Edwin
Decena, GR No. 131843, May 31, 2000, we reiterated our ruling in a long
line of cases that the attendant circumstances under which the death penalty
may be meted out, pursuant to the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11
of Republic Act No. 7659,[22] are in the nature of qualifying circumstances. They must be alleged with particularity in
the information. Otherwise, there would
be a denial of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
charge against him. In the present
case, appellant Mariano Sarmiento was charged with statutory rape under
the 3rd paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. He was convicted of qualified rape
under the same law as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659. But the requisite qualifying circumstance of
relationship was not expressly alleged in the Information against him. Thus, we find correct the stand of the
defense, in which the office of Solicitor General agreed, that the appellant
could not be convicted of qualified rape.
It follows that indeed the trial court also erred in imposing on
appellant the penalty of death.
Properly, appellant should be sentenced only to reclusion perpetua.
As to moral damages, we
agree with the Solicitor General that private complainant is entitled
thereto. A conviction for rape carries
with it the award of moral damages to the victim, without need of further
proof. In addition, we also hold that
to deter sex friends from victimizing young girls, exemplary damages in the
amount of P20,000.00 should be imposed on appellant.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding appellant
MARIANO SARMIENTO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Appellant’s
sentence is reduced from death penalty to RECLUSION PERPETUA. Further, appellant is ordered to pay
offended party Jocelyn Soquiño the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon,
Jr., JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., on leave.
[1] Rollo,
pp. 15-28.
[2] Records,
p. 1.
[3] TSN,
December 2, 1997, pp. 4-5.
[4] TSN,
November 12, 1997, pp. 21-22.
[5] Id.
at 23-25.
[6] Id.
at 28.
[7] Id.
at pp. 29-30.
[8] Id.
at 30-32.
[9] Id.
at 7-9.
[10] TSN,
April 16, 1998, pp. 3-4.
[11] TSN,
April 14, 1998, pp. 4-5.
[12] TSN,
April 16, 1998, p. 3.
[13] TSN,
February 23, 1998, pp. 8-9.
[14] Rollo,
p. 28.
[15] Id.
at 42.
[16] People
vs. Ernesto Larin, 297 SCRA 309, 325 (1998).
[17] People
vs. Alvero, G.R. Nos. 134536-38, April 5, 2000, p. 14.
[18] TSN,
November 12, 1997, pp. 21-25.
[19] Id.
at 32-35.
[20] Id.
at 39-40.
[21] People
vs. Torejos, G.R. No. 132217, February 18, 2000, p. 12; People vs. Tabao,
240 SCRA 758, 771 (1995).
[22] 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 civil 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 enforcemenagency.
7. When by
reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent
physical mutilation. (As amended by
Sec. 11, RA 7659)