EN BANC
[G.R. No. 140669-75 & 140691. April 20, 2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODRIGO
AMADORE Y OBINA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
What could possibly
motivate a grown man to vent his lust on a girl not even old enough to
desire? Her innocence? Her helplessness? Her inability to give voice to her indignation? Mercifully, Ma. Fe Oquindo would not be
silenced. Like the many instances which
have found their way to the courts, the plight of this young girl, who was
barely ten years old when initiated into the carnal world, is but one of the
countless illustrations of an evil plaguing our society today. It is high time that this malaise is
addressed not so much by the law as the family and a societal effort to raise
the slipping moral value before it degenerates further and becomes too late to
be within retrievable level.
The instant case for
automatic review brings to fore anew a decision promulgated by the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 275 (Las Piñas), of the National Capital Judicial Region,
convicting accused-appellant RODRIGO AMADORE (Amadore) of, and imposing upon
him the capital punishment for, five (5) counts of rape. The same accused-appellant, furthermore, has
been found guilty, on one other count, of attempted rape.
Amadore stood charged
with five counts of rape perpetrated on MARIA FE OQUINDO, just 15 years old in
1996, in Criminal Cases No. 96-0468 to No. 96-0472, inclusive, textually
reading -
“That on or about the 21st day of March, 1991, in the Municipality
of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused being then the stepfather of the
private complainant and through moral ascendancy and influence and by means of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with one MARIA FE OQUINDO Y ANDOR, who is 10
years old, against her will and consent.”[1]
“That on or about the 11th day of January, 1996, in the
Municipality of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being then the
stepfather of the private complainant and through moral ascendancy and
influence and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one MARIA FE
OQUINDO Y ANDOR, against her will and consent.”[2]
“That on or about the 14th day of March, 1996, in the Municipality
of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused being then the stepfather of the
private complainant and through moral ascendancy and influence and by means of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with one MARIA FE OQUINDO Y ANDOR, against
her will and consent.”[3]
“That on or about the 1st day of March, 1993, in the Municipality
of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused being then the step-father of the
private complainant and through moral ascendancy and influence and by means of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with one MARIA FE OQUINDO Y ANDOR, against
her will and consent.”[4]
“That on or about the 26th day of February, 1996, in the
Municipality of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being then the step-father of
the private complainant and through moral ascendancy and influence and by means
of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one MARIA FE OQUINDO Y ANDOR,
against her will and consent.”[5]
Accused-appellant
was likewise indicted in three other informations, one, for violation of
Section 5, Republic Act No. 7610, in relation to Article 336 of the Revised
Penal Code, in an Information, dated 24 October 1996, docketed Criminal Case
No. 96-0473 -
“That on or about the 22nd day of March 1991, in the Municipality
of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court the above-named accused, with lewd designs and by means of force and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit
acts of lasciviousness upon the person of one MARIA FE A. OQUINDO, ten (10)
years old girl, a minor, by then and there kissing and touching her private
parts, against the latter’s will and consent.”[6] -
two, for attempted rape in an Information, also
dated 24 October 1996, docketed Criminal Case No. 96-0474, -
“That on or about the 27th day of June 1996, in the Municipality of
Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs and by means of
force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously try and attempt to have sexual intercourse with a fifteen (15) year
old girl, MARIA FE A. OQUINDO, against her will and consent, thus commencing
the commission of the crime of Rape directly by overt acts, but nevertheless
did not perform all the acts of execution that would produce the crime of Rape
by reason of causes other than his own spontaneous desistance.”[7]
and
three, for rape in an Information, dated 18 July 1996, docketed Criminal
Case No. 96-0328 -
“That on or about the 11th day of June, 1996, in the Municipality
of Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the stepfather of the
private-complainant, and through his moral ascendancy and influence and by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge with one MARIA FE OQUINDO, who is 15 years
old, against her will and consent.”[8]
Accused-appellant pled
“not guilty” to all the charges. The
cases were consolidated and jointly tried.
Private complainant Maria
Fe Oquindo testified that on 21 March 1991 she awoke to see accused-appellant,
her “stepfather,” standing in front of her with only his brief on. He told her to remove her panty but she
refused. Scolding her for her
disobedience, accused-appellant got a pillow and placed it over her face. He laid on top of her, removed her panty,
inserted his penis into her vagina, and then moved himself up and down. She felt severe pain. The incident happened in their house at
004-A Calabasa Street, Tambakan, Pulanglupa, Las Piñas, Metro Manila.
On 22 March 1991, also in
the same place, accused-appellant fondled the young girl’s breast and kissed
her many times against her will. He did
not persist and he threatened her not to tell on him.
On 01 March 1993, while
Maria Fe was playing inside the house, accused-appellant called her and ordered
her to lie down. Afraid, she
obeyed. Accused-appellant then removed
her panty, laid on top of her, and succeeded in taking her. She was threatened not to mention the
incident to anyone or, if she did, he would kill her mother. At the time, only the victim and
accused-appellant were in the house.
On 11 January 1996, Maria
Fe, along with her mother, sister and “stepfather,” was in Batangas for a
vacation. While she was playing with
her cousins, she was told by accused-appellant to get back inside the house. She refused. Accused-appellant twisted her arms and pulled her in. He told her to lie down. She tried to fight back but
accused-appellant pushed her down, removed her panty and succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with her. After a
while, she felt a sticky substance coming from accused-appellant. When told to wash, she saw white sticky
substance coming out of her.
On the mid-afternoon of
26 February 1996, back from vacation, Maria Fe was subjected to a like
ordeal. She was in their house playing
when accused-appellant asked for a massage.
The witness obliged. While
giving the massage, he suddenly embraced her and made her lie on the
floor. He went on top of, and
consummated his evil design on, her.
On 14 March 1996, Maria
Fe was at her aunt’s place located just behind their own house when she was
again called by accused-appellant ostensibly to take a bath. He ordered her to remove her panty. When she refused, accused-appellant berated
her. He twisted her arms and made her
lie down. He removed her panty, laid on
top of her and again satisfied his lust.
On 27 June 1996, about
two o’clock in the afternoon, while Maria Fe was playing just outside their
house, accused-appellant instructed her to bring him a glass of water. Just as she was about to hand the glass of water,
accused-appellant pulled her down. She
tried to push him away but, as usual, her resistance proved futile. After the sexual congress,[9] she fled out of the house. She was still fixing her panty when one Nora
Cañales saw her. Cañales asked what had
happened. She pretended to have just
urinated. Suspicious, Cañales informed
Mely Anda, Maria Fe’s aunt, of the incident.
When confronted, Maria Fe confessed all that had happened to her in the
hands of her “stepfather.”
Maria Fe testified that
she was even much younger when she was first abused by accused-appellant. She kept things to herself because she was
afraid that her mother, Julieta Amadore, would feel more for accused-appellant
than she would for her. True to her
fears, when she finally revealed the incident to her mother, she was told -
“Siguro, kagustuhan mo ito.” With the help of a neighbor, she finally filed a
complaint against her “stepfather.”
Julieta Amadore, for her
part, denied having been told of any of the incidents by her daughter Maria Fe.
Accused-appellant denied
all the accusations against him, stating that their house is only 12 x 10 feet
in area and that Maria Fe had her own room.
He claimed that, throughout, he and Maria Fe had a “smooth
relationship,” and that the only reason he could think of why the cases were
filed against him was the misunderstanding that once arose when he scolded her
after she had refused to be sent on an errand.
“Q What can you say about her accusation against you Mr. Witness?
“A I did not do anything to her, sir. I am not a bad person.
“x x x x x x x x x
“Q How would you say or describe your relationship with your stepdaughter Maria Fe Oquindo?
“A We have a smooth relationship, sir.
“Q Would you say it is a good relationship between you and Maria Fe Oquindo?
“A Yes, sir.”[10]
After having heard both
parties, the court a quo gave the case for the prosecution. In not giving credence to the denial
proffered by accused-appellant, the court said that neither the size of the
house nor the misunderstanding between him and the young girl could hardly
overwhelm the strong evidence against him.
The trial court concluded:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused Rodrigo Amadore y Obina GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged in the following cases and sentenced accordingly, to wit:
“1. In Crim. Case No. 96-0468, to die by the method provided by law;
“2. In Crim. Case No. 96-0469, to die by the method provided by law;
“3. In Crim. Case No. 96-0470, to die by the method provided by law;
“4. In Crim. Case No. 96-0471, to die by the method provided by law;
“5. In Crim. Case No. 96-0472, to die by the method provided by law;
“6. In Crim. Case No. 96-0473, to suffer an Indeterminate Prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor medium as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum as medium;
“7. In Crim. Case No. 96-0474, to sufer an Indeterminate Prison term of Twelve (12) Years of prision mayor maximum as minimum to Twenty (20) Years of reclusion temporal maximum as minimum, and to pay complainant Maria Fe Oquindo the sum of P100,000.00 in each of dispositions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and P50,000.00 in each of dispositions 6 and 7, and pay the costs in the foregoing dispositions.
“Accused is ACQUITTED in Crim. Case No. 96-0328 for lack of
evidence.”[11]
In his appeal to this
Court, accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors -
“1. The Court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of rape, attempted rape and violation of Section 5 RA 7610 in relation to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
“2. The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the accused-appellant waived the defect of improper venue in Criminal Case No. 96-0469.
“3. On the assumption that the
accused-appellant committed the acts complained of in Criminal Case Nos.
96-0468 to 0472, the Court a quo gravely erred in imposing the death
penalty for each of the five counts of rape.”[12]
In support of the first
assigned error, accused-appellant would argue that it was not right for the trial
court to heavily rely on the testimony of MARIA FE OQUINDO. He contended that while she could testify in
good detail about each of the incidents covered by seven out of eight criminal
informations, a feat indeed, she was unable to recall, however, the other times
when she had similarly been sexually assaulted by accused-appellant.
In support of the second
assigned error, accused-appellant, citing People vs. Metropolitan Trial Court
of Quezon City,[13] asserts that venue in criminal cases is
jurisdictional, and that since the incident in Criminal Case No. 96-0469 is
said to have taken place in Nasugbu, Batangas, the Regional Trial Court of Las
Piñas did not have jurisdiction to try the case.
In his third assigned
error, accused-appellant states that the death penalty cannot be imposed in
Criminal Cases No. 96-0468 to No. 96-0472, inclusive, all the five informations
having averred him to be the “stepfather” when, in fact, Julieta Amadore
herself has categorically stated that he is just her live-in partner and that
their union has all along been without the benefit of marriage. Furthermore, citing the case of People vs.
Dimapilis,[14] he claims that all the informations, except
for one, have failed to allege the age of private complainant, another
qualifying circumstance, essential to justify the imposition of the extreme
penalty of death.
The first assigned error
is an issue that relates to the credibility of a witness, a matter best addressed
during the trial stage. There is no
ample reason shown for this Court to discard the long-standing rule that it
should behoove an appellate court, absent clear and convincing justification to
hold otherwise, to accord weight and respect to the findings of the trial
court. The inability of private
complainant to remember all the other instances of sexual molestations
committed against her by accused-appellant can hardly downgrade her
credibility. Nor would her minor
inconsistencies adversely affect her entire testimony; indeed, such
incongruences or inaccuracies in the testimony of a witness reinforce rather
than destroy or weaken credibility.[15] Furthermore, rape victims, particularly the
young, are known not to cherish the memory of an event they would rather
forget.
The argument that the
filing of the case against accused-appellant by private complainant has
supposedly been motivated by a simple misunderstanding between them is much too
flimsy to belabor. It would be quite
absurd to think that this young girl would come up with so serious an
accusation as rape just for a senseless spite.
It has more than once been said that “youth and immaturity are generally
badges of truth and sincerity.”[16] Neither can it be expected that a woman
would publicly admit being a victim of rape, voluntarily allow herself to be
medically probed, and endure humiliating questions in the course of trial, if
her accusations were but malicious concoctions.[17] Considering the inbred modesty and the
consequent revulsion of a woman against airing in public things that affect her
honor, it is hard to conceive that private complainant would reveal the
ignominy she has undergone unless it were true.[18]
The denial of
accused-appellant cannot prevail over the clear and convincing testimony of
Maria Fe. Neither can his alibi prosper. Accused-appellant himself has testified that
he would regularly go home from work.
His work as “kargador” elsewhere, not really that distant away, is not
one that could have prevented him from going back to the house and committing
his nefarious deeds. Alibi
cannot prevail over positive identification[19]unless it is found to be so convincing as to
preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at
the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its commission.[20] Nor can the fact that the house where the
incidents have occurred is but 12 x 10 feet be a deterrent for
accused-appellant. Lust, it has been
said, “is no respecter of time and precinct and known to happen in most
unlikely places such as in parks, along roadsides, within school premises or
even in occupied rooms.”[21]
There is merit in the
second assigned error relative to Criminal Case No. 96-0469. The concept of venue of actions in criminal
cases, unlike civil cases, is jurisdictional.[22] The filing of a criminal case with the wrong
court can oust the court from trying the case.
The evidence introduced by the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 96-0469
points to Nasugbu, Batangas, as being the scene of the offense. For lack of jurisdiction, the case should
have been dismissed by the court a quo.
The defense has likewise
made good point in its third assigned error.
The relationship between accused-appellant and his victim and the
latter’s minority are qualifying circumstances that must be correctly alleged
and proved in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. Apparently, the victim is not the
“stepdaughter” of accused-appellant as has been so stated in the informations
but is the daughter of his common-law spouse by the latter’s marital relation
with another. A stepdaughter is a
daughter of one’s legal spouse by a previous marriage. Except for the information in one of the
criminal cases, the minority of the victim has, too, not been alleged. The Court has successively ruled that the
circumstances under the provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659,[23] the attendance of any of which mandates the
penalty of death, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances and the absence
of the proper averment thereof in the complaint negates the imposition of that
extreme penalty.
In Criminal Case No.
96-0473, where accused-appellant fondled the breast of private complainant and
repeatedly kissed her but he did no further and there was no showing that he at
the time intended to have sex with the victim, the crime for which he should
have been held guilty was the offense of “acts of lasciviousness,” not
attempted rape, punishable under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code by prision
correccional.[24]
In Criminal Case No.
96-0474, accused-appellant may only be convicted of attempted rape, despite
what appears to be the consummation of the act, as the information has merely
charged accused-appellant with attempted rape.
Simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, and two degrees
below that is prision mayor.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In Criminal
Cases No. 96-0468, No. 96-0470 to No. 96-0472, accused-appellant Rodrigo
Amadore y Obina is found guilty of simple rape in each of said cases, and he is
thus sentenced to suffer a total of FOUR terms of Reclusion Perpetua. Criminal Case No. 96-0469 is DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court a quo. In Criminal Case No. 96-0473,
accused-appellant is found guilty only of acts of lasciviousness, and he is
meted an indeterminate sentence of from 3 months and four days of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to three years, 2 months and fourteen days of Prision
Correctional medium, as maximum. In
Criminal Case No. 96-0474, the conviction of accused-appellant for attempted
rape, the crime charged in the information, is AFFIRMED but the sentence
imposed by the court a quo is modified by hereby imposing, instead, an
indeterminate sentence of from three years, ten months and one day of prision
correccional as minimum, to nine years and one day of prision mayor
medium, as maximum. The award of civil
liability of P100,000.00 in each of the Criminal Cases No. 96-0468, No. 96-0470
to No. 96-0472, inclusive, broken down into P50,000.00 civil indemnity and
P50,000.00 moral damages, is AFFIRMED.
The civil awards in Criminal Cases No. 96-0473 and No. 96-0474 are
REDUCED, respectively, to P10,000.00 and P20,000.00, as and by way of moral
damages. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez,
JJ., concur.
Pardo, J., on sick leave.
[1] Rollo,
p. 7.
[2] Rollo,
p. 9.
[3] Rollo,
p. 11.
[4] Rollo,
p. 13.
[5] Rollo,
p. 5.
[6] Rollo,
p. 17.
[7] Rollo,
p. 19.
[8] Rollo,
p. 21.
[9] The
information, however, merely indicted accused-appellant for “attempted rape.”
[10] TSN,
12 February 1997, pp. 3-4.
[11] Rollo,
pp. 37-38.
[12] Rollo,
pp. 62-63.
[13] 265
SCRA 645.
[14] 300
SCRA 279.
[15] People
vs. Gondora, 265 SCRA 408.
[16] People
vs. Escober, 281 SCRA 498.
[17] People
vs. Bautista, 236 SCRA 102.
[18] People
vs. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82.
[19] People
vs. Fuensalida, 281 SCRA 452.
[20] People
vs. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 103.
[21] People
vs. Ramon, 320 SCRA 775.
[22] People
vs. Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, supra.
[23] “Sec. 11.
Article 335 of the same Code is hereby amended to read 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 of 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.”
[24] People
vs. Collado, 60 Phil. 610.