FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 213216, April 20, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICKY ARGUTA ALIAS "JOEL" AND WILSON CAHIPE ALIAS "SIWIT," Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-appellants Ricky Arguta alias "Joel" (Arguta) and Wilson Cahipe alias "Siwit" (Cahipe; collectively, accused-appellants) assailing the Decision2 dated April 24, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01462, which affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated July 25, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 6 (RTC) in Crim. Case Nos. 97-02-76 and 97-02-77 finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of Rape, defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
According to the prosecution, at around 8 o'clock6 in the evening of December 5, 1996, AAA was instructed by her father to fetch her sister in school. However, AAA failed to find her sister and decided to go back home. On her way home, accused-appellants intercepted AAA, threatened her with a bladed weapon, dragged her to a cottage at a nearby beach resort, and bound her hands and feet. Thereafter, they removed her clothes and placed her on the floor. Arguta then mounted AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. After Arguta satisfied his lust, Cahipe took over and raped her. Thereafter, accused-appellants left AAA at the cottage. An hour later, Cahipe returned and dragged AAA to a store owned by a certain Lino Ostero7 (Ostero). There Cahipe undressed her again, mounted her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Afterwards, AAA was returned to the cottage. The next day, AAA's father found her crying at the cottage.8Crim. Case No. 97-02-76
That on or about the 5th day of December 1996 in the Municipality of Tanauan, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [accused-appellants], conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, motivated by lewd design, with the use of a bladed weapon, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of [AAA],4 without her consent and against her will.
Contrary to Law.
Tacloban City, January 30, 1997.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryCrim. Case No. 97-02-77
That on or about the 5th day of December 1996, in the Municipality of Tanauan, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused [Cahipe], motivated by lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of [AAA], without her consent and against her will.
Contrary to Law.
Tacloban City, January 30, 1997.5cralawlawlibrary
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryUnder this provision, the elements of Rape are: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (b) said carnal knowledge was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation; or the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim was under twelve (12) years of age or demented.22 The provision also states that if the act is committed either with the use of a deadly weapon or by two (2) or more persons, the crime will be Qualified Rape, necessitating the imposition of a higher penalty.23 In People v. Lamberte,24 the Court clarified the legal effect of the presence of both circumstances, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary1. By using force or intimidation;The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
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.
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.
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The presence of either circumstance - "use of a deadly weapon" or "by two or more persons" - qualifies the crime. If one is present, the remaining circumstance, if also attendant, is not a generic aggravating circumstance. That was our ruling in People vs. Garcia, [192 Phil. 311, 342] (1981) reading:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIn this case, records reveal that accused-appellants threatened AAA with a bladed instrument and tied her up before having carnal knowledge of her without her consent. Jurisprudence holds that force or intimidation, as an element of Rape, need not be irresistible; as long as the assailant's objective is accomplished, any question of whether the force employed was irresistible or not becomes irrelevant. Intimidation must be viewed from the lens of the victim's perception and judgment and it is enough that the victim fears that something will happen to her should she resist her assailant's advances.26 In this regard, case law provides that the act of holding a bladed instrument, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or, at least, intimidation, and threatening the victim with the same is sufficient to bring her into submission.27In the prosecution of the cases at bar, two circumstances are present, namely. 1. use of a deadly weapon and 2. that two persons committed the rapes. The first was alleged in the information while the second was proved during trial. In both cases, the Court appreciated the first as a qualifying circumstance and the second as a generic aggravating circumstance, in accordance with settled jurisprudence according to the trial court.
We do not agree. Under the law above quoted, either circumstance is qualifying. When the two circumstances are present, there is no legal basis to consider the remaining circumstance as a generic aggravating circumstance for either is not considered as such under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code enumerating what are aggravating circumstances. Hence, the correct penalty is the lesser penalty, which is reclusion perpetua, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, No. 2, Revised Penal Code,25 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1 See Notice of Appeal dated May 12, 2014; rollo, pp. 12-14.
2 Id. at 4-11. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 43-52. Penned by Judge Santos T. Gil.
4 The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved June 17, 1992; RA 9262, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004. (See People v. Cadano, G.R. No. 207819, March 12, 2014; citations omitted).
5 See CA rollo, pp. 43-44. 5 See also rollo, p. 5.
6 "7 o'clock" in the RTC Decision; CA rollo, p. 45.
7 "Austero" in some parts of the records.
8Rollo, pp. 5-6. See also CA rollo, p. 45.
9 CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
10Rollo, p. 6.
11 CA rollo, pp. 43-52.
12 Id. at 52.
13 See id. at 49-51.
14 See id. at 51.
15Rollo, pp. 4-11.
16 Id. at 10.
17 Id. at 8-9.
18 Id. at 9-10.
19Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 421, 428.
20Eusebio-Calderon v. People, 484 Phil. 87, 98 (2004).
21 At the time the informations were filed before the RTC, or on January 30, 1997, RA 8353, entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," was not yet in effect as it was only passed on September 30, 1997.
22 See People v. Viojela, G.R. No. 177140, October 17, 2012, 684 SCRA 241, 250.
23 Note that the same clause is reproduced in loto in Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997" and, thus, such circumstances stiil qualify the rape under the new rape law.
24 226 Phil. 581 (1986).
25 Id. at 590.
26 See People v. Frias, G.R. No. 203068, September 18, 2013, 706 SCRA 156, 165, citing People v. Bayani, 331 Phil. 169, 193 (1996).
27 See id. at 166.
28 See People v. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 305, 315-316. See also People v. Baculanta, G.R. No. 207513, June 16, 2014.
29 Entitled "AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALLY IN THE PHILIPPINES," approved June 24, 2006.
30 See People v. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 530, 540.
31 See People v. Traigo, G.R. No. 199096, June 2, 2014, citing People v. Amistoso, G.R. No 201447 January 9, 2013, 688 SCRA 376, 395.