FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 203313, September 02, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERTO HIDALGO, DON JUAN HIDALGO AND MICHAEL BOMBASI ALIAS "KABAYAN"(AT LARGE), ACCUSED, ROBERTO HIDALGO, Accused-Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (Cebu City) dated 4 August 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00545, which affirmed with modifications the Amended Decision2 dated 31 January 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Tacloban City in Criminal Cases No. 2000-06-363; No. 2000-06-364 and No. 2000-06-365 finding accused Roberto Hidalgo and Don Juan Hidalgo guilty of three (3) counts of simple rape in violation of Republic Act No. 8353 (R.A. No. 8353) or the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997."
On 28 April 2000, three (3) sets of Information were filed against Roberto Hidalgo (Roberto), his sixteen-year-old son Don Juan Hidalgo (Don Juan), and Michael Bombasi alias "Kabayan" (Bombasi) for three counts of rape against AAA.3
Thereafter, Don Juan was arrested in Sta. Fe, Leyte on 6 March 2000 while Roberto allegedly surrendered to Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP CIDG) in Tacloban City on 9 March 2000. On the other hand, Bombasi remains at large.7For Criminal Case No. 2000-06-363
That on or about the 30th day of January, 2000 in the Municipality of Santa Fe, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Flonorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with lewd design and with the use of force upon the thirteen-year-old AAA, a house help of accused Roberto Hidalgo, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously perform the following acts, to [wit]: accused Roberto Hidalgo succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the said AAA without her consent and against her will, after co-accused Don Juan Hidalgo and Michael Bombasi, alias "Kabayan" participated in the commission of the crime by touching her private parts.
Contrary to law, with the aggravating circumstance that the offehded party is only (13) years old and the offender Roberto Hidalgo is her guardian.4For Criminal Case No. 2000-06-364
That on or about the 30th day of January, 2000 in the Municipality of Santa Fe, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together[,] and mutually helping one another, with lewd design and with the use of force upon the thirteen-year-old AAA, a househelp of accused Roberto Hidalgo, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously perform the following acts, to wit: accused Don Juan Hidalgo succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the said AAA without her consent and against her will, after co-accused Roberto Hidalgo tied her hands and mouth and Michael Bombasi, alias "Kabayan" touched her private parts.
Contrary to law, with the aggravating circumstance that the offended party is only (13) years old and the offender Roberto Hidalgo is her guardian.5For Criminal Case No. 2000-06-365
That on or about the 30th day of January, 2000 in the Municipality of Santa Fe, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with lewd design and with the use of force upon the thirteen-year-old AAA, a househelp of accused Roberto Hidalgo, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously perform the following acts, to wit: accused [Michael Bombasi] succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the said AAA without her consent and against her will, after co-accused Roberto Hidalgo tied her hands and mouth and [Don Juan Hidalgo], touched her private parts.
Contrary to law, with the aggravating circumstance that the offended party is only (13) years old and the offender Roberto Hidalgo is her guardian.6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to Art. 266-A, 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended and the amendatory provision of R.A. No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law), the Court found ROBERTO HIDALGO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of RAPE under Criminal Cases Nos. 2000-06-363; 2000-06-364; and 2000-06-0365 and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the victim AAA the sum of Seventy Five Thousand ([P]75,000.00) Pesos for each count of Rape and pay moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00) for each count.Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the ruling of the trial court in a decision promulgated on 4 August 2011. It ruled that the three accused conspired to rape AAA but disregarded the qualifying circumstance that Roberto acted as a guardian of AAA, in the absence of sufficient proof. Further, the appellate court did not consider the other aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, night time and ignominy due to the fact that these were not alleged in the three sets of information filed against the three accused. In the dispositive portion, the appellate court ruled as follows:
DON JUAN HIDALGO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of RAPE under Criminal Case Nos. 2000-06-363; 2000-06-364; 2000-06-0365, however, with the special mitigating circumstance of Minority, being sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the crime, he is sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA for each count and to indemnify the victim AAA the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00) for each count of rape and pay moral damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos ([P]50,000.00) for each count; and
Pay the cost. SO ORDERED.9
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Amended Decision dated January 31, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Bulwagan ng Katarungan, Magsaysay Blvd., Tacloban City in Criminal Case Nos. 2000-06-363, 2000-06-364 and 2000-06-365 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Roberto Hidalgo is convicted of three counts of simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the three counts of rape, while appellant Don Juan Hidalgo, being a minor at the time of the commission of the crime and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum in each of the three counts of rape. The sentence as to appellant Don Juan Hidalgo is hereby SUSPENDED, pursuant to Section 38, in relation to Sec. 5 (1), f Republic Act No. 9344, also known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006." Upon finality of this Decision, the Assistant Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, Visayas Station, Cebu City is DIRECTED to remand the records to the court of origin for further proceedings for purposes of intervention program as to said offender.10Only accused-appellant Roberto filed his appeal and assigned as error on the part of the Court of Appeals when it: (1) gave full faith and credence to the private complainant's testimony; and (2) ruled that conspiracy was established and found the accused-appellant liable for three (3) counts of simple rape.
x x x while appellant Don Juan Hidalgo, being a minor at the time of the commission of the crime and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum in each of the three counts of rape. The sentence as to appellant Don Juan Hidalgo is hereby SUSPENDED, pursuant to Section 38, in relation to Sec. 5 (1), f Republic Act No. 9344, also known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006." xxx (Underscoring ours)While Don Juan is not an appellant before us, we find a need to correct the penalty that was imposed, thus, applying ISLAW, the penalty to be imposed on Don Juan will be within the range of prision mayor from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, as minimum penalty, to 14 years, eight (8) months and 1 day to 17 years and four (4) months of prision temporal in its medium period, as maximum penalty in each of the three counts of rape.21
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos, and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 155-174.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Crisostomo L. Garrido; id. at 88-110.
3 This is pursuant to the ruling of this Court in People of the Philippines v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006), wherein this Court resolved to withhold the real name of the victim-survivor and to use fictitious initials instead to represent her in its decisions. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed. The names of such victims, and of their immediate family members other than the accused, shall appear as "AAA," "BBB," "CCC," and so on. Addresses shall appear as "XXX" as in "No. XXX Street, XXX District, City of XXX."
4 CA rollo, p. 11.
5 Id. at 12.
6 Id. at 13.
7 Id. at 21.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 109-110.
10 Id. at 172-174.
11 Republic Act No. 8353, 30 September 1997, 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 otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997."
12 TSN of AAA, 17 September 2001, p. 10.
13 Id. at 11-15. TSN of AAA, 12 July 2002, p. 18.
14 TSN of AAA, 17 September 2001, pp. 12-17.
15 Records, volume 1, p. 9.
16 Records, Volume 1, pp. 105-111.
17People v. Dela Torre, 588 Phil. 937, 942 (2008), citing People v. Sumalinog, Jr., 466 Phil. 637, 658 (2004).
18 Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
19Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.
20People v. Manigo, G.R. No. 194612, 27 January 2014, 714 SCRA 551, 562.
21People v. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, 30 January 2013, 689 SCRA 715, 739-740, citing People v. Duavis, 678 Phil. 166, 178 (2011).
22 SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence.
Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under this Act or other applicable law.
23 Art. 22, Revised Penal Code
24 Supra note 21, at 742.
25 Id., citing People v. Jacinto, 661 Phil. 224, 257 (2011).