G.R. No. 200157, August 31, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO, A.K.A. "JAKE DELIOLA," Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the 29 June 2011 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC NO. 00435, affirming the 22 December 2005 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City, Negros Occidental, in Criminal Case Nos. 5214-69 and 5215-69, which found accused-appellant Joery Deliola y Barrido guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Statutory Rape, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in both cases.
Accused-appellant was charged with two (2) counts of Statutory Rape. The accusatory portions of the Informations narrate:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of NOT GUILTY.6 At the joint pre-trial7 of the cases, the following stipulation of facts were admitted: (1) that the court has jurisdiction over the case (2) the identity of accused-appellant as the accused in the two criminal cases; (3) that accused-appellant is the uncle of MMM; (4) that MMM, was 11 years old when the incidents giving rise to the present criminal actions were allegedly committed; (5) that at the time of the incidents on June and 1 July 2002, accused-appellant and MMM were neighbors; (6) that MMM was then a grade school pupil; and (7) that accused-appellant was not attending school at the time of the submitted incidents giving rise to these criminal actions. Trial on the merits ensued afterwards.Criminal Case No. 5214-69
That sometime in the month of June, 2002, in the Municipality of Manapla, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, 15 years old, with the use of a bladed weapon, through force, threat and intimidation, with the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of relationship and minority, the accused being the uncle of herein victim who was less than eighteen (18) years of age, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [MMM],3 a minor, 11 years old, against her will, to the damage and prejudice.4chanrobleslawCriminal Case No. 5215-69
That on or about the 1st day of July, 2002, in the Municipality of Manapla, Province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, 15 years old, with the use of a bladed weapon, through force, threat and intimidation, with the attendant qualifying aggravating circumstances of relationship and minority, the accused being the uncle of herein victim who was less than eighteen (18) years of age, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [MMM], a minor, 11 years old, against her will, to the damage and prejudice.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, in Criminal Cases Nos. 5214-69 and 5215-69, this Court finds accused, JOERY DELIOLA Y BARRIDO, A.K.A. "JAKE DELIOLA", Guilty of the crimes of Rape, as defined in Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 8353, as his guilts had been established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority, this Court, in Criminal Case No. 5214-69, sentences accused, Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal, Philippines. Accused, Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, is, further, ordered by this Court to pay minor, [MMM], the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as Moral Damages, and the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), all in Philippine Currency, as Exemplary Damages.
In Criminal Case No. 5215-69, this Court likewise sentences accused, Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal, Philippines. Accused, Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, is, likewise, ordered by this Court to pay minor, [MMM], the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as Moral Damages, and the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), all in Philippine Currency, as Exemplary Damages.
Accused, Joery Deliola y Barrido, a.k.a. Jake Deliola, is remanded to the custody of the Jail Warden of the Provincial Jail of Negros Occidental, until he is finally committed to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa City, Rizal.
In the service of the sentences imposed on him by this Court, accused named shall be given full credit for the entire period of his detention pending trial.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision insofar as the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of accused-appellant Joery B. Deliola of the two crimes of rape in Criminal Cases No. 5214-69 and 5215-69 is AFFIRMED. However, as accused-appellant Joery Deliola y Barrido is a child in conflict with the law, the pronouncement of his sentence is hereby SUSPENDED and the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 69, Silay City, Negros Occidental, for appropriate disposition in accordance with Section 38 of Republic Act No. 9344. Accused-appellant is CONDEMNED to pay the victim MMM: 1) In Criminal Case No. 5214-69, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 for moral damages, and P30,000.00 for exemplary damages; and 2) In Criminal Case No. 5215-69, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000 for moral damages and P30,000.00 for exemplary damages.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryAccused-appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal. In a Resolution23 dated 27 February 2012, we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. However, both parties manifested24 that they dispensing with the filing of supplemental briefs and, instead, adopting respective briefs as supplemental briefs in this case.
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.- Rape is committed-Statutory rape is committed when the prosecution proves that: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation; whether the offended party was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done through fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven: and that there was sexual intercourse.26chanrobleslaw
1) by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman x x x:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x
d) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
Art. 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
x x x x
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1) 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;
x x x x
At any rate, it is an oft-repeated principle that not every witness to or victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. People may react differently to the same situation. One person's spontaneous, or unthinking or even instinctive, response to a horrible and repulsive stimulus may be aggression, while another's may be cold indifference. Yet, it can never be successfully argued that the latter are any less sexual victims than the former.36chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryGiven the nature of the crime of rape, the credible, natural, and convincing testimony of the victim alone may be sufficient to convict the accused, more so, when the testimony is supported by the medico-legal findings of the examining physician.37chanrobleslaw
[MMM], though a minor, thirteen (13) years old at the time she took the stand, demonstrated to this Court her capacity of observation, recollection, and communication. She showed that she can perceive, and perceiving, can make known her perception to this Court as she clearly and capably related the details of her sad and horrible experiences at the hands of the accused. She withstood a thorough and exhaustive examination. There is no doubt that she is a competent witness. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 451, G.R. No. 116372 January 18, 2001; People vs. Rama, 350 SCRA 266, G.R. No. 136304, January 25, 2001). [MMM] gave a clear, straightforward, spontaneous, frank and consistent narrative. It was a positive and credible account she presented before this Court. There was not a motive ascribed or, in the very least, suggested by the defense that might have raised doubt on her credibility and on the credibility of the statements she made before this Court.38chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryWe find no reason to disturb the trial court's appreciation of MMM's testimony. Deeply entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand, a vantage point denied appellate courts; and when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.39chanrobleslaw
Moreover, accused-appellant's counsel took active part in the trial by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses on the particular dates and circumstances of the two offenses of rape as alleged in the informations without prior objection to the validity or propriety of the informations. It is now too late in the day for the accused-appellant to claim that any of the Informations was defective. Objections relating to the form of the complaint or information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. If the appellant had found the Information insufficient, he should have moved before arraignment either for a bill of particulars, for him to be properly informed of the exact date of the alleged rape, or for the quashal of the Information, on the ground that it did not conform with the prescribed form.46chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryPenalty and Damages
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. — x x xTo reiterate, the law says that a minor is fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birth date. In A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC49 dated November 24, 2009, the Supreme Court likewise defined the: age of criminal responsibility as the age when a child, fifteen (15) years and; one, (1) day old or above but below eighteen (18) years of age, commits an offense with discernment.
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
Endnotes:
* Additional Member per Raffle dated 15 August 2016.
1Rollo, pp. 2-20; Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.
2 Records, pp. 1 16-124; Penned by Presiding Judge Felipe G. Banzon.
3 The real name of the victim is withheld to protect her privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).
4 Records, p. 21.
5 Id. at 22.
6 Id. at 41.
7 Id. at 46.
8 TSN, 14 October 2004, p. 3.
9 TSN, 12 August 2005, p. 3.
10 Id. at 2.
11 TSN, 14 October 2004, pp. 5-10.
12 Id. at 10-13.
13 Id. at 13-14.
14 Id. at 15.
15 Records, pp. 2-3.
16 TSN, 30 October 2003, pp. 3-7.
17 Id. at 9.
18 Id. at 8.
19 Records, p. 5.
20 TSN, 12 August 2005, pp. 2-4.
21 Records, pp. 123-124.
22Rollo, p. 19.
23 Id. at 24.
24 Id. at 25-27 and 30-31.
25cralawred 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; effective on October 22, 1997.
26People v. Gutierez, G.R. No. 208007, April 02, 2014, 720 SCRA 607, 613.
27 Records, p. 4.
28 TSN, 30 October 2003, p. 2.
29People v. Quarre, 427 Phil. 422, 434 (2002) as cited in People v. Brioso, 600 Phil. 530, 542 (2009).
30People v. Gersamio, G.R. No. 207098, 8 July 2015, 762 SCRA 390, 403.
31People v. Tabayan, G.R. No. 190620, 18 June 2014, 726 SCRA 587, 602.
32People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 201151, 14 January 2015, 746 SCRA 202, 208.
33People v. Perez, G.R. No. 191265, 14 September 2011, 657 SCRA 734, 743.
34People v. Digma, G.R. Nos. 127750-52, 20 November 2000, 345 SCRA 185, 201.
35 715 Phil. 285 (2013).
36 Id. at 291-292.
37People v. Jacinto, 661 Phil. 224, 241 (2011).
38 Records, p. 122.
39Vidar v. People, 625 Phil. 57, 71-72 (2010).
40People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 201151, 14 January 2015, 746 SCRA 202, 213.
41People v. Nical, G.R. No. 210430, 18 February 2015, 751 SCRA 218, 227.
42People v. Manalili, 716 Phil. 762, 774-775 (2013).
43 Records, p. 21.
44People v. Prodenciado, G.R. No. 192232, 10 December 2014, 744 SCRA 429, 442.
45 Section 6, Rule 110 of the 1997 Rules of Court:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. — A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.
46Rollo, p. 9.
47 An Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System, Creating the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council Under the Department of Justice, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.
48 R.A. No. 10630, An Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9344, Otherwise Known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006" and Appropriating Funds Therefor.
49 Revised Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law, 24 November 2009.
50 TSN, 12 August 2005, p. 9.
51People v. Jacinto, supra note 37 at 249.
52 TSN, August 12, 2005 p. 3.
53Article 68, Revised Penal Code. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. - When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
54People v. Sarcia, 615 Phil. 97, 120-121 (2009).
55 SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - x x x
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
56 Supra note 37 at 256-257.
57People v. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, 21 October 2015.
58People v. Jacinto, supra note 37 at 257.
59 Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution! in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
60People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.
61Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).