FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 218701, February 14, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GIL RAMIREZ Y SUYU, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
On appeal is the June 2, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 05573 modifying the Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4 of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, convicting Gil Ramirez y Suyu (appellant) of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), violation of Section 5(b), Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, and attempted rape under par. 1 of Article 335 of the RPC.
The Informations charging appellant read:
Criminal Case No. 11767 (Rape)Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Joint trial thereafter ensued.
That sometime in the year 1989, x x x Province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused GIL RAMIREZ, father of the private complainant "AAA,"3 held and let the private complainant inhale a substance causing her to lose her consciousness and that thereafter, the accused, with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and felonious1y lie, and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the private complainant "AAA," who was then a minor being only a seven-year old girl.
Contrary to law.4
Criminal Case No. 11768 (Violation of RA 7610)
That sometime in the year 1996, x x x Province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused GIL RAMIREZ, who is [the] father of the private complainant "AAA," with lewd design and by mean of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pull towards a bed inside their house the private complainant who [was] then a minor, being only a 14-year old girl; that the accused threatened the private complainant to kill her if she will not succumb to his bestial desires but the private complainant was able to free herse1f from the clutches of the accused, and then ran away; that the act of the accused debased, degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of the private complainant as a human being which is prejudicial to her development as a minor.
Contrary to law.5
Criminal Case No. 11787 (Attempted Rape)
That sometime in the year 1996, x x x Province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused GIL RAMIREZ, father of the private complainant "AAA," with lewd design, and by the use of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pull towards a bed inside their house the private complainant who was then a minor, being only a fourteen year old girl; that the accused threatened the private complainant to kill her if she will not succumb to his bestial desires but the private complainant was able to free herself from the clutches of the accused, and then ran away.
The accused commenced the commission of the crime of RAPE directly by overt acts but did not perform all the acts of execution which would have produced it by reason of some causes other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Contrary to law.6
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing circumstances, this Court finds accused GIL RAMIREZ y Suyu,Unable to accept the RTC's verdict of conviction and insisting on his innocence, appellant appealed to the CA.
1) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 11767, for RAPE x x x and imposes upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is likewise ordered to pay the private complainant the amount of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) [PESOS] as civil indemnity, SEVENTYI-]FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS as moral damages and TWENTY[-]FIVE THOUSAND (P25,000.00) PESOS as exemplary damages due to the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship; 2) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 11768, for VIOLATION OF RA 7610, under Article III Section 5 (b), x x x and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of RECLUSION TEMPORAL or imprisomnent of FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS to TWENTY (20) YEARS. He is ordered to pay the private complainant the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS as civil indemnity, FIFTEEN THOUSAND (P15,000.00) PESOS as moral damages; and 3) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 11787, for Attempted Rape, x x x and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision mayor.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.7
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We find accused-appellant GIL RAMIREZ y SUYU GUILTY of Rape in Criminal Case No. 11767. The assailed Judgment of the court a quo in Criminal Case No. 11767 is MODIFIED to the effect that accused appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole; and ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages.Hence the present appeal.
In Criminal Case No. 11768, We find accused appellant GIL RAMIREZ y SUYU NOT GUILTY of Violation of RA 7610, particularly Sexual Abuse, on the ground of reasonable doubt and accordingly ACQUITS him of the said charge; and
In Criminal Case No. 11787, We likewise find accused appellant GIL RAMIREZ y SUYU NOT GUILTY of Attempted Rape on the ground of reasonable doubt and accordingly ACQUITS him of said offense.
SO ORDERED.12
(a) There is more than one circumstance;As extensively discussed in People v. Modesto20 -
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and,
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.19
the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. From all the circumstances, there should be a combination of evidence which in the ordinary and natural course o.f things, leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Stated in another way, where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused.As reflected in the assailed CA Decision, the conclusion finding appellant's guilt for rape was anchored on the following circumstantial evidence: "(1) "AAA" was sleeping in their house; (2) "AAA" was awakened when [appellant] forced [her] to smell a substance that caused her to lose consciousness; (3) "AAA" positively identified [appellant] as the only person she saw before she lost consciousness; (4) upon regaining consciousness. there was blood on "AAA's" shorts; (5) "AAA's" panty was also reversed; and, (6) "AAA" felt pain in her vagina."21
The foregoing assertion indubitably casts doubt on the credibility of "AAA" and the veracity of her narration of the incident considering that she was already 27 years old when she testified. There was no allegation that appellant was actually seen inside the house before the alleged incident and the only occupant before she went to sleep. The circumstances relied upon by the CA in its assailed Decision failed to sufficiently link appellant to the crime. What is extant on record is that the allegation of sexual molestation on "AAA" by appellant was anchored principally on presumption. But in criminal cases, "speculation and probabilities cannot take the place of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, no matter how strong, must not sway judgment."23
Q You said a while ago that your father raped you in 1989, do you still remember the date when it took place? A I can no longer recall the date but I am sure it was in 1989. Q Where did it take place? A At home, sir. Court: Q How old were you at that time? A I was 7 or 8 years old, sir. Q Now, in what part of your house did it take place? A Inside the house, sir Q What were you doing before you were raped? A I was sleeping at that time, sir. Q [W]hile you were sleeping, what happened? A [W]hat I remember was that he let me smell something and I did not know what happened next. Q Not knowing what transpired to you, why do you say then that your father raped you at that time? A [W]hen I regained consciousness there was already blood on my shorts and my panty was already reversed and I felt pain in my vagina. Q [W]hen you woke [up], where was your father at that time? A He was out of the house already, sir. Q Because of the presence of blood in your shortpants and your panty was not properly worn coupled with the fact that you felt pain in your sexual organ, you presumed that your father raped you at that time? A Yes, sir.22
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member per October 4, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
** Designated as additional member per October 4, 2017 raffle vice J. Tijam who recused due to prior participation in the case before the Court of Appeals.
1 CA rollo, pp. 131-144; penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a member of this Court) and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
2 Id. at 67-76; penned by Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino.
3 "The identity of the victim or nny 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. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploiiation And Discrimination, And for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, And for Other Purposes; 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." People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 (2011).
4 Records (Criminal Case No. 11767), p. 1.
5 Records (Criminal Case No. 11768), p. 1.
6 Records (Criminal Case No. 11787), p. 1.
7 CA rollo, p. 76.
8 Id. at 138.
9 Id.
10 Id., unpaginated; page 12 of CA Decision.
11 Id. at 141.
12 Id. at 143.
13People v. Dela Torre, 588 Phil. 937, 945 (2008).
14People v. Bermejo, 69.2 Phil. 373, 381 (2012).
15People v. Manchu, 593 Phil. 398, 406 (2008).
16 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 4.
SEC 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. - Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
17Bastian v. Hon. Court of Appeals, 575, 575 Phil. 42, 56 (2008).
18People v. Osianas, 588 Phil. 615, 627 (2008).
19Lonzanida v. People, 610 Phil. 687, 707-708 (2009).
20 134 Phil. 38, 44 (1968), cited in Lonzanida v. People, supra.
21 CA rollo, p. 138.
22 TSN, October 21, 2009, unpaginated.
23People v. Bon, 444 Phil. 571, 582-583 (2003).