FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 219863, March 06, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD RAMIREZ Y TULUNGHARI, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Assailed in this appeal is the October 30, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05176 which affirmed the February 3, 2011 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 254, Las Piñas City, finding appellant Richard Ramirez y Tulunghari guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness.
The Antecedent Facts
Appellant was charged with the crime of rape in two separate Informations which read:
During his arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.6 Trial thereafter ensued.Criminal Case No. 07-05889That sometime on or about February 24, 2007, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge [of] one ["AAA"],3 a six (6) year old minor, through force, or intimidation, and against her will and consent, thereby subjecting her to sexual abuse and that the act complained of is prejudicial to the physical and psychological development of the complainant-minor.4Criminal Case No. 07-0284
That on or about the 18th day of March 2007, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one ["AAA"], six (6) year[s] old and below 7 years of age, minor, through force and intimidation against her will and consent by licking the vagina and thereafter inserting his penis into the vagina of said ["AAA"], thereby subjecting her to sexual abuse, and that the act complained of is prejudicial to the physical and psychological development of the complainant-minor.5
AAA, born on September 7, 2000, was then only six (6) years old when she was raped and molested by the accused.Version of the Defense
The victim and the accused [were] neighbors in Las Piñas City. Accused, a stay-in construction worker in Baliwag, Bulacan, [was] also a friend of AAA's uncle who would usually sleep over at the victim's house.
On February 24, 2007, at or about 12:00 a.m, AAA was awakened by the accused when he removed her pajama and panty and placed himself on top of her. The accused licked her vagina before inserting his penis into it She felt pain and cried. Since the accused threatened her with harm if she [told] the incident to anybody, she kept mum about it.
[O]n March 18, 2007, during the wee hours of the morning, or about 2:00 a.m., AAA was awakened by the shout of her uncle, CCC. There, she saw accused standing at the corner of the house with her panty at the latter's feet. Realizing that she was naked, she instantly wore her short pants and ran and embraced her uncle. Thereafter, AAA, together with her grandparents and uncles, went to the police to report what happened. The medico legal examination of the private organ of AAA revealed no laceration in her hymen.7
x x x On February 24, 2007, he was working as a construction worker at NFA, Baliwag, Bulacan. He worked there from Monday to Saturday. [On said date,] he was working until 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon in Bulacm1.Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On March 18, 2007, he was at home resting. At around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of that day, he went out to join his friends, Jonas Rabosa, Aron Rabosa, Jomari Magondayao, Randy Ramirez, Erma Bergancia and Bongbong in a drinking spree in front of the house of AAA's aunt, BBB, where AAA also lived. The drinking spree lasted until 12:00 o'clock midnight when he started vomiting. They slept at BBB's house. He, together with his friends, slept, side by side with each other in the living room, but before he fell asleep he noticed that AAA was sleeping on the sofa.
At around 2:00 o'clock in the morning, [he] was awakened by the punches thrown at him by AAA's uncle, CCC, who claimed to have seen him molesting the girl. He was surprised. Another uncle, ODD, followed suit and both clobbered him. His cousin, Randy Ramirez, intervened to pacify, and brought him home. At home, he narrated to his mother what [had] happened, and she cried. Then, policemen arrived at their house to arrest him, although without showing any warrant of arrest.8
On the first rape, AAA narrated that she was roused from sleep when accused was removing her pajama and panty. After removing he[r] pajama and panty, accused licked her vagina, [and] inserted something hard into [it]. [She later clarified that it was appellant's penis that was inserted into her vagina] She did not disclose this to anybody because accused told her not to tell it to anybody.10Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appe1lant to suffer the penalty of a) reclusion perpetua and to pay "AAA" P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75.000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 07-0284; and b) imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay "AAA" P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 07-0589.12
x x x x
On the alleged (second rape incident], AAA narrated that she was roused from sleep when her uncle[,] CCC[,] was shouting angry words at the accused when they saw the latter lying on top of AAA. x x x It is clear from AAA's testimony that when the accused carried out the lecherous intent on March 18, 2007, he did not commit rape, consummated nor attempt[ed]. There [was] no indication that accused successfully penetrated, at least the labia of AAA. Accused should only be held liable for acts of lasciviousness.11
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed -"Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act."19 Notably, the absence of free consent in cases of statutory rape is conclusively presumed and as such, proof of force, intimidation or consent is immaterial.20
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:x x x x
- Through force, threat or intimidation;
- When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
- By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
- When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, both the RTC and the CA found "AAA's" testimony credible and convincing. We, too, see no reason to disbelieve "AAA's" testimony as regards the first rape incident, since it was not shown that the lower courts had overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, if properly considered would have altered the result of the case.25
[PROS. JACOB M. MONTESA II] Q: You said you were raped by Kuya Richard, is this true or not? A: That's true, Sir. Q: How did he rape you? A: He placed himself on top of me, Sir. Q: And what else did he do? A: He inserted his penis into my vagina, Sir. Q: What else? A: He licked my vagina, Sir.23 x x x x Q: This Kuya Richard who raped you, is he here today? A: Yes, Sir. Q: Can you point to him? A: That one, Sir. (Witness pointing to a person who when asked, answered by the name of Richard Ramirez.) Q: Can you tell us what you felt when Kuya Richard was doing this? What was your reaction? A: I was hurt, Sir. Q: Did you cry? A: Yes, Sir.24
Unfortunately, "AAA's" testimony as regards the second rape incident is not sufficient to convict appellant of rape or even acts of lasciviousness sans the testimonies of "BBB" and "CCC" ("AAA's" uncle) who supposedly witnessed firsthand what happened on that fateful night. "AAA's" narrative thereto clearly consisted of hearsay evidence which, "whether objected to or not, has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence falls within the excepti.ons to the hearsay evidence rule x x x."32
[COURT:] Q: You mentioned that you did not see the person who took off your pants, you mean you are not sure who he is? A: No, [y]our Honor. Q: You said you did not see him? A: Because I was asleep at that time. I was awakened when my Uncle shouted. Q: You did not wake up because somebody took off your shorts but because of the shouting of your Uncle? A: Yes, [y]our Honor. x x x x Q: When you heard your Uncle shouting, did you learn why he shouted? A: Yes, [y]our Honor. Q: Why? A: According to him, BBB [(AAA's aunt)] saw Richard on top of me, [y]our Honor. Q: So when he was on top of you, you were not awakened? A: No, [y]our Honor.31 (Emphasis supplied)
x x x We have held that in criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall enjoy the right to conti·ont tl1e witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine tl1em. A conviction based alone on proof that violates the constitutional right of an accused is a nullity and the court that rendered it acted without jurisdiction in its rendition. Such a judgment cannot be given any effect whatsoever especially on the liberty of an individual.34 (Emphasis supplied)Clearly, the RTC committed a grave mistake when it relied on hearsay evidence to convict appellant of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. We also note the enor in the fallo35 of the RTC Decision where the trial court convicted appellant of rape in Criminal Case No. 07-0284 (the second rape incident) and acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 07-058936 (the first rape incident), when it should have been the other way around, based on the discussion in the body of said Decision.
| |
(SGD) | |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO | |
Associate Justice | |
Acting Chairperson |
(SGD) | |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO | |
Acting Chief Justice43 |
Endnotes:
** Per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
*** Designated as additional member per October 18, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
1Rollo, pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Stephen C. Cruz.
2 CA rollo, pp. 82-89; penned by Presiding Judge Gloria Butay Aglugub.
3 "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. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation. 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 Information dated June 14, 2007, records, p. 1.
5 Information dated March 20, 2007, id. at 64.
6 Id. at 21 and 86.
7 CA rollo, 109-110.
8 Id. at 68.
9 Id. at 89.
10 Id. at 86-87.
11 Id. at 88.
12 Id. at 89. In the dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision, Crim. Case No. 07-0589 was inadvertently stated as Crim. Case No. 07-0585.
13Rollo, p. 8.
14 Id. at 9.
15 Id.
16 CA rollo, p. 69.
17 Id. at 74.
18 Id. at 75-76.
19People v. Gaa, G.R. No. 212934, June 7, 2017.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 See "AAA's" Certificate of Live Birth, records, p. 12.
23 TSN, August 12, 2008, pp. 10-11.
24 Id. at 14.
25People v. Espino, Jr., 577 Phil. 546, 562 (2008).
26People v. Bangsoy, 778 Phil. 294, 303 (2016).
27 Id.
28 Id. at 304.
29 Records, p. 11; prepared by PSI Marianne S. Ebdane, M.D.
30People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 310 (2010).
31 TSN, December 9, 2008, pp. 8-10.
32Republic v. Galeno, G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017. Italics supplied.
33 385 Phil. 499 (2000).
34 Id. at 513.
35 CA rollo, p. 89.
36 Also erroneously stated as Crim. Case No. 07-0585.
37People v. Gaa, supra note 19.
38 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 266-B, par. 5.
39 Records, p. 12.
40People v. Gaa, supra note 19.
41 Id. .
42 Id.
43 Per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.