FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 222964, July 11, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAJETO CABILIDA, JR. Y CANDAWAN, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
"A woman will not expose herself to the humiliation of a trial, with its attendant publicity and the morbid curiosity it would arouse, unless she has been truly wronged and seeks atonement for her abuse."1
This is an appeal filed by appellant Cajeto Cabilida, Jr. y Candawan from the December 10, 2014 Decision2 and the November 19, 2015 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01087-MIN, affirming the September 17, 2012 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oroquieta City, Branch 14, in Criminal Case Nos. 986-14-433 and 988-14-435, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.
The Factual Antecedents
Appellant and his co-accused Toto Cabilida (Toto) were charged under the following Amended Informations:
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.8 His co-accused Toto, however, remains at large.Criminal Case No. 986-14-433
That on or about the 24th day of December 2005 at about 12:00 o'clock midnight, more or less, x x x Province of Misamis Occidental, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, armed with a hunting knife by means of violence and intimidation, accused Jojo Cabilida did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant AAA,5 against her will, in her own house and in the presence and in full view of her minor children BBB and CCC, both 10 years old and 8 years old, respectively and while co-accused Toto Cabilida was threatening to box the victim and pointing and threatening the children with the knife and then pointing the flashlight during the rape.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstance of committing the crime of rape in the full view of the victim's minor children and generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling.6Criminal Case No. 988-14-435
That on or about the 24th day of December 2005 at about 12:00 o'clock midnight, more or less, x x x Province of Misamis Occidental, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, and just after accused Toto Cabilida had committed acts of lasciviousness against AAA, co-accused Jojo Cabilida did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant AAA for the second time against her will, in her own house and in the presence and in full view of her minor children BBB and CCC, both 10 years old and 8 years old, respectively.
CONTRARY TO LAW, with the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstance of committing the crime of rape in the full view of the victim's minor children and generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling.7
Based on the testimony of AAA, it was a rainy evening x x x when the rape occurred. At or around midnight of24 December 2005, AAA and with her four minor children were all awake and awaiting the arrival of their father who was then visiting his nephew and who promised to bring home food for the family, when there was a knock on their door. Thinking it was their father, one of the children called out "Pang" but no one replied. AAA called out again, and then heard somebody replied "O" (yes). A[s] it was raining very hard, AAA mistook the voice she heard as that of her husband. When she opened the door, appellant was standing outside completely naked with x x x Toto beside him. Before she could react, appellant immediately hugged AAA and kissed her as they both fell on the floor. Despite her resistance, appellant successfully removed AAA's panty, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. All this time, AAA tried to resist, was crying while being assaulted and repeatedly entreated for accused to stop. AAA cried as did her children who witnessed the alleged rape right before their eyes. While appellant was raping AAA, Toto remained standing by the door, holding a knife and a flashlight, directing its beam towards AAA and appellant.Version of the Appellant
After satisfying himself, appellant turned to Toto and said, "Bord ikaw pod" (You also). Toto then approached AAA and began to mount her, bit AAA's lips, but could not consummate as Toto held back when AAA parried him with her arms and legs, and he was not able to remove his short pants.
Unsatiated with the first rape, appellant dragged AAA down by her arms, and while AAA was in a sitting position, appellant grabbed her head and put his penis inside her mouth while AAA attempted to shake her head sideways. Afterwards, appellant again inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina and started a pumping motion.
AAA also testified that as appellant and Toto were about to leave, appellant warned AAA and her children that if they told her husband or anyone else about the incident, they would harm or kill them, including AAA's husband.
AAA's husband arrived at about seven in the morning of the next day, and AAA reported to him what happened. That same day, they went to the barangay captain to seek assistance, but the latter was somewhere else. The day after, they reported the sexual assault to the police. x x x
x x x x
The second daughter BBB, who was then 8 years old at the time of the alleged rape and already 10 years old when she testified, was also presented to corroborate the account given by her mother AAA. x x x9
WHEREFORE, finding accused Cajeto "Jojo" Cabilida, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape, aggravated by its commission in full view of private complainant's children and in her dwelling, the court sentences him to two penalties of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He is ordered to pay private complainant P75,000.00 as rape indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. With costs. He is credited with full time spent in preventive detention since July 31, 2006.Ruling of the Court of Appeals
SO ORDERED.16
How can a mother of four young children invite a lover to her house so that she could have sex with him in the presence of her children, sleeping or awake, with the likelihood of their seeing her in a tryst with her lover and her husband suddenly arriving and catching them out? Indeed, if they were really and truly lovers who had had sexual trysts for no less than ten times, they could have continued to meet at the same places. Definitely, not in private complainant's home, on Christmas Eve, while the children were with her, awaiting their father's return.21Besides, even if true, the existence of such relationship did not negate the commission of rape. Having a relationship with the victim is not a license to have sexual intercourse against her will, and will not exonerate the accused from the criminal charge of rape as "[b]eing sweethearts does not prove consent to the sexual act."22
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018.
** Per Special Order No. 2560-C dated July 6, 2018 vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
*** Per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
1People v. Domingo, 432 Phil. 590, 607 (2002).
2Rollo, pp. 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
3 CA rollo, pp. 93-94.
4 Id. at 32-37; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ma. Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca.
5 "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).
6Rollo, p. 4.
7 Id. at 5.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 5-7.
10 Id. at 7.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 8.
15 CA rollo, pp. 36-37.
16 Id. at 37.
17Rollo, p. 12.
18 Id. at 21-22 and 36.
19People v. Hilet, 450 Phil. 481, 490 (2003).
20 Id.
21 CA rollo, p. 36.
22People v. Magbanua, 576 Phil. 642, 648 (2008).
23People v. Balonzo, 560 Phil. 244, 259-260 (2007).
24 Id. at 260.
25People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 848 (2016).