People v. Amaro
G.R. 199100
July 18, 2014
FACTS:
The RTC
and CA convicted Rosendo Amaro for the crime of forcible abduction with rape. That
on or about the 26th day of March, 1998 at more or less 5:00 in the afternoon
in front of Boots & Maya located at Mal var Street, Puerto Princesa City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of deceit at the beginning and of force and intimidation
later, abduct one AAA, a 7 year old girl, by forcing her and took her to his
house at Bgy. Tagburos, Puerto Princesa City and without any justifiable
reason, accused detained and deprived her of her liberty for a period of 28
days; that while she is being detained accused ROSENDO AMARO had carnal
knowledge of said AAA all committed against her will.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC
HELD:
No. The
fact of sexual intercourse is corroborated by the medical findings that the
victim suffered from laceration on the upper and lower part of the introitus.
Appellant was properly charged of the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape. AAA’s abduction was a necessary means to commit rape. Sexual intercourse
with AAA was facilitated and ensured by her abduction. In the prosecution of
rape cases, conviction or acquittal depends on the complainant's testimony
because of the fact that usually only the participants are witnesses to their
occurrences. The issue therefore boils down to credibility. Significantly,
findings of fact of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal since
conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape cases lie heavily on the
sound judgment of the trial court which is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying. Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and
credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, saysthat she has
been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show thatrape has in
fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature,
courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired,
considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she
would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.17 Moreover, AAA
testified in a straightforward manner. On the other hand, appellant set-up the
defense of denial and alibi. It is jurisprudential that denial and alibi are
intrinsically weak defenses which must be buttressed by strong evidence of
non-culpability to merit credibility. Mere denial, without any strong evidence
to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the
child-victim of the identity of the appellant and his involvement in the crime
attributed to him. Alibi is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and
cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
who testify on clear and positive evidence.
People v. Cayanan
G.R. 20080
September 18, 2013
FACTS:
The RTC
and CA convicted the accused for the crime of forcible abduction with qualified
rape. On February 26, 2001, AAA was about to enter the school campus with her
friend Armina Adriano (Adriano) when Cayanan arrived on a tricycle driven by
his uncle, Boy Manalastas. Cayanan then pulled AAA towards the tricycle. She
tried shouting but he covered her mouth. They alighted somewhere and boarded a
jeep. He brought her to a dress shop in x x x, Bulacan where he asked someone
to give her a change of clothes as she was in her school uniform and later to a
Jollibee outlet. He then brought her to his sister’s house in x x x where he
raped her inside a bedroom. Afterwards, a certain couple Putay and Tessie
talked to Cayanan and she was brought to the barangay office where she was
asked to execute a document stating that she voluntarily went with Cayanan. It
was the latter’s mother and sister-in-law who brought her home later that
evening. She told her mother and brother of the incidents only after her classmate
Adriano informed her family of what happened in school and of the rape
incidents. AAA testified that she did not immediately tell her family because
she was still in a state of shock. Adriano and the victim’s mother corroborated
her testimony. A resident psychiatrist at the National Center for Mental Health
also testified that AAA was suffering from mental depressive symptoms/chronic
symptoms and presence of sexual abuse.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC
HELD:
No. A
review of the CA decision shows that it did not commit any reversible error in
affirming Cayanan’s conviction. Record shows that Cayanan forced AAA to have
sex with him on February 1, 2001 and threatened her and her family with
physical harm. The testimony of Adriano, meanwhile, corroborated AAA’s
testimony that Cayanan forcibly took her by the school campus gate on February
26, 2001 and thereafter raped her. The defense failed to show any reason why
the prosecution’s evidence should not be given weight or credit.
Moreover, the claim that they were
sweethearts does not justify the commission of the crimes. For the Court to
even consider giving credence to the sweetheart defense, it must be proven by
compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in
support of the theory. Independent proof is required ― such as tokens,
mementos, and photographs.9 And while Cayanan produced two love letters
allegedly written by AAA, the CA correctly sustained the finding of the RTC
that these letters were unauthenticated and therefore, bereft of any probative
value.
The Court, however, finds that
Cayanan should be convicted only of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case No.
1498-M-2001. Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real
objective of the accused is to rape the victim. In this case, circumstances
show that the victim’s abduction was with the purpose of raping her. Thus,
after Cayanan dragged her into the tricycle, he took her to several places
until they reached his sister’s house where he raped her inside the bedroom.
Under these circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction. Finally,
the CA did not commit any reversible error in increasing the amount of civil
indemnity and moral damages awarded in Criminal Case No. 1498-M-2001, and in
awarding additional ₱75,000.00 as moral damages in Criminal Case No.
1499-M-2001 and₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages in both criminal cases, as these
are accord with prevailing jurisprudence.
