458 Phil. 131
PER CURIAM:
That on or about the 30th day of September 1997, in the morning, at Barangay Lorugan, Municipality of Valencia, Province of Bukidnon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, prompted with lewd design, armed with a sharp bladed weapon and by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally hold the right hand of AAA, and at knife point tied and box (sic) her and brought her inside the sugar plantation and have sexual intercourse with AAA his 17 year old sister against her will, to the damage and prejudice of AAA in such amount as may be allowed by law.On February 10, 1998, appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.[3] Thereafter, trial ensued.
Contrary to law and in violation of Republic Act No. 7659.[2]
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Bobby Sanchez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in violation of Section II of Republic Act No. 7659. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH. He is also ordered to indemnify his victim AAA the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos, and moral damages of Fifteen (P15,000.00) Pesos.Hence, the case is before us on automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
SO ORDERED.[10]
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[11]At the outset, we reiterate that in rape cases, certain well-established principles and precepts are controlling. These are (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) due to the nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution, and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[12] Consequently, it is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its case with clarity and persuasion to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.[13]
Appellant in this case is charged with rape by using force or intimidation and not when the victim is unconscious.
- By using force or intimidation;
- When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
- When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The long-standing rule that "when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says, in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime did take place"[18] finds no better application that when the offender is the victim's blood relation. Indeed, the testimony of a rape victim is entitled to even greater weight than ordinarily it would when she accuses a close relative, in this case her own brother, of having been the responsible party therefor.[19] This is so because incestuous rape is not an ordinary crime that can be easily invented because of its heavy psychological and social toll.[20] It is against human nature for a sister to fabricate a charge that would expose herself as well as her entire family to a lifetime of dishonor[21] especially when her charge could mean the death of her own brother. It is highly improbable for a sister to go out in public to falsely accuse her brother of rape if it were not true. And for the parents, it would be too high a price to pay in exposing their daughter to public ridicule and indignity, coupled with the rigors of a public trial, just to vent an ire on the accused,[22] who in the present case is their own son.
Q: ... how did Bobby Sanchez rape you?A: At first we were on a pathway then he boxed me on my stomach.Q: Now, when you said that you were on a pathway, what pathway are you referring from your house to the highway?A: Yes.Q: Now, you said that you were boxed by Bobby Sanchez. How many times that you were boxed?A: While we were on the pathway he boxed me two (2) times, but when we were already on the sugarcane farm for four (4) times.COURT: (to witness) Q: He boxed you two times while you were walking towards the road, correct?A: Yes.Q: Why was he there?A: He suddenly appeared from the cornfield at that time when I was on that pathway.Q: You mean there is a cornfield beside where the path you were walking on?A: Yes.Q: Right after he boxed you for two times, what did he do to you next if any?A: When I already lost strength he lifted me and carried me. Continue.PROSECUTOR TORIBIO: Q: Now, you said that you were already awaken and this Bobby Sanchez lifted with you. To what place were you brought by this Bobby Sanchez?A: In the sugarcane farm.Q: That is where you said that you were again boxed for four times by Bobby Sanchez?A: Yes.COURT: (to witness) Q: The same thing when he boxed you in your stomach?A: Yes.PROSECUTOR TORIBIO: Q: This sugarcane field wherein you were brought by Bobby Sanchez, how far from the pathway?A: It is very near. (Witness pointing to a distance of about 3 meters).Q: So you mean to tell this court AAA that the other side of the path is a cornfield and the other side is a sugarcane field?A: Yes.Q: Now, after you were brought by Bobby Sanchez to the sugarcane field wherein you were boxed four times, what happened to you?A: I lost consciousness.Q: Now AAA, aside from being boxed by Bobby Sanchez, what else did he do to you before you were brought to the sugarcane plantation?A: When we reached the sugarcane field he boxed me again for four times and so I lost consciousness.Q: Now, aside from boxing did he do any other things to you?A: Yes.Q: What was that?A: He tied my hands with my bag.Q: Now, how did he tie your hands?A: (Witness demonstrating by putting his two hands on his back).Q: Now, you said that you were tied with your bag. Is it a bag that you were bringing during that time when you were able to go to school?A: Yes.Q: Why, is the sling of your bag long enough to tie your hands?A: Yes.Q: Aside from tying your hands at your back AAA, what else did Bobby Sanchez do to you aside from tying and boxing?A: He gagged my mouth.Q: What did he use?A: A blanket.COURT: (to witness) Q: You mean he had a blanket with him?A: Yes, a small blanket.Q: How did he gag you, he tacked that into your mouth or he just wrapped around your neck?A: He did it this way. (Witness demonstrated to show that the gagging was tied around her neck on the level of her mouth. The eyes can be seen but not the mouth).PROSECUTOR TORIBIO: Q: Now, where was this blanket you said was taken by Bobby Sanchez?A: From his bag.Q: You mean to tell this court that he was bringing a bag at that time?A: Yes.Q: Now, aside from bringing you, tying your hands and then gagged up your mouth, what else Bobby Sanchez do to you?A: He raped me.Q: Were you not able to resist Bobby Sanchez during that time?A: I was already unconscious.Q: Now, were you able to regain your consciousness?A: Yes.Q: Now, after you regain your consciousness, were you able to see Bobby Sanchez near you during that time?A: Yes.Q: Now, after you regain your consciousness where was Bobby Sanchez when you saw him?A: Beside me.Q: What did he do when you saw him after you regain your consciousness?A: He was already sitting down and I observed that my uniform was already very soiled.Q: Now, aside from your uniform being soiled, what else did you observe as far as your body is concerned?A: I felt very much weak and I was dirty. I was so weak that I can hardly stretch my legs.Q: Now my question is, aside from your uniform being soiled, what else did you observe with your uniform?A: That was all it was very dirty.Q: Now, were you able to have a talk with Bobby Sanchez after you regain consciousness?A: He was the one who talked to me.Q: What was the conversation of Bobby Sanchez to you?A: He told me that if I am going to report the incident to my mother and my father he is going to kill me.[16] ... ... ...Q: Now, you mean to tell this court AAA that this knife was used by Bobby Sanchez in threatening you?A: Yes.Q: Now, how did he use this knife in threatening you?A: He did it this way. (Witness demonstrated with a motion by pointing the said knife).Q: Now, at what point in time wherein this knife was pointed to you, before you were boxed or after you were already boxed when you were still in the pathway?A: Before he boxed me.COURT: (to witness) Q: How did you know you were raped when you said you were unconscious?A: I felt my vagina to be painful during (sic) I urinated.Q: That was hours after the incident when you urinated?A: Yes.Q: After you regain consciousness you did not yet feel the pain.A: I felt pain.Q: Yes, you said pain over your body. Did you feel any pain with your vagina after you already regain consciousness?A: Yes.Q: Did you wear a panty when you went to school?A: Yes.Q: And when you regain consciousness when he boxed you inside the sugarcane plantation you noticed that your panty was still on?A: Yes, but it was inverted, inside out.[17]
As testified to by private complainant, and as shown in her Certificate of Birth (Exhibit "C"), she was born on August 19, 1980. She was, therefore, only seventeen years old at the time she was raped by her brother Bobby Sanchez. The offense committed is punishable under Section II of the Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, for when rape is committed by a brother against his own sister who is less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of crime, the maximum penalty is applied.[29]Pertinent portions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which took effect on December 31, 1993,[30] read:
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:Thus, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused are circumstances that qualify the crime of rape and warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[31] In the present case, the Information alleges that AAA was 17 years old and a sister of appellant. The prosecution had established AAA's minority and her relationship with appellant. AAA's Certificate of Birth[32] shows that she was seventeen years old when she was raped. Her testimony, corroborated by that of her father, Emvencio Sanchez,[33] proved that appellant is her brother, not to mention the fact that appellant himself admits that AAA is his sister.[34]
- 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.
... ... ...
(Emphasis supplied)
If the offender is merely a relation - not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or guardian or common law spouse of the mother of the victim - it must be alleged in the information that he is a relative by consanguinity or affinity (as the case may be) within the civil degree. That relationship by consanguinity or affinity was not alleged in the informations in these cases. Even if it was, it was still necessary to further allege that such relationship was within the third civil degree.[36]The present case is not within the contemplation of said ruling considering that in the Ferolino case, the victim is a niece of the offender while in the present case the victim is a sister of the offender. It was deemed necessary in the Ferolino case to require that it must be specifically alleged in the Information that the offender is "a relative by consanguinity or affinity (as the case may be) within the third civil degree" because we acknowledge the fact that there are niece-uncle relationships which are beyond the third civil degree, in which case, death penalty cannot be imposed on an accused found guilty of rape. However, a sister-brother relationship is obviously in the second civil degree and no other sister-brother relationship exists in civil law that falls beyond the third civil degree. Consequently, it is not necessary in this case that the Information should specifically state that the appellant is a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree of the victim. This is an exception to the requirement enunciated in the Ferolino case.