PRECILLANO C. TACDERAS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. NICANOR S. PASCUAL, JR., JUDGE DESIGNATE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LUNA, APAYAO, BRANCH 26, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, R…
LIBREA-LEAGOGO, C.C., J.:
Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Injunctive Reliefs[4] dated 20 November 2014 and Supplement to Petitioner’s Motion for Issuance of Injunctive Reliefs, etc.[5] dated 20 December 2014, which this Court noted in the Resolutions dated 05 December 2014[6] and 11 February 2015.[7]
Respondent People of the Philippines filed its Comment[8] dated 05 February 2015. Petitioner filed his Reply etc.[9] dated 13 February 2015. Thus, the 4th paragraph of the Resolution dated 05 December 2014 is reiterated and the case is submitted for decision.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
The real identities of private complainants and the members of their immediate family are withheld. Private complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. 25-2011, 26-2011 and 27-2011 is referred to as “AAA”, her mother as “BBB”, her sister as “CCC” and her aunt as “DDD.”[10]
A Complaint-Affidavit[11] dated 22 April 2011 was executed by BBB, on behalf of her daughter AAA, against Precillano Tacderas, Jr. (“Tacderas,” for brevity), alleging, inter alia, that: she is the biological mother of AAA; and the latter is a rape victim of Tacderas, who is her husband and AAA’s stepfather.
A Resolution[12] dated 06 May 2011 was issued by Rufino M. Lampitoc, the Provincial Prosecutor of Luna, Apayao, finding prima facie case of three (3) counts of rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 against Tacderas. An Information[13] dated 06 May 2011 for Rape in relation to R.A. No. 7610 docketed as Criminal Case No. 25-2011, as well as two Amended Informations dated 31 May 2011 for Rape docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 26-2011[14] and 27-2011,[15] were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Luna, Apayao, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 25-2011
“That on (sic) or about September, (sic) 2010 in Imelda, Sta. Marcela, Apayao and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused with lewd design and wirh (sic) force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did (sic) lie, and succeeded (sic) in having sexual intercourse with his own step-daughter AAA, a minor of 14 years old(,) against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[16]
Criminal Case No. 26-2011
“That on (sic) or about January, (sic) 2011 in Imelda, Sta. Marcela, Apayao and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused with lewd design and wirh (sic) force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did (sic) lie, and succeeded (sic) in having sexual intercourse with his own step-daughter AAA, a minor of 14 years old(,) against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[17]
Criminal Case No. 27-2011
“That on (sic) or about March, (sic) 2011 in Imelda, Sta. Marcela, Apayao and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused with lewd design and wirh (sic) force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did (sic) lie, and succeeded (sic) in having sexual intercourse with his own step-daughter AAA, a minor of 14 years old(,) against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[18]
When arraigned, accused Tacderas pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged against him.[19] Accused Tacderas filed a Motion for Admission to Bail[20] dated 01 August 2011. The trial court issued a Pre-trial Order[21] dated 06 December 2011.
Trial ensued. The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Dr. Ferdinand Nicolas (“Dr. Nicolas,” for brevity),[22] AAA,[23] BBB,[24] and DDD.[25] In its Order[26] dated 13 June 2013, the trial court allowed him to post bail of Php300,000.00 in each case or a total of Php900,000.00, provided the same is in the form of cash. Accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration[27] dated 22 July 2013, which the trial court denied in its Joint Order[28] dated 12 August 2013.
The prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence[29] dated 16 December 2013, to which the accused filed his Comment on/Opposition[30] dated 10 January 2014. In the Order[31] dated 14 January 2014, Exhibits “A” to “E” were admitted by the trial court.
Accused filed an Omnibus Motion with Demurrer to Evidence[32] dated 10 February 2014 alleging, inter alia, that: the totality of the prosecution’s evidence leads to the conclusion that it is very weak, warranting the dismissal of the cases; there are so many conflicts in the prosecution’s evidence, that an honest and neutral mind cannot rest easy; the instances are not in conformity with common experience and observation of mankind; the totality of the instances leads to the conclusion that the prosecution’s evidence cannot be believed; private complainant gave conflicting or inconsistent statements, all under oath, which are not in conformity with human experience; she cannot relate with exactitude the precise dates of the alleged dastardly acts; she gave an insensible, impertinent and fabricated answer to the inquiry of the trial court; the alleged threats claimed by private complainant were never mentioned and were simply illusory, or smart concoctions; she lived normally, not threatened, after the alleged sexual assaults upon her; there was a lot of time after September 2010, but she did not report the terrible offense against her; she did not report the alleged rape incidents to her mother, their retired policeman neighbor, to her uncle who is also their neighbor, nor to her teacher and classmates; instead, the incidents were reported to her aunt DDD when the latter came to Imelda, Sta. Marcela for a vacation in April 2011, long after the incidents had happened; private complainant’s washing of her vagina immediately after the sexual assault upon her does not coincide with logic and human experience; she and accused were together when they took their dinner on that fateful day; her allegations of the purported harrowing experience are unreliable and bereft of truth; even after the alleged sexual assaults, private complainant maintained her residence in the same house with the accused; that accused did not escape after the alleged incidents yields the impression that her allegations were mere fabrications; the initial and urgent instinct of a would-be rape victim is to free herself from her assailant; while the accused was removing his short and brief, private complainant could have easily extricated herself; if indeed the accused closed her mouth, she could have utilized her two hands to free herself; private complainant’s mouth was not closed all along, hence, she could have shouted for help and struggled to repel the assault; she claimed that when she washed her vagina, she noticed “white cells”, however, the doctor who examined her, Dr. Nicolas, had negative findings on the surroundings of her vagina; the filing of the complaint was impelled by her compulsion to join her aunt in Antipolo City because of the difficulties in Sta. Marcela, Apayao; and she preferred to reveal the alleged assault only to her auntie so the latter can get her away from the accused.
The trial court issued the first assailed Resolution[33] dated 23 June 2014, the decretal portion of which reads:
“In view of the foregoing, the Demurrer to Evidence filed by the accused is DENIED.
x x x x
SO RESOLVED.”[34]
Accused filed an Omnibus Motion (motion for reconsideration)[35] dated 11 July 2014. The trial court issued the second assailed Resolution[36] dated 30 July 2014, denying the same for lack of merit.
Hence, this Petition.
RULING
Petitioner assigns a lone error, viz:
THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONER’S DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE FOR LACK OF MERIT.[37]
Petitioner contends, in the main, that: he is innocent considering that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; AAA’s testimony is not credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and in the normal course of things; there were so many crucial facts/instances that she does not know; there were also so many crucial facts/instances that she cannot remember; she gave conflicting/inconsistent statements, all under oath, of fabricated factual antecedents; the Provincial Prosecutor’s Resolution dated 06 May 2011 and the amended Informations do not reflect the exact dates of the alleged incidents; she declared in her sworn statement that the alleged rape incidents happened in September 2010, January 2011 and March 2011 but she only reported the same to her aunt DDD in April 2011; the belated reporting of the alleged dastardly acts elicits disbelief; the alleged threats claimed by her were simply illusory, or smart concoctions, as she has not provided details thereof; she lived normally, not threatened, after the alleged sexual assaults; the most immediate and natural reaction of a victim is to report the same, if not to the authorities, then at least to her mother; however, she failed to report the alleged rape incidents to her mother, who stayed with them in Imelda, Sta. Marcela, or to their retired policeman neighbor, to her uncle who is also their neighbor, or to her teachers or classmates; she reported the incident to an aunt instead of to an uncle, who was their neighbor and her nearest relative; her actuations immediately after the alleged assault upon her reveal the falsity of her allegations; her washing of her vagina immediately after the sexual assault upon her does not coincide with logic and human experience; on that fateful day, she was with her stepfather when they took their dinner; even after the sexual assaults upon her, she maintained her residence in the same house; while petitioner was removing his short and brief, she could have easily extricated herself; if indeed the accused closed her mouth, then, her two hands being free, she should have utilized the same to free herself, but she did not; it is quite difficult to accept that AAA, a virgin, could be easily defiled without serious resistance; she could have shouted for help or struggled to repel the assault but no serious effort, not even a feeble attempt, was made; it becomes difficult to believe that the alleged incidents were committed only on those peculiar periods and not serially, considering that she and petitioner were residing all along in the same house; the doctor who examined her found no hematoma, laceration or injury on her sexual organ, thereby negating the use of force; the filing of the complaint was impelled by her obsession to join her aunt in Antipolo City, as the latter could get her away from petitioner; and she admitted that life in Antipolo City was better than in Sta. Marcela, Apayao, not to mention that her aunt supports her studies.
Respondent People ripostes, inter alia, that: the Petition is a premature recourse and should be dismissed outright for being an improper remedy; certiorari is not the proper remedy against the denial of a demurrer to evidence; Rule 119, Section 23 of the Rules of Court provides that an order denying a demurrer to evidence is not reviewable by appeal or certiorari before judgment has been rendered; in the instant case, public respondent has not even made a final pronouncement as to the guilt or innocence of petitioner, hence, petitioner’s resort to certiorari is premature and should be dismissed; public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the Demurrer to Evidence because the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if unrebutted; the prosecution presented AAA who testified in open court on how petitioner raped her on three different occasions; her testimony was corroborated by the findings of the medico-legal who found multiple lacerations in her vagina; public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding the prosecution’s evidence and AAA’s testimony credible and convincing; because the prosecution’s evidence is uncontroverted, the same remains sufficient to sustain a conviction; the prosecution has clearly done its part to overcome the disputable presumption of innocence and shifted the burden of evidence to the petitioner; he is asking this Court to review the factual findings of public respondent which is improper in certiorari proceedings because it falls within the province of appellate proceedings; and since no error of jurisdiction can be attributed to public respondent in his assessment of the evidence, resort to certiorari is not warranted and the instant Petition should be dismissed for lack of merit.
The Petition is bereft of merit. Thus, the application for injunctive relief must perforce be denied.
The writ of certiorari is restricted to truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void. Moreover, it is designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors in judgment. The rationale of this rule is that, when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. Otherwise, every mistake made by a court will deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment will be a void judgment.[38]
A Rule 65 review xxx is strictly confined to the determination of propriety of the trial court’s jurisdiction — whether it has jurisdiction over the case and if so, whether the exercise of its jurisdiction has or has not been attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[39] Grave abuse of discretion is defined as “that capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[40]
(It bears emphasis) that “the resolution of a demurrer to evidence should be left to the exercise of sound judicial discretion. A lower court’s order of denial shall not be disturbed, that is, the appellate courts will not review the prosecution’s evidence and precipitately decide whether such evidence has established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, unless accused has established that such judicial discretion has been gravely abused, thereby amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere allegations of such abuse will not suffice.”[41] Here, petitioner failed to show that public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his Demurrer to Evidence. Public respondent made a careful evaluation of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and found that if such evidence is not rebutted by the defense, the same is enough to sustain a conviction.[42] As such, there is no compelling reason for Us to disturb the same.
Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the order denying the Demurrer to Evidence is not reviewable by appeal or certiorari, viz:
“SEC. 23. Demurrer to Evidence. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
x x x x
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment.” (Underscoring supplied)
When there is no showing of such grave abuse, certiorari is not the proper remedy. Rather, the appropriate recourse from an order denying a demurrer to evidence is for the court to proceed with the trial, after which the accused may file an appeal from the judgment of the lower court rendered after such trial.[43]
(T)he presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits, and the validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper. Petitioner’s claims and defenses in his Demurrer to Evidence can best be tackled during trial. In the presentation of his defense, he shall have the opportunity to explain or show why he should not be made liable.[44] In the instant case, the proper recourse of petitioner from the Resolution denying his Demurrer to Evidence is to proceed with the trial and present his evidence, after which he may file an appeal from any judgment that may be rendered against him by the trial court.
(As such,) (g)iven the sufficiency of the xxx evidence against petitioner, it would, therefore, be premature at this stage of the proceedings to conclude that the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish petitioner’s participation in the alleged xxx crime. Likewise, (this) Court cannot, at this point, make a categorical pronouncement that the guilt of the petitioner has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As there is competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment for the crime(s) charged, it behooves (upon) petitioner to adduce evidence on his behalf to controvert the asseverations of the prosecution. Withal, (public) respondent xxx did not gravely abuse its discretion when it found that there was a prima facie case against petitioner warranting his having to go forward with his defensive evidence.[45]
Considering the foregoing disquisition, We find no necessity to resolve the other matters raised by petitioner as they are matters of defense which must be ventilated at the proceedings before the trial court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Lazaro-Javier, and Sadang, JJ., concur.
* Sometimes referred to as Prescillano Tacderas, or Precillano Tacderas, Jr. y Cortez in some parts of the rollo
[1] Rollo, pp. 03-30
[2] Id. at 236-238
[3] Id. at 227-229
[4] Id. at 256-259
[5] Id. at 282-287
[6] Id. at 280
[7] Id. at 300
[8] Id. at 289-299
[9] Id. at 302-315 10 Per the Supreme Court’s Resolution dated 19 September 2006 in A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC, as well as the ruling in People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419), pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 of the“Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real names of the victims and their immediate family members other than the accused are to be withheld and fictitious initials are to be used instead; and the exact addresses of the victims are likewise to be deleted; People of the Philippines v. Floro Buban Barcela, G.R. No. 208760, 23 April 2014
[11] Rollo, p. 31
[12] Id. at 36
[13] Id. at 37
[14] Id. at 38
[15] Id. at 39
[16] Id. at 37
[17] Id. at 38
[18] Id. at 39
[19] Id. at 40
[20] Id. at 41-43
[21] Id. at 44-49
[22] Id. at 50-70; TSN, 08 September 2011
[23] Id. at 71-88, 90-134, 239-243; TSNs, 30 April 2013 and 31 May 2013
[24] Id. at 160-169, TSN, 20 August 2013
[25] Id. at 170-182, TSN, 02 December 2013
[26] Id. at 135-137
[27] Id. at 138-158
[28] Id. at 159
[29] Id. at 184-185
[30] Id. at 244-246
[31] Id. at 186
[32] Id. at 188-210
[33] Id. at 236-238
[34] Id. at 238
[35] Id. at 216-224
[36] Id. at 227-229
[37] Id. at 7
[38] Cf. Jay Candelaria, et al. v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, City of San Fernando, (Pampanga), etc., et al., G.R. No. 173861, 14 July 2014, citing Triplex Enterprises, Inc. v. PNB-Republic Bank, 527 Phil. 685 (2006)
[39] Cf. Silverina E. Consigna v. People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. Nos. 175750-51, 02 April 2014
[40] Cf. People of the Philippines v. Jose C. Go, et al., G.R. No. 191015, 06 August 2014
[41] Gregorio Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (3rd Division), et al., G.R. Nos. 195011-19, 30 September 2013
[42] Rollo, p. 238
[43] Gregorio Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (3rd Division), et al., supra, citing Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan, 393 Phil. 143, 154-155 (2000)
[44] Id.
[45] Id., citing Soriquez v. Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division), 510 Phil. 709, 718-719