PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NIDO GARTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Garte

The Case

This is People versus Nido Garte, a criminal appeal from a judgment of conviction for four counts of rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Nido Garte, the father of the victim, for sexually assaulting his own daughter, then seventeen years old, on four separate occasions. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: first, it is a textbook illustration of how the Supreme Court treats minor inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony, and second, it shows how the abolition of the death penalty by Republic Act Number 9346 operates to reduce a penalty already imposed by the trial court, while leaving the civil liability intact.

Procedural History

Nido Garte was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89 of Quezon City, under four amended informations for rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to paragraph 1 of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty and invoked denial and alibi. After pre-trial and trial on the merits, the trial court, in its Decision of May 19, 2005, found him guilty of all four counts, sentenced him to death for each count, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages. Garte then brought the case to the Supreme Court by appeal. The decision notes that, following the ruling in People versus Mateo, direct appeals from the Regional Trial Courts in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment are now brought to the Supreme Court, and so the appeal was lodged there.

Facts

The victim, Raquel, is the daughter of the accused. She testified that her father raped her four times: first on August 8, 2000, then sometime in the first week of April 2001, again in the second week of April 2001, and finally on May 23, 2001. On each occasion, according to her, the accused used a bladed weapon to subdue her resistance and afterwards warned her not to tell her mother. She described how each assault began with the accused removing her clothes, kissing her on various parts of her body, placing himself on top of her, and inserting his penis into her private part.

After the first rape, Raquel told her mother, Linda Garte, but her mother did not believe her. After the second, she told her half-sister, Nenita Titoy, who got angry and told her not to return to their house. After the third, she kept silent for fear that the accused might kill them. After the fourth, unable to bear it any longer, she again told her mother, and the two of them, together with Nenita, went to Camp Karingal where Raquel executed a sworn affidavit, and then to Camp Krame where she underwent a medical examination.

The prosecution presented Linda Garte and the medico-legal officer, Police Senior Inspector Mary Ann Gajardo, who examined Raquel on June 19, 2001. Gajardo testified that the victim had a deep healed laceration on her genitalia and was in a non-virgin state, which might have been caused by a blunt object such as an erect penis, though she could not approximate when the laceration was inflicted. The defense presented only the lone testimony of the accused, who denied the charges and claimed that his work as a tricycle driver kept him away from home from early morning until evening, and that he and his family had a harmonious relationship.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused of four counts of rape when his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, in light of the alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and sworn affidavits.
• Whether or not the penalty of death imposed by the trial court should be reduced in view of the enactment of Republic Act Number 9346.
• Whether or not the award of civil indemnity and moral damages should be affirmed or modified.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, provides:

Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed – 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: Through force, threat or intimidation; x x x

This is the provision under which the accused was charged, and it establishes the elements of rape by carnal knowledge through force, threat, or intimidation.

Article 266-B of the same Code provides, on the qualifying circumstance and the penalty:

Article 266-B. Penalties. – x x x The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1) 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. x x x

This is the qualifying circumstance that raised the penalty to death in the trial court, since the victim was a minor and the offender was her parent.

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 9346 provides:

Section 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

This provision is the basis for reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. It held that as long as a witness's testimony is straightforward, candid, and unflawed by inconsistencies on material points, and her demeanor is consistent with one who has been victimized, credibility may be accorded to the rape victim. The alleged discrepancies in Raquel's sworn affidavits as to the number of times she was raped were trivial, since ex parte affidavits are often incomplete and inaccurate, and Raquel, a second year high school student not well versed in written English, was confused and signed the document without reading it. The inconsistency as to the weapon used was likewise a mere extraneous matter, because the use of a weapon is not an element of rape; what matters is that force or intimidation was shown. The Court stressed that force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, and that the accused's moral ascendancy over his daughter substitutes for violence or intimidation. The discrepancy between the testimonies of Raquel and her mother as to how many times she reported the rapes was also trivial, and the daytime commission of the rapes was no obstacle, since lust is no respecter of time and place. The Court also held that the categorical and positive identification of the accused, without any showing of ill motive, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence.

On the second issue, the Court held that, with the enactment of Republic Act Number 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, it was constrained to impose reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, in lieu of death, since the crime is penalized under the Revised Penal Code.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the award of 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages for each count of rape, noting that civil indemnity is obligatory upon conviction for rape and that the Court has in previous cases awarded a greater amount of civil indemnity where the circumstances would have justified the death penalty.

Doctrine

A rape conviction may rest solely on the credible testimony of the victim, provided it is straightforward, candid, and free from serious contradiction on material points. Minor inconsistencies in a victim's sworn affidavits or testimony on non-material matters, such as the number of times the rape was reported or the specific weapon used, do not destroy credibility, because errorless testimony cannot be expected of a rape victim. In incestuous rape, the father's moral ascendancy over his daughter substitutes for violence or intimidation, and force or intimidation need not even be proven. Alibi and denial, being negative and self-serving, cannot prevail over a categorical and positive identification absent any showing of ill motive. Finally, under Section 2 of Republic Act Number 9346, the death penalty imposed by the trial court is reduced to reclusion perpetua, but the civil liability, including civil indemnity and moral damages, remains.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Nido Garte for four counts of rape, reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count in lieu of death, and affirmed the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the father's moral ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation in incestuous rape, and that minor inconsistencies on non-material points do not destroy the victim's credibility. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule on credibility of a rape victim's testimony, the treatment of alibi and denial, and the effect of Republic Act Number 9346 on a penalty of death already imposed.