PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO GABIANA Y CARUBAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Gabiana

The Case

This is People versus Gabiana, a criminal case on automatic review of a conviction for rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Pedro Gabiana y Carubas for having carnal knowledge of a ten-year-old girl by force and intimidation. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a textbook illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of a child complainant and the defenses of denial and alibi. Second, and more important for the Bar, it is a strict reminder that a qualifying circumstance which would raise the penalty to death must be alleged in the information, or it cannot be appreciated against the accused.

Procedural History

The information was filed on the eighteenth of October, nineteen hundred ninety-four, by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna. The accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on the twenty-eighth of November, nineteen hundred ninety-four. Trial followed before Branch Thirty-Three of the Regional Trial Court of Laguna. On the seventh of November, nineteen hundred ninety-five, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to death, and ordering him to pay moral damages and the costs. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review, as the law then required whenever the death penalty was imposed.

Facts

Pedro Gabiana was the live-in partner of Rosalia dela Cruz. Rosemarie Argosino was the eldest of Rosalia's three children by a previous partner, Isagani Argosino, and was then ten years old.

On the evening of the twelfth of September, nineteen hundred ninety-four, at about seven o'clock, the accused carried Rosemarie up their two-storey house and brought her to a corner. He undressed her, removed his pants, forced her to lie on the floor, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain and wanted to cry for help, but he covered her mouth with his hand. After some three to five minutes he stood up and warned her not to tell her mother, threatening to kill her. She saw blood, went downstairs, washed herself, and then slept.

The next day, after school, Rosemarie and her younger sister Isabel went to their aunt, Jocelyn Reformado, in Pakil, Laguna, and the rape was reported to her. On the morning of the fourteenth of September, the aunt brought Rosemarie to the hospital, where a physician found swelling of the labia minora and lacerations of the hymen. That afternoon the matter was reported to the police, and sworn statements were taken. The accused denied the charge and set up alibi, claiming he was conversing with a neighbor until ten o'clock that night, and he suggested that the aunt had fabricated the charge to gain custody of the children.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not considering the alleged contradictions between the complainant's sworn statement and her testimony in court.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the alleged motive of the complainant's aunt in causing the filing of the complaint.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution evidence and in rejecting the defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the death penalty was properly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, provides:

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant 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.

The first paragraph defines the crime and its modes of commission, while the special qualifying circumstance in the second paragraph is what would raise the penalty to death. The Court quotes this provision to test whether the death penalty could stand.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies were minor and peripheral. Whether it was the complainant or her sister who first told the aunt does not negate the crime, and discrepancies of that sort are badges of truth showing that the witnesses were unrehearsed. The Court also stressed that affidavits are generally subordinate to open-court declarations, because an affiant is often not in a position to narrate the incident fully. Errorless testimony cannot be expected, and the test is whether the testimonies agree on the essential facts.

On the second issue, the Court found no tenable ulterior motive. It is hard to believe that an aunt would impute so grave a crime and expose her own niece to a lifetime of stigma merely to gain custody.

On the third issue, the Court gave great respect to the trial court's evaluation of credibility, noting that the child testified in tears and that her narration was straightforward. It is improbable that a girl of tender age would impute so serious a crime to a man she considered her father if it were not true. Against her positive identification, the defense of alibi cannot prevail, especially as the accused failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene at the time.

On the fourth issue, the Court ruled that although the accused was shown to be the common-law husband of the complainant's mother, that special qualifying circumstance was not alleged in the information under which he was arraigned. The failure to allege the relationship is fatal and bars conviction of the qualified form punishable by death, for qualifying circumstances must be pleaded in the indictment to satisfy the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The death penalty was therefore reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

First, the credibility of a child complainant is entitled to great weight, and minor inconsistencies in her statements do not destroy credibility but may even be badges of truth. Second, denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, and alibi requires proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene. Third, and decisively, a qualifying circumstance that raises the penalty to death must be alleged in the information; if it is not pleaded, the accused can be convicted only of simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. This flows from the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and it is the rule the Court applied to the quoted provision.

Disposition

The judgment of conviction was affirmed, but modified: the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of death, and ordered to pay civil indemnity and moral damages of fifty thousand pesos each, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a qualifying circumstance not alleged in the information cannot raise the penalty to death. Examiners use this case to test the requirement that qualifying circumstances be pleaded in the indictment, and the hierarchy of credibility between a child complainant's testimony and the defenses of denial and alibi.