THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILFREDO ONABIA ALIAS “ODOY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Onabia

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Wilfredo Onabia, known as Odoy, an automatic review of a conviction for four counts of rape. The accused was the stepbrother of the victim, a girl then nine years old when the first assault took place. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, because the trial court appreciated aggravating circumstances that appeared nowhere in the informations. Second, it teaches the strict, element-by-element approach to qualifying and aggravating circumstances in rape, and the deference given to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of a child complainant.

Procedural History

Four separate informations for rape were filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 42. After trial on the merits, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt on all four counts. It imposed the supreme penalty of death in the case involving the February 1994 incident, and reclusion perpetua in each of the other three cases, with an indemnity of 50,000 pesos for each count. The trial court appreciated abuse of superior strength, abuse of confidence, and lack of respect on account of age and relationship as aggravating circumstances. Because a death sentence was imposed, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The accused raised three assigned errors: that the first rape was wrongly qualified by the use of a deadly weapon, that the complainant's testimony should not have been given weight, and that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

Raquel Eballe, nine years old at the time of the first incident, was the stepsister of the accused, Wilfredo Onabia. On the evening of February 15, 1994, the accused asked her to accompany him to a copra drier about two hundred meters from their house. He carried a kerosene lamp and a bolo tucked at his waist. Upstairs at the copra drier, he put out the lamp, embraced her, and forced her to lie down. He threatened to kill her and her family if she shouted, removed his pants and brief, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain and cried. He warned her again not to tell her mother.

On the afternoon of August 10, 1994, while the two were alone in the house, the accused entered her room, threatened her, forced her to lie down, removed her underwear, and again inserted his penis into her vagina. On the evening of October 7, 1995, he called her to the sala to massage him, squeezed her arm, told her not to shout, and raped her once more. On the evening of November 6, 1995, the same pattern was repeated in the sala of their house.

The following day, November 7, 1995, the victim reported the assaults to her brother Jessie, who in turn told their elder brother Bernabe. The two reported the matter to the barangay councilman and the police. A medical examination conducted the next day showed old lacerations on her hymen. The accused denied the charges and claimed they were fabrications born of a quarrel with the victim's elder brother. He also raised alibi, saying he had moved in with his father's new family only on August 24, 1994.

Issues

• Whether or not the rape committed on February 15, 1994 was qualified by the use of a deadly weapon.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, abuse of confidence, and lack of respect on account of age and relationship, when these were not alleged in the informations.
• Whether or not the testimony of the complainant was credible, such that the conviction on all four counts may stand.

Applicable Provisions

The second paragraph of Section 14, Article III of the Constitution provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

This guarantee is the anchor of the ruling, because the accused may be convicted only of the offense charged and as it is alleged in the information.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, provides:

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 crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

This provision fixes the penalty for simple rape at a single indivisible penalty, and it is the provision under which the Court re-sentenced the accused in the first case.

Paragraph 15, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position shall be considered an aggravating circumstance.

The Court discussed this provision in connection with the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and abuse of confidence, which the trial court had wrongly appreciated.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the accused. Although he was carrying a bolo at his waist, as he usually did, he never used it to threaten the victim. The threats were verbal and were never accompanied by the weapon. The Court distinguished the earlier case of People versus Lamberte, where the rape was qualified not by the use of a deadly weapon but by its commission by two or more persons. Here, the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was not established, so the rape in the first case could not be qualified.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in appreciating the three aggravating circumstances, because none of them was alleged in the complaint or the information. To appreciate them and to convict the accused of an offense higher than that charged would be an unauthorized denial of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The Court also examined each circumstance on its own. Abuse of superior strength requires proof that it was deliberately taken advantage of, and no such proof was offered. Abuse of confidence requires that the confidence facilitated the offense, which cannot hold where the victim had already lost confidence in the accused, as shown by her hesitance and reluctance to accompany him. Lack of respect on account of age requires a deliberate intent to insult or offend the tender age of the victim, which was not shown. Finally, the stepbrother and stepsister relationship cannot elevate the crime to qualified rape, because they are not related either by blood or by affinity. Since the crime is simple rape, punishable by a single indivisible penalty, no ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstance may affect it.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the complainant's credibility. Her testimony was a straightforward and detailed account typical of young victims of rape. Her revelation, her voluntary submission to medical examination, and her willingness to undergo public trial could not be dismissed as mere concoction. It is most improbable that a child of tender years would impute so serious a crime if it were not true. Against this positive testimony, the defense of alibi must fail, for affirmative testimony is far stronger than negative testimony. The Court also rejected the claim that rape could not have been committed in the living room, holding that lust is no respecter of time and place. The delay in reporting was justified by the threats made on all four occasions. The Court reiterated that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is best undertaken by the trial court, which has the unique opportunity to observe them firsthand, and its findings will not be disturbed absent overlooked facts of weight.

Doctrine

An accused may be convicted only of the offense charged in the information and as it is alleged there. Qualifying and aggravating circumstances that are not alleged in the complaint or information cannot be appreciated against him, because to do so would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

Each aggravating circumstance must be proved by its own elements. Abuse of superior strength requires that the advantage was deliberately taken; abuse of confidence requires that the confidence facilitated the offense and that the victim had not already lost confidence in the accused; and lack of respect on account of age requires a deliberate intent to insult the tender age of the victim.

A stepbrother and stepsister are not related either by blood or by affinity, so their relationship cannot qualify rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended. Where the crime is simple rape, the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua cannot be affected by any ordinary mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

In rape cases, when a minor complainant testifies that she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove the commission of the crime, provided her testimony is credible. Positive testimony prevails over the negative testimony of alibi, and rape may be committed even in unlikely places, for lust is no respecter of time and place.

Disposition

The decision of the trial court was affirmed with modification: in the first case the accused was found guilty of simple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and he was ordered to pay an additional 50,000 pesos as moral damages in each of the four cases.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no aggravating or qualifying circumstance may be appreciated unless it is alleged in the information, for the accused's right to be informed is part of due process. Examiners use this case to test the strict pleading requirement for qualifying circumstances in rape, the elements of the aggravating circumstances, and the rule that a stepbrother is not related by blood or affinity.