THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO CANTOS Y ASISTIO, SR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Cantos

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Rolando Cantos, the stepfather of a fifteen-year-old girl named Remedios. The accused was charged with rape, for having carnal knowledge of his stepdaughter by means of force, violence, and intimidation, while armed with a bolo. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto. First, it teaches that the law does not require a rape victim to prove resistance, and that a bladed weapon and a threat of death may be enough to intimidate a young girl into submission. Second, and more importantly for the Bar, it is a leading authority on the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship in rape, which must be alleged in the information to warrant the death penalty. The Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty, and it added moral damages.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Borongan, Eastern Samar. After trial, the court rendered its decision on February 26, 1997, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to death, ordering him to indemnify the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. The case then went to the Supreme Court on appeal, as is the rule where the penalty imposed is death. The accused raised a lone assignment of error, that the trial court gravely erred in finding his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

On the morning of January 29, 1996, at about nine o'clock, the accused was alone in their house in Libas, San Julian, Eastern Samar, with his stepdaughter Remedios, who was fifteen years old. His wife Loreta, the mother of Remedios, was at the provincial hospital in Borongan looking after her youngest daughter, and the other children were in school. The accused was in the front yard sharpening a bolo while Remedios was making nipa shingles in the living room.

After sharpening the bolo, the accused went inside, held Remedios by the hands, and threatened to kill her with the bolo if she shouted. He dragged her near the window, undressed her, and pushed her to the floor. He then removed his own pants and underwear, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Remedios resisted, but he was too strong for her, and he succeeded in ravishing her. Afterwards, distraught and unwell, she went to the house of a cousin and stayed there from ten in the morning until four in the afternoon. That evening she went to the house of her aunt, Esther Esquerdo, and told her what had happened. Esther immediately took her to the police station to report the incident.

The next day, and again the day after, they went to the Municipal Health Center, and the physical examination was conducted by Doctor Artemia Barlongay at the provincial hospital. The medical certificate showed complete deep hymenal lacerations. The accused testified in his own defense. He admitted having sexual intercourse with Remedios on that date, but claimed they had been engaging in consensual intercourse since April 1993. The trial court found his claim incredible, and found the straightforward and candid narration of the victim to bear the true earmarks of credibility.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of external injuries on the victim and of torn clothing.
• Whether or not the failure of the victim to shout for help or to struggle negates the use of force and intimidation.
• Whether or not the death penalty may be imposed where the information alleged only the minority of the victim and not her relationship to the offender.
• Whether or not the accused should be ordered to pay moral damages in addition to the civil indemnity.

Applicable Provisions

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

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.

This is the provision that defines the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship, and the Court holds that its concurrence must be alleged in the information to warrant the death penalty.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

This is the provision the Court applies in fixing the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua, there being no aggravating circumstance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, must be upheld absent evidence to the contrary. The testimony of Remedios left no room for doubt that she was forced. The Court also relied on the eyewitness Epefanio Jundarino, a neighbor who saw through a hole in his window the accused naked on top of the also naked Remedios, and who reported the matter to the victim's aunt. The claim of the accused that he and Remedios had had intercourse about fifteen times before was belied by the medical finding that her labia majora was still intact, and by the fresh lacerations in her hymen.

On the second issue, the Court held that the law does not impose a burden of proving resistance on the rape victim. The fact that she did not struggle or shout for help does not negate force and intimidation, because the use of a bladed weapon and the threat of harm may be sufficient to intimidate the victim into obedience. Remedios, being a minor, could not be expected to react like an adult woman, and she submitted only out of fear.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance that must be alleged in the information. Since the information alleged only the minority of Remedios but not her relationship to the accused, he should be held guilty of rape with the use of a deadly weapon, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, and with no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering only the civil liability of 50,000 pesos. It should also have ordered the payment of moral damages, which is automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof, and which is currently fixed at 50,000 pesos.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance in rape that must be alleged in the information; if it is not so alleged, the death penalty cannot be imposed, and the accused is liable only for rape with the use of a deadly weapon, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Second, the law does not impose on the rape victim a burden of proving resistance; the failure to struggle or shout for help does not negate force and intimidation, and the use of a bladed weapon and a threat of harm may suffice to intimidate the victim into submission. Third, moral damages in rape are automatically granted without need of proof, in the fixed amount of 50,000 pesos, in addition to the civil indemnity.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification, sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay 50,000 pesos as moral damages, in addition to the 50,000 pesos indemnity.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that minority and relationship must both be alleged in the information to warrant the death penalty in rape. Examiners like to use this case to test the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship, and the rule that a rape victim need not prove resistance.