THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PONCIANO BALUYA @ NONONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Baluya

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Ponciano Baluya, known as Nonong, a criminal prosecution for rape. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of Emily Martinez, a widow, by means of force, violence, and intimidation. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a textbook illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of a rape victim and her child witness, and of how force and intimidation are measured in rape. Second, and more important for the Bar candidate, it is a clean statement of the rule that the special qualifying circumstances under the Revised Penal Code must be alleged in the information; if they are not alleged, the death penalty cannot be imposed even if they are proved at trial.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 15, and, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to death, and ordering him to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as moral damages, with costs. The accused appealed, assigning three errors: that the trial court gave full weight and credence to the complainant's testimony, which he claimed was incredible and inconsistent with the second prosecution witness; that the crime of rape was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, both as to carnal knowledge and as to force, threat, or intimidation; and that the trial court erred in imposing death in the absence of any allegation in the information of the qualifying circumstance of commission in the presence of children. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review of the death sentence.

Facts

Emily Martinez was twenty four years old at the time, a widow with two children, a seven year old son named Jimmy Boy and a three year old daughter. The accused, Ponciano Baluya, was the common law husband of her eldest sister, Marilyn. On the night of June 7, 1996, at around ten o'clock in the evening, Emily and her two children were already sleeping when she heard the accused calling and asking her to open the door, saying there was somebody outside with him. As soon as she opened the door, he suddenly grabbed her, poked a knife at her neck, and threatened to kill her if she shouted. He kissed her several times and undressed her. While naked, she fearfully sat on the floor with her children on her lap. He pulled the children away, pushed her down, removed his shorts, twisted her arms, mounted her, forced her legs apart, and forced himself on her. She shouted for help but he covered her mouth with his hands. Her mother, who lived next door, was away attending a wake in Quezon Province, and the neighbors' houses were quite far.

After the assault, the accused pushed the children away, threatened to kill all of them if the matter was reported, and left. Fearful for their safety, Emily and her children left that night, passing a creek and climbing a hill to reach their nearest neighbor, Felomina Gutierrez. She did not tell Felomina what had happened because of the threat. They returned home the next day, and when her mother arrived from Quezon, Emily confided in her. On her mother's instruction she moved to the house of her younger sister Myrna in another barangay, where they stayed for three months. On her sister's advice, the matter was reported to the barangay authorities, and she gave her statement to the police.

Jimmy Boy corroborated his mother and identified his Tiyo Nonong as the rapist. He testified that the light from a gas lamp enabled him to recognize the accused, who pointed a bolo at his mother's neck, removed her underwear, and mounted her while naked. He saw the accused's private organ inserted into his mother's vagina and saw the sexual act. He pleaded with the accused to spare his mother, but the accused did not mind him. The defense presented a different version: the accused claimed that on that evening he went to Emily's house with two companions to inquire about the date of interment of a dead aunt, that Emily invited them for coffee, and that he never raped her. He suggested she filed the case because she was angry at him, having caught her in a compromising situation and having scolded her for taking crops from the land he managed. His wife Marilyn and other witnesses testified for the defense.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the complainant despite the alleged incredibilities and inconsistencies.
• Whether or not the crime of rape was proved beyond reasonable doubt, both as to carnal knowledge and as to the existence of force, threat, or intimidation.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty when the qualifying circumstance of commission in the presence of children was not alleged in the information.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

Art. 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 crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever 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 or victim; 2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities; 3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity; 4. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling or a child below seven (7) years old; 5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease; 6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency; 7. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation, the penalty shall be death.

This provision defines the crime, fixes reclusion perpetua as the base penalty, and lists the seven attendant circumstances that raise the penalty to death. The Court holds that these seven are special qualifying circumstances that must be alleged in the information.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the offense.

This provision explains why, once the crime is reduced to simple rape, the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed regardless of any aggravating circumstances.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the findings of the trial court on credibility are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight or substance. It found no cogent reason to depart from that principle. The alleged absurdity that the accused could not have poked a knife, undressed the victim, and covered her mouth at the same time, since he has only two hands, was rejected. The Court held that the complainant did not claim these acts happened simultaneously; the series of events took place consequentially, and the testimony must be taken according to the particular stage or sequence of the incident to which it relates. Minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony do not destroy her credibility; paradoxically, they may be badges of spontaneity, indicating that the witness was unrehearsed. The testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety, not by truncated portions or isolated passages.

On the second issue, the Court held that the essential element the prosecution must prove is the absence of the victim's consent to the sexual congress. Force in rape is relative, depending on the age, size, and strength of the parties, and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime, not by any hard and fast rule. The act of holding a knife is by itself strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring a woman to submission. Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is exercised and the victim submits against her will because of fear for her life and personal safety. The Court also held that the victim's failure to escape while the accused was removing his clothes cannot be taken against her, because not every victim can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectations of mankind. The positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses prevailed over the bare denials of the accused, and the defense of alibi failed because the accused himself testified that he went to the complainant's house on that date, so it was not impossible for him to have been at the scene. The Court added that even granting the complainant was a woman of loose morals, she could still be the victim of rape, for the essence of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her consent.

On the third issue, the Court ruled for the accused. While Republic Act Number 7659 did not give a legal designation to rape attended by any of the seven new circumstances, the Court has referred to such crime as qualified rape. The seven attendant circumstances are in the nature of special qualifying circumstances which, unlike generic aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated and proved even if not alleged, cannot be considered as such unless so alleged in the information even if proved. The special qualifying circumstances increase the penalties by degrees, in contrast with aggravating circumstances which affect only the period of the penalty but do not increase it to a higher degree. Hence, the rape committed in full view of the child of the victim, even if proved, but not alleged in the information, will not affect the imposable penalty. The accused can only be held liable for simple rape, punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, which under Article 63 shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Doctrine

First, the special qualifying circumstances under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, must be alleged in the information; if not alleged, they cannot be considered to raise the penalty to death even if proved at trial. Second, force in rape is relative, depending on the age, size, and strength of the parties, and intimidation is viewed from the victim's perception at the time of the crime; holding a knife is by itself strongly suggestive of force or intimidation, and physical resistance need not be shown when the victim submits out of fear for her life and safety. Third, the trial court's findings on credibility are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of overlooked or misapplied facts; minor inconsistencies may be badges of spontaneity, and a witness's testimony must be considered in its entirety. Fourth, denial and alibi cannot overcome the positive identification of the accused by the victim who harbored no ill motive, and the victim's moral character is immaterial where intimidation is shown. Fifth, under Article 63, where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it is applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of Ponciano Baluya for rape but modified the judgment, reducing the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua, and, aside from the award of 50,000 pesos as moral damages, ordered him to pay the offended party Emily Martinez 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that special qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information; if not alleged, the death penalty cannot be imposed even if proved. Examiners like to use this case on the distinction between qualifying and aggravating circumstances, on the credibility of a rape victim and her child witness, and on the relative nature of force and intimidation in rape.