PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO OLIVAR Y JAVIER, APPELLANT.

People versus Olivar

The Case

This is the automatic review by the Supreme Court of the conviction of Alberto Olivar for the rape of his own daughter, a girl the decision calls AAA. The trial court found him guilty of qualified rape and sentenced him to death. The case matters to a reviewee because the Court affirms the conviction but strikes down the death penalty, on the ground that the victim's age — the qualifying circumstance that raised the penalty to death — was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is, in other words, a case about the exacting standard for proving minority in qualified rape.

Procedural History

Alberto Olivar was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 52, with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659. He was arraigned with the assistance of counsel and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court rendered its decision on February 4, 1999, convicting him of rape and sentencing him to death by lethal injection, and ordering him to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 10,000 pesos as moral damages, and 10,000 pesos as exemplary damages. The trial court acquitted him of the alleged sexual abuses committed before March 19, 1997, for insufficiency of evidence. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

Facts

AAA lived with her father, the appellant Alberto Olivar, and her two younger sisters in a barangay in Sorsogon. Her mother worked as a manicurist in Manila. On the night of March 19, 1997, at about ten o'clock in the evening, AAA was already sleeping when the appellant crawled onto her bed. He mounted her and kissed her cheeks and lips. He then removed her shorts and her panty and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA tried to resist by pushing and kicking him, but he pinned her down. After he was done, he kicked her out of the bed and she fell to the floor. He threatened that if she complained to anyone, he would finish her off.

The next day, AAA went to school to practice for her graduation and told her teacher, Mrs. Nympha Liwanag, that her father had sexually abused her. The teacher immediately brought her to the Department of Social Welfare and Development. AAA also claimed that the appellant had abused her several times before, the first time when she was ten years old. She was examined by Dr. Liduvina Dorion, whose findings were consistent with carnal knowledge.

For his part, the appellant denied the charge. He claimed that on the night of March 19, 1997, he came home from work at about ten o'clock and AAA was not there, having gone with her teacher. He said AAA filed the case because she was angry at him for scolding her about leaving the house to dance and go on bicycle rides. Two defense witnesses testified to his good reputation and to his treatment of his family. The trial court found AAA's testimony candid, spontaneous and consistent, and convicted the appellant.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the victim and in convicting the appellant on the basis of that testimony.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving credence to the defense of the appellant.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of the victim's minority was proved beyond reasonable doubt, so as to justify the imposition of the death penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, 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 crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

This is the basic crime charged, and it fixes the penalty of reclusion perpetua for simple rape.

The same article, as amended, provides for the higher penalty:

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 qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship that the trial court applied to impose death, and whose proof the Supreme Court closely examines.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the trial court. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court is accorded the highest degree of weight and respect, because the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying. The Court found that AAA's testimony passed the test of credibility: she narrated her experience candidly, spontaneously and consistently, and was overcome by emotion while testifying. Her testimony established carnal knowledge with the use of force. The Court held that the details the appellant says were missing — whether the parties were standing, whether penetration was complete, whether the underwear was removed — need not even be discussed, because her account revealed no serious flaws and inconsistencies. On the claim that she could not have recognized her assailant in the dark, the Court noted that she clarified on re-direct examination that she recognized him because he switched on the light after committing the crime.

On the second issue, the Court held that the defense of denial deserves scant consideration. Denials that are unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving, and cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. The Court also rejected the claim that AAA filed the case out of anger, saying it would be the height of moral and psychological depravity for a young daughter to fabricate such a tale against her own father.

On the third issue, the Court ruled against the prosecution. Although relationship was sufficiently proven, the age of the victim was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied the guidelines laid down in People versus Pruna, which require, in the first place, an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth, or similar authentic documents, or the testimony of the victim's mother or a qualified relative, or the complainant's testimony if the age is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. No certificate of live birth or similar document was offered, and no qualified relative testified. The Court then asked whether the appellant had expressly and clearly admitted the victim's age, and answered no. When asked how old the victim was in 1996, the appellant said she was ten and a half years old, implying she was eleven and a half, not thirteen, in 1997. His reference to her as being of tender age was not a clear and categorical admission of the age of thirteen. The Court also noted that the trial court made no categorical finding as to the victim's age, as Pruna requires. Since minority is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself. The doubt as to the victim's exact age remained, so the appellant was guilty of simple rape only, punishable by reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

First, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded the highest degree of weight and respect, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied a fact or circumstance of weight and substance.

Second, the defenses of denial and alibi are negative and self-serving, and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible witness.

Third, and most important for the Bar, the age of the victim in qualified rape is a qualifying circumstance that must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself, following the guidelines in People versus Pruna: the best evidence is the original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth; in its absence, similar authentic documents such as the baptismal certificate or school records; in their absence, the testimony of the victim's mother or a qualified relative; and in the absence of all of these, the complainant's testimony will suffice only if the age is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. The prosecution bears the burden of proving age, and the failure of the accused to object to testimonial evidence on age shall not be taken against him. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. Where these guidelines are not met, the accused can be convicted only of simple rape, and the penalty is reclusion perpetua under Article 335.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification: Alberto Olivar was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape only, not qualified rape, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with all its accessory penalties, and ordered to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 10,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

Minority in qualified rape must be proved with the same certainty as the crime itself, and the Pruna guidelines are the checklist. Examiners like to use this case to test whether you will impose death on the strength of the victim's testimony alone, or whether you will insist on the certificate of live birth, an authentic document, a qualified relative's testimony, or a clear and categorical admission by the accused.