PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ARDEL CANUTO, APPELLANT.

People versus Canuto

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Ardel Canuto, a criminal case for qualified rape. The People prosecuted Canuto for having carnal knowledge of a fifteen-year-old girl, identified in the record as AAA, by means of force and intimidation, the Information alleging that he was the common-law spouse of the victim's mother. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean teaching vehicle on how the Supreme Court treats the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, and on why a common-law spouse of the parent is not a step-parent. Second, it is a leading illustration of the retroactive reach of a penal law favorable to the accused, because the death penalty imposed below was reduced to reclusion perpetua after the abolition of capital punishment.

Procedural History

Canuto was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 35, under an Amended Information dated November 14, 2001. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision on May 16, 2002, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to death, with an order to pay an indemnity of 50,000 pesos and the costs.

Because the penalty imposed was death, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the ruling in People versus Mateo, the Supreme Court forwarded the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. In its Decision of January 12, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the death penalty, but modified the awards, increasing the civil indemnity and adding moral and exemplary damages. The records were then forwarded to the Supreme Court for final review, and it is on that automatic review that the Court rendered the present judgment.

Facts

AAA was born on April 19, 1984. After her father died, her mother CCC began living with Canuto without the benefit of marriage in Caranday, Baao, Camarines Sur. When AAA was seven years old, the couple took her into their custody until she reached fourth grade, when she lived with her grandmother in the same barangay. Canuto admitted during pre-trial, and CCC confirmed on the witness stand, that he and CCC were common-law spouses, not married.

On the night of June 28, 1999, AAA's grandmother left the house to assist a woman in delivering a baby, leaving AAA with three young cousins who were already asleep. At around eleven o'clock in the evening, Canuto appeared in the sala where AAA was alone. He poked an ice pick at the base of her right ear and threatened to kill her if she shouted. He removed her underwear, forced her to lie on a bench, placed himself on top of her, and overcame her attempts to push him away. He continued to poke the ice pick at her while kissing her cheeks and neck, then inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull motion. Afterwards he told her not to report the matter to anybody, or he would kill her mother, grandmother, brothers and sisters.

AAA kept silent for months. On December 14, 1999, she related the incident to her aunt, who fetched her mother and grandmother and accompanied her to the Bicol Medical Center in Naga City. The medical examination showed an old hymenal laceration at several positions, which the doctor opined could have been caused by a hardened penis inserted in the vagina. Canuto denied the charge, claiming he was asleep at home after a day of farm work, and his common-law wife corroborated him. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that the victim's grandmother's house was only one kilometer away, or about fifteen minutes on foot, and that he had previously been incarcerated at the National Penitentiary for killing someone, a fact known to both CCC and AAA.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the identification of the accused as the malefactor despite the limited light from a gas lamp.
• Whether or not the victim's failure to feel pain during the act, and her delay of almost six months in reporting the incident, impair her credibility.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of stepfather-stepdaughter relationship was proved.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship warrant the death penalty, and what penalty is properly imposable after the abolition of the death penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-B, paragraph 6, subparagraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

The death penalty shall 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 circumstances of minority and relationship, and it is the basis for the penalty originally imposed on the accused.

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 9346 provides:

In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

This provision supplies the substitute penalty after the death penalty was prohibited, and it is the reason the Court reduced the sentence.

Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, which is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

This is the codified principle that penal laws favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect, which the Court applied in reducing the penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court sustained the conviction. The gas lamp being a bit far from the victim did not preclude recognition, because the scene was not in pitch darkness, and AAA had lived with the accused for more or less six years, enough to make her familiar with his voice, gait and demeanor. She testified that she recognized him when he approached her and faced her, and that his voice was familiar. The Court held that the accused's denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the complainant. Neither can alibi, since the distance between his house and the victim's grandmother's house could be negotiated in not more than fifteen minutes on foot, so it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The Court also noted that he did not intimate any dubious reason or fiendish motive for AAA to falsely charge him.

On the second issue, the Court held that the victim's feeling nothing during the act does not negate the crime, because a fifteen-year-old naive barrio lass threatened with death can only cower in fear and yield into submission. As for the delay of almost six months, the Court held that such delay does not impair credibility if satisfactorily explained, and here the fear instilled by the accused's threat to kill her and her kin explained it, especially given her awareness that he had previously been convicted and detained for killing someone.

On the third issue, the Court held that there is no stepfather-stepdaughter relationship to speak of, because the accused was merely the common-law spouse of the victim's mother, as he himself admitted and as the mother confirmed. The relationship that the law recognizes as qualifying is that of common-law spouse of the parent, not step-parent.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that minority and relationship are special qualifying circumstances which, when alleged in the Information and proved during trial, warrant the death penalty. AAA's Certificate of Live Birth clearly showed she was fifteen years old on the date of the rape. However, in view of the passage and effectivity of Republic Act Number 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Section 2 of that law. The Court invoked the principle that penal laws favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect, expressed in the maxim favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda, meaning favorable laws are to be broadened and harsh ones restricted.

Doctrine

First, minority and relationship are special qualifying circumstances in rape. They must be both alleged in the Information and proved during trial, and when so alleged and proved, they warrant the death penalty under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

Second, the qualifying relationship includes the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. A common-law spouse is not a step-parent, and the Information must allege the relationship that the law actually names.

Third, denial and alibi are weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the complainant, especially where the accused fails to show any improper motive for the charge and where the distance between his location and the scene does not make his presence physically impossible.

Fourth, delay in reporting rape does not impair credibility when satisfactorily explained by the threats of the offender, and a victim's failure to feel pain does not negate the commission of the crime.

Fifth, under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 2 of Republic Act Number 9346, a penal law favorable to the accused is given retroactive effect, so that a death sentence already imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of Ardel Canuto for qualified rape, but modified the penalty by reducing death to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, pursuant to Republic Act Number 9346.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim is a qualifying relationship under Article 266-B, and that the abolition of the death penalty reduces an imposed death sentence to reclusion perpetua. Examiners like to use this case on the distinction between a step-parent and a common-law spouse, on the requisites of minority and relationship as special qualifying circumstances, and on the retroactive application of favorable penal laws.