PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RUBEN CORPUZ Y SIMON, APPELLANT.

People versus Corpuz

The Case

This is People versus Corpuz, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Ruben Corpuz for six counts of rape committed against his live-in partner's daughter, a girl thirteen years old at the time. The accused admitted the sexual acts but raised the so-called sweetheart defense, claiming the girl consented and that no force or intimidation was used. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it states the rule on moral ascendancy as a substitute for force and intimidation in rape by a close kin or by the common-law spouse of the victim's mother, and it states the strict pleading rule for qualified rape, namely that the victim's minority and her relationship to the offender must both be alleged in the Information and proved with certainty.

Procedural History

Ruben Corpuz was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Luna, Apayao, Branch 26, in six separate Informations for rape. Each Information alleged that the victim was under eighteen years of age and that the crime was aggravated by the fact that the offender was her stepfather. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six counts of qualified rape and imposed the death penalty for each count, and ordered him to pay moral damages and exemplary damages for each count, plus the costs of suit.

The case went up to the Court of Appeals on automatic review. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but modified it: it changed the characterization of the crime to simple rape and lowered the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each offense, adjusting the awards of damages. The Court of Appeals explained that the trial court erred in appreciating the special qualifying circumstance of relationship, because the Informations alleged that the accused was the stepfather of the victim, when in truth he was merely the live-in partner of the victim's mother.

The accused then sought relief from the Supreme Court. In his supplemental brief he assailed the credibility of the victim and pressed his sweetheart theory. The Office of the Solicitor General declined to file a supplemental brief for the People, taking the position that no issue warranted one. The case is thus before the Supreme Court on review of the appellate court's decision.

Facts

During the months of April, May, June, July, August, and September of 2002, while the victim's mother was out selling vegetables, the accused, who was the live-in partner of the mother, would pull the girl inside a room of their house in Conner, Apayao, armed with a gun and a knife. With threats that he would kill her and her mother if she did not succumb, he would make her lie down on the bed, remove her clothing, lie on top of her, and insert his penis into her vagina. The girl was then only thirteen years old, and she could no longer recall the exact number of times she was violated.

She kept the incidents to herself, afraid that her mother would maltreat her, until in October of 2002, worried about a possible pregnancy because her menstrual cycle seemed to have stopped, she disclosed her plight to her sister-in-law, who in turn told her mother. Accompanied by her mother, she reported to the Philippine National Police Station at Conner, Apayao, and submitted herself to a medical examination. The results showed old lacerations of the hymen and that the hymen admitted two fingers with slight resistance. She executed a sworn statement. She in fact became pregnant and gave birth to a child. The social case study report observed her to be very silent all the time, indicative of a state of confusion.

For his part, the accused admitted having had sexual intercourse with the girl several times from April to September of 2002, but claimed he never used force. He explained that he had courted her, that she enjoyed their sexual encounters and was even on top a number of times, and he acknowledged her child as his.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of the victim is credible, and whether or not the sweetheart defense of the accused should be believed.
• Whether or not the accused is guilty of qualified rape, given that the Informations alleged him to be the stepfather of the victim while the evidence showed he was merely the live-in partner of her mother.
• Whether or not the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 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 provision is the heart of the case: it lists the qualifying circumstances that raise rape to qualified rape, and it shows that the relationship of step-parent is distinct from that of the common-law spouse of the parent, so that what is alleged must match what is proved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the credibility of the victim was beyond doubt. At the core of almost all rape cases is the issue of credibility of witnesses, and the trial court is in the best position to resolve it, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor during trial. Appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court unless it is shown that the latter overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts and circumstances of significance to the case, and the Court found that this exception did not obtain. The Court noted the victim's straightforward and unflinching responses during cross-examination, which clearly reflected her credibility. As for the sweetheart theory, being an affirmative defense, it must be established by convincing evidence, such as documentary and other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, and photographs. Other than his own testimony, the accused presented no convincing evidence to substantiate his theory.

The Court also held that physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the embrace of her rapist because of fear. And independently of the threats, the Court held that because the accused was the common-law spouse of the victim's mother, moral ascendancy substituted for intimidation. In rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the crime was simple rape. To obtain a conviction for qualified rape, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged in the Information and proved with certainty. Here the victim's minority was alleged and proved by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar as to her date of birth. But the supposed stepfather-stepdaughter relationship, though alleged in each Information, was not proved, because the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship as a qualifying circumstance presupposes that the victim's mother and the accused contracted marriage, and the prosecution presented no proof of marriage. What the accused himself claimed was that he and the mother were merely common-law spouses, a relationship which could also qualify the offense, but only if it is alleged in each Information and proved at the trial. It was not so alleged, so the accused committed six counts of simple rape.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the awards of 50,000 pesos as moral damages and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages for each count, but reduced the award of civil indemnity from 75,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos for each count. Civil indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the crime by the offender, and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence the civil indemnity awarded to victims of qualified rape shall not be less than 75,000 pesos, and 50,000 pesos for simple rape. Moral damages of 50,000 pesos for each count are also automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission, and the award of 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages for each count is in order in view of the minority of the victim.

Doctrine

First, in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. Second, the sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense that must be established by convincing evidence, not by the accused's testimony alone. Third, to obtain a conviction for qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged in the Information and proved with certainty; the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship presupposes that the victim's mother and the accused contracted marriage, and where the proof shows only a common-law relationship, that relationship can qualify the offense only if it is alleged in the Information and proved at the trial. Fourth, civil indemnity is automatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the crime, at 50,000 pesos for simple rape and not less than 75,000 pesos for qualified rape, while moral damages of 50,000 pesos are granted without need of further proof, and exemplary damages are in order in view of the victim's minority.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification, ordering the accused to pay the private complainant 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity for each count of rape, and affirming the appellate court's decision in all other respects.

Remember This

Memorize this line: to convict for qualified rape, the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must both be alleged in the Information and proved with certainty, and moral ascendancy substitutes for force and intimidation when the rapist is a close kin or the common-law spouse of the victim's mother. Examiners use this case to test the strict pleading rule for qualifying circumstances, the distinction between a stepfather and the common-law spouse of the parent, and the correct amounts of civil indemnity for simple as against qualified rape.