G.R. No. 178061. January 31, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA, Appellant.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01440. The Court of
Appeals affirmed without modification the 26 August 2005 Joint Decision[2]
of the trial court finding John Montinola @ Tony Montinola (Montinola)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, three counts of attempted rape,
and acts of lasciviousness.
In six informations,[3] the prosecution charged Montinola with raping his minor daughter, AAA,[4]
on 29 October 1999, 19 December 1999, February 2000, March 2000, 4
November 2000, and January 2001. AAA was born on 12 October 1987.
In Criminal Case No. 02-720, AAA alleged that on 29 October 1999, at
around 3:00 p.m., Montinola was inside the house and drunk. He allowed
all his children to play outside, except AAA. While AAA was in the
living room, Montinola came out of the bedroom wearing only his
underwear. He approached AAA, forced her to remove her clothes, and
raped her. She tried to resist but he strangled her and spread her
legs. When he inserted his penis in her vagina, she felt pain. He
threatened her that if she told anyone about what happened, he would
cut her throat, as well as the throats of her siblings. AAA believed
Montinola’s threats. She was scared of him because he often beat her
severely.[5]
AAA attempted to report the 29 October 1999 incident to her mother.
However, whenever she tried to tell her mother, Montinola interrupted
her and told her mother that, “Kasi ginulpi ko ‘yan, kaya ‘yan ganyan. x x x ginulpi ko ‘yan dahil may ginawa ‘yang kasalanan.”[6]
In Criminal Case No. 02-721, AAA alleged that on 19 December 1999, at
around 4:00 a.m., she and her siblings were preparing to attend the
midnight mass. Montinola did not allow AAA to attend the midnight mass
because, according to him, she was just flirting with boys at the
church. After her siblings had left, he asked her why she failed to
clean the house and bathe her siblings the night before. He then told
her, “Alam mo na ang mangyayari sa ‘yo.”
He forced her to remove her clothes and tried to insert his penis in
her vagina. He told her that he would rape her every time she did
something wrong. He failed to insert his penis because she resisted and
kept on moving.[7]
AAA did not report the 19 December 1999 incident to her mother because
her mother was at work most of the time and AAA was scared of
Montinola, who always kept an eye on her.[8]
In Criminal Case No. 02-722, AAA alleged that on 15 February 2000, at
around 1:00 a.m., Montinola ordered her to remove her clothes. Her
sisters were sleeping and her mother was at work. During the trial, AAA
stated that, “Ganoon pa rin po, pinahubad pa rin niya ako. Tapos ano po noong ginalaw na naman niya ako, pinahubad na naman niya ako.”
She begged for mercy and asked Montinola why he would rape her. He told
her that she was being punished because she did something wrong.[9]
In Criminal Case No. 02-723, AAA alleged that on 28 March 2000, at
around 8:00 p.m., she was sleeping beside her three sisters. She awoke
when Montinola started to remove her clothes. She pretended to be
asleep, but when Montinola started to insert his penis in her vagina,
she resisted and cried. She was not sure whether he was able to insert
his penis. Then on 29 March 2000, at around 8:00 p.m., Montinola
caressed AAA’s body. He said it was his gift to her because she had
just graduated from elementary school. Again, she resisted and cried.
He told her to stop resisting, fondled and kissed her breasts, and
tried to insert his penis in her vagina. She thought he was able to
insert his penis.[10]
In Criminal Case No. 02-724, AAA alleged that on 4 November 2000, at
around 1:00 a.m., AAA was sleeping on the sofa in the living room. She
awoke when Montinola touched her. He was drunk. He forcibly removed her
shorts, pulled her underwear, tried to insert his penis in her vagina,
and told her not to resist — as a birthday gift to him. She resisted
and she was not sure whether Montinola was able to insert his penis.[11]
In Criminal Case No. 02-725, AAA alleged that in the last week of
January 2001, at around 5:30 a.m., she was sleeping on the sofa in the
living room. Montinola roused her from her sleep wearing only his
underwear. He caressed her right thigh, slipped his hand under her
shorts, and touched her vagina. Suddenly, AAA’s mother walked in on
them. After seeing what was happening, AAA’s mother asked Montinola, “Anong ginagawa mo?” AAA’s parents then went inside the bedroom and argued heatedly.[12]
In the first week of March 2001, AAA ran away and went to her friends
for help. She told them that she was being beaten at home, but did not
say anything about the sexual abuses. When asked why she did not tell
her friends about the incidents, AAA stated that, “Ano naman po ang magagawa nila at saka iniisip ko po baka ipagsabi nila sa ibang kapitbahay namin.”[13]
One of her friends’ older sister, Cheche, accompanied AAA to the Makati
office of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).
There, AAA talked to a social worker about Montinola’s physical and
sexual abuses. The DSWD kept AAA in its custody for one week then
returned her to her parents after they explained to the DSWD that AAA
was just being disciplined at home.[14]
Thereafter, AAA ran away again and went to her friend’s cousin’s house
in Pasay. She went to Batangas with her friend’s cousin’s aunt and did
not return home for two weeks. She learned that her parents were
looking for her when she saw a notice in the newspaper saying that she
was missing.[15]
Cheche referred AAA to one Atty. Crystal Tenorio for legal assistance.
On 26 March 2001, AAA went to the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) where she executed affidavits. Dr. Maria Salome Fernandez of the
NBI examined AAA and found a healed hymenal laceration:
Q What about x x x the genital examination, Dra., what was the result?
x x x x
A
x x x I was able to note the presence of hymenal laceration which was
already healed at the 6 o’clock position of the hymen. The edges are
already rounded and non-coaptable.x x x x
Q In layman’s language, Dra., could you explain to us the result of the genital examination?
A This means that [AAA] has had injuries before around probably more
than two (2) weeks before the examination was done because the
laceration has already showed signs of healing. That means that it does
not bleed anymore. The edges of the laceration are already rounded.
Meaning, bleeding has already taken place.Q And what was your conclusion regarding these cases of [AAA]?
A x x x It would fall under conclusive evidence of injury secondary to intravaginal penetration by a blunt object.
x x x x
Q Could you say with certainty that [AAA] is a victim of sexual abuse?
x x x x
A Yes.[16]
Montinola was charged with six counts of rape. He pleaded not guilty to all of them.[17]
He claimed that AAA made up the accusations against him because he
often beat her. Moreover, he claimed that, if it were true that he
raped her, (1) he would have been caught by people outside the house,
if there were any; and (2) she would have sustained injuries in her
vagina because his penis has pellets embedded in it.[18] AAA’s mother, two brothers, and sister corroborated Montinola’s claim that he did not rape AAA.[19]
The Trial Court’s Ruling
In its 26 August 2005 Joint Decision, the trial court found Montinola
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, three counts of attempted rape,
and acts of lasciviousness:
WHEREFORE, premises considered:
- In Criminal Case No. 02-720, and finding the
accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Rape, defined and punished under Article 266(a) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353 in relation to RA 7610, said
accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, with all the accessories of law.The accused is further ordered to pay the offended party, [AAA], the
amount of P75,000.00 as indemnity for the loss of her honor plus moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of
P50,000.00. With cost against the accused.- In Criminal Case No. 02-721, and finding accused JOHN
MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Attempted Rape and not as consummated rape as charge [sic], said
accused is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years
and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision
mayor as maximum plus P10,000.00 as moral damages, with all the
accessories of law. With cost against the accused.- In Criminal Case No. 02-722, and finding accused JOHN
MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA not to be [sic] guilty of the crime of Rape
on the ground of reasonable doubt, he is hereby ACQUITTED.- With respect to Criminal Case No. 02-723, and finding
accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Attempted Rape, said accused is hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum plus
P10,000.00 as moral damages to be paid to [AAA]. With cost against the
accused.- With respect to Criminal Case No. 02-724, and finding
accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Attempted Rape, said accused is hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum, and to
pay [AAA] the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages. With cost against the
accused.- And finally, in Criminal Case No. 02-725, and finding
the accused JOHN MONTINOLA @ TONY MONTINOLA guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness resulting to Child Abuse of a Minor,
who is over 12 years of age, as defined and punished under Article 336
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7610, said accused is
hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 2 years and
4 months of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of
prision mayor as maximum, with all the accessories of law.[20]
The trial court held that (1) AAA’s testimony was categorical,
straightforward, and consistent; (2) her failure to immediately report
the incidents to her relatives or to the proper authorities did not
affect her credibility; and (3) rape can be committed even in places
where there are other people.[21]
On appeal, Montinola contended that the trial court erred in giving
full weight and credence to AAA’s testimony and finding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.[22]
He claimed that AAA was not credible: (1) her testimony was
inconsistent, (2) her testimony was not in accord with human
experience, (3) she failed to immediately report the incidents to her
relatives or to the proper authorities, (4) she admitted that there
were other people in the house when the alleged incidents took place
yet she did not ask them for help, and (5) the medical report did not
prove that Montinola was the one who raped AAA.[23]
The Court of Appeals’ Ruling
In its 28 February 2007 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision without modification: “WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the assailed judgment dated August 26, 2005
of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 144, is AFFIRMED in TOTO.”[24]
The Court of Appeals held that (1) AAA’s testimony was candid,
straightforward, spontaneous, honest, sincere, and categorical; (2) the
minor inconsistency in AAA’s testimony did not affect her credibility;
(3) AAA’s failure to immediately report the incidents to her relatives
or to the proper authorities did not affect her credibility; and (4)
rape can be committed even in places where there are other people.[25]
Hence this appeal.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court finds the appeal unmeritorious. AAA is credible and the lower courts did not err.
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The Court can correct errors unassigned in the appeal.[26]
The Court is not impressed with Montinola’s claim that AAA’s testimony
is not credible because it contains an inconsistency. Montinola pointed
out that, on direct examination, AAA stated that she was not sure
whether Montinola was able to insert his penis in her vagina during the
28 March 2000, 29 March 2000, and 4 November 2000 incidents. Then, on
cross examination, she stated that Montinola was able to insert his
penis during those instances. The Court of Appeals held that this minor
inconsistency was expected and did not destroy AAA’s credibility:
[M]inor lapses should be expected when a person is made to
recall minor details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as
rape. After all, the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by
some inconsistencies in her testimony. Moreover, testimonies of child
victims are given full faith and credit.[27]
Indeed, a minor inconsistency, instead of suggesting prevarication,
indicates spontaneity. It is expected from a witness of tender age who
is unaccustomed to court proceedings.[28] In People v. Bejic,[29] the Court held that:
Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an
accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated.
Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be
expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from
an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. In addition, rape
victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the
way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation.
In the instant case, a minor inconsistency is expected especially because (1) AAA was a child witness, (2) she was made to testify on painful and humiliating incidents, (3) she was sexually abused several times, and (4) she was made to recount details and events that happened several years before she testified.
The Court is not impressed with Montinola’s claim that AAA’s testimony
is not credible because one part of it is not “in accord with human
experience.” In his Brief, he stated that:
It could not be over-emphasized x x x that the testimony
of [AAA] was not even totally in accord with human experience and thus
inspired disbelief.During the alleged October 29, 1999 rape x x x, which according to
[AAA] was perpetrated when [Montinola] ordered his other children to go
out of the house, it must be considered that [AAA] herself revealed
that it was raining at that time. Despite that, we are still being made
to believe that her other siblings, three (3) of whom were below nine
years old x x x at that time, were driven out of the house by
[Montinola] so that the latter could perpetuate his bestial desire?[30]
The Court believes AAA. This is a very futile attempt to discredit
AAA’s testimony. Allowing young children to go outside the house while
the rain is pouring is not unbelievable, especially when one is overcome by lust.
The Court is not impressed with Montinola’s claim that AAA’s failure to
immediately report the incidents to her relatives or to the proper
authorities affected her credibility. AAA’s failure to report the
incidents immediately was justifiable: (1) Montinola threatened her
that he would cut her throat, as well as the throats of her siblings,
if she told anyone about the incidents; (2) her mother was at work most
of the time; (3) Montinola had moral and physical control over her,
kept an eye on her, and interrupted her whenever she attempted to
report the incidents to her mother; (4) even if she told her mother,
her mother would not have believed her; (5) she was overwhelmed by fear
and confusion; (6) telling people that one has been raped by her own
father is not easy to do; and (7) a 14-year-old child cannot be
expected to know how to go about reporting crimes to the proper
authorities. In People v. Bugarin,[31] the Court held that:
[D]elay in making a criminal accusation [does not] impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In People v. Coloma, x x x the Court adverted to the father’s moral and physical control over the young complainant in explaining the delay of eight years before
the complaint against her father was made. In this case, [complainant]
must have been overwhelmed by fear and confusion, and shocked that her
own father had defiled her. x x x She also testified that she was afraid to tell her mother because the latter might be angered x x x. Indeed, a
survey conducted by the University of the Philippines Center for
Women’s Studies showed that victims of rape committed by their fathers
took much longer in reporting the incidents to the authorities than did
other victims. Many factors account for this difference: the fact that
the father lives with the victim and constantly exerts moral authority
over her, the threat he might make against her, the victim’s fear of
her mother and other relatives. (Emphasis ours)
The Court is not impressed with Montinola’s claim that he could not
have raped AAA because there were other people in the house when the
incidents took place. There is no rule that rape can only be committed
in seclusion.[32] AAA’s siblings were sleeping when the incidents took place. In Bugarin,[33]
the Court held that, “Suffice it to state that lust is no respecter of
time and place. Our cases record instances of rape committed inside
family dwellings when other occupants are asleep.” In People v. Alarcon,[34] the Court held that:
[The accused’s] argument that rape could not have been
committed due to the presence of AAA’s siblings by her side is x x x
bereft of merit. Rape is not a respecter of place or time. It is not
necessary that the place where the rape is committed be isolated. There
have been too many instances when rape was committed under
circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family
members sleeping side by side. Rape is not rendered impossible simply
because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room
were not awakened during its commission. (Emphasis ours)
The Court is not impressed with Montinola’s claim that AAA did not
adduce evidence “sufficient to pass the test of moral certainty.” In
rape cases, the credibility of the complainant’s testimony is almost
always the single most important issue. When the complainant’s
testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused’s conviction.[35]
In the instant case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals
found AAA’s testimony credible. The trial court held that, “The Court
is impressed with the testimony of [AAA] who testified in categorical and straightforward manner and remained consistent throughout her testimony.”[36] On the other hand, the Court of Appeals held that:
The x x x testimony of the complainant reveals that the same was marked by spontaneity,
honesty and sincerity. It is a cardinal rule that when the testimony of
the victim is simple and straightforward, the same must be given full
faith and credit. We reiterate the rule that the accused could be
convicted solely on the basis of the victim’s testimony if credible. Contrary
to appellant’s submission that the testimony of complainant is not
credible and reasonable in itself, We see no reason to deviate from the
trial court’s determination as to the credibility of complainant’s
testimony.[37] (Emphasis ours)
The evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility is a matter best left to
the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses
and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great
respect to the trial court’s findings, unless it overlooked or
misconstrued substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of
the case.[38] In People v. Abellano,[39] the Court held that:
The trial court’s evaluation of a witness’ credibility is accorded the highest respect
because it had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the
facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while
testifying. The trial court has the strategic position to determine
whether a witness is telling the truth and its findings thereon are
accorded finality, unless there appears on record some fact or
circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked,
misunderstood, or misappreciated and, if properly considered, would
alter the results of the case. (Emphasis ours)
The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court.
The trial court did not overlook or misconstrue any substantial fact
which could have affected the outcome of the case. Montinola’s claims
involve minor or trifling matters that do not affect the outcome of the
case. AAA’s testimony was clear, positive, convincing, and consistent:
Q Do you remember what unusual incident that [sic] happened to you last October 29, 1999?
A ‘Yon
po ang unang panggagahasa sa akin ng Papa ko noong October 29 ng hapon.
Umuulan pa po noon mga bandang alas tres hanggang alas kuwatro ng
hapon. Bigla po siyang lumabas doon sa kuwarto x x x tapos
naka-underwear lang po siya. Pinipilit po niyang ipahubad sa akin ‘yong
damit ko po at saka ‘yong short [sic] ko po. Tapos ‘yon, wala na po
akong magawa kasi sinasakal na po niya ako at saka pinipilipit niya po
ang paa ko para hindi ako makagalaw.x x x x
Q And according to you you were raped by the accused here. Did you not resist?
A x x x Pumapalag po ako sa kanya pero sinasakal na po niya ako tapos pinipilipit po ‘yong paa ko eh.
Q And after he did that to you, what happened next, if any?
A x x x [P]inasok na po niya ‘yong ari niya sa akin, sa ari ko rin po.
Q Okay, after he inserted his penis in your vagina, what did you feel?
A Nasaktan po.
Q And after that, what did he do, if there was any?
A x x x [S]inabi
na lang niya sa akin na huwag daw akong magsusumbong. Pag nagsumbong
daw ako, x x x papatayin daw po niya ‘yong mga kapatid ko x x x — gigilitan daw po niya ng leeg kami ng mga kapatid ko.x x x x
Q Did you believe the threat of your father that he will kill these
sisters and brothers of yours if you report the incident to your mother?A x x x [S]a
mga kapatid ko pong maliliit x x x hindi po ako naniniwala na magagawa
po niya sa [kanila] pero sa amin po ng mga kuya ko, naniniwala po ako
kasi grabe po siya kung manggulpi sa amin eh. Halos patayin na po niya
kami.[40]
AAA revealed that her own father raped her, allowed the examination of
her vagina, and willingly underwent a public trial where she divulged
in detail her painful experiences. She wanted Montinola imprisoned. She
wanted to kill him.[41] In Bejic,[42] the Court held that:
[N]o young woman, especially of tender age, would
concoct a story of defloration at the hands of her own father, allow an
examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by
being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the
desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. It is
highly improbable that a girl of tender years, not yet exposed to the
ways of the world, would impute to her own father a crime so serious as
rape if what she claims is [sic] not true. This is more
true in our society since reverence and respect for the elders is
deeply rooted in Filipino children and is even recognized by law. Thus,
it is against human nature for a x x x girl to fabricate a story that
would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of shame,
especially when her charge could mean the death or lifetime
imprisonment of her own father. (Emphasis ours)
In Criminal Case No. 02-723, Montinola was charged of raping AAA in
March 2000. The Court notes that Montinola attempted to rape AAA twice
in March 2000 — once on 28 March 2000 and again on 29 March 2000.[43]
The trial court and the Court of Appeals held Montinola liable for the
offense committed on 28 March 2000 only. The Court agrees. Since only
one information[44] was filed for the period of March 2000, he cannot be held liable for both offenses.
In Criminal Case No. 02-725, both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals convicted Montinola for acts of lasciviousness and punished him
under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Section 10(a) provides:
SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s Development.—
(a)
Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the
child’s development including those covered by Article 59 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
The Court sustains Montinola’s conviction for acts of lasciviousness.
However, he should be punished under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No.
7610. Section 5(b) covers acts of lasciviousness while Section 10(a)
covers other acts of abuse. Section 5(b) provides:
SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
x x x x
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided,
That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for
rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal
Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. (Emphasis ours)
In Navarrete v. People,[45]
the Court held that sexual abuse under Section 5(b) has three elements:
(1) the accused commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is
below 18 years old.
Under Section 32 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic
Act No. 7610, lascivious conduct includes the intentional touching,
either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia and inner thigh,
with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. In
Navarrete,[46]
the Court held that a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse
when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult. In Amployo v. People,[47] the Court held that:
[I]ntimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is
sufficient that some compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or
subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party. This is
especially true in the case of young, innocent and immature girls who
could [sic] not be expected to act with equanimity of disposition and
with nerves of steel. Young girls cannot be expected to act like adults
under the same circumstances or to have the courage and intelligence to
disregard the threat.
All three elements are present in the instant case: (1) Montinola
caressed AAA’s right thigh, slipped his hand under her shorts, and
touched her vagina; (2) AAA indulged in lascivious conduct under
Montinola’s coercion; and (3) AAA was below 18 years old.
In Navarrete,[48]
the Court punished the accused under Section 5(b) for touching the
complainant’s vagina and poking her vagina with a cotton bud. In People v. Candaza,[49]
the Court punished the accused under Section 5(b) for kissing the lips,
licking the vagina, and mashing the breasts of the complainant. In Amployo,[50]
the Court punished the accused under Section 5(b) for touching the
breasts of the complainant. In keeping with jurisprudence, Montinola is
liable under Section 5(b) for caressing the thigh and touching the
vagina of AAA.
In Criminal Case No. 02-725, the alternative circumstance of relationship under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code[51] should be considered against Montinola. In People v. Fetalino,[52]
the Court held that, “in crimes against chastity, like acts of
lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating.” In that case,
the Court considered relationship as an aggravating circumstance since
the informations mentioned, and the accused admitted, that the
complainant was his daughter. In the instant case, the information[53] expressly states that AAA is Montinola’s daughter, and Montinola openly admitted this fact:
Q x x x [D]o you know [AAA]?
A Opo.
Q Why do you know her?
A She is my daughter.[54]
Accordingly, the Court modifies the penalty imposed in Criminal Case
No. 02-725. Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 prescribes the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
Since there is an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstance, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period — reclusion perpetua. Also, the Court orders Montinola to indemnify AAA P15,000 as moral damages and pay a fine of P15,000.[55]
The Court sustains Montinola’s conviction for rape in Criminal Case No.
02-720. However, the Court modifies his civil liability. He is ordered
to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and
P25,000 as exemplary damages.[56]
The Court sustains Montinola’s conviction for attempted rape in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-721, 02-723, and 02-724. However, the Court
modifies his civil liability. He is ordered to pay AAA P30,000 as civil
indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages
for each count of attempted rape.[57]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the 28 February 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01440 with some MODIFICATIONS. The Court finds appellant John Montinola @ Tony Montinola:
(1) GUILTY of RAPE in Criminal Case No. 02-720. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
(2) GUILTY of ATTEMPTED RAPE in Criminal Case No. 02-721. He is sentenced to suffer the minimum penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to the maximum penalty of 10 years of prision mayor and ordered to pay AAA P30,000 as civil indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages.
(3) NOT GUILTY in Criminal Case No. 02-722.
(4) GUILTY of ATTEMPTED RAPE in Criminal Case No. 02-723. He is sentenced to suffer the minimum penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to the maximum penalty of 10 years of prision mayor and ordered to pay AAA P30,000 as civil indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages.
(5) GUILTY of ATTEMPTED RAPE in Criminal Case No. 02-724. He is sentenced to suffer the minimum penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to the maximum penalty of 10 years of prision mayor and ordered to pay AAA P30,000 as civil indemnity, P25,000 as moral damages, and P10,000 as exemplary damages.
(6) GUILTY of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS in Criminal Case No. 02-725, with relationship as an aggravating circumstance. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay AAA P15,000 as moral damages and a fine of P15,000.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Associate
Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes,
Jr. and Rosmari D. Carandang, concurring.
[2] Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Oscar B. Pimentel.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 14-25.
[4] The real name of the victim is withheld per Republic Acts No. 7610 and 9262.
[5] CA rollo, p. 48.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 48-49.
[8] Id. at 49.
[9] Id. at 49-50.
[10] Id. at 50.
[11] Id. at 51.
[12] Id. at 52.
[13] TSN, 2 April 2003, p. 46.
[14] CA rollo, p. 52.
[15] Id.
[16] TSN, 14 January 2004, pp. 6-8.
[17] CA rollo, p. 109.
[18] Id. at 148-149.
[19] Id. at 143-153.
[20] Id. at 176-178.
[21] Id. at 71-73.
[22] Id. at 108.
[23] Id. at 121-124.
[24] Rollo, p. 15.
[25] Id. at 11-15.
[26] Manaban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150723, 11 July 2006, 494 SCRA 503, 516.
[27] Rollo, pp. 13-14.
[28] People v. Bugarin, 339 Phil. 570, 584 (1997).
[29] G.R. No. 174060, 25 June 2007, 525 SCRA 488, 508-509.
[30] CA rollo, pp. 122-123.
[31] Supra note 28, at 585-586.
[32] People v. Abellera, G.R. No. 166617, 3 July 2007, 526 SCRA 329.
[33] Supra at 585.
[34] G.R. No. 174199, 7 March 2007, 517 SCRA 778, 787.
[35] People v. Abulon, G.R. No. 174473, 17 August 2007; People v. Jalbuena, G.R. No. 171163, 4 July 2007, 526 SCRA 500; People v. Bejic, supra note 29; People v. Suyat, G.R. No. 173484, 20 March 2007, 518 SCRA 582, 591; People v. Bugarin, supra note 28, at 580-581.
[36] CA rollo, p. 71.
[37] Rollo, p. 13.
[38] People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 176060, 5 October 2007; People v. Abulon, supra note 35; People v. Bejic, supra note 29.
[39] G.R. No. 169061, 8 June 2007, 524 SCRA 388, 399-400.
[40] TSN, 18 March 2003, pp. 8-11.
[41] CA rollo, p. 50.
[42] Supra note 29, at 503.
[43] CA rollo, pp. 50-51.
[44] The information provides:
That on or about March, 2000 at West Rembo, Makati City, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
John Montinola @ Tony Montinola with lewd design and with force and
intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
had [sic] carnal knowledge of minor, AAA, his own daughter, to the
latter’s damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.
[45] G.R. No. 147913, 31 January 2007, 513 SCRA 509, 521.
[46] Id. at 522.
[47] G.R. No. 157718, 26 April 2005, 457 SCRA 282, 295-296.
[48] Supra note 45, at 525.
[49] G.R. No. 170474, 16 June 2006, 491 SCRA 280, 299.
[50] Supra note 47, at 300.
[51] Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 15. Their Concept.
— Altenative circumstances are those things which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and
effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.
They are the relationship, intoxication, and the degree of instruction
and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into
consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.
[52] G.R. No. 174472, 19 June 2007, 525 SCRA 170.
[53] The information provides:
That on or about January, 2001 at West Rembo, Makati City, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
John Montinola @ Tony Montinola with lewd design and with force and
intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
had [sic] carnal knowledge of minor, AAA, his own daughter, to the
latter’s damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.
[54] TSN, 7 March 2005, p. 3.
[55] Supra note 49, at 299.
[56] Supra note 35.
[57] People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 168, 217.