PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JOSE PILLAS Y AMORIN ALIAS “CHE-AN,” APPELLANT.

People versus Pillas

The Case

This is People versus Pillas, a criminal case for four counts of rape. The People of the Philippines prosecute Jose Pillas, the father of the victim, for sexually abusing his own daughter on four separate occasions. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court reviews a death sentence on automatic review, how it weighs the credibility of a child victim against a bare denial, and how it treats the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship when the prosecution fails to offer the victim's certificate of live birth in evidence.

Procedural History

Four Informations were filed against the appellant before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 16, each charging rape committed by force and intimidation, with the aggravating circumstance that the accused is the father of the victim, who was only sixteen years of age. Upon arraignment, with the assistance of counsel, the appellant pleaded not guilty, and a joint trial of the four cases followed. The trial court rendered its Decision on April 19, 1999, finding the appellant guilty of four counts of rape and imposing the penalty of death in each case, together with indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. Because the penalty imposed was death, the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment.

Facts

The victim, referred to as AAA, was born on October 19, 1981. She is the only child of the appellant and his estranged partner, who separated when AAA was about one month old and left her under the care of her paternal grandparents. In 1993, when AAA was eleven years old, the appellant took her into his custody. He was then living with his common-law wife, Teresita Molina. In January 1996, the appellant ordered AAA to discontinue her studies, and from then until 1998 she stayed home and helped with the domestic chores.

On July 16, 1998, while AAA was washing the dishes, the appellant told her that although she was his daughter, he liked her. He kissed her, held her breasts, dragged her to the living room, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina while threatening to kill her if she shouted. He repeated the abuse on July 26, 1998, carrying her from the kitchen to the living room and raping her while Teresita was away washing clothes. On July 30, 1998, he pulled her from her room and abused her a third time by force and intimidation.

On August 11, 1998, AAA finally told Teresita what had happened, and Teresita approached the barangay chairman, who said the appellant should be arrested at once. Teresita, however, took no action out of fear. On August 25, 1998, the appellant molested AAA a fourth time. Only after he left for Zamboanga City did AAA and Teresita report the matter to the police. On August 28, 1998, Dr. Jocelyn Onari examined AAA and issued a medico-legal certificate stating that AAA had incomplete hymenal lacerations at the one, five, eight, and eleven o'clock positions and that her introitus admitted one finger. The appellant denied the charges, claiming that AAA implicated him because he made her quit school.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for four counts of rape.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of death in each of the four cases, considering that the prosecution did not offer in evidence the victim's certificate of live birth.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, provides:

Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. - Rape is committed - 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

This provision defines the crime charged and identifies force, threat, or intimidation as the mode by which the appellant committed it.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

This fixes the ordinary penalty for rape and supplies the baseline against which the death penalty must be justified.

The same article further provides:

The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying 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 on which the death penalty in this case depends, and which the Court requires to be alleged and proved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's testimony was clear, candid, and consistent, and it was corroborated by the medical findings of hymenal lacerations. The Court rejected the argument that the lacerations could have been caused by other means, because the victim positively identified the appellant as her rapist and described each assault in detail. Against this positive identification, the appellant offered only a bare denial and the motive that she resented being made to quit school, which the Court found insufficient to overcome the evidence of the prosecution.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. Although the Informations alleged that the victim was under eighteen years of age and that the appellant was her father, the prosecution failed to offer in evidence the victim's certificate of live birth to prove her age. The Court applied the rule that the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship must be both alleged and proved, and that the age of the victim cannot be established by the testimony of the victim alone where the records do not show her age. Accordingly, the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua in each of the four cases, and modified the awards of damages.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for rape, the positive and categorical testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, prevails over the bare denial of the accused. Second, the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code must be both alleged in the Information and proved beyond reasonable doubt; the victim's certificate of live birth, or other competent evidence, must be offered to establish age. Without such proof, the death penalty cannot be imposed, and the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for four counts of rape but reduced the penalty in each case to reclusion perpetua, and modified the awards of damages accordingly.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship must be both alleged and proved, and age cannot rest on the victim's testimony alone. Examiners use this case to test whether a death sentence for qualified rape can stand when the prosecution fails to offer the victim's certificate of live birth.