People v. Bernabe E. Adila, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case arises from an information charging the accused with the crime of rape committed on or about 1994-12-25. The alleged victim was the accused's step-daughter. The accused pleaded denial and alibi. A medical examination performed on 1995-01-20 recorded hymenal lacerations; the doctor testified the injuries could have been caused two to three weeks prior to the examination. The accused and his wife testified that they were in Sindangan together on relevant dates while the prosecution presented testimonial identification by the victim and other supporting testimony. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused of statutory rape and imposed the death penalty and an indemnity of P50,000.00. The case came to the Supreme Court by automatic review pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659. The Supreme Court issued this En Banc decision dated 2000-03-21 affirming the conviction and adjusting civil awards. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the conviction, advancing principally a defense of denial and an alibi, and challenged aspects of the trial court's findings.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused's defense of alibi and denial suffices to overturn the conviction. Whether the trial court correctly applied Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) instead of the law in force at the time of the offense. Whether the penalty of death was properly imposed under Republic Act No. 7659 given the circumstances alleged in the information. Whether the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages awarded to the victim should be modified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for statutory rape. The imposition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 7659 was upheld. The trial court's award of civil indemnity was increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, and an additional award of P50,000.00 was ordered as moral damages. In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, the records are to be forwarded to the Office of the President for a possible exercise of the pardoning power upon finality.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Alibi and Denial): The Court held that the accused's alibi did not carry convincing proof to create reasonable doubt. The decision states that for an alibi to prosper, the accused must show not only presence elsewhere but also that it would have been physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the offense, quoting People v. Torrefeil and People v. Dimapilis. The Court noted that the distance between Sindangan and Bonbon could be traversed within an hour and that the accused failed to present corroborating witnesses (for example, the purported companion Faith Sotomayor) to establish the alibi. The victim's positive identification of the accused, coupled with the absence of serious inconsistencies in her testimony, was given greater weight. The Court therefore found the testimony of the victim and supporting evidence sufficient to meet the requirement of moral certainty and to rebut the alibi. On Issue 2 (Applicability of Law): The Court observed that the trial court erred in applying the provisions of Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) because the offense occurred in 1994. The Court applied Republic Act No. 7659, effective 31 December 1993, to the instant case and relied on People v. Simon for the applicability of RA 7659 to offenses committed prior to later amendments. The Court examined the attendant circumstances specified in Section 11 of RA 7659 and found that the facts alleged (victim under eighteen and the offender a step-parent) were properly pleaded. The Court concluded that RA 7659's provisions governing rape and attendant circumstances apply and thus govern the penalty. The Court therefore affirmed conviction under the law in force at the time of the offense. On Issue 3 (Imposition of the Death Penalty): Applying Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 and the attendant circumstance that a victim is under eighteen and the offender is a step-parent, the Court held that the death penalty could be imposed. The Court noted that the victim's age at the time of the offense (eleven years) and the familial relationship were proved and properly alleged in the information. The Court also recorded that, although four justices maintained their view that RA 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes death, they nevertheless yielded to the majority's determination that the law is constitutional. Given these conclusions, the Court affirmed the penalty as imposed by the trial court. On Issue 4 (Civil Indemnity and Moral Damages): The Court found that the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity was insufficient under the Court's settled practice where the death penalty is imposed for rape. Citing People v. Dimapilis and People v. Omar Medina, the Court held that the indemnity ex delicto should be P75,000.00 and an additional P50,000.00 should be awarded as moral damages. The Supreme Court therefore increased the indemnity to P75,000.00 and awarded P50,000.00 for moral damages, applying its prior rulings on the measure of civil and moral compensation in such cases.
Main Doctrine
Deference to trial court's assessment of witness credibility; application of Republic Act No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) to crimes committed prior to the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 where applicable; established awards of indemnity and moral damages in cases where death penalty is imposed for rape.