People v. Aure

G.R. No. 180451 · 2008-10-17 · J. CURIAM, J.: · Primary: Criminal; Secondary: Remedial

REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: The facts involve the elements of rape under Philippine law. Procedural History: Two informations for rape were filed on 2000-01-20 and consolidated. Arraignment occurred on 2000-05-30. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 127, rendered a Decision dated 2000-12-05 convicting each appellant in their respective cases and ordering the penalty of reclusion perpetua with civil and moral damages and attorney's fees; each appellant was convicted in one case and acquitted in the other. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01127 on 2005-07-29. The appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court on 2002-02-10; pursuant to People v. Mateo the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals and subsequently returned to this Court. This Court promulgated its decision on 2008-10-17, affirming the lower courts with modifications to the awards for moral damages and attorney's fees. The Petition: Before us, appellants assigned the following errors: I. THE RTC ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT AURE IN CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 58617 WITH RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER R.A. 8353 COMMITTED ON NOVEMBER 7, 1999 AND AT THE SAME TIME ACQUITTING HIM IN CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 58693 OF THE ALLEGED CRIME OF RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER R.A. 8353 ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED ON SAME AND ONE OCCASION/INCIDENT OF RAPE - NOVEMBER 7, 1999. II. THE RTC ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT FEROL IN CRIMINAL CASE 58693 WHICH ACCUSES ACCUSED-APPELLANT FEROL WITH THE CRIME OF RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER R.A. 8353 COMMITTED ON NOVEMBER 7, 1999 AND AT THE SAME TIME ACQUITTING HIM IN CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 58617 ALSO OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER R.A. 8353 COMMITTED ON NOVEMBER 7, 1999, WORST ACCUSED-APPELLANT FEROL WAS CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF RAPE COMMITTED ON NOVEMBER 8, 1999 WITH WHICH HE WAS NOT BEING CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 58693. III. THE RTC ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER R.A. 8353 WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE COMMISSION AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES OF RAPE DEFINED AND ALLEGED IN THE TWO (2) INFORMATIONS UNDER CRIMINAL CASE NUMBERS 58167 AND 58693. IV. THE RTC ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS EACH OF THE CRIME OF RAPE WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE ALLEGATION AND CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY AND WHEN "RESPONDENT JUDGE" HERSELF FOUND ABSENCE OF CONSPIRACY. V. THE RTC ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TESTIMONIES OF ACCUSED-APPELLANTS AND WITNESSES ARE BUT ALIBI AND DEFINITELY FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF NEGATIVE AND SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE. VI. THE RTC ERRED IN DENYING THE REQUEST OF ACCUSED APPPELLANTS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE REQUISITE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. VII. THE RTC IN RENDERING AND PROMULGATING THE SUBJECT ASSAILED DECISION MANIFESTED CLEAR SIGNS OF BIAS, PARTIALITY AND PREJUDICE AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. VIII. THE RTC ERRED IN ORDERING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS TO PAY FOR DAMAGES AND COST IN FAVOR OF "PRIVATE COMPLAINANT."

Issue(s)

Whether the RTC erred in convicting accused-appellant Aure in Criminal Case No. 58617 while acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 58693 when both informations alleged conspiracy for a single occasion of rape. Whether the RTC erred in convicting accused-appellant Ferol in Criminal Case No. 58693 while acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 58617 and in convicting him for an act alleged to have occurred on a different date than in the information. Whether the prosecution established with the required quantum of proof the guilt of the accused-appellants for the offenses charged. Whether the RTC erred in convicting the accused-appellants when conspiracy was not proved. Whether the RTC erred in rejecting the accused-appellants' testimonies and alibi as self-serving and inacceptably weak. Whether the accused-appellants were denied the conduct of a preliminary investigation and were not properly notified of subpoenas. Whether the RTC manifested bias, partiality and prejudice against the accused-appellants. Whether the RTC erred in awarding damages and costs to the private complainant and in the amounts awarded.

Ruling

The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01127 dated 2005-07-29 is AFFIRMED with modifications: (1) moral damages reduced from ₶60,000.00 to ₶50,000.00 for each appellant; and (2) attorney's fees in the amount of ₶70,000.00 shall be paid jointly by the appellants and not by each. Costs against appellants. Convictions for rape (reclusion perpetua) as affirmed; preventive imprisonment credited under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi

On Whether RTC erred in convicting Aure in C-58617 but acquitting him in C-58693 despite informations alleging conspiracy: The Court reasoned that although both informations alleged conspiracy, the failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy means that each accused must be held responsible, if at all, for his individual acts. The rule that "once a conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all" was acknowledged, but the converse is equally true: absence of proof of conspiracy requires individual assessment of culpability. The RTC found, on the basis of the complainant's credible testimony and corroborative documentary evidence, that Aure alone raped the complainant on the date corresponding to Criminal Case No. C-58617. The Court deferred to the RTC and the Court of Appeals on credibility determinations because they had the opportunity to observe witness demeanor and resolved inconsistencies in favor of the complainant. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the RTC did not err in convicting Aure individually. The Court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to prove conspiracy does not preclude convictions founded on proof of individual criminal acts. On Whether the RTC erred in convicting Ferol in C-58693 notwithstanding an alleged variance in date: The Court explained that the date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the offense because "the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation." Citing People v. Purazo, the Court reiterated that a variance of a short period between the date alleged in the information and the proven date does not constitute reversible error. The Court found that the one-day discrepancy between the information (7 November 1999) and the complainant's testimony (8 November 1999) was immaterial, given that all essential elements were alleged and proved and that the offense occurred within the statute of limitations and the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, Ferol's conviction in C-58693 was sustained despite the variance. The Court thus applied the settled rule that imprecision in date does not necessarily vitiate a rape prosecution where identity and commission are established. The presence of corroborative medical and other documentary evidence supported the prosecution's case on identity and commission. On Whether prosecution proved guilt with required quantum of proof: The Court reiterated that in rape cases the credibility of the complainant is often decisive and that if her testimony is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature, conviction may rest solely on it. The Court found AAA's testimony reliable, consistent and corroborated by medical certificates and documentary exhibits. The Court applied the principles that the testimony of a married rape victim is entitled to full credence and that delay in reporting may be explained by threats and shame. The Court considered the defense theories (denial and alibi) and found them inherently weak compared to the complainant's positive identification and narrative. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution sustained the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to each appellant's individual act leading to conviction in their respective cases. On Whether the RTC erred when conspiracy was not proved: The Court held that the absence of proof of conspiracy simply meant that appellants could not be held as conspirators for each other's acts; instead, each was to be judged for his own conduct. The RTC's approach of acquitting each appellant in the case where conspiracy was not shown but convicting the one whose individual act was proved was thus proper. The Court emphasized that the rule of conspiracy making one liable for acts of co-conspirators cannot be used where conspiracy is not established, and that prosecutions may proceed on individual responsibility where evidence so warrants. The Court therefore found no error in the RTC's resolution on conspiracy issues. On Whether the RTC erred in treating defenses as alibi and denying their probative value: The Court noted the well-established principle that denial is weak and alibi is the weakest defense, requiring proof that the accused was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The Court found that appellants failed to meet the strict requirements for a successful alibi and that their corroborating witnesses did not overcome the positive testimony of the complainant. The Court accorded greater weight to the complainant's direct testimony than to the defendants' denials and alibi testimony. Accordingly, the Court concluded the RTC did not err in discrediting the defenses and in finding the prosecution's evidence more convincing. On Whether appellants were denied preliminary investigation or proper subpoenas: The Court examined the record and found that subpoenas for preliminary investigation were sent to the CIDG office for scheduled dates and that appellants, though on duty and in positions that would make receipt credible, failed to appear. The Court found the appellants' claim of non-receipt implausible, given their duties and location, and held that lack of attendance did not amount to denial of the right to preliminary investigation. The Court therefore rejected the appellants' claim on this ground. On Allegations of bias and partiality by the RTC judge: The Court held that bias cannot be presumed and that mere imputation is insufficient. Upon review of the 47-page RTC Decision, the Court found sufficient factual and legal basis and no plausible proof of bias. The Court stressed the trial court's fair and thorough consideration of evidence and concluded that the allegation of partiality was unsupported. On Awards of penalties and damages: The Court applied Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and the Anti-Rape Law (R.A. 8353) to confirm that the penalty for rape by force and intimidation is reclusion perpetua. The Court observed that aggravating/qualifying circumstances (e.g., rape by a member of a law enforcement agency or rape while victim is in police custody) must be specifically alleged in the information to be appreciated, and since they were not specifically alleged they could not be elevated to death penalty. The Court affirmed mandatory civil indemnity, reduced moral damages from ₶60,000.00 to ₶50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, and ordered that attorney's fees amounting to ₶70,000.00 be paid jointly by the appellants, as the complainant incurred that total expense prosecuting both cases.

Main Doctrine

The credibility of the rape victim is paramount; the date of the commission of rape is not an essential element; aggravating/qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information to be appreciated.