People v. Amadore
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The private complainant, Maria Fe Oquindo, then only 10 years old in 1991, was repeatedly sexually abused by her stepfather, accused-appellant Rodrigo Amadore y Obina, over several years in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, and one instance in Batangas. The first rape occurred on 21 March 1991 when Amadore placed a pillow over her face, removed her panty, and inserted his penis into her vagina while she was sleeping in their home at 004-A Calabasa Street, Tambakan, Pulanglupa, Las Piñas. On 22 March 1991, he fondled her breasts and kissed her repeatedly against her will but did not proceed further, threatening her silence. Subsequent rapes followed: on 1 March 1993, he ordered her to lie down alone in the house, removed her panty, and had carnal knowledge, threatening to kill her mother if she told; on 11 January 1996 during a family vacation in Batangas (Nasugbu), he twisted her arms, pulled her inside, and raped her, ejaculating a sticky substance; on 26 February 1996 at home, after asking for a massage, he embraced her, forced her down, and consummated the act; on 14 March 1996 at her aunt's house behind theirs, he twisted her arms and raped her after ordering her to bathe; and on 27 June 1996 outside the house, he pulled her in while handing water, attempted intercourse but she fled post-act, leading to discovery by neighbor Nora Cañales and aunt Mely Anda. Maria Fe endured silently fearing her mother Julieta Amadore's favoritism toward Amadore, confirmed when she finally confided and was told 'Siguro, kagustuhan mo ito'; a neighbor aided filing complaints in 1996. Procedural History: Amadore was charged in eight consolidated cases before RTC Branch 275, Las Piñas: five for rape (Crim. Cases Nos. 96-0468 to 96-0472), one for violation of Sec. 5, RA 7610 re acts of lasciviousness (No. 96-0473), one for attempted rape (No. 96-0474), and one additional rape (No. 96-0328). He pleaded not guilty; trial ensued with Maria Fe's detailed testimony, Julieta's denial of prior knowledge, and Amadore's denial citing small house size (12x10 ft), separate room, smooth relationship, and a scolding misunderstanding as motive. RTC convicted him of five rapes (death penalty each), acts of lasciviousness (6 months to 6 years), attempted rape (12-20 years), acquitted No. 96-0328 for lack of evidence, awarded P100K per rape, P50K each for others, plus costs. Amadore appealed to SC for automatic review. The Petition: Amadore assigned three errors: (1) RTC erred in crediting Maria Fe's testimony despite her inability to recall all assaults and alleged spite motive; (2) RTC gravely erred in assuming waiver of improper venue in Crim. Case No. 96-0469 (Batangas incident); (3) Death penalty improper as he was common-law partner (not stepfather per Julieta), and minority not alleged in most informations (citing People v. Dimapilis).
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in convicting Amadore based on Maria Fe's credible testimony despite alleged inconsistencies and denial/alibi. Whether venue in Crim. Case No. 96-0469 was jurisdictional, requiring dismissal. Whether qualifying circumstances (stepfather relationship and minority) were properly alleged to impose death penalty. Proper classification and penalties for acts of lasciviousness and attempted rape cases.
Ruling
The SC affirmed with modifications: Guilty of simple rape (reclusion perpetua each) in four cases (Nos. 96-0468, 96-0470-0472); dismissed No. 96-0469 for lack of jurisdiction; guilty of acts of lasciviousness (3 months 4 days arresto mayor min to 3 years 2 months 14 days prision correccional max) in No. 96-0473; affirmed attempted rape conviction in No. 96-0474 but modified to 3 years 10 months 1 day prision correccional min to 9 years 1 day prision mayor max; civil indemnity P50K + moral damages P50K per simple rape, reduced to P10K moral in lasciviousness and P20K in attempted rape.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's assessment, reiterating the long-standing doctrine that appellate courts defer to trial courts' evaluation of witness credibility absent clear abuse, as trial judges observe demeanor (People v. Gondora). Maria Fe's detailed recount of seven specific incidents, despite inability to recall others, bolsters rather than weakens credibility, as rape victims, especially minors, naturally repress traumatic memories and inconsistencies are badges of truth rather than fabrication. Accused's denial and alibi fail against positive identification; his regular return home from nearby work as kargador negates physical impossibility, and small house size (12x10 ft) does not preclude lustful acts, which occur in unlikely places (People v. Ramon). Claims of 'smooth relationship' and spite from scolding are absurd; no young girl would fabricate repeated rapes, endure medical exams, and public humiliation unless true, given women's innate modesty (People v. Escober, Bautista, Gecomo). Maria Fe's post-assault flight and confession to aunt upon confrontation provide corroboration. Thus, conviction stands beyond reasonable doubt. On Issue 2: Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional, not merely waivable as in civil actions, determining the court's authority to try the offense (People v. Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City). Prosecution evidence placed Crim. Case No. 96-0469 (11 Jan 1996 rape) in Nasugbu, Batangas, outside RTC Las Piñas jurisdiction; no evidence of waiver cures this defect, mandating dismissal to prevent ouster of proper venue court. On Issue 3: Under Sec. 11, RA 7659 amending Art. 335 RPC, death penalty requires allegation and proof of circumstances like victim under 18 and offender as step-parent (daughter of legal spouse by prior marriage); here, Julieta testified to common-law union sans marriage, negating 'stepfather' status, and minority alleged in only one information (People v. Dimapilis). Absent proper averment, crimes are simple rape (reclusion perpetua), not qualified. One case (1991, victim 10<12) inherently rape without force allegation, but still lacks relationship qualifier. On Issue 4: Crim. Case No. 96-0473 (kissing/fondling) is acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336 RPC, prision correccional), not RA 7610 violation or attempted rape, absent consummation intent (People v. Collado); indeterminate sentence applied. No. 96-0474 limited to charged attempted rape (two degrees below reclusion perpetua: prision mayor min); modified indeterminate sentence. Civil awards adjusted: full indemnity/moral for rapes, moral only for others per jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
In prosecutions for qualified rape under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, the attendant circumstances such as the victim's minority (under 18 years) and the offender's relationship as parent, ascendant, step-parent, or common-law spouse of the victim's parent must be specifically alleged in the information and proved beyond reasonable doubt to justify the imposition of the death penalty; failure to allege these renders the crime simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction, distinct from civil cases, and its improper laying (e.g., offense in Batangas filed in Las Piñas RTC) requires dismissal regardless of waiver, as it ousts the court's authority over the offense. The testimony of a child rape victim, even with minor inconsistencies or inability to recall all incidents, carries great weight due to the natural repugnance of young victims to relive traumatic events, prevailing over the accused's bare denial, alibi, or claims of 'smooth relationship,' especially when corroborated by circumstances like flight post-assault. Acts of mere fondling and kissing without evident intent to consummate sexual intercourse constitute acts of lasciviousness under Article 336, RPC, not attempted rape, warranting lighter penalties. Convictions for attempted rape are limited to the charge in the information, with penalties computed two degrees lower than consummated simple rape using the Indeterminate Sentence Law.