Case For Simulated Court Trial-Delict-rape-people vs. Flordeliz
Case For Simulated Court Trial-Delict-rape-people vs. Flordeliz
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded "Not guilty" to all the charges. During trial, he interposed the defense of denial and
insisted that the charges against him were fabricated by his wife to cover up the infidelity she committed while working
abroad.[26] Petitioner also relied on the testimonies of Florabel Flordeliz, Levy Hope Flordeliz and Roderick Flordeliz, whose
testimonies consisted mainly of the alleged infidelity of ABC; and petitioner, being a good father, was often visited by his
daughters at his residence, where the rooms they occupied were only separated by see-through curtains. [27]
On March 9, 2007, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment[28] finding petitioner guilty as charged, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises all duly considered[,] the court finds that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and hereby imposes upon him the following penalties:
1. In Criminal Case No. 23145-R for Acts of Lasciviousness, the Indeterminate Penalty of 6 months of Arresto Mayor as
the minimum penalty to 6 years of Prision Correccional as the maximum penalty and to indemnify the victim AAA the
amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
The penalty shall also carry the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage (Art. 43,
Revised Penal Code)[.]
2. In Criminal Cases Nos. 23072-R to 23080-R, the Indeterminate Penalty of twelve (12) years of Prision Mayor as the
minimum penalty to twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal as the maximum penalty for each case or nine (9) counts of
sexual assault considering the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of relationship against the accused and to indemnify
BBB the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
The penalties shall carry with them the accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and perpetual absolute
disqualification (Art. 41, Revised Penal Code).
The accused shall be credited with 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentences.
In the service of his sentences, the same shall be served successively subject to the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised
Penal Code or the Three-Fold Rule.
SO ORDERED.[29]
On appeal, the CA affirmed petitioner's conviction with a modification of the amount of his civil liabilities.
Petitioner now comes before us, raising the following errors:
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
The Honorable Court A Quo gravely erred in affirming the judgment of conviction of the Honorable Regional Trial Court for
the crime charged despite the fact that the guilt of the petitioner has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt
with moral certainty.
RAPES THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT
1. The Honorable Court A Quo gravely erred in affirming the judgments of conviction of the Honorable Regional Trial Court
in Criminal Cases Nos. 23075-R (alleged rape through sexual assault sometime in May, 2002) and 23078-R (alleged rape
through sexual assault on August 3, 2003) respectively, despite the complete absence of evidence to show how the
alleged incidents of rape through sexual assault were committed by petitioner on said particular dates.
2. The Honorable Court A Quo gravely erred in affirming the judgments of conviction of the Honorable Regional Trial Court
in the other alleged counts of rape through sexual assault despite the fact that the guilt of the petitioner has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt with moral certainty.[30]
Simply put, petitioner assails the factual and legal bases of his conviction, allegedly because of lack of the essential details
or circumstances of the commission of the crimes. Petitioner, in effect, questions the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution and insists that the charges against him were designed to conceal ABC's infidelity.
We have repeatedly held that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, courts are inclined
to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame
and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. [31]
It is not uncommon in incestuous rape for the accused to claim that the case is a mere fabrication, and that the victim was
moved by familial discord and influence, hostility, or revenge. There is nothing novel about such defense, and this Cour had
the occasion to address it in the past. In People v. Ortoa,[32] we held that:
Verily, no child would knowingly expose herself and the rest of her family to the humiliation and strain that a public trial
surely entails unless she is so moved by her desire to see to it that the person who forcibly robbed her of her cherished
innocence is penalized for his dastardly act. The imputation of ill motives to the victim of an incestuous rape [or lascivious
conduct] becomes even more unconvincing as the victim and the accused are not strangers to each other. By electing to
proceed with the filing of the complaint, the victim risks not only losing a parent, one whom, before his moral descent, she
previously adored and looked up to, but also the likelihood of losing the affection of her relatives who may not believe her
claim. Indeed, it is not uncommon for families to be torn apart by an accusation of incestuous rape. Given the serious
nature of the crime and its adverse consequences not only to her, it is highly improbable for a daughter to manufacture a
rape charge for the sole purpose of getting even with her father. Thus, the alleged ill motives have never swayed the Court
against giving credence to the testimonies of victims who remained firm and steadfast in their account of how they were
ravished by their sex offenders.[33]
Neither can we sustain petitioner's claim that the charges against him were products of ABC's fabrication to cover up the
infidelity she committed while working abroad. No matter how enraged a mother may be, it would take nothing less than
psychological depravity for her to concoct a story too damaging to the welfare and well-being of her own daughter. Courts
are seldom, if at all, convinced that a mother would stoop so low as to expose her own daughter to physical, mental and
conduct committed against a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610. [45]
The crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined in Article 336 of the RPC, has the following elements:
(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a.
b.
c.
(3) That the offended party is another person of either sex. [46]
In addition, the following elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 must be proven:
(1) The accused commits the 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, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.[47]
Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as follows:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks,
or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex,
with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. [48]
Based on the foregoing definition, petitioner's act of touching AAA's vagina and playing with it obviously amounted to
lascivious conduct. Considering that the act was committed on a child less than twelve years old and through intimidation,
it is beyond cavil that petitioner is guilty under the aforesaid laws.
We are aware that the Information specifically charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, without
stating therein that it was in relation to R.A. No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute or to
mention the specific provision penalizing the act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does not vitiate the
information if the facts alleged therein clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The character of the crime is
not determined by the caption or preamble of the information nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to
have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information. [49]
In the instant case, the body of the Information contains an averment of the acts alleged to have been committed by
petitioner and unmistakably describes acts punishable under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
It is also undisputed that petitioner is the father of AAA. The RTC did not appreciate the alternative circumstance of
relationship, because it was not alleged in the Information. We do not agree.
The resolution[50] of the investigating prosecutor, which formed the basis of the Information, a copy of which is attached
thereto, stated that petitioner is the victim's biological father. There was, therefore, substantial compliance with the
mandate that an accused be informed of the nature of the charge against him.[51]
In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered aggravating. [52]Considering that AAA was
less than twelve (12) years old at the time the crime was committed, petitioner should be meted the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium period, or fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four
(4) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should be meted the indeterminate penalty of thirteen
(13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5)
months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal as maximum.
With respect to the lascivious conduct amounting to child abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 committed by
petitioner, we impose a fine of P15,000.00.[53]
Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Special Order No. 824 dated February 12, 2010.
Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Ramon R.
Garcia, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 392-402.
[1]
[2]
Id. at 412-413.
[3]
[4]
Penned by Judge Iluminada P. Cabato; records (Criminal Case Nos. 23072-R), pp. 691-715.
[5]
Rollo, p. 95.
[6]
[7]
Rollo, p. 95.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Id.
BBB demonstrated how her father touched her vagina with her forefinger and middle finger by making a sliding up and
down motion on the area between the two legs of the doll. (Id. at 96.)
[11]
[12]
TSN, February 7, 2005; records (Criminal Case No. 23072-R), pp. 441-445.
[13]
[14]
Id. at 454-455.
[15]
Rollo, p. 96.
[16]
TSN, June 2, 2005; records (Criminal Case No. 23072-R), pp. 456-457.
[17]
Id. at 458-461.
[18]
Id. at 461-462.
[19]
Rollo, p. 97.
[20]
Id.
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
Id. at 98-99.
[28]
[29]
Id. at 714-715.
[30]
[31]
People v. Candaza, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 280, 295-296.
[32]
[33]
Id. at 552.
[34]
Id. at 553
[35]
[36]
People v. Hermocilla, G.R. No. 175830, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 296; People v. Palma, 463 Phil. 767 (2003).
[37]
Emphasis supplied.
[38]
The death penalty shall also 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.
See People v. Noveras, G.R. No. 171349, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 777, 794; see also People v. Tonyacao, G.R. No.
134531-32, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 513, 534.
[39]
[40]
People v. Bunagan, G.R. No. 177161, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 808, 814; People v. Hermocilla, supra note 36, at 305.
[41]
People v. Bunagan, supra, at 814; People v. Hermocilla, supra note 36, at 305.
[42]
[43]
Emphasis ours.
[44]
Malto v. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 643, 656-657.
Navarrete v. People, G.R. No. 147913, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 509, 517;Amployo v. People, 496 Phil. 747, 755
(2005).
[45]
[46]
Navarrete v. People, supra, at 517; Amployo v. People, supra, at 755; People v. Bon, 444 Phil. 571, 583-584 (2003).
People of the Philippines v. Salvino Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009;People v. Montinola, G.R. No.
178061, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 412, 431;Navarrete v. People, supra note 45, at 521; Olivarez v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 465, 473; Amployo v. People, supra note 45, at 758.
[47]
Navarrete v. People, supra note 45, at 521-522; Olivarez v. Court of Appeals,supra, at 473-474; People v. Bon, supra
note 46, at 584.
[48]
People of the Philippines v. Salvino Sumingwa, supra note 47, citing Malto v. People, supra note 44; and Olivarez v.
Court of Appeals, supra note 47.
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
People of the Philippines v. Salvino Sumingwa, supra note 47; People v. Montinola,supra note 47, at 432.
People of the Philippines v. Salvino Sumingwa, supra note 47; People v. Montinola,supra note 47; People v. Candaza,
supra note 31; Amployo v. People, supra note 45, at 762-763.
[53]
[54]
[55]