EN BANC

[G.R. No. 130332. May 31, 2000.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MODESTO

MAMAC y CAMINERO, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS

In an information filed with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, herein
appellant was accused of raping Bernadette U. Enguito on two separate
occasion. The informations were respectively docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
35,662-95 and 35,663-95, respectively. After a joint trial, the trial court found
the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No.
35,662-95 and death in Criminal Case No. 35,663-95. Appellant did not contest
his conviction in Criminal Case No. 35,662-95, but in view of the penalty
imposed in Criminal Case No. 35,663-95, the case was forwarded to the Court
for automatic review.

The Supreme Court found the imposition of death penalty not proper. The
Court ruled that a reading of the information would reveal that the appellant
was only charged with simple rape under the first circumstance provided in
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The information simply provides that
appellant used threat and intimidation and of abuse of his moral ascendancy
over the victim to carry out the crime charged. Nowhere in the information can
any allegation be found of relationship and minority or the use of deadly
firearm. Since the qualifying circumstances were not proved, the appellant
cannot be sentenced to death. The judgment of the court a quo was affirmed,
subject to the modification that the appellant shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua only, and not death. ETHaDC

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; DIFFERENT

PEOPLE REACT DIFFERENTLY TO A GIVEN TYPE OF SITUATION AND THERE IS NO
STANDARD FORM OF BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE WHEN ONE IS CONFRONTED
WITH A STRANGE, STARTLING OR FRIGHTFUL EXPERIENCE. — We clarify first
that Bernadette categorically stated in open court that she went out of the
house because appellant threatened to kill her family. With the display of the
bolo and the utterance of foreboding words by appellant, it is easy to
understand why Bernadette left the safety of their house. Fear simply
overwhelmed Bernadette. She twice stressed that she was afraid when
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 appellant ordered her to go out of the house. There is nothing
incomprehensible about Bernadette's reaction. We have long recognized that
different people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no
standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange,
startling or frightful experience. One person's spontaneous response may be
aggression, while another person's reaction may be cold indifference.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONFLICT IN TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES IN
DESCRIBING DETAILS OF AN EVENT DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY FALSEHOOD
ON THEIR PART. — Appellant also attempts to discredit Bernadette by pointing
to an inconsistency in her testimony as compared to her mother's narration in
court. It is emphasized that Bernadette declared that it was to her boyfriend
that she first reported the incident while Segunda stated on the witness stand
that it was to her that Bernadette first reported the crime. It is settled that
conflict in testimonies of witnesses in describing details of an event may be due
to differences in observations and memory which does not necessarily imply
falsehood on their part. Such seeming inconsistency does not detract from the
main thrust of Bernadette's testimony that she was raped by appellant. An
inconsistency which pertains only to minor and trivial details not touching on
the why's and wherefore's of the crime strengthens rather than diminishes a
witness's credibility as it erases suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.
3. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; SPECIAL QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES;
CONCURRENCE OF MINORITY OF THE VICTIM AND HER RELATIONSHIP TO THE
OFFENDER IS A SPECIAL QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH SHOULD BE
ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION TO WARRANT IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY.
— A reading of the information will reveal that appellant was only charged with
simple rape under the first circumstance provided in Article 335. Unadorned of
its auxiliary words, the information accuses appellant of employing threat and
intimidation and of abusing his moral ascendancy over Bernadette to carry out
the rape. The information does not contain any allegation of relationship and
minority nor the use of a deadly weapon. The information therefore does not
charge appellant with qualified rape and he cannot be sentenced to death. We
have held that the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance which should
be alleged in the information to warrant imposition of the death penalty.
Minority and relationship are treated as special qualifying circumstances and
not merely as aggravating circumstances because they increase the imposable
penalties by degrees. Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be
proved even if not alleged, a qualifying aggravating cannot be proved as such
unless alleged in the information. It must be properly pleaded in order not to
violate the constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him. Needless to state, appellant will be
denied due process if after being charged with simple rape, he is convicted of
its qualified form punishable with death.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; RELATIONSHIP; NOT PROVEN IN CASE AT BAR. — We
hasten to add that appellant is not a step-grandfather of Bernadette. Appellant
himself admitted that he co-habited and lived with the maternal grandmother
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of Bernadette without the benefit of marriage. The word "step," when used as
prefix in conjunction with a degree of kinship, is repugnant to blood relationship
and is indicative of a relationship by affinity. Since no relationship by affinity
can be established between Bernadette and appellant, appellant cannot be
considered as the step-grandfather of Bernadette. At the most, appellant can
be described as the common law husband of Bernadette's grandmother. As
such, appellant is not 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 Bernadette. In a similar case, we ruled that courts
must not bring cases within the provision of a law which are not embraced by it
to the end that no person who is clearly not within the terms of statute can be
brought within them. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
5. ID.; ID.; CIVIL INDEMNITY; ENTITLED ONLY TO THE AWARD OF
P50,000.00 IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE. — Since
appellant should only be punished with reclusion perpetua, we decline to raise
the indemnity awarded to Bernadette by the trial court to P75,000.00 as prayed
for by the Solicitor General. Such award is only warranted where the crime of
rape is qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is
imposed by law. The offended party is entitled to P50,000.00 in accordance
with prevailing jurisprudence. She may also be given moral damages without
need of proof.

DECISION

PUNO, J : p

In two informations filed with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City,
Branch 15, 1 Modesto C. Mamac was accused of raping Bernadette U. Enguito
on two separate occasions. The informations were respectively docketed as
Criminal Case No. 35,662-95 and Criminal Case No. 35,663-95.

After a joint trial, the trial court found Mamac guilty beyond reasonable
doubt on both indictments. 2 Accordingly, it sentenced him as follows: LLjur

"WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, Modesto Mamac y Caminero is
hereby sentenced as follows:
Crim. Case No. 35,662: To suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua as the crime was committed in 1991 and the applicable law is
the Penal Code, not RA 7659 which became a law only in December
1993 and to indemnify Bernadette (Enguito) into (sic ) Forty thousand
(P40,000.00) Pesos.

Crim. Case No. 35,663: To be put to death as the crime of rape

was committed on August 14, 1995 when RA 7659 was already a law
and indemnify Bernadette Enguito Forty thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos.
SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Davao City, Philippines, April 28, 1997."

Appellant did not contest his conviction in Criminal Case No. 35,662-95.
Only Criminal Case No. 35,663-95 is before this Court on automatic review.

The information in Criminal Case No. 35,663-95 dated August 21, 1995
reads: 3
"That on or about August 16, 1995, in the City of Davao,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the
above-mentioned accused did then and there willfully unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of intimidation, that is by then and there
threatening and intimidating Bernadette Enguito by killing her should
she not agree to submit herself to his criminal design and by his moral
ascendancy over said Bernadette Enguito, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously lie and have carnal knowledge of said
Bernadette Enguito against her will and consent. LibLex

Contrary to law."

The records reveal that Bernadette 4 was sleeping inside their house
located at Toril, Davao City at 9 o'clock in the evening of August 14, 1995 when
appellant came and woke her up. To rouse Bernadette from her sleep,
appellant poked her with a long stick while she was lying alongside her brother
and sister. When she opened the window to check, Bernadette saw appellant
outside brandishing a bolo. Appellant then menacingly ordered Bernadette to
go out of the house and brought her towards the Lipada River. Upon reaching
the bank of the river, appellant commanded Bernadette to take off her clothes
while pointing the bolo at her. Bernadette complied in fear. Then with appellant
sticking the bolo at Bernadette's neck, appellant forced himself upon
Bernadette despite the latter's resistance and plea. Bernadette was only
sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the sexual attack. llcd

Bernadette's mother, Segunda U. Enguito, 5 noticed Bernadette coming

back into the house. When Segunda asked Bernadette where she had been,
Bernadette answered that she just went out to urinate.
The following day, Bernadette revealed her harrowing experience to her
boyfriend. To avoid the perverse advances of appellant, Bernadette and her
boyfriend ran away to Butuan City. Segunda followed them and Bernadette
disclosed to her mother the depraved acts of appellant. Segunda brought
Bernadette back to Toril and accompanied her to the police to file a complaint.
In her affidavit 6 filed before the police, Bernadette referred to appellant as her
grandfather.
On August 19, 1995, Dr. Uldarico C. Casquejo 7 examined Bernadette and
found a healed wound at her vaginal opening. Dr. Casquejo also noted that a
vaginal speculum easily penetrated her vagina without any effort. Vaginal
smear examination showed the presence of spermatozoa and pus cells.

Appellant pleaded not guilty to the accusation lodged against him. 8

Already 64 years of age at the time of his examination in court, appellant 9
denied having raped Bernadette on August 14, 1995. He stated that at his age,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 he could no longer have sex with his 48-year old common law wife, more so
with a younger woman. During his cross examination, appellant failed to give
any reason why Bernadette would file a rape charge against him.
Appellant himself provided the circumstances of his relationship to
Bernadette. He said that Segunda is the daughter of his common-law wife with
another man. Although Bernadette calls him lolo, appellant declared that he
never treated Bernadette as his granddaughter. cdtai

In his Brief, 10 appellant asserts that:

"I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE

INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF COMPLAINANT,
BERNADETTE ENGUITO; and
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT. Cdpr

In support of the above contentions, appellant maintains that there is no

reason for Bernadette to be cowed into going out of their house by his mere act
of stabbing her with a stick as she was very much secure inside the house.

We clarify first that Bernadette categorically stated in open court that she
went out of the house because appellant threatened to kill her family. 11 With
the display of the bolo and the utterance of foreboding words by appellant, it is
easy to understand why Bernadette left the safety of their house. Fear simply
overwhelmed Bernadette. She twice stressed that she was afraid when
appellant ordered her to go out of the house. 12

There is nothing incomprehensible about Bernadette's reaction. We have

long recognized that different people react differently to a given type of
situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is
confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. One person's
spontaneous response may be aggression, while another person's reaction may
be cold indifference. 13
Appellant also attempts to discredit Bernadette by pointing to an
inconsistency in her testimony as compared to her mother's narration in court.
It is emphasized that Bernadette declared that it was to her boyfriend that she
first reported the incident while Segunda stated on the witness stand that it
was to her that Bernadette first reported the crime. It is settled that conflict in
testimonies of witnesses in describing details of an event may be due to
differences in observations and memory which does not necessarily imply
falsehood on their part. 14 Such seeming inconsistency does not detract from
the main thrust of Bernadette's testimony that she was raped by appellant. An
inconsistency which pertains only to minor and trivial details not touching on
the why's and wherefore's of the crime strengthens rather than diminishes a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 witness's credibility as it erases suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. 15

Be that as it may, we do not agree with the trial court's imposition of the
penalty of death upon appellant. It appears that the trial court considered
appellant as Bernadette's step-grandfather. On the other hand, the Solicitor
General 16 justifies the imposition of the death penalty because of appellant's
employment of a deadly weapon to consummate the rape. cdll

The different modes of committing rape and the special circumstances

qualifying the offense are laid down in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, viz:
"ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a
deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death. cdasia

xxx xxx xxx

The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. 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.

xxx xxx xxx."

Rape with the use of a deadly weapon was introduced in Article 335 by
Republic Act No. 4111 17 on June 20, 1964 and the rape of a minor by a relative
was introduced by Republic Act No. 7659 18 on December 31, 1993. Both types
of rape were recognized as qualified rape in People vs. Tabugoca. 19

A reading of the information will reveal that appellant was only charged
with simple rape under the first circumstance provided in Article 335.
Unadorned of its auxiliary words, the information accuses appellant of
employing threat and intimidation and of abusing his moral ascendancy over
Bernadette to carry out the rape. The information does not contain any
allegation of relationship and minority nor the use of a deadly weapon. The
information therefore does not charge appellant with qualified rape and he
cannot be sentenced to death. LibLex

We have held that the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance which should
be alleged in the information to warrant imposition of the death penalty. 20
Minority and relationship are treated as special qualifying circumstances and
not merely as aggravating circumstances because they increase the imposable
penalties by degrees. 21
Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved even if
not alleged, a qualifying aggravating cannot be proved as such unless alleged
in the information. 22 It must be properly pleaded in order not to violate the
constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him. 23 Needless to state, appellant will be denied
due process if after being charged with simple rape, he is convicted of its
qualified form punishable with death. 24
We hasten to add that appellant is not a step-grandfather of Bernadette.
Appellant himself admitted that he co-habited and lived with the maternal
grandmother of Bernadette without the benefit of marriage. 25 The word "step,"
when used as prefix in conjunction with a degree of kinship, is repugnant to
blood relationship and is indicative of a relationship by affinity. 26 Since no
relationship by affinity can be established between Bernadette and appellant,
appellant cannot be considered as the step-grandfather of Bernadette.
At the most, appellant can be described as the common law husband of
Bernadette's grandmother. As such, appellant is not 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 Bernadette. 27 In a similar
case, we ruled that courts must not bring cases within the provision of a law
which are not embraced by it to the end that no person who is clearly not within
the terms of statute can be brought within them. 28 Expressio unius est
exclusio alterius. LLjur

On the other hand, while the employment of a bolo was sufficiently

established by the prosecution, such clear showing cannot justify the imposition
of the death penalty in the absence of an aggravating circumstance. 29
Appellant's crime is only punishable by reclusion perpetua.

Since appellant should only be punished with reclusion perpetua, we

decline to raise the indemnity awarded to Bernadette by the trial court to
P75,000.00 as prayed for by the Solicitor General. Such award is only
warranted where the crime of rape is qualified by any of the circumstances
under which the death penalty is imposed by law. 30 The offended party is
entitled to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 31 She may
also be given moral damages without need of proof. 32

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo in Criminal Case No.

35,663-95 is AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellant Modesto
Mamac y Caminero is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay the
victim, Bernadette Enguito, the additional amount of P50,000.00 by way of
moral damages. The amount of P40,000.00 awarded to the victim as indemnity
is increased to P50,000.00. Costs against accused-appellant. LLpr

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Acting C.J.), Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Purisima, Pardo,
Buena and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., is on official leave.
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago a n d De Leon, Jr., JJ., are on
leave.

Footnotes
1. Presided over by Judge Jesus V. Quitain.

2. Decision, pp. 1-7; Rollo , pp. 14-20.

3. Original Record, p. 1.
4. TSN, August 22, 1996, pp. 1-11 & November 7, 1996, pp. 21-32 and Exhibit A
(Complaint-Affidavit), Original Record, pp. 2-3.
5. TSN, December 12, 1996, pp. 33-50.
6. Exhibit A, supra.
7. TSN, September 13, 1996, pp. 12-20 and Exhibit B (Medical Certificate),
Original Record, p. 6.
8. Original Record, p. 19.

9. TSN, February 19, 1997, pp. 51-62.

10. Rollo, pp. 62-74.
11. TSN, November 7, 1996, p. 30.
12. TSN, August 22, 1995, p. 8 and November 7, 1996, p. 29.
13. People vs. Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998).
14. People vs. Briones, 266 SCRA 675 (1993).
15. People vs. Tan, 264 SCRA 425 (1996).
16. Appellee's Brief, p. 11; Rollo, p. 109.
17. An Act to Amend Article Three Hundred and Thirty-Five of the Revised Penal
Code.
18. An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes Amending
for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, As Amended, Other Special Penal
Laws, and for Other Purposes.
19. 285 SCRA 312 (1998).
20. People vs. Cantos, Sr., 305 SCRA 786 (1999). See also People vs.
Manggasin, 306 SCRA 228 (1999) and People vs. Nuñez, G.R. No. 128875,
July 8, 1999.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 21. People vs. Ramos, 296 SCRA 559 (1998).
22. People vs. Dimapilis, 300 SCRA 279 (1998).
23. People vs. Ambray, 303 SCRA 697.
24. People vs. Bayya, G.R. No. 127845, March 10, 2000.
25. TSN, February 19, 1997, p. 52.
26. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, citing Grossenbacher vs. State, 197 N.
E. 382.
27. See People vs. Atop, 286 SCRA 157 (1998).
28. Ibid.
29. People vs. Padilla, 301 SCRA 265 (1999).
30. People v. Ambray , supra.
31. People vs. Salazar, 258 SCRA 55 (1996); People vs. Caballero, 258 SCRA
541 (1996); People vs. Abordo, 258 SCRA 571 (1996).
32. People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 (1998).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com