PEOPLE vs. JOSELITO NOQUE G.R.No. 175319 January 15, 2010 Del Castillo, J.:

Facts: Accused Joselito Noque was caught in a buy-bust operation conducted by SPO4 Norberto Murillo on January 30, 2001. Two Informations were filed before the RTC of Manila docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 01-189458 and 01-189459 charging of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of a regulated drug. The trial court convicted the accused on both charges. The trial court held that while the Informations alleged methamphetamine hydrochloride as the drug seized from the appellant, the drug actually confiscated which was ephedrine, which by means of chemical reaction could change into methamphetamine. Thus, the trial court ruled that the appellant can be convicted of the offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. The CA held that the designations and allegations in the informations are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs. Hence, the accused appealed the case before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not appellant’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was not violated.

Held: The appeal is bereft of merit.

As correctly observed by CA, the offenses designated in the Informations are for violations of Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, which define and penalize the crimes of illegal sale and possession of regulated drugs. The allegations in the Informations for the unauthorized sale and possession of “shabu” or methamphetamine hydrochloride are immediately followed by the qualifying phrase “which is a regulated drug”. Thus, it is clear that the designations and allegations in the Informations are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs. Ephedrine has been classified as a regulated drug by the Dangerous Drugs Board in Board Resolution No. 2, Series of 1988.

The CA correctly ruled that Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved. Under these provisions, an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. At any rate, a minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal. In other words, his right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.

PEOPLE vs. EDGARDO ESTRADA G.R. No. 178318 January 15, 2010 Del Castillo, J.:

Facts: On November 19, 1997, two similarly-worded Informations were filed against appellant Edgardo Estrada charging him with two counts of Rape committed against his niece, 12-year old minor and is living in the house of his parents. On August 16, 2002, the trial court found the accused guilty of qualified rape on two counts and sentenced him to suffer the supreme penalty of death. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification finding the appellant guilty of simple rape. The Court of Appeals opined that mere allegation in the Information that the appellant was the victim’s uncle would not suffice to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. It must be categorically stated that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. Hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the accused should be convicted of qualified rape or simple rape.

Held: Applying the guiding principles that “a) an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove; b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and c) the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense”, we affirm the Decision of the Court of Appeals finding herein appellant guilty of two counts of simple rape.

The rape incidents were committed in July 1997 hence the law applicable is Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. In the instant case, it was clearly established by the prosecution that on two occasions in July 1997, the victim was sexually abused by appellant through force and intimidation, against her will and without her consent. The qualifying circumstance of minority of the victim was likewise proven by the presentation of the latter’s Birth Certificate.

However, as regards the allegation in the Information that appellant is an uncle of the victim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the same did not sufficiently satisfy the requirements of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., it must be succinctly stated that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is immaterial that appellant admitted that the victim is his niece. In the same manner, it is irrelevant that “AAA” testified that appellant is her uncle.

In view of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals was correct in finding appellant guilty only of two counts of simple rape and in sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, and in ordering him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.

PEOPLE vs. MARLON BARSAGA ABELLA

PEOPLE vs. MARLON BARSAGA ABELLA
G.R. No. 177295, January 6, 2010

Leonardo-De Castro, J.:

Facts: Sometime in December 1999, the accused Marlon Abella, while armed with a knife and under the influence of liquor, entered the house of herein complainant [AAA] (real name of the victim was withheld by the court in its decision to protect her identity), and then and there have sexual intercourse with [AAA], a 38-year old woman of feeble mind (“moderate mental retardation” or intellectual quotient of a 7 to 8-year old child”), against her will. During the pendency of the case, [AAA] gave birth to a child. Accused stated that [AAA] was coached to testify against him in furtherance of the hostility between their families. He claims that [AAA]’s mental disability made he so subservient to her parents that she would believe everything that they tell her. The RTC convicted the accused of the crime of rape. The case was elevated to the CA which affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, the decision is under automatic review by this court.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused of the crime charged.
2. Whether or not the testimony of the victim is credible to convict the accused.
3. Whether or not the denial of the accused was not given due credit by the court.

Held: The high court in affirming the decision of the lower court and the CA stated the following:

1. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In People v. Andaya, [25] it was held that “sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape” with or without the attendance of force, threat, or intimidation.

2. By well-entrenched jurisprudence, the issue of credibility of witnesses is “a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts” and “[a]bsent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.”

3. It has been stressed, moreover, that the bare denials and uncorroborated alibis of an accused cannot overcome the positive identification of the accused and straightforward recounting of the accused’s commission of a crime. In People v. Nieto, this Court held:

It is an established jurisprudential rule that a mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crimes attributed to him. The defense of alibi is likewise unavailing. Firstly, alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law. Secondly, alibi is unacceptable when there is a positive identification of the accused by a credible witness. Lastly, in order that alibi might prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused has been somewhere else during the commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.

PEOPLE vs. MANUEL BAGOS

PEOPLE vs. MANUEL BAGOS
G.R. No. 177152, January 6, 2010

Leonardo-De Castro, J.:

Facts: Manuel Bagos was charged with the crime of rape committed on or about the month of May, 1998 along the river bank of Baling-caguing River, Mabini, Pangasinan against AAA (real name of the victim was withheld by the court in its decision), a 10 year old minor while bathing in the river by grabbing and pulling her to sit in his in his lap, thereafter removed her panty and his pants, inserted his penis to her vagina and have carnal knowledge with her. Accused denied the allegation and stated that the victim’s family accused him of raping [AAA] due to a family misunderstanding. On December 15, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of the crime he was charged for. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC and added an award for exemplary damages. From the CA, the case was elevated to the SC upon filing of the accused-appelant of a notice of appeal on January 8, 2007. On his appeal, accused-appellant contends that the testimony of [AAA] is incredible, unconvincing and inconsistent with human nature. He particularly points out the part of her testimony where accused-appellant allegedly pulled her panty down to her knees, removed his pants while standing, made her sit on his lap while in the water and inserted his penis into her vagina. On appeal, accused-appellant claims that this is incredulous, considering that he had a slight physical defect on his leg and could not have inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina with ease and without ripping her panty if the same had been pulled down only to AAA’s knees. According to accused-appellant, that AAA did not shout for help during the incident was likewise contrary to common experience.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:
1. Credibility of the victim’s testimony.

When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.

2. Failure of the victim to shout for help.

This Court has noted in several cases that minors could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives. Be that as it may, the absence of struggle or an outcry from the victim is immaterial to the rape of a child below 12 years of age. The law presumes that such a victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own.

Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and have the offender apprehended and punished. The crime of rape is essentially one committed in secrecy, hence it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of forced coitus. As a result, conviction may be based solely on the plausible testimony of the private complainant.