[ G.R. No. 248204, August 24, 2020 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JONATHAN JUARIZO EVARDONE, RESPONDENT.
SEPARATE OPINION
ZALAMEDA, J.:
I join the ponencia in upholding accused-appellant's conviction for the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Nonetheless, I write to convey my views on the ponencia's modification of the penalty.
The Informations sufficiently alleged the aggravating circumstance of ignominy
With due respect, I agree with the penalty imposed by the CA. The Informations sufficiently alleged an aggravating circumstance to justify the imposition of reclusion perpetua without eligibility, for parole.1 To recall, the Informations specifically stated that AAA was raped not only "while in a sitting position" but was also "ordered to bend over against her will and consent."2
In People v. Alfanta,3 the Court held that the sexual position employed during rape may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In an act of rape where the perpetrator enters the victim from behind, the means employed was ruled to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act, viz.:
With respect to ignominy, the victim testified that after appellant had inserted his penis into her vagina, appellant ordered her to lie face down and while in that position had his penis into her anus. Thereafter, he ordered her to lie down again and this time he inserted his finger inside her. The Solicitor General correctly invoked the case of People vs. Saylan, where this Court said: The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior, but also 'the same position as dogs do' i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was no ignominy because The studies of many experts in the matter have shown that this 'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in the act of copulation. This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but not otherwise.
Article 14, paragraph 17, of the Revised Penal Code considers to be an aggravating circumstance any means employed or circumstance brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. The circumstance, it is said, pertains to the moral order arid adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.4
The Informations herein specifically described with particularity accused-appellant's act of raping AAA from behind. The conscious use of this position in committing the crime of rape unnecessarily added ignominy, humiliation, and disgrace to AAA's' suffering, Thus, this aggravating circumstance may be properly appreciated in the imposition of penalty.
Further, the manner and means employed by accused-appellant in the rape incidents were fully established during trial. The CA considered AAA's straightforward account as to how she was raped by the accused multiple times on occasion of the robbery:
Q. And after that, you said that he pulled you towards the parked vehicle[.] [W]hat did Jonathan do next?
A. When he said "babae kapala", he lay me down on the canal.
Q. Did you follow his order?
A. Yes, ma'am[,] because his knife was pointed on the left side of my neck.
Q. When you lay down[,] what did he do?
A. In [sic] inserted his penis to my vagina.
Q. When he ordered you to lie down and before he inserted his penis into your vagina, what[,] if any[,] did he order you?
A. He told me "babae kapala, sige na humiga ka na".
Q. And you said he inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you feel?
A. It was painful.
Q. And while he was doing that, what was he saying to you[,] if any?
A. He said, "di ba taga-Sitio Broadway ka? May girlfriend ka? Dalhin mo dito, titirahin ko din."
x x x
Q. When you were on top of the canal, what did he do next?
A. Pinatuwad po niya ako at ipinasok niya ulit yung titi niya.
Q. When he asked you to bend down and inserted his penis into your vagina, what was he saying[,] if any?
A. Sabi po niya, lalagyan po niya ko ng marka, tapos po, sinalag ko po yung saksak niya.
Q. Where did he stab you?
A. Hindi po natuloy[.] [D]apat po sasaksakin niya ko, sinalag ko, kaya nga po may sugat ako dito ([T]he witness is pointing to her right thumb). x x x
x x x
Q. So, the accused told you to go down to the canal, did you follow him?
A. Yes, ma'am[,] because the knife was still pointing to my neck ([W]itness is pointing to her left neck).
Q. When you were already down on the canal, what did he do to you?
A. He said "last na to" and he told me not to report to the police because he will kill me. Sinabi rin po niya na pag nabuntis ako, hanapin ko lang daw siya.
Q. What did he actually do to you when you were already down on the canal?
A. Ganun din po. Ipinasok niya ang titi niya sa ari ko.
Q. What was your position then when he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A. Nakaganito po, kasi, eto po yung canal eh...([T]he witness is raising both of her legs).5
AAA's sister, BBB, testified that when AAA came home, the latter was wet and dirty as a result of suffering through multiple rapes in a canal. Moreover, accused-appellant made cruel and hurtful remarks before and during the rapes against AAA, which added insult to injury, such as: "babae ka pala, sige na humiga ka na" and "May girlfriend ka? Dalhin mo dito, titirahin ko din." These statements are considered gender-based slurs, the use of which are punishable under Republic Act No. 11313.6 Taken as a whole, accused-appellant's acts increased AAA's anguish and suffering from the ordeal.
Ignominy may be appreciated if alleged, in the Informations of the absorbed component crimes
Indeed, there is as yet no jurisprudence where an aggravating circumstance alleged in the Information of the absorbed component crime has been treated as aggravating in the resulting complex crime. Conversely, We can view this dearth of jurisprudence to mean that there is yet no prohibition precluding courts from appreciating an aggravating circumstance from an absorbed crime.
To determine whether the alleged aggravating circumstance may be considered by the court, it is helpful to first examine the ratio behind the requirement that an Information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstance mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.7
In People v. Solar,8 the Court stressed the Constitutional imperative that no person should be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. An. essential component of the right to due process in criminal proceedings is the right of the accused to be sufficiently informed, in writing, of the cause of the accusation against him. These requirements are imposed to ensure that the accused is sufficiently apprised of the acts and circumstances with which he is being charged.9 Simply put, the underlying purpose is to inform the accused of the acts and circumstances comprising the criminal charge.
The issue that now confronts this Court is this: if an aggravating circumstance was alleged under the Information of an absorbed component crime, can courts consider the accused as having been informed of this aggravating circumstance? I answer in the affirmative.
In robbery with multiple rapes, all the rapes are merged in the composite, integrated whole comprising the single crime of robbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied the robbery.10 Thus, it cannot be denied that the accused had already been informed, in writing, of the acts and circumstances alleged in the other Informations before the component rapes were absorbed. Necessarily, the allegations in the Informations for the component rapes should likewise be considered as integrated into the Information for robbery with rape because the purpose of Section 8, Rule 110 had been, satisfied. Ultimately, the accused remains sufficiently informed of the acts and circumstances with which he is being charged.
The Court's decision in People v. tuppal is instructive.11 In that case, the accused was charged under four (4) separate Informations for murder, frustrated murder, attempted murder, and robbery. All charges were subsequently merged into one (1) special indivisible or composite crime of robbery with homicide. For the purpose of reckoning the appropriate penalty, the Court considered the injuries inflicted as an aggravating circumstance.12
In the present case, all charges under the three (3) Informations should also be considered as merged into one (1) special indivisible crime of robbery with rape, which necessarily includes the allegations of aggravating circumstances.
Incidentally, the CA herein acquitted the accused for the other two (2) incidents of rape. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Decision dated 17 November 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 100, Antipolo City, is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
(1) Insofar as Criminal Cases Nos. 11-43070 and 11-43071 are concerned, appellant is ACQUITTED of the charge of two (2) counts of simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
(2) With respect to Criminal Case No. 11-43069 convicting appellant of robbery with rape under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the same is AFFIRMED. However, the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
(3) Appellant is ORDERED to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, in addition to the awards of moral damages and civil indemnity which are increased to P100,000.00.
(4) Finally, pursuant to the pronouncement in Nacar v. Gallery Frames and Felipe Bordey, Jr., 34 appellant is further ORDERED to pay legal interest on all awarded damages at 6% per annum from the filing of the Information on 18 October 2011 until the finality of this Decision, and another 6% per annum from such finality until full payment.
SO ORDERED.
As shown in the fallo, the CA did not indicate whether the prosecution's evidence absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The CA erred in rendering an acquittal without specifying one of the reasons under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.13 The merging of composite crimes is not among the valid reasons to acquit an accused.
Since an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire base for review, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction, over the case and renders such court competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.14
Herein, considering the two (2) additional rapes were merely absorbed in the robbery with rape charge, thus, the proper manner in disposing the separate charges, instead of an acquittal, should have been to indicate that all other charges have been merged into the special complex crime. This manner of disposal was also employed in Tuppal, wherein the trial court did not acquit the. accused under any of the Informations. Instead, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the single offense of robbery with homicide, as all other charges have been merged in said offense.15 Hence, the dispositive portion should be modified to indicate that all charges have been, merged into a single charge of robbery with rape.
With all three (3) charges merged, I see no impediment in applying the aggravating circumstance of ignominy sufficiently alleged in the second Information for rape. At any rate, accused-appellant has already been fully informed, in writing, of the acts and circumstances with which he was being charged.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the appeal. However, accused-appellant Jonathan Juarizo Evardone should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
Footnotes
1 Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties, A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 4 August 2015.
2 The Informations for Criminal Case Nos. 11-43070 and 11-43071 read:
Criminal Case No. 11-43070
That on or about the 12th day of August 2011, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a male person whose true name, identity and present whereabout[s] is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with lewd design, and by means offeree, threat and intimidation, with the use of a knife, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], while on a sitting position against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 11-43071
That on or about the 12th day of August 2011, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a male person whose true name, identity and present whereabout[s] is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with lewd design, and by means of force, threat and intimidation, with the use of a knife, did, then, and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], who was ordered to bend over against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphases supplied)
3 People v. Alfanta y Alo, G.R. No. 125633, 09 December 1999, 378 Phil. 95-122 (1999).
4 Id.
5 CA Decision pp. 8-11.
6 Also known as the Safe Spaces Act:
Section 4. Gender-Based Streets and Public Spaces Sexual Harassment. — The crimes of gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment are committed through, any unwanted and uninvited sexual actions or remarks against any person regardless of the motive for committing such action or remarks.
Gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment includes catcalling, wolf-whistling, unwanted invitations, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and sexist slurs, persistent uninvited comments or gestures on a person's appearance, relentless requests for personal details, statement of sexual comments and suggestions, public masturbation or flashing of private parts, groping, or any advances, whether verbal or physical, that is unwanted and has threatened one's sense of personal space and physical safety, and committed in public spaces such as alleys, roads, sidewalks and parks. Acts constitutive of gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment are those performed in buildings, schools, churches, restaurants, malls, public washrooms, bars, internet shops, public markets, transportation terminals or public utility vehicles.
7 SECTION 8. Designation of the Offense. — The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances, If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
8 G.R. No. 225595, 06 August 2019.
9 Id.
10 People v. Seguis, G.R. No. 135034, 18 January 2001, 402 Phil. 584-607 (2001).
11 People v. Tuppal, G.R. Nos. 137982-85, 13 January 2003, 443 Phil. 92-107 (2003).
12 Id.
13 Section 2. Contents of the judgment. — x x x
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. x x x
14 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 234190, 01 October 2018.
15 People v. Tuppal, G.R. Nos. 137982-85, 13 January 2003, 443 Phil. 92-107 (2003).
On March 12, 1999, the trial court found the appellant guilty. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of accused SATURNINO TUPPAL beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the proper offense of Robbery with Homicide, all the other charges having been merged in said offense, defined and penalized under par. 1 of Article 294, Revised Penal Code, with one aggravating circumstance, that of nocturnity, without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law; to indemnify the heirs of Bartolo Atuan, Jr. the sum of PhP50,000.00 following prevailing jurisprudence and an additional sum of PhP20,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages plus moral damages in the sum of PhP200,000.00 and exemplary damage[s] in the sum of PhP50,000.00; to pay to Florfina Solito the sum of PhP2,500.00 which the accused forcibly took from her and PhP60,000.00 for actual and compensatory damage; and, to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. [Emphasis supplied.]
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
