Today is Saturday, September 06, 2014

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THR! !"S#$
G.R. No. 155415 May 20, 2004
GERONIMO ORDINARIO, petitioner,
%s&
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents&
! ' ( S # $
VITUG, J.:
The case before this (ourt relates to an affirmance by the (ourt of )ppeals of the *oint decision, dated 20 #ctober 1+++, rendered by
the Re,ional Trial (ourt of Ma-ati (ity, .ranch 1/0, in (riminal (ases $o& ++12++ to $o& ++1/10, inclusi%e, con%ictin, petitioner
2eronimo #rdinario, on t3el%e 4125 counts, of ha%in, committed punishable acts under )rticle 2661) of the Re%ised Penal (ode& The
indictments, under t3el%e 4125 separate nformations filed by the (ity Prosecutor of Ma-ati (ity on 26 6ebruary 1+++, 3ere uniformly
3orded, e7cept 3ith re,ard to the date of commission of the offenses, thusly8
9That in or about and sometime durin, the month of $o%ember, 1++0, in the (ity of Ma-ati, Philippines and 3ithin the
*urisdiction of this Honorable (ourt, the abo%e1named accused, did then and there 3illfully, unla3fully and feloniously
commit an act of se7ual assault upon the person of one :);S#$ R)M#S y M)2<)=>', a ten 4105 year old male
person by then and there insertin, his penis into complainant?s mouth&9
1
Petitioner entered a plea of not ,uilty to all the char,es& ) *oint trial on the merits ensued&
#n 20 #ctober 1+++, follo3in, the conclusion of the hearin,s, a decision 3as rendered con%ictin, petitioner in all t3el%e 4125 criminal
cases and sentencin, him for each count of rape to imprisonment ran,in, from fi%e 4@5 years ofprision correccional, as minimum, to
ei,ht 405 years and one 415 day of prision mayor, as ma7imum, as 3ell as orderin, him, in each of the t3el%e 4125 cases, to indemnify
complainant P100,000&00 moral dama,es and P@0,000&00 e7emplary dama,es&
Petitioner interposed an appeal to the (ourt of )ppeals, particularly faultin, the trial court for ,i%in, full credence to the testimony of
pri%ate complainant on the alle,ed se7ual abuses and for discreditin, the %ersion testified to by petitioner and his 3itnesses&
The appellate court, in its no3 assailed decision, affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court& t ,a%e a synthesis of its factual
findin,s&
9(omplainant :ayson Ramos and accused1appellant 3ere student and teacher, respecti%ely, at $icanor 2arcia 'lementary School
durin, the time the alle,ed crime 3as perpetrated& :ayson 3as then a fourth1,rader and accused1appellant 3as his teacher in .oy
Scout&
9#n $o%ember +, 1++0, at around 6800 o?cloc- in the e%enin,, accused1appellant summoned :ayson to his office at the .oys Scout
headAuarters 3hile the latter 3as about to ,o home& Therein, accused1appellant ordered :ayson to strip off 3hich the latter complied
un3ary of the per%erse intentions of accused1appellant& .are to the s-in, accused1appellant approached :ayson and started -issin,
him all o%er his body includin, his male or,an& Thereafter, accused1appellant inserted his pri%ate part into the mouth of :ayson but
the latter could not hold on for lon, as he felt %omitin, promptin, accused1appellant to remo%e his penis and ordered :ayson to dress
up& .efore they parted 3ays, accused1appellant told :ayson Bpa, na,sumbon, -a sa m,a ma,ulan, mo, may masaman,
man,yayari sa iyo&? nterpretin, the same to mean an immediate bodily harm, :ayson -ept mum on the incident for fear of accused
appellant?s reprisal& The follo3in, day, :ayson 3as absent from school as he ,ot sic-& 4TS$, May 1C, 1+++, pp& 2126&5
9#n $o%ember 26, 1++0, the same se7ual molestation recurred, and se%eral more thereafter, four of them durin, the succeedin,
month of !ecemberD four in the month of :anuary, 1+++D and t3o more in 6ebruary 1+++& )s in the first instance, accused1appellant
made sure that :ayson realiEed that somethin, bad mi,ht befall him if he tells the incident to his parents& 4Id. at 40141&5
9#n 6ebruary 1@, 1+++, :ayson, to,ether 3ith his parents, 3ent for a leisurely 3al- at the (ultural (enter of the Philippines& t 3as
durin, this occasion that :ayson 3as able to summon enou,h stren,th to confide to his parents the se7ual assault perpetrated to him
by accused1appellant& Thus, on 6ebruary 1C, 1+++, a complaint 3as lod,ed a,ainst accused1appellant before the Ma-ati Police
Station&
9)ccused1appellant %ehemently denied the accusations a,ainst him& He claimed that his class schedule at $icanor 2arcia
'lementary School starts in the mornin, and ends at 1800 o?cloc- in the afternoon so it 3ould ha%e been impossible for him to ha%e
molested the child at 6800 in the e%enin,& #ccasionally, ho3e%er, he ,oes bac- to the school late in the afternoon to feed the chic-en
as part of his duty as o%erseer of the school?s poultry pro*ect&
9#n 6ebruary +, 1+++, the date 3hen the alle,ed last molestation 3as committed, accused1appellant claimed to ha%e not reported
for 3or- on that day because he 3ent to the office of Philippine )sia )ssociation at .alic1.alic, Manila to secure a loan
of P@0,000&00& )s proof of such fact, accused1appellant presented the cash %oucher 4Record, p& 114&5 of his loan and a lo,boo- entry
4Records, pp& 1+C11+0&5 sho3in, that he 3as absent from school on that day&
9n addition, the follo3in, 3itnesses 3ere presented by the defense8
9a5 Michael 'leccion, then a 1/1year old pupil at $icanor 2arcia 'lementary School, testified that he -ne3 the
complainant for about t3o 425 years& )lthou,h he 3as in 2rade " at that time and complainant 3as in 2rade , he
sa3 the complainant e%ery schoolday& !urin, the time that complainant 3as alle,edly molested by accused, he did
not notice any chan,e in the attitude of the complainant, nor in his appearance, as in fact he found him to be happy&
He, li-e3ise, testified that he, li-e complainant, freAuented the headAuarters of the .oy Scouts but normally 3ent
there at 12800 noon and only on Tuesdays and Fednesdays 4TS$, :uly 1+, 1+++, pp& 1@120&5D
9b5 Michael Malonda, a 101year old pupil of the same school, 3as a classmate of the complainant in .oy Scout at the
time the incident of molestation happened& He testified that he normally 3ent home at 68/0 in the e%enin, and he
ne%er sa3 the complainant ,oin, in or comin, out of the .oy Scout HeadAuarters& He sa3 the complainant only once
4TS$, :uly 26, 1+++, pp& +114&5D
9c5 Mi,uel Paolo )bad, a classmate of complainant in all sub*ects, testified that their class schedule 3as from 128/0
to @800 o?cloc- in the afternoon, and if assi,ned as a cleaner, they stayed until 6800 o?cloc- in the e%enin,& He noticed
no chan,e in the beha%ior of the complainant durin, the time that he 3as alle,edly molested by the accused 4TS$,
)u,& 2, 1+++, pp& 4110&5
9d5 $elson 'stoso, a *anitor at $icanor 2arcia 'lementary School, testified that his 3or- schedule 3as from 6800
o?cloc- in the mornin, to C8/0 in the e%enin,& )t about C8/0 to 0800 o?cloc- e%ery e%enin,, he, to,ether 3ith the ,uard
on duty, conducts a ro%in, chec- of the school?s %icinity and found nothin, unusual durin, the time the alle,ed
molestation of accused 3as perpetratedD
9e5 $ati%idad Pa,ulayan, a co1teacher of the accused, testified that she accompanied the latter on 6ebruary +, 1+++
to the office of )ll )sia in Sampaloc, Manila 3here he secured a loan& They parted 3ays at about 48/0 in the
afternoon and ne%er -ne3 the 3hereabouts of the accused thereafter 4TS$, )u,& 16, 1+++, pp& /111&5
9f5 'ufemia Mayor, a security assistant of the Ma-ati Protecti%e and Security ),ency 4M)PS)5 detailed at $icanor
2arcia 'lementary School, testified that she -no3s the accused and that on 6ebruary +, 1+++, she did not see the
accused inside the school?s compound& She normally conducts a ro%in, chec- of the school premises startin, at C800
o?cloc- in the e%enin, and did not notice any unusual incident durin, the time the alle,ed molestation happened
4TS$, )u,& 2/, 1+++, pp& /16&5
9,5 'liEabeth Talion, also a M)PS) ,uard assi,ned at the same school, testified that she usually sa3 the accused
inside the school?s premises bet3een 6800 o?cloc- and C800 o?cloc- in the e%enin, either feedin, the chic-en or
3aterin, the plants 4TS$, September C, 1+++, pp& +11/&59
2
n affirmin, the *ud,ment of con%iction, the (ourt of )ppeals held that the precise date of commission of the incidents of rape
complained of 3as not an element of the crime, and neither 3as it reAuired to be accurately alle,ed in the nformation nor pro%ed
3ith e7actitude by the prosecution durin, trial& The appellate court ,a%e credence to the %i%id account of complainant on his
harro3in, e7perience, stressin, an absence of ill1moti%e on his part and that of his parents that 3ould ha%e compelled the court to
rule other3ise&
The ,ist of the ar,ument ad%anced by petitioner before the (ourt lies in the supposed improbability of the commission of the alle,ed
se7ual assaults, in particular that 3hich occurred on 0+ 6ebruary 1+++ on the ,round of his not bein, at the place 3here the
molestation 3as said to ha%e occurred, and the failure of the prosecution to alle,e in the nformation the specific dates of the
assaults complained of&
The ur,in,s of petitioner appear to be specious&
The defense of alibi mi,ht prosper if it is at least sho3n 415 that the accused is in another place at the time of the commission of the
offense, and 425 that it 3ould ha%e been physically impossible for him to ha%e been at the crime scene
/
or 3ithin its immediate
%icinity&
4
Alibi cannot be sustained 3here it is not only 3ithout credible corroboration, but it also does not on its face demonstrate the
physical impossibility of the accused?s presence at the place and time of the commission of the offense&
@
)ppellant himself has
admitted that 3hile his class 3ould end at one o?cloc- in the afternoon, he occasionally 3ould still ,o bac- to school late in the
afternoon to o%ersee the school?s poultry pro*ect&
) complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accusedD the desi,nation of the offense ,i%en by the statuteD the
acts or omissions complained of as bein, constituti%e of the offenseD the name of the offended partyD the appro7imate date of the
commission of the offenseD and the place 3here the offense is committed&
6
The appellate court is correct in holdin, that the e7act
date of the commission of the offense of rape is not an element of the crime&
C
$either 3ould such impreciseness operate to discredit
the %i%id account of the 111year old %ictim& Most importantly, the e%aluation of the credibility of 3itnesses is addressed to the sound
determination by the trial court, 3hose findin,s thereon deser%e 3ei,ht and respect&
0
The definition of the crime of rape has been e7panded 3ith the enactment of Republic )ct $o& 0/@/, other3ise also -no3n as the
)nti1Rape <a3 of 1++C, to include not only 9rape by se7ual intercourse9 but no3 li-e3ise 9rape by se7ual assault&9 Section 2 of the
la3 pro%ides8
9Sec& 2& Rape as a Crime Against Persons. G The crime of rape shall hereafter be classified as a (rime ),ainst
Persons under Title 'i,ht of )ct $o& /01@, as amended, other3ise -no3n as the Re%ised Penal (ode& )ccordin,ly,
there shall be incorporated into Title 'i,ht of the same (ode a ne3 chapter to be -no3n as (hapter Three on Rape,
to read as follo3s8
9)rticle 2661)& Rape; When And How Committed. G Rape s (ommitted G
915 .y a man 3ho shall ha%e carnal -no3led,e of a 3oman under any of the follo3in, circumstances8
94a5 Throu,h force, threat, or intimidationD
94b5 Fhen the offended party is depri%ed of reason or other3ise unconsciousD
94c5 .y means of fraudulent machination or ,ra%e abuse of authorityD and
94d5 Fhen the offended party is under t3el%e 4125 years of a,e or is demented, e%en thou,h none of
the circumstances mentioned abo%e be present&
925 .y any !"#on 3ho, under any of the circumstances mentioned in para,raph 1 hereof, shall $o%%&' an
a$' o( #!)*a+ a##a*+' ,y &n#!"'&n- .&# !n&# &n'o ano'.!" !"#on/# %o*'. o" ana+ o"&(&$!, or any
instrument or ob*ect, into the ,enital or anal orifice of another person&9 4>nderscorin, supplied5
)n act of se7ual assault under the second para,raph of the article can be committed by any person 3ho, under
thecircumstances mentioned in the first para,raph of the la3, inserts his penis into the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
ob*ect into the ,enital or anal orifice, of another person& The la3, unli-e rape under the first para,raph of )rticle 2661) of the (ode,
has not made any distinction on the se7 of either the offender or the %ictim& $either must the courts ma-e such distinction& )rticle
2661. of the (ode prescribes the penalty of prision mayor for the crime of rape by se7ual assault& The trial court, in all the t3el%e
4125 indictments, has found the elements of rape by se7ual assault, under para,raph 2 of )rticle 2661), to ha%e all been established
by the prosecution and thereupon uniformly imposed the penalty of imprisonment ran,in, from fi%e 4@5 years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to ei,ht 405 years and one 415 day of prision mayor, as ma7imum, 3hich the appellate court has affirmed&
The impositions accord 3ith the la3&
(onformably 3ith the ndeterminate Sentence <a3, the court could impose an indeterminate sentence, the ma7imum term of 3hich
shall be that 3hich, considerin, all attendant circumstances, could be properly imposed and the minimum of 3hich could be
any3here 3ithin the ran,e of the penalty one de,ree lo3er than that prescribed by la3 for the offense& $either a,,ra%atin,
circumstance nor miti,atin, circumstance ha%in, been alle,ed and pro%ed, pursuant to )rticle 64, para,raph 415, of the Re%ised
Penal (ode, the ma7imum penalty 3hich can then be imposed shall be any3here 3ithin the ran,e of prision mayor in its medium
period of from ei,ht 405 years, and one 415 day to ten 4105 years, and the minimum penalty shall be any3here 3ithin the ran,e
of prision correccional of from si7 465 months and one 415 day to si7 465 years&
The (ourt obser%es, ho3e%er, that both the trial court and the appellate court has failed to pro%ide ci%il liability ex delicto, an
indemnity authoriEed by pre%ailin, *udicial policy to be an eAui%alent of actual or compensatory dama,es in ci%il la3&
+
Such indemnity
is not to be ta-en as bein, part of moral dama,es, the latter bein, based on different *ural foundations and assessed by the court in
the e7ercise of sound discretion& The a3ard of P@0,000&00 ci%il indemnity and P100,000&00 moral dama,es ad*ud,ed by the trial
court for each count of se7ual assault are e7cessi%e and should be reduced to P2@,000&00 ci%il indemnity and P2@,000&00 moral
dama,es for each count& The a3ard of e7emplary dama,es is deleted for lac- of le,al basis&
FH'R'6#R', the *ud,ment appealed from, con%ictin, petitioner 2eronimo #rdinario of rape by se7ual assault on t3el%e 4125
counts, and sentencin, him therefor, is affirmed 3ith modification in that petitioner 2eronimo #rdinario is ordered to pay pri%ate
complainant P2@,000&00 ci%il indemnity and P2@,000&00 moral dama,es for each count of rape by se7ual assault& The a3ard of
e7emplary dama,es is deleted& (osts a,ainst petitioner&
S# #R!'R'!&
ando!al"#utierre$, Corona, and Carpio"%orales, &&., concur&
Foo'no'!#
1
Rollo, p& 12&
2
Rollo, pp& 1//11/@&
/
People %& Ra%anes, 2&R& $o& 120/C+, 22 :anuary 1++0 4204 S(R) 6/45D People %& =uinao, 2&R& $o& 1004@4, 1/
March 1++C 426+ S(R) 4+@5&
4
People %& .allesteros, 2&R& $o& 120+21, 2+ :anuary 1++0 420@ S(R) 4/05D People %& (aHete, 2&R& $o& 1204+@, 12
March 1++0 420C S(R) 4+05&
@
People %& )ran*ueE, 2&R& $o& 1210+0, 2+ :anuary 1++0 420@ S(R) 4665&
6
Section 6, Rule 110, Re%ised Rules of (riminal Procedure&
C
People %& )lba, 2&R& $os& 1/10@01@+, 14 )pril 1+++ 4/0@ S(R) 0115&
0
People %& "enerable, 2&R& $o& 110110, 1/ May 1++0 42+0 S(R) 1@5&
+
See People %& 2ementiEa, 2&R& $o& 12/1@1, 2+ :anuary 1++0 420@ S(R) 4C05&
The <a3phil Pro*ect 1 )rellano <a3 6oundation