Case Digest (G.R. No. 66884)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Nilo Ardon, G.R. Nos. 137753-56, March 16, 2001, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Nilo Ardon (hereafter NILO). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39 (Judge Eddie R. Rojas) rendered the challenged decision dated 25 November 1998.Four separate informations were filed against NILO. Criminal Case No. 316 charged rape committed sometime in 1988 against his daughter Jennilyn B. Ardon (hereafter JENNILYN) when she was six years old (statutory rape). Criminal Cases Nos. 317–319 charged three acts of rape on 11–12 October 1994 when JENNILYN was twelve years old (qualified rape under Art. 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659). NILO pleaded not guilty in all four cases and the cases were tried jointly.
At trial the prosecution presented JENNILYN, her mother Jane Ardon, her uncle Daniel Jordan, and the examining physician Dr. Porferio Pasuelo, Jr. JENNILYN gave detailed testimony describing repeated sexual assaults beginning at age six and continuing intermittently until October 1994, including fingering, penile penetration, bleeding, and specific instances on 11 and 12 October 1994. Dr. Pasuelo's medico-legal report noted healed lacerations and that the victim "easily admits the physician’s forefinger," which he interpreted as evidence of forced and repeated penetration.
NILO testified in denial, claiming that JENNILYN concocted the charges out of resentment for parental chastisement and family hostility toward him; he presented letters from his wife and relied on alibi/denial. The RTC found JENNILYN credible, characterized her testimony as spontaneous and forthright, and convicted NILO of four counts of rape on 25 November 1998: statutory rape (1988) — sentenced to reclusion perpetua — and three counts of qualified rape (1994) — each sentenced to death under Sec. 11, R.A. No. 7659. The RTC also awarded moral and exemplary damages.
Because three death sentences were imposed, the cases were subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court; the Court also treated the fourth conviction as properly before it despite the absence of a notice of appeal given the single consolidated judgme...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in convicting Nilo Ardon of the three counts of rape (Crim. Cases Nos. 317–319) despite alleged absence of force or resistance?
- Were the penalties and civil damages imposed by the trial court appropriate, and what modifications, if any, should the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)