G.R. No. 186228 - People vs. Lauga y Pina

Case Summary (G.R. No. 186228)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Information filed: 21 September 2000.
Appellant pleaded not guilty: 12 October 2000.
Trial court judgment: 8 July 2006 — convicted appellant of qualified rape; sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered damages.
Court of Appeals decision: 30 September 2008 — affirmed with modifications (increased damages and held appellant ineligible for parole); allowed appeal to proceed further on 24 November 2008.
Supreme Court final disposition: Decision under review (recorded in the prompt) affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling with specific modifications to exemplary damages and sentence consequences.

Applicable Law and Legal Authorities

Substantive statute on rape: Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997), Articles 266-A and 266-B (rape; qualifying/aggravating circumstance where victim is under 18 and offender is a parent).
Constitutional safeguard: Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the 1987 Constitution (right to be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel; inadmissibility of confession obtained in violation).
Relevant jurisprudence cited: People v. Malngan (on scope of Miranda protections vis-à-vis barangay officers), People v. Buendia (nature of bantay bayan), and other precedents addressing witness credibility, injuries corroborating rape, damages awards, and effect of RA 9346 (abolition of death penalty) on sentencing.

Facts as Found at Trial

On the evening of 15 March 2000 AAA was at home alone; appellant had been drinking and had a history of mauling his wife when drunk.
At about 10:00 p.m. appellant awakened AAA, removed his and her clothing, threatened her (fist; allegedly placed a knife above her head), kissed and groped her breasts, and penetrated her vagina with his penis.
BBB returned home, found AAA crying; AAA disclosed the incident en route to their maternal grandmother’s house. The family then sought assistance from Moises Boy Banting.
Banting found the appellant in his house in his underwear, brought him to the police outpost, and averred that the appellant admitted he raped AAA because he could not control himself.
AAA underwent medical examination the following day; the Municipal Health Officer issued a certificate describing fresh lacerations of the hymen and bloody discharges consistent with an alleged raping incident.
Appellant’s testimony admitted frequent physical discipline in the family and recounted an alternative version alleging an altercation and a subsequent later awakening by bantay bayan; he denied committing rape.

Pre-trial Stipulations and Admissions

Parties stipulated and admitted during pre-trial: (a) correctness of the medical certificate findings; (b) AAA’s age (13) at the time of the alleged offense; and (c) AAA’s maternal relationship to the appellant.
These stipulations were treated as judicial admissions under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court and therefore required no further proof unless retracted.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellant’s sole assignment of error: conviction despite alleged failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, premised on: (1) alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and BBB; (2) inadmissibility of the extrajudicial confession to Moises Boy Banting due to lack of counsel and absence of valid waiver (constitutional right); and (3) alleged ill motive of AAA to fabricate the charge.

Ruling on Admissibility of the Extrajudicial Confession

Legal standard applied: Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution and People v. Malngan — custodial interrogation by state actors without informing the suspect of Miranda rights renders confessions inadmissible.
Analysis: The Court examined whether a “bantay bayan” (barangay-based watch group member) may be deemed a law enforcement officer or state agent for Miranda purposes. Executive Order No. 309 and prior cases (People v. Buendia) were cited to show that barangay-based volunteer watch groups are recognized local mechanisms for peace and order and, arguably, have a state-related function.
Conclusion: The Court found that inquiries made by a bantay bayan carry the “color of a state-related function” such that constitutional Miranda protections apply. Consequently, the appellant’s extrajudicial confession to Moises Boy Banting (taken without counsel) was inadmissible.

Impact of Confession Ruling on Conviction

Despite excluding the extrajudicial confession, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the conviction was not based solely on that confession; rather, it rested on the “confluence of evidence” (victim testimony corroborated by medical findings and other witnesses). Therefore, exclusion of the confession did not vitiate the prosecution’s case.

Assessment of Witness Credibility and Alleged Inconsistencies

Appellant argued contradictions between AAA’s and BBB’s accounts. The Court distinguished the facts from authorities where irreconcilable contradictions doomed testimony (Bartocillo). Here, the differences were minor (timing/order of seeking a bantay bayan) and could be attributed to shorthand or differing degrees of detail in recounting events.
The Court reiterated the principle that trivial inconsistencies do not necessarily impeach credibility and may support genuineness by showing lack of rehearsing. Precedent was invoked to emphasize that it is improbable for a daughter to fabricate a rape charge against her father given the stigma and consequences, and that such testimony, when straightforward and uncontradicted in essentials, deserves great weight.

Elements of Rape — Findings and Legal Application

Elements proven: (1) carnal knowledge — established by AAA’s consistent testimony that appellant “inserted his penis inside her vagina”; (2) force, threat or intimidation — AAA described threats (fist, knife above her head), and the law recognizes the parent-child relationship as substituting for violence/intimidation due to moral ascendancy; (3) qualifying circumstances — victim’s minority (13 years) and familial relationship (father) were alleged, stipulated, and admitted at pre-trial.
Corroboration: Medical certificate showing fresh lacerations of the hymen and bloody discharges corroborated the victim’s account. The Court applied settled authorities that a woman’s testimony that she was raped, especi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 186228)

Procedural Posture

Information filed 21 September 2000 charging the appellant with QUALIFIED RAPE allegedly committed on or about 15 March 2000 in Barangay xxx, municipality of xxx, province of Bukidnon; victim identified in the record as AAA, a 13-year-old minor and daughter of the appellant.
Appellant pleaded not guilty on 12 October 2000.
During pre-trial, prosecution and defense stipulated to: (a) correctness of findings in the medical certificate of examining physician; (b) that AAA was 13 years old at time of alleged offense; and (c) that AAA is the appellant’s daughter.
Trial produced three prosecution witnesses: victim AAA, her brother BBB, and Moises Boy Banting (a "bantay bayan"); appellant testified for the defense.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Malaybalay City (Judge Pelagio B. Estopia) rendered judgment on 8 July 2006 in Criminal Case No. 10372-0 finding appellant guilty of rape qualified by relationship and minority and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua; ordered indemnity and damages (trial court awards later described).
Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00456-MIN, affirmed with modifications on 30 September 2008, including a finding of non-eligibility for parole and increase of civil indemnity and moral damages.
Court of Appeals allowed appellant’s notice of appeal on 24 November 2008; Supreme Court required supplemental briefs but parties declined to file them.
Supreme Court decision (Second Division) G.R. No. 186228 rendered 15 March 2010; the appeal raises a single assignment of error contesting conviction on grounds of inconsistencies, inadmissible extrajudicial confession, and alleged ill-motivation of the accusation.

Facts — Alleged Commission of the Offense

On the afternoon of 15 March 2000, AAA was left alone at home while appellant was drinking at a neighbor’s place; AAA’s mother left because appellant, when drunk, had the habit of mauling AAA’s mother; BBB went out with neighbors.
At around 10:00 p.m., appellant allegedly woke AAA, removed his pants, slid inside the blanket covering AAA, removed her pants and underwear, warned her not to shout and threatened her with his fist and told her he had a knife placed above her head.
Appellant allegedly mashed AAA’s breast, kissed her repeatedly, and “inserted his penis inside her vagina.”
BBB arrived soon after and found AAA crying; appellant claimed he was scolding her for staying out late.
BBB took AAA; while en route to their maternal grandmother’s house, AAA recounted the incident; at the grandmother’s house they told relatives and sought assistance from Moises Boy Banting.
Moises Boy Banting found appellant at home wearing only his underwear, invited him to the police station, and at the police outpost appellant allegedly admitted to him that he raped AAA because he was unable to control himself.
AAA submitted to physical examination the following day.

Pre-Trial Stipulations and Judicial Admissions

Parties stipulated and admitted the following as part of the pre-trial agreement: the correctness of the medical certificate of the examining physician, AAA’s age (13) at time of incident, and that AAA is appellant’s daughter.
The Supreme Court recognized these stipulations as judicial admissions under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court and therefore binding and not requiring proof unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake.

Prosecution Witnesses — Testimony Summaries

AAA (victim):
- Testified to being awakened by her father at about 10:00 p.m., his removal of pants, covering with the blanket, removal of her garments, threats not to shout for help, and threatened with a knife above her head.
- Described physical molestation: mashing of breasts, repeated kissing, and penetration by appellant’s penis into her vagina.
- Related that she later told relatives about the incident and submitted to physical examination the next day.
BBB (brother):
- Arrived to find AAA crying; recounted that appellant alleged he scolded her; took AAA to the grandmother’s house; his testimony differs slightly in sequence as to when a “bantay bayan” was sought but maintains that they sought assistance.
Moises Boy Banting (bantay bayan):
- Located appellant in his house wearing only underwear; invited him to the police station; at the police outpost appellant admitted raping AAA, saying he could not control himself.

Medical Evidence

Dra. Josefa Arlita L. Alsula, Municipal Health Officer, issued a Medical Certificate after examination of AAA describing:
- Hyperemic vulvae with 4 o’clock and 6 o’clock freshly lacerated hymen.
- (+) minimal to moderate bloody discharges 2A related to an alleged raping incident.
The prosecution and defense stipulated to the correctness of the findings in that medical certificate during pre-trial.

Defense Case — Appellant’s Testimony and Defense Theory

Appellant admitted to certain violent tendencies: occasional physical abuse of his wife in front of the children after heated arguments and corporal discipline of the children.
He contended the rape accusation was ill-motivated, implying retaliation based on his disciplinary conduct.
Narrated his version of events on 15 March 2000: absence of a prepared lunch, a confrontational encounter with AAA (whom he claims kicked on the buttocks), departure to work, return around 3:00 p.m., finding no one at home, preparing dinner and sleeping; later awakened by Bantay Bayan members and informed he was under detention because AAA charged him with rape.
Denied the act as testified by AAA, offering alibi/denial as defense; admitted being taken to the police outpost but disputed the weight and property of the extrajudicial confession.

Trial Court Decision (RTC, Branch 9, Malaybalay City)

Dated 8 July 2006, penned by Judge Pelagio B. Estopia.
Found appellant guilty of rape qualified by relationship and minority.
Imposed penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Ordered payment of moral damages P50,000.00, civil indemnity P50,000.00, and exemplary damages