G.R. No. 45815 - People vs. Lagon

Case Summary (G.R. No. 45815)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence centered on sworn statements and in-court testimony establishing the alleged sexual assaults committed at night in the victims’ family home while other family members slept in the same dwelling.

For Criminal Case No. 14972, BBB testified that at about 4:00 o’clock in the morning of 21 January 1999, she and her siblings slept on the floor in a room inside the house in xxx. Their mother had left the previous day for the family farm, about an hour’s walk away. BBB recounted that she felt someone touching her, awoke in fright, and saw her father, the appellant, touching her. She attempted to shout but could not because the appellant held her neck with both hands. BBB stated that the appellant removed her short pants and panty with one hand, removed his own clothing, inserted his penis into her vagina, and warned her not to report the incident under threat of being killed. BBB further testified to “push and pull” movements while she cried from excruciating pain. After the appellant left, BBB continued crying due to pain in her vagina and noticed slight bleeding. BBB later went to her sister AAA’s house and, upon advice, proceeded to their aunt DDD’s house to report the incident. BBB also disclosed that she learned of the appellant’s arrest on 30 January 1999 for the rape of CCC, which encouraged her to finally relate her own assault to her mother, uncle, and siblings. On 4 February 1999, BBB, CCC, AAA, and their mother proceeded to the National Bureau of Investigation where their sworn statements were taken.

BBB stated that at the time of the incident she was fourteen years and eight months old.

For Criminal Case No. 14973, CCC testified that at about 2:00 o’clock in the morning of 29 January 1999, while their mother was at the family farm, she was sleeping alongside her brother on the floor in one of the rooms in their family house. CCC stated that the appellant arrived, positioned her brother away, cleared his throat, and stayed near her. CCC testified that she moved away in fear, tried to cover herself with a blanket, and tried to avoid responding to the appellant’s questioning. She recounted that the appellant embraced her without waiting for her reply, pulled down her panty, and when she resisted and attempted to pull up the panty, the appellant nonetheless held her and proceeded to insert his penis into her vagina. When CCC complained of pain, she stated that the appellant withdrew his penis but inserted it again. CCC testified that the appellant warned her not to report the incident, threatening to kill her. CCC also recounted that she felt something come out of the appellant’s penis and into her vagina, followed by pain and the sensation of something oozing out. After the appellant removed his penis, CCC cried, stood up, and tried to identify the person responsible for the wetness in her panty, which she discovered the next morning to be blood.

CCC asserted that she was certain it was her father who raped her. She explained that although the room was dark and the house had no electricity, moonlight streamed through holes of the sawali walls, enabling her to see the appellant near her. She also testified that she recognized his voice when he cleared his throat and when he spoke. CCC stated that the following day, while the appellant was still asleep, she went to the family farm, fetched her mother, and reported the rape. Her mother cried upon hearing the account. With a relative, CCC’s mother reported the matter to the barangay captain and then to Marine soldiers for the appellant’s arrest. CCC declared that she was twelve years and ten months old at the time of the rape.

Medical Evidence and Documentary Proof

Dr. Renee A. Argubano testified regarding the physical examinations of both BBB and CCC conducted on 3 February 1999. He reported finding lacerations on the hymenal ring of BBB at the 3:00 o’clock position and lacerations on CCC’s hymen at the 3:00 o’clock and 9:00 o’clock positions. He stated that the clean-cut lacerations were old and already healed, and could have been caused by insertion into the vagina of an object, most possibly a penis. He explained that lacerations of that nature normally heal within three to five days, depending on the person’s immune system.

The trial court admitted the medico-legal certificates of BBB and CCC, photocopies of the birth certificates of BBB and CCC, and BBB’s sworn statement. The birth certificates were later treated as secondary evidence and, given the lack of timely objections, were considered admitted and deemed primary evidence under the rules applied by the appellate court and affirmed in the Supreme Court’s treatment.

Appellant’s Defense at Trial

The appellant, who testified as a lone witness in his defense, denied both rapes. He invoked alibi, claiming he was at his farm in xxx, about thirty minutes away from the family house, on the dates of the incidents. He stated that he stayed and slept at the farm because he could not leave his crops and animals, and he allegedly slept at the family house only once in two months or not at all, only when his wife told him to do so. He claimed that in January 1999 he visited the family house only once, on 17 January 1999. When he arrived on that date, he allegedly found cigarette butts around and asked the children who had slept there, and he instructed them to stop allowing friends to sleep over while they watched television. He also testified that CCC told him BBB had left the house for a fiesta, and he allegedly became infuriated and told CCC to tell BBB that she would get it upon her return. Thereafter, he claimed he went back to the farm and did not visit the family house again until 1 February 1999, when he was immediately arrested.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

At arraignment on 17 May 1999, the appellant pleaded not guilty to all three counts of rape. In Criminal Case No. 14971, the private complainant AAA repeatedly failed to appear despite due notice. The appellant moved for dismissal invoking the right to speedy trial, and the trial court granted the motion through an Order dated 15 May 2000.

For Criminal Case Nos. 14972 and 14973, the trial court held that the victims’ testimonies provided the necessary proof beyond reasonable doubt. It found BBB and CCC’s accounts “direct, straightforward,” and “not stained with inconsistencies.” It stated that no ill motives were shown that would compel the victims to falsely accuse and testify against their father. The trial court further reasoned that the appellant’s denial and alibi could not prevail over the prosecution evidence. It held that the defense of alibi was easily fabricated and that the alleged location of the farm did not make the commission of the crimes impossible. It specifically considered that the farm where appellant allegedly stayed was only about a thirty-minute hike from the family house, and thus the appellant had free access to the house where the rapes occurred.

The trial court concluded that appellant sexually abused BBB on 21 January 1999 and CCC on 29 January 1999 and convicted him for rape in each case. It imposed the death penalty in each case pursuant to R.A. 7659 and R.A. 8353, and ordered payment of P75,000.00 as moral damages to each victim. It also ordered appellant’s transfer to the National Penentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal, and required the record submission for automatic review.

Appellate Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals found no compelling reason to disturb the trial court’s factual findings. It emphasized that BBB and CCC’s testimonies were direct, straightforward, and consistent, and that their credibility was not shaken by cross-examination. It held that the testimonies were corroborated by the medical evidence presented in court.

The Court of Appeals likewise rejected appellant’s defense theory. It observed that appellant raised only denial and alibi. It held that it was not convincing to claim that rape could not have occurred while other children slept in the room. It underscored the principle that lust is no respecter of time or place and that rape can be consummated even when the malefactor and victim are not alone. It further noted appellant’s failure to establish physical impossibility. The farm was described as a thirty-minute walk from the family house, thus making it possible for appellant to have been at the scene at the relevant times.

On the issue of ill motive, the Court of Appeals found it senseless for a young daughter to fabricate a story that would send her father to death merely because he disciplined her. It sustained the imposition of the death penalty on the view that the qualifying circumstances—victims’ minority and their relationship to appellant—were properly alleged and proven at trial.

As to damages, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the awards. It imposed additional damages: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Supreme Court Review: Issues and Disposition

The case reached the Supreme Court for final disposition through the automatic review mechanism. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and affirmed appellant’s conviction, finding no reason to overturn the concurrent factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court reiterated three guiding principles in reviewing rape cases. It recognized that rape accusations may be made with facility and yet are difficult to disprove; that because rape usually involves only two persons, the complainant’s testimony must be scrutinized with caution; and that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit without borrowing strength from the defense’s weakness. The Court further stressed that in resolving rape cases, “primordial consideration” is given to the credibility of the victim’s testimony. When the victim’s account is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with hum

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 45815)

The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review of the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 49 convicting appellant for two counts of rape involving his daughters.
The Court treated the appeal as an assessment of both the findings of fact of the trial court and the affirmance by the Court of Appeals.
The Court affirmed appellant’s guilt but modified the penalty in view of Republic Act No. 9346.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Appellant was Alexander G. Mangitngit, convicted by the RTC of rape in Criminal Case No. 14972 and Criminal Case No. 14973.
The victim-sisters were referred to as [BBB] and [CCC], with real names withheld pursuant to R.A. 9262 and its implementing rules.
On arraignment on 17 May 1999, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to all three Informations.
In Criminal Case No. 14971, appellant’s motion for dismissal based on the right to speedy trial was granted because private complainant AAA repeatedly failed to appear despite due notice.
The RTC conducted a joint trial on the merits for Criminal Cases Nos. 14972 and 14973, after which it convicted appellant of rape and imposed death in each case.
The case went to the Court for automatic review and, after completion of pleadings on 11 December 2003, it was transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to People v. Mateo.
The Court of Appeals found no reason to disturb the RTC’s findings and affirmed the conviction.
The parties later filed supplemental briefs upon requirement by the Court, and the case was then submitted for final disposition.

Key Factual Allegations

Appellant was charged with rape for acts committed against his daughter [BBB] in Criminal Case No. 14972, and against his daughter [CCC] in Criminal Case No. 14973.
The Informations alleged that appellant had carnal knowledge of his daughters with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation, against their will and consent, damaging them and prejudicing them.
[BBB] testified that at about 4:00 o’clock in the morning of 21 January 1999, she was sleeping inside their house when she felt someone touching her and discovered it was her father.
[BBB] stated that appellant held her neck, removed her short pants and panty, removed his own brief, inserted his penis into her vagina, and warned her not to report the incident under threat of death.
[BBB] testified that appellant made “push and pull” movements while her vagina hurt and a little blood oozed after appellant left.
[BBB] reported the incident after learning of appellant’s arrest for raping [CCC], with sworn statements taken by the National Bureau of Investigation on 4 February 1999.
[CCC] testified that at about 2:00 o’clock in the morning of 29 January 1999, she was sleeping inside their house near her brother at the family home while their mother was at the farm.
[CCC] stated that appellant positioned the brother away from her, cleared his throat, embraced her, pulled down her panty, held her hands, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
[CCC] testified that when she complained of pain, appellant pulled out and inserted again, warned her not to report the incident under threat of death, and after the act she perceived blood and wetness on her panty.
[CCC] testified that despite the room’s darkness and absence of electricity, moonlight streamed through holes of the sawali wall, enabling her to see appellant near her, and she recognized his voice.
[CCC] reported the incident the next day while appellant was still asleep, leading to reports to barangay authorities and to Marine soldiers for appellant’s arrest.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented [BBB] and [CCC] as witnesses in their respective cases and presented Dr. Renee A. Argubano for medical corroboration.
Dr. Argubano examined both sisters on 3 February 1999 and found lacerations on the hymenal ring of [BBB] at the 3 o’clock position.
Dr. Argubano found lacerations on [CCC] at the 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions.
Dr. Argubano testified that the clean-cut lacerations of the sisters were old and already healed, and could have been caused by insertion into the vagina of an object, most possibly a penis.
The medico-legal certificates and other documents were formally offered, including photocopies of the birth certificates of [BBB] and [CCC] and sworn statement of [BBB].
The RTC admitted the documentary evidence formally offered by the prosecution, and appellant did not raise timely and valid objections to the introduction and use of the birth certificate photocopies.

Defense Theory

Appellant testified as a lone witness for the defense and denied raping [BBB] and [CCC].
Appellant asserted alibi, claiming that on the dates of the offenses he was at his farm which he described as about 30 minutes away from the family house.
Appellant claimed he slept at the farm frequently because he could not leave farm animals and crops and visited the family house only once in January 1999, specifically on 17 January 1999.
Appellant testified that upon visiting the family house on 17 January 1999, he noticed cigarette butts and told his children to stop allowing friends to sleep over when they watched television.
Appellant further claimed that he had an altercation after learning from [CCC] that [BBB] had left the house for a fiesta, after which appellant went back to the farm.
Appellant stated that he returned only on 1 February 1999, when he was immediately arrested by the Marines.
Appellant also contended that the rape could not have occurred while the other children slept nearby, and he argued that the bamboo floor and the room conditions would have alerted others.

Issues for Resolution

The primary issue concerned whether the prosecution evidence, especially the victims’ testimonies, proved the elements of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
The case also involved whether appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi could overcome the victims’ positive and categorical identification of him as the rapist.
The case required determination of whether the qualifying circumstances for imposing the penalty for rape under Article 266-B were properly alleged and proven, particularly the daughters’ minority and relationship to appellant.
The Court additionally addressed the proper civil liabilities and the proper penalty in light of Republic Act No. 9346.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC convicted appellant of rape in both criminal cases and imposed death in each case, pursuant to R.A. 7659 and R.A. 8353.
The RTC directed appellant to pay P75,000.00 moral damages to each victim and ordered transfer of appellant to the national penitentiary.
The RTC held that the victims’ testimonies were direct, straightforward, and not stained with inconsistencies, and it found that their credibility was not to be doubted.
The RTC ruled that denial and alibi could not prevail over the prosecution’s positive declarations.
The RTC reasoned that appellant’s farm was only about a 30-minute walk from his house where the rapes occurred, making it not impossible for him to be at the scene at the relevant hours.
The RTC found that appellant failed to demonstrate physical impossibility to commit the crimes.
The RTC considered that no ill motive was established to compel [BBB] and [CC