1 - People v. Quiachon PDF

8/15/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 500
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Quiachon
*
G.R. No. 170236. August 31, 2006.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROBERTO

QUIACHON Y BAYONA, appellant.
Criminal Law; Rape; Guiding Principles in the Review of

Rape Cases.—In reviewing rape cases, this Court has always been
guided by three (3) well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation
for rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is
difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused,
though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of
things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape,
the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or
fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Accordingly,
the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the
crime of rape is the credibility of complainant’s testimony.
Likewise, it is well settled that when it comes to the issue of
credibility of witnesses, the trial court is in a better position than
the appellate court to properly evaluate testi-
_______________
* EN BANC.
705
VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 705
People vs. Quiachon
monial evidence having the full opportunity to observe directly

the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568d03679153d116a3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
Appeals; Appellate courts will generally not disturb the

factual findings of the trial court unless these were reached
arbitrarily or when the trial court misunderstood or misapplied
some facts of substance and value which, if considered, might
affect the result of the case.—In this case, as correctly found by the
CA, there is nothing on the record that would impel this Court to
deviate from the well-entrenched rule that appellate courts will
generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court unless
these were reached arbitrarily or when the trial court
misunderstood or misapplied some facts of substance and value
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
Alibis and Denials; A mere denial, just like alibi, constitutes a

self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
evi-dentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who
testify on affirmative matters.—Viewed against the damning
evidence of the prosecution, appellant’s simple denial of the
charge against him must necessarily fail. The defense of denial is
inherently weak. A mere denial, just like alibi, constitutes a self-
serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who
testify on affirmative matters.
Criminal Law; Republic Act No. 9346; Penal laws which are
favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.—All told, the
trial court and the CA correctly found appellant guilty of raping
his daughter Rowena pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code. The special qualifying circumstances of the victim’s
minority and her relationship to appellant, which were properly
alleged in the Information and their existence duly admitted by
the defense on stipulation of facts during pre-trial, warrant the
imposition of the supreme penalty of death on appellant.
However, in view of the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346
on June 24, 2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty,
the penalty to be meted on appellant is reclusion perpetua in
accordance with Section 2 thereof which reads: SECTION 2. In
lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: (a) the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of
the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does
not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties
706
People vs. Quiachon

of the Revised Penal Code. The aforequoted provision of R.A. No.

9346 is applicable in this case pursuant to the principle in
criminal law, favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda.
Penal laws which are favorable to accused are given retroactive
effect. This principle is embodied under Article 22 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Same; Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion

perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua
by reason of the law, are not eligible for parole.—Appellant is not
eligible for parole because Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides that
“persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua,
or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by
reason of the law, shall not be eligible for parole.”
Rape; Damages; Even if the penalty of death is not to be

imposed on the accused because of the prohibition in R.A. No.
9346, the civil indemnity of P=75,000.00 is still proper because the
said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death
penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting
the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the
offense; Notwithstanding the abolition of the death penalty under
R.A. No. 9346, the Supreme Court has resolved, as it hereby
resolves, to maintain the award of P=75,000.00 for rape committed
or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the
death penalty would have been imposed prior to R.A. No. 9346.
—With respect to the award of damages, the appellate court,
following prevailing jurisprudence, correctly awarded the
following amounts: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity which is
awarded if the crime is qualified by circumstances warranting the
imposition of the death penalty; P75,000.00 as moral damages
because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries,
hence, entitling her to an award of moral damages even without
proof thereof, and; P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in light of
the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship. Even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on
the appellant because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the civil
indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper because, following the
ratiocination in People v. Victor, 292 SCRA 186 (1998), the said
award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death
penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting
the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of
the offense. The Court declared that the award of P75,000.00
shows “not only a reaction to the apa-
707
VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 707
People vs. Quiachon
thetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial

fluctuations over time but also the expression of the displeasure of
the court of the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity.”
Notwithstanding the abolition of the death penalty under R.A. No.
9364, the Court has resolved, as it hereby resolves, to maintain
the award of P75,000.00 for rape committed or effectively
qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death
penalty would have been imposed prior to R.A. No. 9346.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for the People.
Francisco B. Sibayan for appellant.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Appellant Roberto Quiachon was charged with the crime of

qualified rape committed as follows:
“On or about May 12, 2001, in Pasig City, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, by means of
force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Rowena
Quiachon y Reyes, his daughter, 8 years old, a deaf-mute minor,
against her will and consent.
1
Contrary to law.”
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 120929-H. At

his arraignment, appellant, duly assisted by counsel,
entered a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses:
Rowel Quiachon, 11-year old son of appellant; Rowena
Quiachon, the victim and appellant’s daughter; Dr. Miriam
Sta. Romana Guialani; and SPO2 Noel Y. Venus.
_______________
1 Information dated May 21, 2001, Records, p. 1.
708

People vs. Quiachon
Rowel testified that he is appellant’s son. He averred,

however, that he no longer wanted to use his father’s
surname describing him as “masama” for raping his
(Rowel’s) sister Rowena. Rowel recounted that he used to
sleep in the same bedroom occupied by his father, sister
and youngest sibling. Rowel slept beside his youngest
sibling while their father, appellant, and Rowena slept
together in one bed.
On the night of May 12, 2001, Rowel saw his father on
top of his sister Rowena and they were covered by a
blanket or “kumot.” His father’s buttocks were moving up
and down, and Rowel could hear Rowena crying. He could
not do anything, however, because he was afraid of their
father. Rowel remained in the room but the following
morning, he, forthwith, told his mother’s sister Carmelita
Mateo, whom he called Ate Lita, about what he had
witnessed. Together, Carmelita and Rowel went to the
police to report what had transpired. During the police
investigation, Rowel executed a sworn statement 2
in
Tagalog and signed it using the surname Mateo.
Rowena, through sign language, testified that her father
had sexual intercourse with her and even touched her
breasts against her will. She was only eight years old at the
time. She cried when she was asked if she was hurt by
what appellant did to her. She consistently declared that
she does not love her father
3
and wants him to be punished
for what he did to her.
Dr. Miriam Sta. Romana Guialani of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) General Hospital Health Services
testified that she received a letter request from the PNP
Crime Laboratory to conduct an examination on Rowena.
While she was about to proceed with the forensic interview,
she noticed that Rowena was deaf and mute, hence, could
not verbally communicate her ordeal. Dr. Guialani
proceeded to conduct a
_______________
2 TSN, September 10, 2001, pp. 10-31.

3 TSN, September 17, 2001, pp. 3-5.
709
VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 709

People vs. Quiachon
physical examination and, based thereon, she submitted

her medico-legal report.
Dr. Guialani, as indicated in her report, found that

Rowena had a “contusion hematoma” on her left cheek,
which was compatible with her claim that she was slapped
by her father. Rowena also had an “ecchymosis” or
“kissmark” at the anterolateral border of her left breast as
well as ano-genital injuries suggestive of chronic
penetrating trauma.
Dr. Guialani explained that although the external
genitalia did not show any sign of sexual abuse, when it
was opened up, the following were discovered: “markedly
hyperemic urethra and peri-hymenal area with fossa
navicularis and markedly hyperemic perineum, markedly
hyperemic urethra layer up to the peri-hymenal margin up
to the posterior hymenal notch with attenuation.” Further,
the labia was “very red all throughout, with hymenal notch
with attenuation,
4
a pale navicular fossa and a very red
perineum.” All these, according to Dr. Guialani, were
compatible with the recent chronic penetrating trauma and
recent injury which could have happened a day before the
examination. She pointed out that the hymenal attenuation5
sustained by Rowena was almost in the 6 o’clock notch.
For its part, the defense presented the lone testimony of
appellant Roberto Quiachon.
He testified that, on May 13, 2001, he was invited to the
barangay hall by their barangay chairman. He did not
know then the reason for the invitation. At the barangay
hall, he was surprised to see the two sisters of his deceased
live-in partner and his two children. He was shocked to
learn that his daughter Rowena had accused him of raping
her. Thereafter, he was taken to the Karangalan Police
Station. He suffered hypertension and was brought to the
hospital. When he
_______________
4 TSN, November 12, 2001, pp. 4-14.

5 Id.
710

People vs. Quiachon
recovered, he was taken to the Pasig City Police Station

and, thereafter, to jail.
Appellant claimed that Rowena is not deaf but only has
a minor speech handicap. He denied raping Rowena and
alleged that Virginia Moraleda and Carmelita Mateo, both
sisters of his deceased common-law wife, held a grudge

against him because he abandoned his family and was not
able to support them. His common-law wife died of cancer
and her relatives were allegedly all interested in his house
and other properties. The said house was being leased and
they were the ones getting the rental income. Further, the
nephew of his deceased partner was sending financial
support of US$100 a month for his child.
According to appellant, even before the death of his
common-law wife, his son Rowel was already hostile to him
because he was closer to his daughters. He disclaimed any
knowledge of any reason why his children,6 Rowel and
Rowena, accused him of a very serious offense.
After consideration of the respective evidence of the
prosecution and defense, the Regional Trial
7
Court of Pasig
City, Branch 159, rendered its Decision dated September
9, 2003, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of qualified
8
rape defined and penalized under
Articles 266-A and B of the Revised Penal Code. The
decretal portion of the decision reads:
_______________
6 TSN, May 20, 2003, pp. 2-10.

7 Penned by Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio; Rollo, pp. 12-25.
8 The said provision was introduced by Republic Act No. 8353 entitled
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 which classified rape as a crime against
persons. It effectively repealed Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 266-B pertinently reads:
Art. 266-B. Penalties.—
xxxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
711
VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 711

People vs. Quiachon
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of rape, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
maximum penalty of DEATH, including its accessory penalties,
and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P75,000.00
as compensatory damages, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
9
SO ORDERED.”
The case was automatically elevated to this Court by

reason of the death penalty imposed on appellant. 10
However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo, the
case was transferred and referred to the Court of Appeals
(CA). 11
Upon review, the CA rendered its Decision dated
August 25, 2005, affirming with modification the decision
of the trial court. In affirming appellant’s conviction, the
CA held that there was no justification to make a finding
contrary to that of the trial court with respect to the
credibility of the witnesses. The CA particularly pointed
out that the trial court, after having “meticulously
observed” the prosecution witness Rowel and complainant
Rowena, had declared that “their narration palpably bears
the earmarks of truth and is in accord with the material
points involved. When the testimony of a rape victim is
simple and straightforward, unshaken by rigid cross-
examination, and unflawed by an inconsistency or
contradiction as in the present
12
case, the same must be
given full faith and credit.”
_______________
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender
is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the
parent of the victim.
xxxx
9 Rollo, p. 25.
10 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
11 Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate
Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring; Rollo, pp.
118-134.
12 Rollo, p. 127.
712

People vs. Quiachon
Moreover, the CA ruled that the testimonies of Rowel and

Rowena recounting the bestial act perpetrated by appellant
on the latter were corroborated by physical evidence as
presented by Dr. Guialani in her medico-legal report.
On the other hand, the CA noted that appellant could
only proffer a bare denial. On this matter, it applied the
salutary rule that denial is not looked upon with favor by
the court as it is capable of easy fabrication. Consequently,
the CA held that appellant’s bare denial could not

overcome the categorical testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, including Rowena, the victim herself.
The CA believed that Rowena could not possibly invent a
charge so grave as rape against her father because “it is
very unlikely for any young woman in her right mind to
fabricate a story of defloration against her own father,
undergo a medical examination of her private parts, and
subject herself to the trauma and scandal of public trial,
put to shame not only herself but her whole family as well
unless she was motivated by a strong 13desire to seek justice
for the wrong committed against her.”
In sum, the CA found that the trial court correctly found
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
qualified rape and in imposing the supreme penalty of
death upon him. In the Pre-Trial Order dated September
10, 2001, the prosecution and the defense agreed on the
following stipulation of facts:
1. The minority of the victim who is eight (8) years

old;
2. That the accused is the father of the victim; and
14
3. The victim is a deaf-mute.
_______________
13 Id., at p. 131, citing People v. Obquia, 430 Phil. 65; 380 SCRA 295
(2002).
14 Id., at p. 132.
713
VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 713

People vs. Quiachon
According to the CA, the qualifying circumstances of the

victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender were
alleged in the Information and were duly proved during
trial. These circumstances, i.e., minority of the victim and
her relationship to appellant, are special qualifying
circumstances in the crime of rape that warrant the
imposition of the supreme penalty of death.
The CA, however, modified the trial court’s decision with
respect to the damages awarded to conform to prevailing
jurisprudence. The decretal portion of the CA decision
reads:
“WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated September 9, 2003 of

the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 159, in Criminal
Case No. 120929-H finding the accused-appellant Roberto
Quiachon y Bayona guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified
rape and imposing upon him the DEATH penalty is AFFIRMED,
with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is also
ordered to pay the victim, Rowena Quiachon, the amount of
P75,000 as civil indemnity; P75,000 as moral damages; and
P25,000 as exemplary damages.
In accordance with A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC which took effect on
October 15, 2004, amending Section 13, Rule 124 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, let the entire records of this case be
elevated to the Supreme Court for review.
Costs de oficio.
15
SO ORDERED.”
In this Court’s Resolution dated December 13, 2005, the

parties were required to submit their respective
supplemental briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General
manifested that it would no longer be filing a supplemental
brief. Similarly, appellant, through the Public Attorney’s
Office, manifested that he would no longer file a
supplemental brief.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the
Court affirms the conviction of appellant.
_______________
15 Id., at p. 133.
714

People vs. Quiachon
In reviewing rape cases, this Court has always been guided

by three (3) well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation
for rape can be made with facility and while the accusation
is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that
in the nature of things, only two persons are usually
involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the
complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and
(3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its
own merits and cannot be allowed to draw 16strength from
the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Accordingly,
the primordial consideration in a determination concerning
the crime17 of rape is the credibility of complainant’s

testimony.
Likewise, it is well settled that when it comes to the
issue of credibility of witnesses, the trial court is in a better
position than the appellate court to properly evaluate
testimonial evidence having the full opportunity to observe
directly the
18
witnesses’ deportment and manner of
testifying.
In this case, as correctly found by the CA, there is
nothing on the record that would impel this Court to
deviate from the well-entrenched rule that appellate courts
will generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial
court unless these were reached arbitrarily or when the
trial court misunderstood or misapplied some facts of
substance and value19
which, if considered, might affect the
result of the case.
In convicting the appellant, the trial court gave full faith
and credence to the testimonies of Rowel and Rowena. The
trial court observed that Rowel and Rowena “never
wavered
_______________
16 People v. Del Mundo, Sr., G.R. No. 132065, April 3, 2001, 356 SCRA
45, 50.
17 People v. Turco, Jr., 392 Phil. 498, 507; 337 SCRA 714, 722 (2000).
18 People v. Adajio, 397 Phil. 354, 359-360; 343 SCRA 316, 321-322
(2000).
19 People v. Baygar, 376 Phil. 466, 473; 318 SCRA 358, 365-366 (1999).
715
VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 715

People vs. Quiachon
in their assertion that accused sexually abused Rowena.

Their narration palpably bears the earmarks of20truth and
is in accord with the material points involved.” Further,
the trial court accorded great evidentiary weight to
Rowena’s testimony. It justifiably did so as it characterized
her testimony to be “simple, straightforward, unshaken by
a rigid cross-examination,
21
and unflawed by inconsistency
or contradiction.”
Significantly, Rowel and Rowena’s respective
testimonies 22were corroborated by Dr. Guialani’s medico-
legal report:
PERTINENT PHYSICAL Contusion hematoma about 3x4

FINDINGS/PHYSICAL cm noted at the left mandibular
INJURIES area of the left cheek compatible
with the disclosed slapping of the
cheek by her father;
2x2 cm ecchymosis (kissmark)
noted at the antero-lateral bor-
der of the left breast
ANO-GENITAL EXAMINATION
EXTERNAL GENITALIA Tanner 2

Pubic hair—none
Labia majora—no evident sign of
injury at the time of examination
Labia minora—no evident sign of
injury at the time of examination
URETHA AND Markedly hyperemic urethra
PERIURETHRAL AREA meatus and periurethral area.
PERIHYMENAL AREA Markedly hyperemic perihymenal
AND FOSSA area, and pale fossa navicularis
NAVICULARIS
_______________
20 Rollo, p. 127.
21 RTC Decision, p. 10; Records, p. 130.
22 Exhibit “D,” Id., at p. 76.
716

People vs. Quiachon
HYMEN Tanner 2
Annular hymen; hymenal notch
noted at 5 o’clock with attenua-
tion of the hymenal rim
from 5 o’clock to 7 o’clock; very
hyperemic hymen
PERINEUM Hyperemic perineum
DISCHARGE Whitish, foul-smelling discharge,
minimal in amount noted
IE AND SPECULUM Not indicated

EXAM
ANAL EXAMINATION No evident sign of injury at the
time of examination;
REMARKS
FORENSIC EVIDENCE None

COLLECTED
LABORATORY Requested a) Urinalysis
EXAMINATION b) Gram Stain of Vaginal smear
IMPRESSIONS
No verbal disclosure of sexual abuse (pt is a deaf-mute)

For referral to NCMH for evaluation of developmental stage and
competence to appear in court.
Presence of contusion hematoma on the Left Cheek (slapmark)
and ecchymosis on the antero-lateral border of the left breast
show clear evidence of Physical Abuse.
Ano-genital findings suggestive of chronic penetrating trauma.
Dr. Guialani explained during her testimony that the

foregoing findings were consistent with Rowena’s claim of
sexual abuse. Specifically, her internal genitalia showed
signs of sexual abuse such as: “markedly hyperemic
urethra and peri-
717
VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 717

People vs. Quiachon
hymenal area with fossa navicularis, markedly hyperemic

perineum, markedly hyperemic urethra layer up to the
perihymenal margin up to the posterior hymenal notch
with attenuation.” Further, Rowena’s labia was “very red
all throughout, with hymenal notch with attenuation,
23
a
pale navicular fossa and a very red perineum.” All these,
according to Dr. Guialani, were compatible with the recent
chronic penetrating trauma and recent injury which could
have happened a day before the examination. She pointed
out that the hymenal attenuation 24
sustained by Rowena
was almost in the 6 o’clock notch. Dr. Guialani, likewise,
confirmed that Rowena was deaf and mute.
Viewed against the damning evidence of the prosecution,
appellant’s simple denial of the charge against him must
necessarily fail. The defense of denial is inherently weak. A
mere denial, just like alibi, constitutes a self-serving
negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration25 of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.
All told, the trial court and the CA correctly found
appellant guilty of raping his daughter Rowena pursuant to
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The special
qualifying circumstances of the victim’s minority and her

relationship to appellant, which were properly alleged in
the Information and their existence duly admitted 26
by the
defense on stipulation of facts during pre-trial, warrant
the imposition of the supreme penalty of death on
appellant.
However,
27
in view of the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9346 on June 24, 2006 prohibiting the imposition of
the
_______________
23 TSN, November 12, 2001, pp. 4-14.

24 Supra notes 4 and 5.
25 People v. Geraban, G.R. No. 137048, May 24, 2001, 358 SCRA 213,
223-224.
26 Rollo, p. 14.
27 Entitled An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines. Section 1 thereof reads:
718

People vs. Quiachon
death penalty, the penalty to be meted on appellant is

reclusion perpetua in accordance with Section 2 thereof
which reads:
SECTION 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be

imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated

makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated
does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of
the Revised Penal Code.
The aforequoted provision of R.A. No. 9346 is applicable in

this case pursuant to the principle in criminal law,
favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws
which are favorable to accused are given retroactive effect.
This principle is embodied under Article 22 of the Revised
Penal Code, which provides as follows:
Retroactive effect of penal laws.—Penal laws shall have a

retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in
Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the

publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced
28
and the convict is serving the same.
However, appellant is not eligible for parole because

Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides that “persons convicted
of
_______________
SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited.

Accordingly, Republic Act No. 8177, otherwise known as the Act Designating
Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise
known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and
decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly.
28 People v. Zervoulakos, G.R. No. 103975, February 23, 1995, 241

SCRA 625, citing U.S. v. Soliman, 36 Phil. 5 (1917).
719
VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 719

People vs. Quiachon
offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose

sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of
the law, shall not be eligible for parole.”
With respect to the award of damages, the 29
appellate
court, following prevailing jurisprudence, correctly
awarded the following amounts: P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity which is awarded if the crime is qualified by
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death
penalty; P75,000.00 as moral damages because the victim
is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, hence, entitling
her to an award of moral damages even without proof
thereof, and; P25,000.00 as exemplary damages in light of
the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority
and relationship.
Even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on the
appellant because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the
civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper30 because,
following the ratiocination in People v. Victor, the said
award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the
death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances
warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended
the commission of the offense. The Court declared that the
award of P75,000.00 shows “not only a reaction to the
apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the
financial fluctuations over time but also the expression of

the displeasure of the court of the incidence of heinous
crimes against chastity.”
Notwithstanding the abolition of the death penalty
under R.A. No. 9364, the Court has resolved, as it hereby
resolves, to maintain the award of P75,000.00 for rape
committed or effectively qualified by any of the
circumstances under which the death penalty would have
been imposed prior to R.A. No. 9346.
_______________
29 See, for example, People v. Barcena, G.R. No. 168737, February 16,
2006, 482 SCRA 543, 561.
30 G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998, 292 SCRA 186, 201.
720

People vs. Quiachon
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision dated

August 25, 2005 of the Court of Appeals finding appellant
Roberto Quiachon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION that the penalty of death meted on the
appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to
Republic Act No. 9346. SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (C.J.), Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-

Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia and
Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Corona, J., On Leave.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.—Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance

does not necessarily make voluntary the rape victim’s
submission to the criminal acts of the accused. (People vs.
Marabillas, 303 SCRA 352 [1999])
It is now settled that a negative sperm-detection test is
immaterial to the crime of rape. (People vs. Santiago, 319
SCRA 644 [1999])
——o0o——
721
© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

1 - People v. Quiachon PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1 - People v. Quiachon PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

8/15/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 500

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROBERTO

Criminal Law; Rape; Guiding Principles in the Review of

VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 705

People vs. Quiachon

monial evidence having the full opportunity to observe directly

Appeals; Appellate courts will generally not disturb the

Alibis and Denials; A mere denial, just like alibi, constitutes a

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Quiachon

of the Revised Penal Code. The aforequoted provision of R.A. No.

Same; Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion

Rape; Damages; Even if the penalty of death is not to be

VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 707

People vs. Quiachon

thetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Appellant Roberto Quiachon was charged with the crime of

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 120929-­H. At

1 Information dated May 21, 2001, Records, p. 1.

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rowel testified that he is appellant’s son. He averred,

2 TSN, September 10, 2001, pp. 10-­31.

VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 709

physical examination and, based thereon, she submitted

Dr. Guialani, as indicated in her report, found that

4 TSN, November 12, 2001, pp. 4-­14.

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

recovered, he was taken to the Pasig City Police Station

sisters of his deceased common-­law wife, held a grudge

6 TSN, May 20, 2003, pp. 2-­10.

VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 711

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable

The case was automatically elevated to this Court by

712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Moreover, the CA ruled that the testimonies of Rowel and

the CA held that appellant’s bare denial could not

1. The minority of the victim who is eight (8) years

VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 713

According to the CA, the qualifying circumstances of the

“WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated September 9, 2003 of

In this Court’s Resolution dated December 13, 2005, the

714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In reviewing rape cases, this Court has always been guided

the crime17 of rape is the credibility of complainant’s

VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 715

in their assertion that accused sexually abused Rowena.

PERTINENT PHYSICAL Contusion hematoma about 3x4

EXTERNAL GENITALIA Tanner 2

716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

IE AND SPECULUM Not indicated

FORENSIC EVIDENCE None

No verbal disclosure of sexual abuse (pt is a deaf-­mute)

Dr. Guialani explained during her testimony that the

VOL. 500, AUGUST 31, 2006 717

hymenal area with fossa navicularis, markedly hyperemic

qualifying circumstances of the victim’s minority and her

23 TSN, November 12, 2001, pp. 4-­14.

718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

death penalty, the penalty to be meted on appellant is

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 120929-H. At

2 TSN, September 10, 2001, pp. 10-31.

4 TSN, November 12, 2001, pp. 4-14.

sisters of his deceased common-law wife, held a grudge

6 TSN, May 20, 2003, pp. 2-10.

No verbal disclosure of sexual abuse (pt is a deaf-mute)

23 TSN, November 12, 2001, pp. 4-14.

Panganiban (C.J.), Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-