People Vs Amoc

G.R. No.
216937
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
TITO AMOC y MAMBATALAN, Accused-Appellant
DECISION
TIJAM, J.:
Accused-appellant Tito Amoe y Mambatalan challenges before Us the December 9, 2014
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)1 , which affirmed his conviction for two counts of rape, with
modification as to the award of damages, rendered against him by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 2, Tagum City, Davao Del Norte, in its July 23, 2012 Decision. 2
Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of rape in violation of Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), in two separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read
as follows:
For Criminal Case No. 16705:
That on or about July 12, 2009, in the Municipality of Talaingod, Province f (sic) Davao del Norte,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of one AAA', his step-daughter, a thirteen (13) year old minor, against her will.
For Criminal Case No. 16961:
That sometime in April 2009, in the Municipality of Talaingod, Province of Davao del Norte,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by
means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of one AAA, his step-daughter, a thirteen (13) year old minor, against her will. 4
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both accusations. Trial ensued
thereafter.
Version of the Prosecution
Prosecution witness and victim AAA narrated her tragic experience which happened in April 2009
at around 6 o'clock in the morning, when she was only thirteen years old. Accused-appellant
brought her into their bedroom, took off all her clothes, tied her legs with a rope, undressed
himself, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. Accused-appellant covered AAA's
mouth to prevent her from asking help. Accused-appellant pointed a knife at her and tried to stab
her. AAA could not tell her mother what happened because accused-appellant was always tailing
her. 5
AAA also testified that the second sexual abuse happened on July 12, 2009. Accused-appellant
even warned AAA not to say anything about the incident. 6
AAA's mother, BBB, noticed that AAA's stomach had a slight bulge and conducted a pregnancy
test, which yielded a positive result. AAA later on divulged that accused-appellant had been
raping her and that he is the father of her baby. AAA gave birth to a baby girl sometime in
December 2009. 7
Accused-appellant admitted that he had sexual congress with AAA but argued that the same was
consensual. Accused-appellant claimed that it was an accepted practice among the Ata-Manobo;
an indigenous cultural group, to take one's daughter as a second wife. 8
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape in a
Decision dated July 23, 2012. Accused-Appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, and ordered to pay AAA the following indemnity:
Php 75,000 as civil indemnity; Php 75,000 as moral damages; and, Php 25,000 as exemplary
damages. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision provides:
WHEREFORE, by his own admission, there being proof beyond reasonable doubt, accused
TITO AMOC Y MAMBATALAN is hereby found GUILTY of the rape of AA (sic) as charged in
both of the above entitled cases and is:
1. Sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape; and 2. Likewise
for each count of rape, he is ordered to pay the victim ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00
as moral damages, and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED 9
On appeal, the CA in a Decision dated December 9, 2014, affirmed the RTC's Decision with
modification as to the award of damages. The awards for civil indemnity and moral damages
were decreased to Php 50,000 for each count of rape. The CA Decision's fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tagum City,
Branch 2, dated 23 July 2012 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
The award of civil indemnity is decreased to ₱50,000.00 and the award of moral damages is
likewise decreased to ₱50,000.00, for each count of rape.
Appellant Tito Amoc is also ordered to support the offspring born as a consequence of the rape.
The amount of support shall be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing, with
support in arrears to be reckoned from the date the appealed decision was promulgated by the
trial court.
SO ORDERED. 10
Hence, this appeal.
Accused-appellant questions the CA Decision and argues the following: 1) that the prosecution
failed to prove the element of force and intimidation; and, 2) that his admission of carnal
knowledge of AAA does not amount to rape.
The appeal lacks merit.
There is no cogent reason to deviate from the CA ruling affirming the RTC's factual finding that
the accused-appellant is guilty of two counts of· rape. The issues raised are factual in nature.
The trial court's evaluation shall be binding on this Court unless it is shown that certain facts of
substance and value have been plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. 11 None of the
exceptions is present in this case.
Even if We consider the factual issues raised, the findings of fact of the RTC and the CA still
sufficiently support the conviction of and imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the
accused-appellant for the crime of rape against AAA.
Article 266-A of the RPC pertinently reads:
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed-
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
xxx xxx xxx
For a charge of rape under the above-mentioned provision to .prosper, the following elements
mus't be present: (1) accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA; and, (2) he accompanied
such act by force, threat or intimidation.
The first element of carnal knowledge is present because accused appellant, in fact, admits that
he had carnal knowledge of AAA. The point of contention is whether there was force, or
1âw phi 1
intimidation, or threat in the said act.

We find that the evidence on record sufficiently established that the accused-appellant employed
force, intimidation and threat in carrying out his sexual advances on AAA. The CA correctly found
that the accused-appellant employed force upon the person of AAA. Accused-appellant tied
AAA's legs with a rope, climbed on top of her, and covered her mouth to prevent her from asking
for help. Accused-appellant also threatened AAA when he · pointed a knife at her and tried to
stab her. Clearly, contrary to the accused-appellant's contention, the element of force and
intimidation is present in this case.
And even assuming arguendo that AAA failed to resist, the same does not necessarily amount to
consent to accused-appellant's criminal acts. It is not necessary that actual force or intimidation
be employed; as moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.
Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape. Even the
victim's lack of resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into submission, does not
signify voluntariness or consent. 12 In the cases of People v. Ofemaniano 13 and People v.
Corpuz 14 , it has been acknowledged that even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may
be committed if the malefactor has moral ascendancy over the victim. Considering that accused-
appellant was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother, and as such, he was exercising
parental authority over AAA. Indeed, in this case, moral ascendancy is substituted for force and
intimidation.
As to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA (that accused-appellant inserted his
penis when AAA's legs were tied together, AAA pressed her hands on the back, and her prior
statement that she tried to push him), this can hardly affect the credibility of AAA.
As a general rule, on the question of whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of
the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest
respect because it is more competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the
witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. The
trial court is, thus, in the best position to weigh conflicting testimonies and to discern if the
witnesses were telling the truth. Without any clear showing that the trial court and the appellate
court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance, the rule should not be disturbed. 15
It is settled in this jurisdiction that as long as the testimony of the witness is coherent and
intrinsically believable as a whole, discrepancies of minor details and collateral matters do not
affect the veracity, or detract from the essential credibility of the witnesses' declarations. 16
Also, in prosecuting a crime of rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the
testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
normal course of things. 17
Moreover, accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi cannot stand against the prosecution's
evidence. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly
unreliable. 18 To merit approbation, he must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in
a place other than the situs criminis at the time when the crime was committed, such that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was
committed. 19 Accused-appellant failed in this regard.
Lastly, the Informations alleged that the accused-appellant was the stepfather of AAA. The
evidence, however, shows that the accused-appellant was merely the common-law spouse of
AAA's mother, BBB. There was no evidence adduced to prove that accused-appellant was
legally married to BBB. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that it was proven during trial that
accused-appellant was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother, the same cannot be
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance for it was not specifically alleged in the Informations.
The circumstances of relationship and minority must be both alleged in the Informations and
proved during trial to be convicted of the crime of qualified rape. Therefore, We find no cogent
reason to disturb the findings of the R TC and the CA for the conviction of accused-appellant for
two counts of simple rape as they were sufficiently supported by the evidence on record.
The CA properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in conformity with Article 266-B of the
RPC. However, to conform to prevailing jurisprudence, We deem it proper to modify the amount
of damages awarded in this case. The Court modifies the award of damages as follows: PhP
75,000 as civil indemnity, and PhP 75,000 as moral damages. 20
We note that exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 25,000 was awarded to AAA. In
accordance with the case of People v. Jugueta 21 , exemplary damages in rape cases are
awarded for the inherent bestiality of the act committed, even if no aggravating circumstance
attended the commission of the crime, and so We hereby increase the award of exemplary
damages to PhP 75,000 for each count of rape.
In addition, all damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of finality of judgment until fully paid. 22
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals' Decision
dated December 9, 2014, finding accused-appellant Tito Amoe y Mambatalan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The civil indemnity, moral damages and
exemplary damages awarded are all modified to PhP 75,000. Likewise, the award of damages
shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully
paid.
SO ORDERED.
NOEL G. TIJAM
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice

People Vs Amoc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Amoc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Amoc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

intimidation, or threat in the said act.

You might also like