Petition Dismissed, Resolutions Affirmed.: Notes. - A Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 617 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 617
of reason or is otherwise unconscious; and (3) when she is

under twelve (12) years of age. Both the RTC and the Court
of Appeals found that Miranda committed rape under the first
circumstance, i.e., by having sexual intercourse with his 17-
year old daughter with the use of force and intimidation.
Criminal Procedure; Appeals; In the review of rape
Petition dismissed, resolutions affirmed. cases, the credibility of the private complainant is the single
most important
Notes.— A certification of non-forum shopping
without the proper authorization is defective and
_______________
constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition; If,
for any reason, the principal party cannot sign the * FIRST DIVISION.
petition, the one signing on his behalf must have been
duly authorized. (Sapitan vs. JB Line Bicol Express,
Inc., 537 SCRA 230 [2007]) 299
The certification of non-forum shopping is required
only for complaints and other initiatory pleadings—a
VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 299
contingent money claim against the estate of a decedent
is not an initiatory pleading; A contingent money claim, People vs. Miranda
not being an initiatory pleading, does not require a
certification against non-forum shopping. (Sheker vs.
factor for consideration.—In the review of rape cases, the
Estate of Alice O. Sheker, 540 SCRA 111 [2007])
credibility of the private complainant is the single most
——o0o——
important factor for consideration. The case of the
prosecution stands or falls on the credibility of the victim.
This rule is in accordance with the intrinsic nature of the
crime of rape where only two parties, namely the victim and
G.R. No. 176634. April 5, 2010.* the accused, are usually involved. In this regard, the appellate
court will generally not disturb the assessment of the trial
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. court on matters of credibility owing to its unique opportunity
ROMEO MIRANDA y MICHAEL, accused-appellant. to observe the deportment and manner of testifying of
witnesses firsthand during the trial unless certain facts of
substance and value were overlooked which, if considered,
Criminal Law; Rape; Different Ways by Which Rape is
might affect the result of the case.
Committed.—Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge
of a woman under any of the following instances: (1) when Criminal Law; Denials; Evidence; A mere denial, like
force or intimidation is used; (2) when the woman is deprived alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving
negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b550237c66a7c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/26 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b550237c66a7c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/26
evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses violence and intimidation.—The prosecution need not even
who testify on affirmative matters.—In answer to AAA’s prove the elements of force and intimidation in this case.
explicit declaration that she was sexually abused by Miranda, Settled is the rule that in rape committed by a father or a
the latter merely interposes the defense of denial. As between person recognized by the victim as her father, the former’s
a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand and a moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitute for
bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to violence and intimidation.
prevail. A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense Same; Same; Same; Special Qualifying Circumstances;
and constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot Minority and Relationship; Minority and relationship are
be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of special qualifying circumstances in the crime of rape that
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As warrant the mandatory penalty of death—these two
against the positive identification and credible testimony by circumstances must concur.—Under Article 266-B of the
the private complainant, mere denials of the accused cannot Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,
prevail to overcome conviction by the trial court. minority and relationship are special qualifying circumstances
Same; Rape; Qualified Rape; A teenage unmarried lass in the crime of rape that warrant the mandatory penalty of
does not ordinarily file a rape complaint against anybody, death. As such, they must both be specifically pleaded in the
much less her own father, if it is not true.—A rape victim’s Information and proven during trial. These two
testimony against her father is entitled to greater weight since, circumstances, minority and relationship, must concur;
ordinarily and customarily, Filipino children revere and otherwise, if only one is proven during trial, even if the
respect their elders. This is too deeply ingrained in Filipino Information alleged both, the death penalty cannot be
children and families and is even recognized by law. It is thus imposed. And, as special qualifying circumstances, the same
unthinkable, if not completely preposterous, that a daughter must be proven beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself.
would audaciously concoct a story of rape against her father Same; Rape; Penalties; Section 2 of Republic Act No.
in wanton disregard of the unspeakable trauma and social 9346 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of
stigma it may generate on her and the entire family. A teenage death when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of
unmarried lass does not ordinarily file a rape complaint the penalties of the Revised Penal Code, like Republic Act No.
against anybody, much less her own father, if it is not true. 8353.—The Court of Appeals was also correct in modifying
300
the penalty imposed upon Miranda because by June 24, 2006,
Republic Act No. 9346, prohibiting the imposition of the
death penalty, already took effect. Section 2 of Republic Act
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED No. 9346 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of
death when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of
People vs. Miranda
the penalties of the Revised Penal Code, like Republic Act
No. 8353 in this case.
Same; Same; Same; In rape committed by a father or a Same; Same; Same; Parole; Section 3 of Republic Act
person recognized by the victim as her father, the former’s No. 9346 provides that “persons convicted of offenses
moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitute for punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be
reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the law, shall not perpetua and increasing the award of moral damages
be eligible for parole.”—Miranda shall not be eligible for from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.
parole because Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 clearly The Information charging Miranda of the crime of
provides that “persons convicted of offenses punished with Rape pertinently read:
301
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta with

VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 301 Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal,
People vs. Miranda concurring; Rollo, pp. 3-18.

2 Penned by Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio; CA Rollo, pp. 17-24.
3 The real name of the victim is withheld to protect her identity
reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to and privacy pursuant to Section 29 of Republic Act No. 7610, Section
reclusion perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be eligible 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-
for parole.” SC. See our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Court of
Appeals. 302
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant. 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Miranda
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Accused-appellant Romeo Miranda y Michael
“On or about June 24, 2000 in Pateros, Metro Manila, and
(Miranda) is before Us on automatic review of the
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused,
Decision1 dated October 31, 2006 of the Court of
with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, did
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01953, which
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
affirmed the Decision2 dated February 13, 2004 of the
sexual intercourse with his daughter AAA, a minor, seventeen
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 261,
(17) years of age, against her will and consent.”4
in Criminal Case No. 118507-H, insofar as the trial
court found Miranda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Miranda pleaded “Not Guilty” when arraigned.5
the crime of Rape against his own daughter AAA3 and Prior to the commencement of trial, the prosecution and
awarded to AAA civil indemnity and exemplary Miranda agreed upon the following stipulation of facts:
damages in the amounts of P75,000.00 and P25,000.00,
respectively. However, the Court of Appeals modified a) Fact of identity of the accused;
the same RTC judgment by reducing Miranda’s b) The case is within the jurisdiction of this court;
sentence from the extreme penalty of death to reclusion c) The date of the commission of the crime;
d) Fact of the minority of the offended party;
e) The relationship of the accused and the complainant as penetrated the vagina or the hymen, and, that there was
father and daughter; [and] seminal fluid on the vagina.
f) Existence of the medico-legal report.6 She prepared a document entitled Sexual Crime dated June
25, 2000, Manifestation of Consent in Case No. M-2000 dated
The prosecution called to the witness stand AAA, June 25, 2000, which was signed by AAA and her mother and
the victim; Police Senior Inspector (P/Sr. Insp.) Ruby Initial Medico Legal Report in case No. M-2000-00 dated
Grace Sabino, the medico-legal officer who conducted June 25, 2000.
the physical examination on AAA; and Senior Police Through the testimony of the offended party, AAA, it was
Officer 4 Ramon Tagle, one of the arresting officers. established that she was born on May 27, 1983, as evidenced
The RTC summarized their testimonies as follows: by her Birth Certificate, marked as Exh. “C”, hence, she was
17 years old at the time of the commission of the instant
“P/Insp. Ruby Grace Sabino, x x x testified that upon a
charge. She declared that her father and mother have been
letter-request from the Pateros Police Station, she conducted a
separated for 14 years and are not in speaking terms with each
physical examination of AAA on June 25, 2000, the findings
other. She has been staying with her mother at x x x while her
of which she reduced into writing in Medico Legal Report
father, a jeepney driver, resides in x x x, in a two-storey house
No. M-2000-00, to wit:
with an unfinished lower portion.
Findings:
About noontime of June 23, 2000, while she was fetching
Hymen: elastic, fleshy type with deep fresh laceration at 6
water in a “poso” near their house in x x x, she came to learn
o’clock position.
that the live-in partner of her father died, hence, she went to
her father’s house in x x x to condole. Her father then told her
_______________
to look after her half-brother, CCC, and [half] sister, BBB.
4 Records, p. 1. She stayed at his house, cooked food and washed the dishes.
5 Id., at p. 18. She slept that night with her half-sister in the sala.
6 Id., at p. 23. On the following day, June 24, 2000, her father left in the
morning but returned at lunch time and stayed in the house for
303 the rest of the day. She was, however, not feeling well because
of a high fever and headache accompanied by vomiting spills
VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 303 which started at noontime of the same day.
People vs. Miranda After having dinner at 7:00 p.m. and while she was
washing the dishes, her father came to know of her condition
and he told his daughter, BBB to finish the dish washing. She
Conclusion:
then went to the room and after wearing a pajama over her
Physical findings of the genitalia is definitive evidence
shorts and panty, she put on the mosquito net. She then laid
of penetration. There is no external signs of application
down and while preparing herself to rest and go to sleep, she
of any form of physical trauma.
watched TV from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
She declared that the laceration was fresh because at the
time of the examination, there was blood; that something has 304

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED her if she wants to eat to which she replied in the negative.
People vs. Miranda She then waited for him to sleep and seeing him asleep, she
fixed herself and climbed the fence to get out from the house.
with a “Good Morning” towel stuck on her mouth to prevent She went to their house in x x x and because her mother was
her from vomiting. When her father turned off the TV, she still sleeping, she proceeded to the Barangay Hall of x x x
asked for the “Vicks Vaporub” placed at the side of the TV where she saw her uncle who accompanied her to x x x Police
set. Accused then entered the mosquito net and volunteered to Station where she executed a sworn statement. She was also
massage her head. While he was massaging her head, she felt brought to Camp Crame for a physical and genital check-up.
that both his elbows were touching her breasts. She tried to
305
evade his elbows saying she would be the one to do the
massaging but he refused. Thereafter, he told her “dededehin
niya po ang dede ko” and she replied that she will tell her VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 305
mother about it which made him stop and instead, he People vs. Miranda
massaged her hands.
In between sobs, AAA continued testifying that her father On the questions propounded by the Court, she answered
then kissed her on her neck while slowly lifting her T-shirt that it was before her father inserted his penis to her vagina
who thereafter sucked her breasts causing her to push him that he said that he will insert his penis but will not
hard telling him not to do it to her. Only his two children were “ipuputok” so that she will not get pregnant. She knows the
inside the house but both were already asleep at that time. meaning of “ipapuputok” because she was able to watch a
After sucking her breasts, he used his left hand in slowly rape movie; that when her father knew that “lalabasan siya,
pulling down her pajama and thereafter her short and panty. hinugot niya po, inalis niya ‘yong ari niya sa ari ko” and she
He then held both her arms and with his head going down, he was able to see something “parang sipon at tumapon malapit
licked her vagina. She resisted and tried to kick the wall to sa higaan ko.”
create some noise to awaken her half-brother and sister but he SPO4 Ramon Tagle’s testimony is confined to the fact of
did not stop. She did not shout for help out of fear of her apprehension of the accused in the early morning of June 25,
father stating “baka saktan niya ako”, whom she saw with red 2000. He declared that he, along with SPO3 Carmelito
eyes for the first time. Thereafter, he removed his shorts with Dequino and SPO1 Alfredo Cardenas effected the arrest of the
a garter and his brief and she turned her back to him but he accused at his house at 1:15 a.m. of June 25, 2000 after his
embraced her to make her face him. He told her that he will daughter, AAA, lodged a complaint of Rape against him. He
insert his penis to her vagina “pero hinde raw po niya further testified that the accused voluntarily went with them
ipuputok yun para hindi daw po ako mabuntis.” Then and after he was pinpointed and positively identified by his
there, he laid on top of her and inserted his penis into her daughter as the one who raped her. He identified his signature
vagina. She felt an entry into her vagina which she described in the “Sinumpaang Salaysay,” marked as Exh. “B” with
to be painful. When her father removed his sex organ from submarkings.”7
hers, she felt something hot flowed from her vagina.
After the foregoing incident, he got dressed and wiped her On the other hand, the defense presented as
vagina with the “good morning” towel. Her father also asked witnesses Miranda himself and the victim’s half-sister,
BBB. The RTC recounted their testimonies, thus: jail. He belied the accusation but did not tell the police of the
falsity of the charge for fear that he might be hurt by them.
“BBB, 13 years old, single, [Grade] VI pupil, residing at When asked if he knows of any reason why he was
x x x, testified that the accused is her father while the charged by his daughter of this grave offense, he replied
offended party is her [half] sister. In the evening of June 24, “wala naman po. Lumaki sila na hindi ko binigyan ng pansin,
2000, she was at their house sleeping. AAA was sleeping at dahil nga sa kanilang ina ay walang ginawa kundi magsugal,
her mother’s bed while her father was at the other bed bingo, baraha, 41 x x x. Masama po ang loob nila dahil hindi
watching television. She noticed that AAA was vomiting who ko sila sinuportahan, pinabayaan ko sila… sila pong
told her that she was feeling dizzy and so she slept ahead of magkakapatid, lima po sila.”
her. She could see AAA from where she was because the He likewise testified that he and AAA seldom see each
room has no door. She identified the pictures of their house other since she was staying with her mother. As regards the
situated at x x x taken by her [half] sister, DDD. She slept rape charge that occurred at 11:00 p.m. on June 24, 2000, he
beside her brother and father in a “papag.” At that time, she stated that he was already sleeping side by side with his
heard “kalampag” outside the house. She and her brother slept children, BBB and CCC from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. and that
ahead of their father. AAA was also asleep in another room. He did not deny that
Romeo Miranda, Sr., 53 years old, married, driver, residing before they went to sleep, he massaged AAA’s aching
at x x x, denied the accusation as he testified that at twelve forehead with efficascent from 9:00 to 9:30 p.m. as she was
o’clock midnight of June 25, 2000, he was sleeping with his also feeling dizzy. He, however, vehemently denied having
children when they were awakened by policemen knocking at raped her asserting that after massaging her head AAA
their window. He was transferred to another room while he, together with his two
(2) children, remained in the room where they eventually
_______________ slept. He further averred that before June 24, 2000, he had no
misunderstanding with AAA neither did they quarrel before
7 Id., at pp. 17-20.
the subject incident.
306 He described that the materials separating his room from
the room where AAA slept were made of carton and wood of
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED good lumber and one can hear and see if someone is talking or
doing anything in the other room as it has no door.”8
People vs. Miranda
On February 13, 2004, after trial, the RTC rendered
told to go down by the policemen and after doing so, he was its Decision finding Miranda guilty beyond reasonable
brought directly to the x x x Municipal Hall where he met his doubt of the crime of rape. The court a quo gave
daughter AAA. It was only at that instance that he came to credence to AAA’s plain and straightforward testimony
know that he was being accused of Rape by her. He then on how she was ravished by
asked AAA, “ano bang problema mo?”, but she did not
respond. He declared that he was not pinpointed by AAA, but
_______________
she simply said … “ako raw”, after which, he was detained in

8 CA Rollo, pp. 20-21. In its Decision dated October 31, 2006, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the Decision dated February 13, 2004
307
of the RTC with the modification that the death penalty
imposed on Miranda for the crime of rape be reduced to
VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 307 reclusion perpetua in view of the abolition of the death
penalty; and that the amount of moral damages awarded
People vs. Miranda
to AAA be increased
Miranda on June 24, 2000, as well as her positive

_______________
identification of Miranda, her own father, as her
assailant, thus, discrediting Miranda’s defense of denial. 9 Id., at pp. 23-24.
The RTC decreed: 10 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
11 CA Rollo, pp. 71-82.
“WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Prosecution
having proved the guilt of the accused, ROMEO MIRANDA 308
y MICHAEL, beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby meted
out the capital punishment of DEATH.
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
He is likewise hereby ordered to pay the offended party,
AAA, the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand [Pesos] People vs. Miranda
(PhP75,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(PhP50,000.00) as moral damages, without the necessity of from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. The fallo of the
proving the same. An award of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos Decision of the appellate court reads:
(PhP25,000.00) to complainant as exemplary damages is also
in order, to deter fathers with perverse behavior from sexually “WHEREFORE, the trial court’s Decision dated February
abusing their daughters. 13, 2004 is affirmed, subject to the modification that in lieu of
The warden of the x x x Municipal Jail, x x x, is hereby the death penalty, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty
directed to immediately transfer the accused to the Bureau of of reclusion perpetua and the amount of moral damages is
Corrections, New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City.”9 increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.”12
The records of this case were originally transmitted On March 2, 2007, the records of the case were
to this Court on automatic review. However, pursuant to forwarded to this Court for automatic review.13
People v. Mateo,10 the Court remanded the records to In the Resolution14 dated March 28, 2007, the Court
the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and required the parties to file their respective supplemental
disposition, whereat it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR- briefs within thirty (30) days from notice, if they so
HC No. 01953. desired.
In his brief,11 Miranda made a lone assignment of In separate Manifestations, dated June 14, 200715
error—that the RTC gravely erred in finding him guilty and June 15, 2007,16 Miranda and the People, through
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. the Office of the Solicitor General, respectively, both
waived the filing of supplemental briefs and instead matters of credibility owing to its unique opportunity to
opted to stand by their respective briefs filed before the observe the deportment and manner of testifying of
Court of Appeals.Rape is committed by having carnal witnesses firsthand during the trial unless certain facts
knowledge of a woman under any of the following of substance and value were overlooked which, if
instances: (1) when force or intimidation is used; (2) considered, might affect the result of the case.18
when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise In the instant case, there is no basis for this Court to
unconscious; and (3) when she is under twelve (12) overturn the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the
years of age.17 Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals Court of Appeals, that the testimony of the victim,
found that Miranda committed rape under the first AAA, is credible. As the RTC observed, the testimony
circumstance, i.e., by having sexual intercourse with his of AAA, in which she positively identified her father as
17-year old daughter with the use of force and the one who ravaged her, is straightforward,
intimidation. categorical, and spontaneous. AAA’s account of her
In the review of rape cases, the credibility of the ordeal resonates with sincerity and truthfulness.
private complainant is the single most important factor In answer to AAA’s explicit declaration that she was
for consideration. The case of the prosecution stands or sexually abused by Miranda, the latter merely
falls on the credi- interposes the defense of denial. As between a
categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand
_______________ and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally
held to prevail. A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a
12 Rollo, p. 17. weak defense and constitutes self-serving negative
13 Id., at p. 1. evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary
14 Id., at p. 19. weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who
15 Id., at pp. 20-21. testify on affirmative matters. As against the positive
16 Id., at pp. 23-24. identification and credible testimony by the private
17 People v. Erese, 346 Phil. 307, 314; 281 SCRA 36, 323 (1997). complainant, mere denials of the accused cannot prevail
to overcome conviction by the trial court.19
309
Miranda also proffers no credible explanation as to
why his own daughter, AAA, would accuse him of
VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 309 raping her if it was not true. In fact, Miranda admits
that he has no misunder-
People vs. Miranda
_______________
bility of the victim. This rule is in accordance with the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two 18 People v. Villanueva, Jr., 442 Phil. 293, 301; 394 SCRA 93, 99
parties, namely the victim and the accused, are usually (2002).
involved. In this regard, the appellate court will 19 People v. Alvero, 386 Phil. 181, 200; 329 SCRA 737, 756
generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on (2000).

310 of the verity of her claim that she was raped. It has been
ruled that the crying of the victim during her testimony
is evidence of the
People vs. Miranda
_______________
standing with AAA, thus, no improper motive could be 20 Id., at p. 198.

attributed to AAA for charging her father with the 21 People v. Servano, 454 Phil. 256, 282; 406 SCRA 508, 527
commission of such an atrocious crime. AAA’s (2003).
testimony is worthy of full faith and credence because
311
her only apparent motive is to bring her father to justice
for raping her.
A rape victim’s testimony against her father is VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 311
entitled to greater weight since, ordinarily and People vs. Miranda
customarily, Filipino children revere and respect their
elders. This is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children
credibility of the rape charge with the verity borne out
and families and is even recognized by law. It is thus
of human nature and experience.22
unthinkable, if not completely preposterous, that a
It bears stressing that AAA’s account of the rape is
daughter would audaciously concoct a story of rape
reinforced by physical evidence. The Medico-Legal
against her father in wanton disregard of the
Report and testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Ruby Grace Sabino,
unspeakable trauma and social stigma it may generate
who physically examined AAA on June 25, 2000, a day
on her and the entire family. A teenage unmarried lass
after the rape, established that AAA’s hymen had a deep
does not ordinarily file a rape complaint against
fresh laceration at 6 o’clock position, evidencing
anybody, much less her own father, if it is not true.20
penetration of the genitalia; and that seminal fluid was
Moreover, we have held that where a rape victim did
present in AAA’s vagina.
not lose time in reporting her father’s dastardly act and
Aside from challenging AAA’s credibility—which
in seeking help as soon as she was able to escape, such
this Court already found in preceding paragraphs to be
spontaneous conduct was an eloquent attestation of her
unassailable—Miranda also argues that the prosecution
abhorrence and repugnance to her father’s perversity.21
failed to prove that he used force and intimidation
That AAA immediately told her uncle and police
against AAA. He further calls attention to the condition
officials about her hellish ordeal and that she willingly
of the place where the rape purportedly took place.
submitted herself to physical and genital examination
While Miranda admits that AAA did sleep alone in the
evince the truthfulness of her charge of rape against
room where she was allegedly raped, Miranda claims
Miranda.
that said room had no door and it was near the sala
During the trial before the RTC, AAA even broke
where his two other children were sleeping. Any noise
down and cried while narrating how she was sexually
coming from the room could have been easily heard by
abused by Miranda. This is an eloquent demonstration
those in the sala. Miranda asserts that it would have A Pajama po.
been easy for AAA to struggle and create noise to Q So after trying to undress you or to lift your t-shirt, what
arouse the attention of other people inside, as well as happened next?
outside the house. Simply put, Miranda submits that A Dinede po niya ang suso ko at itinulak ko siya ng malakas.
AAA’s failure to fight back or to cause any noise while Q What was the position of your father when he was sucking
supposedly being sexually abused is contrary to human your breast?
experience. Miranda invokes the following part of A He was beside the Papag, nakatagilid at dinedede ang suso
AAA’s testimony to prove that the latter did not put up ko.
any resistance at all during her alleged rape: Q When he was sucking your breast, what did you do?
A Itinulak ko po siya at sabi kong huwag niyang gawin sa akin.
COURT:
xxxx
What happened after that?
Q During that time that your father was sucking your breast,
Witness:
where was the two children?
He started to massage my head and then after that, I felt that
A They were sleeping in the living room ma’am.
both of his elbows was touching both my breast (sic).
Q Where were you sleeping then?
A In the room which has no door, ma’am.
_______________
Q So you were in that room?
22 People v. Agustin, 418 Phil. 145, 155; 365 SCRA 667, 677 (2001). A Yes, ma’am.
312 313
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 313
People vs. Miranda People vs. Miranda
Q What did you do? Q After you said your father was trying to undress you and
A I was trying to remove it and I said that I will be the one to do stopped in sucking your breast, what happened next?
but he refused. A Unti-unti po niyang ibinababa sa kanyang kaliwang kamay
Q After his elbow was touching your breast, what did you do? ang pajama ko.
A Sabi po niya na dededehin nya po an[g] dede ko. xxxx
Q What was your reply? Q And was it only the pajama that your father was trying to pull
A I told him that I will tell it to my mother. down in your buttock?
Q Did he stop touching your breast with his elbow? xxxx
A Tumigil po at pagkatapos ay hinilot niya ang mga kamay ko. A He pulled out all my underwear.
Q What happened next? Q Anu-ano iyong hinila niya?
(witness is crying) A Pajama, short at panty, ma’am.
A Hinalikan niya po ang leeg ko at unti-unti niyang itinaas xxxx
iyong t-shirt ko. Q What happened next after he successfully pulled down all of
Q What did you wear at that time? these three underwear?
A He held both my arms and his head went down . . . . A None, ma’am.23
Q And would you please narrate to us what happened next?
A He held my arms and leached (sic) my vagina.
Contrary to Miranda’s averment, the aforequoted
Q What happened, did you not offer any resistance?
portion of AAA’s testimony actually reveals several
A Tumututol po.
attempts by AAA to fight back at him. AAA threatened
Q What action did you make if any?
that she would tell her mother about what Miranda was
A Iyon pong dingding ay ginaganoon ko po.
doing to her, but it only deterred Miranda for awhile.
Q Why? Did you not try to make noise?
AAA pushed Miranda away, but he continued to kiss
A None, ma’am.
her breasts and undress her. AAA kicked the wall to
Q You said you tried to kick the wall, what was your purpose in
create noise but, unfortunately, it wasn’t loud enough to
trying to kick the wall?
disturb her half-siblings’ sleep. AAA turned her body
A Para po tumigil siya at magising iyong mga kapatid ko.
away but Miranda grabbed and hugged her. AAA
Q Did he stop?
repeatedly begged Miranda to stop but her pleas fell on
A No, ma’am.
deaf ears. Miranda overpowered all of AAA’s
Q After leaking (sic) your vagina, your private parts, what
resistance. Without doubt, Miranda gained carnal
happened next?
knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation.
A Hinubad po iyong short niya na may garter.
Notably, the prosecution need not even prove the
Q Then what did you do after that?
elements of force and intimidation in this case. Settled
A Tumagilid po ako sa kanya, at pagkahubad ay niyakap niya
is the rule that in rape committed by a father or a person
akong muli.
recognized by the victim as her father, the former’s
xxxx
moral ascendancy and influence over the latter
substitute for violence and intimidation.24
314
_______________
People vs. Miranda 23 TSN, March 9, 2001, pp. 11-19.
24 People v. Cesista, 435 Phil. 250, 265; 386 SCRA 233, 426
Q When he was already naked, what did you do? (2002).
A Iniharap po niya ako sa kanya at pumatong po sa akin.
Q Was that the only … at that time? 315
A Pinatungan po niya ako at ipinasok ang ari niya sa ari ko.
Q When you say that ipinasok ang ari niya sa ari mo, what do
VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 315
you mean by that?
A Naramdaman ko pong may pumasok. People vs. Miranda
Q What happened next?
A Masakit po iyong pumasok, sa akin. Having settled that Miranda is guilty beyond
Q After that, did he tell you anything, or after he inserted his reasonable doubt of raping his own daughter, the Court
penis on your vagina, did he tell you anything?
proceeds with a review of the penalties imposed upon 316

him by the Court of Appeals.
At the time of AAA’s rape, the Revised Penal Code
had been amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the
Anti-Rape Law of 1997. Republic Act No. 8353 already People vs. Miranda
classified rape as a crime against persons. Among the
amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 8353 to the same must be proven beyond reasonable doubt as
the Revised Penal Code are the following: the crime itself.25
The special qualifying circumstances of minority
“Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed.—Rape
and relationship were properly alleged in the
is committed—
Information against Miranda and proven by competent
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a
evidence, specifically, AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth,
woman under any of the following circumstances:
which was presented during the trial. Additionally, the
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; x x x.
parties stipulated and agreed during the pre-trial
Article 266-B. Penalties.—Rape under paragraph 1 of
conference on the “fact of the minority of the offended
the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
party” and “the relationship of the accused and the
perpetua.
complainant as father and daughter.” The RTC,
xxxx
therefore, was correct in originally imposing the death
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of
penalty on Miranda.
rape is committed with any of the following
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals was also correct
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
in modifying the penalty imposed upon Miranda
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
because by June 24, 2006, Republic Act No. 9346,
and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian,
prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, already
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
took effect. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9346
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of
victim.”
death when the law violated makes use of the
Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal
amended by Republic Act No. 8353, minority and Code, like Republic Act No. 8353 in this case. Miranda
relationship are special qualifying circumstances in the shall not be eligible for parole because Section 3 of
crime of rape that warrant the mandatory penalty of Republic Act No. 9346 clearly provides that “persons
death. As such, they must both be specifically pleaded convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua,
in the Information and proven during trial. These two or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
circumstances, minority and relationship, must concur; perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be eligible for
otherwise, if only one is proven during trial, even if the parole.”
Information alleged both, the death penalty cannot be Although the Court of Appeals already modified the
imposed. And, as special qualifying circumstances, award for damages of the RTC, the Court deems it
necessary to again review the said award. While the
Court affirms the award of: (1) civil indemnity in the Notes.—Carnal knowledge of a woman under 18
amount of P75,000.00, inasmuch as Miranda was years of age by a parent is qualified rape. (People vs.
originally sentenced to death, and (2) moral damages in Reyes, 512 SCRA 712 [2007])
the amount of P75,000.00, as the same is awarded Where age is not adequately proven, it cannot be
without need of pleading or proof of basis; the used to qualify the offense of rape. (People vs. Biyoc,
532 SCRA 528 [2007])
_______________ Nowhere in People v. Bartolome, 381 SCRA 91
(2002); People v. Cula, 329 SCRA 101 (2000); and
25 People v. Valez, 406 Phil. 681, 699; 354 SCRA 225, 243 People v. Liban, 345 SCRA 453 (2000), is it declared
(2001). that the exact age, including the number of months must
be recited in the Information, otherwise, an accused
317
may not be convicted of qualified rape. (People vs.
Abellano, 524 SCRA 388 [2007])
VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010 317 ——o0o——
People vs. Miranda
_______________
Court increases the award of exemplary damages from 26 People v. Oliva, G.R. No. 187043, September 18, 2009, 600
P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing SCRA 834, 841; People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 168693, June 19, 2009,
jurisprudence.26 590 SCRA 74, 94.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS WITH
MODIFICATION the Decision dated October 31, 2006
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01953.
Accused-appellant Romeo Miranda y Michael is found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of QUALIFIED
RAPE and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, in lieu of
death, without the possibility of parole. He is © Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
ORDERED to pay the victim, AAA, P75,000.00 as
civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Carpio-Morales,

Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification, accused-

appellant Romeo Miranda y Michael guilty of qualified
rape.

Petition Dismissed, Resolutions Affirmed.: Notes. - A Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petition Dismissed, Resolutions Affirmed.: Notes. - A Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Petition Dismissed, Resolutions Affirmed.: Notes. - A Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 617 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 617

of reason or is otherwise unconscious; and (3) when she is

1 Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta with

People vs. Miranda concurring; Rollo, pp. 3-18.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b550237c66a7c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/26 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b550237c66a7c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/26

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b550237c66a7c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/26 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b550237c66a7c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/26

Miranda on June 24, 2000, as well as her positive

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b550237c66a7c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/26 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b550237c66a7c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/26

standing with AAA, thus, no improper motive could be 20 Id., at p. 198.

proceeds with a review of the penalties imposed upon 316

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Carpio-Morales,

Judgment afﬁrmed with modiﬁcation, accused-

You might also like