PEOPLE v ARMODIA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PABLO LUAD ARMODIA

G.R. No. 210654 

June 7, 2017 

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Pablo Luad Armodia and his wife, BBB, had three children, the oldest of whom was AAA. They owned a piggery in Cambanay, Danao City, Cebu, located close to their house. Beside this piggery was a makeshift room that served as the venue for the material incidents of this case.  

The first incident happened in the last week of March 2003, at about 8:00p.m.Accused-appellant called for AAA and ordered her to sleep beside him in the makeshift room. The child obeyed her father. While AAA was lying down, accused-appellant pinned her to the ground with his arms and legs. To ensure his success, he placed a lagting-a bolo used for cutting sugarcanes- a foot away from her head. AAA’s agony then began to unfold. Accused-appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. Sexually satisfied at his daughter’s expense, accused-appellant cleaned out the sperm left in her vagina. He threatened to kill anyone to whom she would report the incident. AAA kept quiet out of fear. She was the only 16 years old. 

The second incident happened in the same place. On April 4, 2003, around 3:00 a.m., accused-appellant shouted for her, who was asleep. His booming voice roused her up from slumber. He ordered her to give water to the hogs and she complied. Then, he commanded her to lie down on the make shift room next to the piggery. Accused-appellant threatened to wiled his lagting and chop off the heads of those who would find out what he was about to do. Once again, accused-appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of his daughter. Scooping his semen out of her vagina, accused-appellant told AAA to rest easy as she would not get pregnant. The child could no longer remain quiet. The next day, AAA finally revealed everything to her mother, BBB. Crying and shaking, AAA informed BBB that her father raped her. 

On April 6, 2003, AAA and BBB reported the incident to their Punong Barangay, who thereafter informed the police. She was brought to Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center for examination. Dr. Elvie Austria examined AAA and issued a medical certificate stating “Tanner IV, redundant” It also stated that the medical evaluation is suggestive of abuse. Accused-appellant was arrested on the same day. He was charged with 2 counts of rape of a minor under 2 separate Information. Accused-appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the rape charges. 

On October 21, 2003, the State moved for leave to amend the Information and add the phrase “being the father of the victim”. The RTC denied the State’s motion, ruling that the requested amendment was substantial and prejudicial to accused-appellant’s right to be informed of the charges against him. The criminal cases were tried jointly. On July 25, 2011, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of two counts of simple rape. Accused-appellant appealed before the CA, arguing that “the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt”. 

The CA affirmed with modification the RTC’s decision adding the payment of sic percent legal interest in the award for damages. 

The case has reached the Court via a notice of appeal. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of 2 counts of simple rape. 

HELD:

We affirm the conviction. Accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA twice, through force and intimidation. His moral ascendancy also intimidated her into submission. This ascendancy or influence is grounded on his parental authority over his child, which is recognized by our Constitution and laws, as well as on the respect and reverence that Filipino children generally accord their parents. `AAA’s story cannot be trivialized as a mere fabrication or a tale allegedly weaved to take revenge of her father’s strictness. Children are vulnerable. Generally, they do not have the maturity to execute complex strategies impelled by evil motives. 

After a child rape victim gives a credible testimony, the defense carries the burden of evidence to rebut it. Certainly, the defense that a child would wish to cause the arrest, imprisonment, and embarrassment of her own father only because he was strict strains logic and common sense. It is a narrative that has no basis on any fact proven on record. The Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Austria stating, “medical evaluation is suggestive of abuse,” further supports the lower courts finding that accused-appellant committed the incestuous acts charged against him. As against these details and testimonies, all that accused-appellant has offered in defense are denials and alibis, defenses which jurisprudence has long considered as weak and unreliable. 

Accused-appellant committed 2 counts of simple rape, not qualified rape. The crime of qualified rape under Article 266-B (1) of the RPC consists of the twin circumstances of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the perpetrator, both of which must concur and must be alleged in the information. It is immaterial whether the relationship was proven during trial if that was not specifically pleaded for in the information. The CA and RTC found that accused-appellant’s relationship with AAA was not duly alleged in the informations. 

Thus, his relationship with the victim cannot qualify the crimes of rape. Ruling otherwise would deprive him of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. Simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Even if the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship were present, the appropriate penalty would still be reclusion perpetua under the law. In view of the depravity of the acts committed by accused-appellant against his daughter, we increase the amounts awarded to AAA, in accordance with jurisprudence.

 JLD