People vs. Elona

Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information; even if proved during trial, they cannot be appreciated to impose the death penalty when the informations charge only simple rape.

Rhodora Elona is married to Luisito Elona, the son of accused Benigno Elona y Bautista; Benigno is a widower. The case requires applying Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, to rapes allegedly committed in 1999, and Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code on forfeiture of instruments of the crime.

Rhodora Elona lived in Barangay Bulilan Norte, Pila, Laguna, with her husband Luisito Elona and their two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Charamay. In January 1999, Luisito’s father, Benigno Elona y Bautista, a widower who had just been released on January 6, 1999 after imprisonment for homicide, started living with them. On February 15, 1999, Luisito was at work pushing a cart on the railway, leaving Rhodora at home with Charamay and Benigno. At about 8:00 a.m., while Rhodora was in the kitchen, Benigno poked a knife at her neck and threatened to kill her if she did not give in to his carnal desire. He tore off her blouse and forced her to the sleeping area, where Charamay sat. Rhodora was afraid Benigno might kill her because he had previously confided to her that he used to kill. He made her sit on the floor, forced her to remove her short pants, and when she refused, pulled them down himself and removed her panty. He knelt in front of her, spread a blanket, compelled her to lie down, removed his short pants and brief, spread her legs, and removed her bra while holding the knife in his left hand. He then inserted his penis into her private part; she felt pain, cried, and tried to free herself but could not. He mashed, sucked, and kissed both her breasts, then licked her vagina, and afterwards went on top of her again and consummated another coitus. Charamay sat beside Rhodora and cried; when Benigno noticed, he put the child on his back and told her to play “kabayu-kabayuhan” while he remained on top of Rhodora. Charamay asked, “Nanay Doray, anong gagawa Lolo Bining?”, but Rhodora could not answer her because the child was too young to understand. Afterwards, Benigno placed Charamay beside Rhodora, got up, and told Rhodora he was done. Rhodora changed her clothes when he stepped out.

That night, when Luisito came home, Rhodora did not tell him what happened because she feared Benigno would kill her and Charamay; whenever she and Luisito talked, Benigno would gesture as if strangling and boxing Charamay and would even poke a knife at the child’s neck. On February 20, 1999, at about 10:00 a.m., while Luisito was out working, Benigno repeated the sexual assault. He penetrated Rhodora again on February 27 at about 12:00 noon, on March 5 at about 7:00 a.m., and on March 17 at about 10:00 a.m. All five incidents happened in Rhodora’s own home. Each time, Rhodora begged Benigno not to violate her, but he ravaged her anyway; she cried every time because she feared him, as he poked a knife at her during each assault. Charamay witnessed all these abuses.

The March 17 attack was the last straw. At dawn the next day, Rhodora revealed everything to Luisito because she could no longer endure it; Benigno was not home at the time and was visiting relatives. Luisito raged and hit their wall twice. Rhodora, Luisito, and Charamay then went to the police station, where Rhodora narrated the sexual attacks and executed a sworn statement. The police arrested Benigno. Police Officer Delfin Obiniana, Jr. testified that at about 10:00 a.m. on March 18, 1999, Rhodora went to the Pila police station with her husband and child and reported that Benigno had raped her several times and threatened her with a pointed weapon each time. Obiniana and another officer went to Rhodora’s residence, invited Benigno to the municipal building for investigation, searched the house, and found a sickle-type knife. He took the knife, showed it to Rhodora, and she confirmed it was the knife Benigno used to threaten her; Obiniana endorsed it to PO3 Josue Ladiana, the investigator. Obiniana’s testimony was corroborated by PO3 Josue Ladiana and SPO2 Rufino Anterola. Dr. Joan Tobias examined Rhodora on March 18, 1999 at the OB Gynecology Department of the Laguna Provincial Hospital; she found old healed hymenal lacerations at 3, 6, 8, and 12 o’clock positions, and the vagina admitted two fingers with ease, which she described as normal for a married woman like Rhodora.

Benigno was the lone defense witness. He denied threatening and raping Rhodora on February 15, 1999. According to him, on that day Luisito left at about 6:30 a.m. to look for a job while Rhodora washed clothes from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. near the river, an arm’s length from the house; he cut grass and took care of Charamay, and the nearest neighbors were about 60 to 70 meters away. After washing clothes, Rhodora told him they had no viand for lunch; he gave her P50.00 and told her to buy viand in the poblacion, and she returned after about an hour. Luisito came home late that afternoon. The following day, Benigno discussed with Luisito Luisito’s arguments with Rhodora, who did not want to have sexual intercourse with him; Luisito became jealous of Benigno, so Benigno told Luisito he would leave. Benigno tried to leave on March 17, 1999, but Rhodora pleaded with him to stay and not to mind Luisito’s jealousy, and Luisito also asked him to stay. On February 20, 1999, Luisito again left in the morning to look for a job; Benigno was cutting katuray for a fence near the house, and Rhodora even helped him, and Luisito returned in the afternoon. On February 27, after coffee, Benigno accidentally hit their empty rice container, told Rhodora he would buy rice, left at about 6:30 a.m. to look for money and buy rice, and returned at about 12:00 noon while Luisito, Rhodora, and the child stayed home the whole day. On March 5, Rhodora and Charamay went to church in Sta. Cruz, Laguna at about 7:00 a.m. and returned at 10:30 a.m.; Luisito and Benigno did not leave the house that day. On the morning of March 17, Luisito left for Sta. Cruz to look for a job, leaving Rhodora and Benigno home; Luisito returned late in the afternoon. The following day, while Luisito was out, police officers Taquia and Joveniano arrested Benigno in the house while he was cutting grass; they asked if he lived in Rhodora’s house, and when he said yes, they invited him to the poblacion because his children were there. He asked if something was wrong and was told he would know at the poblacion; he went with them, was brought to the PNP station of Pila, asked his personal circumstances, and detained. From then on he had not talked to Rhodora and Luisito.

The trial court observed that Rhodora’s testimony was imparted in a straightforward, clear and convincing manner and gave credence to her account.

• Credibility of Rhodora: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in giving credence to Rhodora’s incredible and inconsistent testimony and in convicting him despite the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; he pointed to her claim that Benigno poked a knife at her neck while removing his short pants and brief with both hands, and to her delay in reporting the rapes despite opportunity, which he said was not satisfactorily explained by fear for her daughter.
• Penalty: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court gravely erred in imposing death despite the five informations merely charging simple rape.

• Credibility: Respondent (appellee) interpreted Rhodora’s testimony to mean that Benigno held the knife in his left hand while removing his brief and short pants with both hands, so there was no inconsistency.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to Rhodora Elona’s allegedly incredible and inconsistent testimony and in convicting Benigno Elona y Bautista despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty may be imposed where the five informations charged only simple rape and did not allege the qualifying and aggravating circumstances of use of a deadly weapon, dwelling, and grave abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness.
• Forfeiture of the Knife: Whether the knife used in the rapes may be forfeited in favor of the government.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: No. The trial court’s credibility findings are sustained; the alleged knife inconsistency is explained by Rhodora’s testimony that Benigno held the knife in his left hand, and delay in reporting due to threats cannot be held against her; denial is weak against positive identification.
• Penalty: No. Only simple rape was charged; qualifying and aggravating circumstances not alleged in the informations cannot be appreciated even if proved, so the penalty is reclusion perpetua for each count.
• Forfeiture of the Knife: No. Forfeiture is set aside because there is no proof the knife belongs to the accused; it was taken from Rhodora’s house, and the trial court was ordered to return it to her.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: The SC acknowledged that, while findings of the trial court on credibility are generally accorded the highest respect, appellate courts may still scrutinize the evidence to see whether a fact or circumstance was overlooked or misinterpreted. It found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings. On the alleged inconsistency, Rhodora’s testimony showed that Benigno held the knife in his left hand while removing his brief and short pants with both hands, so there was nothing incredible in her account. On the delay in reporting, the SC held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim, citing People vs. Cortes. The trial court had observed that Rhodora’s testimony was imparted in a straightforward, clear and convincing manner. Against her positive identification of Benigno, his denial was inherently weak and could not prevail unless buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability, citing People vs. Arlee.
• Penalty: The SC held that the trial court erred in appreciating use of a deadly weapon, dwelling, and grave abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness as modifying circumstances justifying death. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure require the complaint or information to specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The SC ruled that qualifying and aggravating circumstances, although proved during trial, cannot be appreciated when not alleged in the information. The five informations did not allege these circumstances, so the accused could only be convicted of simple rape. Although the crimes were committed in 1999 before the Revised Rules took effect on December 1, 2000, the SC gave Sections 8 and 9 retroactive application because they are favorable to the accused, citing People vs. Mauricio and People vs. Gano.
• Forfeiture of the Knife: The SC set aside the trial court’s order forfeiting the knife in favor of the government because there was no proof that it belonged to the accused. The knife was taken from the house of Rhodora, where the accused was allowed by Rhodora and her husband to live since about a month before the rape incidents. Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code provides for forfeiture of the instruments of the crime unless they are property of a third person not liable for the offense; the SC cited People vs. Jose in connection with this rule.

• Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information — Under Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the complaint or information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Even if proved during trial, they cannot be appreciated when not alleged in the information. The SC applied this rule retroactively because it is favorable to the accused and reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each count of simple rape.
• Credibility of witnesses — The credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the discretion of the trial court, which observed the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying and is in a better position to assess their capacity for truth. The SC sustained the trial court’s finding that Rhodora testified in a straightforward, clear and convincing manner.
• Delay in reporting rape — Delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. Rhodora’s failure to immediately report the rapes was justified by her fear that Benigno would harm her and her daughter.
• Denial as a defense — Denial is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over positive identification unless buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. Benigno’s denial failed against Rhodora’s positive testimony.
• Forfeiture of instruments of the crime — Under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, the instruments or tools with which a felony was committed are forfeited in favor of the government unless they are property of a third person not liable for the offense. The SC set aside the forfeiture of the knife because there was no proof it belonged to the accused.

• "In accordance with Sections 8 and 9, supra, we have ruled that qualifying and aggravating circumstances, although proved during the trial, cannot be appreciated when not alleged in the information." — This is the ratio for reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua: the informations charged only simple rape.
• "We have consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim." — This rejects the accused’s attack on Rhodora’s credibility based on her delay in reporting the rapes.
• "It is axiomatic that the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the discretion of the trial court which, unlike a review court, observed the demeanor and conduct of witnesses while testifying and thus was in a better position to asses their capacity for truth." — This states the standard for reviewing credibility findings and supports the SC’s deference to the trial court.
• "The order of the trial court forfeiting the knife in favor of the government is set aside as there is no proof that it belongs to the accused." — This is the basis for setting aside the forfeiture and ordering the return of the knife to Rhodora.

• People vs. Cortes, 323 SCRA 131 (2000) — Cited to support the rule that delay in reporting rape due to threats of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim.
• People vs. Mendoza, 348 SCRA 318 (2000) — Cited for the rule that credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best left to the trial court.
• People vs. Arlee, 323 SCRA 201 (2000) — Cited to support the rule that denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification.
• People vs. Mauricio, 353 SCRA 114 (2001) — Cited for retroactive application of Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 in favor of the accused.
• People vs. Gano, 353 SCRA 126 (2001) — Cited with Mauricio for the same retroactive application.
• People vs. Jose, 147 Phil. 407 (1971) — Cited in connection with Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code on forfeiture of instruments of the crime.

• Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Require the complaint or information to specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances; applied retroactively because favorable to the accused; the death penalty cannot be imposed where the informations charged only simple rape.
• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Death Penalty Law — Defines rape and its penalty; the trial court convicted under it, but the SC imposed reclusion perpetua for simple rape.
• Article 45, Revised Penal Code — Provides for forfeiture of proceeds and instruments of the crime unless they belong to a third person not liable; applied to set aside the forfeiture of the knife for lack of proof of ownership.