G.R. NO. 176266 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused FELIX ORTOA y OBIA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659 in relation to RA 7610, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH to be implemented in the manner as provided by law. The accused is hereby ordered to pay AAA the sum of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to prepare the Mittimus and to transmit the complete records of this case to the Honorable Supreme Court for automatic review. The City Warden of Mandaluyong, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology is hereby ordered to deliver forthwith the person of FELIX ORTOA y OBIA to the National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City, with proper escort and security. [12] The case was automatically elevated to this Court in view of the death penalty imposed by the trial court. On 26 July 2005, we resolved to transfer this case to the Court of Appeals pursuant to our holding in People v. Mateo , [13] which allowed intermediate review by the appellate court of cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua , or life imprisonment. On 27 September 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision affirming, with modification, the decision of the court a quo . The dispositive portion of the Decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereby DISMISSED for evident lack of merit and the assailed Judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION imposing the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA upon the Appellant without possibility of parole. [14] Appellant is once again before Us praying for his acquittal upon the ground that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape. [15] Appellant insists that the trial court should not have given "full faith and credence" [16] to AAA's testimony. He points out that the trial court should have taken into account AAA and BBB's motive in filing the case against him as it is possible that they were only moved by resentment towards him. Particularly in the case of AAA, she admitted during her testimony that she felt bitter about her father's strictness towards her while BBB could have been provoked by his illicit relationships and his irresponsibility. [17] In addition, appellant harps on the inordinate delay in reporting his alleged wrongdoing when he was supposed to have even impregnated AAA in the past. He argues that it is highly inconceivable for a mother such as BBB to stand idly by while her own child suffered enormous distress. In such a situation, appellant argues, BBB's immediate reaction should have been to report the incident to the authorities particularly in the absence of an allegation that he threatened them with harm. After thoroughly reviewing the records of this case and thoughtfully weighing the parties' respective claims, we hold that a