7/25/2019 People v Rio

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-v-rio 1/4

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee,vs.RlCARDO RIO, accused-appellant.

Convicted o rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXLV * o !a"ati, !etro !anila, inCri#inal Case $o. %&'(&, accused-appellant Ricardo Rio interposed his appeal and as a conse)uence, the cler" o court o saidregional trial court branch or*arded the records o the case to the Court o +ppeals. The appellate court, ho*ever, or*arded the

records o the case to the upre#e Court in vie* o the penalty i#posed upon the accused.

n & /ece#ber %0, the accused-appellant Ricardo Rio, in t*o 1&2 letters dated %( /ece#ber %0, addressed to /ivision Cler" o Court 3er#in 4. 5ar#a and to +ssistant Cler" o Court To#asita !. /ris, #aniested his intention to *ithdra* the appeal due to his poverty. 1

 The Court resolved in a resolution dated && 4une %' to re)uire the olicitor 5eneral to co##ent on the appellant6s #aniestationto *ithdra* the appeal.

n the Co##ent 7led by the olicitor 5eneral, the action reco##ended *as or the Court to ascertain ro# the accused-appellant,through the cler" o court o the trial court, *hether he desired the appoint#ent o a counselde ofcio on appeal, in vie* o thereasons stated by hi# or the *ithdra*al o his appeal, and inas#uch as poverty should not preclude anyone ro# pursuing a cause.t *as also reco##ended that the cler" o court o the trial court be re)uired by the Court to sub#it the response o the accused-appellant along *ith a certi7cate o co#pliance *ith the duty i#posed on hi# 2 by ection %8, o Rule %&& o the Rules o Court,*hich provides9

ec. %8.  Appointment o counsel de ofcio or accused on appeal. : t shall be the duty o the cler" o the trial court upon thepresentation o a notice o appeal in a cri#inal case, to ascertain ro# the appellant, i he is con7ned in prison, *hether he desiresthe nter#ediate +ppellate Court or the upre#e Court to appoint a counsel to deend hi# de ofcio and to trans#it *ith the record,upon a or# to be prepared by the cler" o the appellate court, a certi7cate o co#pliance *ith this duty and o the response o theappellant to his in)uiry.

 The branch cler" o the trial court, in a letter addressed to the +ssistant Cler" o Court o the econd /ivision, this Court, inco#pliance *ith the resolution o this Court, dated %; +pril %', adopting the suggestions o the olicitor 5eneral, *hich re)uiredhi# to co#ply *ith his duty #andated in ection %8, Rule %&& o the Rules o Court, sub#itted the reply o the accused-appellantinor#ing the Court that he *as no longer interested in pursuing his appeal and had, in act, *ithdra*n his appeal. 3

<pon reco##endation o the olicitor 5eneral, ho*ever, the Court in a resolution dated % ctober %', denied the appellant6s#otion *ithdra*ing the appeal and appointed a counsel  de ofcio or the accused-appellant or, as correctly observed by theolicitor 5eneral, all the letters o the accused-appellant reveal that the only reason ofered by hi# or the *ithdra*al o his appealis his inability to retain the services o a counsel de parte on account o his poverty, a reason *hich should not preclude anyonero# see"ing =ustice in any oru#. 4

t see#s that the accused-appellant *as una*are that this Court can appoint a counsel de o7cio to prosecute his appeal pursuant toection %8 o Rule %&& o the Rules o Court and the constitutional #andate provided in ection %% o +rticle o the %0>Constitution *hich reads as ollo*s9

ec. %%. 3ree access to the courts and )uasi-=udicial bodies and ade)uate legal assistance shall not be denied to anyperson by reason o poverty.

 This constitutional provision i#poses a duty on the =udicial branch o the govern#ent *hich can cannot be ta"en lightly. ?TheConstitution?, as aptly stated in one case, ?is a la* or rulers and or people e)ually in *ar and in peace and covers *ith the shieldo its protection all classes o #en at all ti#es and under all circu#stances.? 5

@araphrasing !r. 4ustice !alcol#, ?T*o 1&2 o the basic privileges o the accused in a cri#inal prosecution are the right to theassistance o counsel and the right to a preli#inary eAa#ination. @resident !c"inley #ade the 7rst a part o the rganic La* in hisnstructions to the Co##ission by i#posing the inviolable rule that in all cri#inal prosecutions the accused 6shall en=oy the right ...to have assistance o counsel or the deense6 ?. 6 Today said right is enshrined in the %0> Constitution or, as 4udge Cooley says,this is ?perhaps the privilege #ost i#portant to the person accused o cri#e.? 7

?n cri#inal cases there can be no air hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to beheard *ould be o little #eaning i it does not include the right to be heard by counsel. ven the #ost intelligent or educated #an#ay have no s"ill in the science o the la*, particularly in the rules o procedure, and, *ithout counsel, he #ay be convicted notbecause he is guilty but because he does not "no* ho* to establish his innocence. +nd this can happen #ore easily to persons *hoare ignorant or uneducated. t is or this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is dee#ed so i#portant that it has beco#e aconstitutional right and it is so i#ple#ented that under our rules o procedure it is not enough or the Court to apprise an accused o his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to as" hi# *hether he desires the aid o an attorney, but it is essential that the courtshould assign one de o7cio or hi# i he so desires and he is poor, or grant hi# a reasonable ti#e to procure an attorney o his o*n.?8

7/25/2019 People v Rio

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-v-rio 2/4

 This right to a counsel de ofcio does not cease upon the conviction o an accused by a trial court. t continues, even during appeal,such that the duty o the court to assign a counsel de ofcio persists *here an accused interposes an intent to appeal. ven in acase, such as the one at bar, *here the accused had signi7ed his intent to *ithdra* his appeal, the court is re)uired to in)uire intothe reason or the *ithdra*al. here it 7nds the sole reason or the *ithdra*al to be poverty, as in this case, the court #ust assigna counsel de ofcio, or despite such *ithdra*al, the duty to protect the rights o the accused subsists and perhaps, *ith greaterreason. +ter all, ?those *ho have less in lie #ust have #ore in la*.? 9 4ustice should never be li#ited to those *ho have the #eans.t is or everyone, *hether rich or poor. ts scales should al*ays be balanced and should never e)uivocate or cogitate in order toavor one party over another.

t is *ith this thought in #ind that *e charge cler"s o court o trial courts to be #ore circu#spect *ith the duty i#posed on the# byla* 1ection %8, Rule %&& o the Rules o Court2 so that courts *ill be above reproach and that never 1i possible2 *ill an innocentperson be sentenced or a cri#e he has not co##itted nor the guilty allo*ed to go scot-ree.

n this spirit, the Court ordered the appoint#ent o a counsel de o7cio or the accused-appellant and or said counsel and theolicitor 5eneral to 7le their respective bries, upon sub#ission o *hich the case *ould be dee#ed sub#itted or decision.

3ro# the records o the case, it is established that the accused-appellant *as charged *ith the cri#e o rape in a veri7ed co#plaint7led by co#plainant il#a @hua Rio, duly subscribed beore 8rd +ssistant 3iscal Rodolo !. +le=andro o the province o RiDal, *hichreads as ollo*s9

 That on or about the &(th day o !arch, %0(, in the !unicipality o !untinlupa, !etro !anila, @hilippines, a place *ithinthe =urisdiction o this Eonorable Court, the above-na#ed accused, by #eans o orce and inti#idation did then andthere *ilully, unla*ully and eloniously have carnal "no*ledge o the undersigned il#a @hua against her *ill. 10

n &; 4une %0F, at the arraign#ent, the accused-appellant, assisted by +tty. Leonido !analo o the !a"ati CL+ oGce, as counselde ofcio, entered a plea o not guilty to the ofense charged. 11  The evidence or the prosecution adduced at the trial established theollo*ing acts9

/uring the #onths o 3ebruary and !arch %0(, co#plainant il#a @hua, then only %8 years o age, *as living *ith her #other andthree 182 sisters in a house in Barangay Bayanan, !unicipality o !untinlupa, !etro !anila. +t a distance o about three 182 #etersro# this house is another house *ith a toilet and bath also o*ned by co#plainant6s #other but *hich *as uninhabited at that ti#e. The accused, co#plainant6s uncle, being the younger brother o co#plainant6s #other, *as staying in their house, ree o board andlodging, although he helped in the household chores. The children used the bathroo# in the uninhabited house because thea#enities in the inhabited house *ere used only by the adults. 12

+t about &9'' o6cloc" in the aternoon o &( !arch %0(, classes having closed or vacation and *hile !aria Hena @hua Rio *as inthe house occupied by her a#ily, her daughter il#a 1co#plainant2 as"ed her or the "ey to the co#ort roo# o the uninhabitedhouse because she had to ans*er a call o nature. +ter having delivered the "ey to il#a, the latter proceeded to the other house,entered the co#ort roo#, and seeing that nobody *as around and that her uncle *as *ashing dishes in their house, proceeded toans*er nature6s call *ithout ta"ing the precaution o loc"ing the co#ort roo# ro# inside. 13

+ter relieving hersel but beore she could raise her panty, the accused entered the bathroo# *ith his body already eAposed, heldil#a6s hands, and ordered her in a loud voice to lie do*n and *hen she resisted, the accused got #ad and ordered her to lie do*n.+ter she lay do*n on her bac", the accused put hi#sel on top o her and tried to insert his private organ into her private part.il#a "ept pushing the accused a*ay and calling or her #otherI ho*ever, since the accused *as heavier than she, the accusedsucceeded in overpo*ering her, inserting his penis into her vagina and having seAual intercourse *ith her. +ter satisying his lust,the accused released il#a and allo*ed her to leave the bathroo#. 14

utside the bathroo# door, co#plainant #et her #other !aria Hena *ho, #ean*hile, had proceeded to the said other house atersensing that an inordinate length o ti#e had passed and her daughter, co#plainant herein, had not returned ro# the bathroo#.!aria Hena, upon noticing that il#a *as speechless, tre#bling and loo"ing earul, suspected so#ething re#iss so she tried toopen the door o the bathroo#. <nable to open it the 7rst ti#e because it *as loc"ed ro# inside, !aria Hena *aited a e* #inutesbeore pushing the door again. This ti#e she *as successul in 7nding her brother, the herein accused-appellant in the process o raising his pants. !aria Hena *as ignored by her brother *hen she as"ed hi# the reason or his presence inside the bathroo#. 15

till suspecting that the accused has done so#ething to her daughter, !aria Hena continued her in)uisition o her brother or

several days but to no avail. 3inally, on +pril %0(, the accused *as as"ed to leave the house and #ove out by his sister !ariaHena. 16

nly ater the departure o the accused did il#a report to her #other the act that she had been raped by the accused our 1(2ti#es bet*een the #onths o 3ebruary and !arch o that year 1%0(2. +ter receiving such inor#ation, !aria Hena *anted herdaughter to i##ediately undergo physical eAa#inationI ho*ever, il#a, apparently trau#atiDed by her eAperience, *as too *ea"to go *ith her or such eAa#ination and re)uently sufered ro# ainting spells. t *as only on 8' +pril %0( that !aria Hena *asable to bring il#a to the police to report the #atter and to 7le the co#plaint. +ter the report to the police, they *ere reerred tothe @.C. Cri#e Laboratory at Ca#p Cra#e *here il#a under*ent physical eAa#ination. 17

/r. /ario 5a=ardo, the physician *ho conducted the internal eAa#ination o il#a, sub#itted a report o his eAa#ination dated ;!ay %0(. The #edical report sho*ed, a#ong others, the ollo*ing 7ndings9

7/25/2019 People v Rio

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-v-rio 3/4

 There is a scanty gro*th o pubic hair. Labia #a=ora are ull, conveA and gaping *hich pale bro*n, slightly hypertrophiedlabia #inora presenting in bet*een. n separating the sa#e is disclosed an elastic, Jeshly-type hy#en *ith deeplacerations at 8, 0 and o6cloc". ... 18

 The #edical report also sho*ed that ?there *as 1sic2 no eAternal signs o recent application o any or# o trau#a.? 19 +ll these7ndings led hi# to conclude that il#a is ?in a non-virgin state physicially.? 20 Later, on the *itness stand, /r. 5a=ardo *ould urthertestiy that il#a, on in)uiry, revealed that the 7rst rape happened in the #onth o 3ebruary %0(, but that he could not tell theapproAi#ate period or age o the lacerations. 21

+r#ed *ith this #edical report, !aria Hena and il#a *ent bac" to the police *here a s*orn state#ent o il#a *as ta"en and theco#plaint or rape against the accused *as 7led beore Third +ssistant 3iscal Rodolo !. +le=andro on %& !ay %0(. 22

 The evidence or the deense consisted o the testi#ony o the accused hi#sel and his brother, +#ado Rio. The accused6s deense*as anchored on alibi and he substantially testi7ed as ollo*s9 that contrary to the state#ents #ade by the *itnesses or theprosecution, he *as not as"ed to leave their house in +pril %0(, the truth being that he let in the #onth o 4anuary %0( or about a#onth beore the alleged 7rst rape on il#a *as co##itted because, contrary to an alleged e#ploy#ent agree#ent bet*eenbrother and sister, his sister, !aria Hena, had not paid hi# any salary as helper in their houseI that ro# the #onth o 4anuary %0(,up to &( !arch %0( *hen the rape charged in the co#plaint *as allegedly co##itted, he *as in their ho#eto*n in Ka#balo,Cahidiocan, province o Ro#blonI that at the ti#e o his arrest, he *as inor#ed o the cri#inal charge o rape on his niece 7ledagainst hi# in courtI that ro# 4anuary %0( up to the ti#e o his arrest on ; !ay %0(, he had stayed in the house o his uncle,3rancisco Rio, and had never let the place during the *hole period.

 The accused vehe#ently denied the rape and con=ectured that his sister could have abricated the charge because he let her housedue to her non-pay#ent o his salary as helper. The brother o the accused in the person o +#ado Rio corroborated the deense o alibi o the accused. 23

n rebuttal, the prosecution presented $e#esia B. !erca, the lection Registrar o the !unicipality o !untinlupa, *ho brought *ithher a Voter6s +Gdavit *hich *as eAecuted on 8% !arch %0( by one Ricardo Rio and *as subscribed and s*orn to on 8% !arch %0(beore Tessie Balbas, Chair#an o Voting Center $o. 8>-+ o Bayanan, !untinlupa, !etro !anila. n cross-eAa#ination, Registrar!erca ad#itted that she does not "no* the accused personally but that the AeroA copy o the Voter6s +Gdavit that she brought tocourt *as copied ro# a boo" containing about ;' voter6s aGdavits o said precinct. 24

+ter co#paring the signature appealing in the Voter6s +Gdavit *ith the pen#anship appearing on a letter 25 dated %& /ece#ber%0F *ritten by the accused to his brother, +#ado Rio and on the envelope o said letter, 26 the trial court ruled that the *ritingcharacteristics on the presented docu#ents are the sa#e, especially the rounded dot over the letter ?i? appearing in the aore-#entioned #entioned docu#ents. t *as, thereore, satis7ed that the Voter6s +Gdavit *as indeed prepared by the accused inBayanan, !untinlupa, !etro !anila, on 8% !arch %0(, beore Tessie Balbas and that this piece o evidence co#pletely belies thedeense o the accused as corroborated by his brother, +#ado, that he *as in Ro#blon continuously ro# the #onth o 4anuary%0( up to the ti#e that he *as arrested on ; !ay %0(. 27

 Thus, the trial court ound the accused-appellant guilty o the cri#e o rape. The dispositive portion o the decision reads as ollo*s9

ER3R, 7nding the above-na#ed accused guilty o the cri#e charged in the inor#ation beyond reasonable doubtthe Court hereby sentences hi# to sufer the penalty o reclusion perpetua, *ith the accessory penalties o the la*, toinde#niy il#a @hua in the su# o @%F,'''.'', @hilippine currency, and to pay the costs.

R/R/.

 The theory o the deense at the trial level *as grounded on alibi. The accused clai#ed that at the ti#e o the alleged co##ission o the cri#e o rape he *as in Ro#blon. This clai# *as corroborated by the accused6s brother, +#ado Rio. Eo*ever, this clai# *as, asaorestated, rebutted by the prosecution6s sub#ission o the voter6s aGdavit eAecuted by the accused in !untinlupa, !etro !anilaon 8% !arch %0( *hen appellant clai#ed he *as in Ro#blon.

<pon careul eAa#ination o the voter6s aGdavit, the Court is convinced, as the trial court, that the aGdavit *as indeed eAecuted bythe accused hi#sel and the date appearing therein #ust be presu#ed correct and genuine.

+libi is inherently a *ea" deense, easy o abrication especially bet*een parents and children, husband and *ie, and other

relatives and even a#ong those not related to each other. 3or such deense to prosper, the accused #ust prove that it *as notpossible or hi# to have been at the scene o the cri#e at the ti#e o its co##ission. 28

n the present case, *here nothing supports the alibi eAcept the testi#ony o a relative, in this case the accused6s brother +#ado, itdeserves but scant consideration. 29 !oreover, the Court notes the act that *hile the accused-appellant had another brother andsister living in !anila besides the co#plainant6s #other, those t*o never ca#e to his aid. ere the accused the innocent #an heclai#s to be, these siblings *ould have readily helped in his deense. The testi#ony o his other brother +#ado alone cannot raisethe necessary doubt to ac)uit hi# as against the evidence presented by the prosecution.

3urther#ore, it *ould be hard to believe that a e#ale, especially a t*elve-year old child, *ould undergo the eApense, trouble andinconvenience o a public trial, not to #ention sufer the scandal, e#barrass#ent and hu#iliation such action inevitably invites, as

7/25/2019 People v Rio

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/people-v-rio 4/4

*en as allo* an eAa#ination o her private parts i her #otive *ere not to bring to =ustice the person *ho had abused her. + victi#o rape *ill not co#e out in the open i her #otive *ere not to obtain =ustice. 30

t is harder still to believe that the #other o a child o t*elve *ill abuse her child and #a"e her undergo the trau#a o a public trialonly to punish so#eone, let alone a brother, or leaving her *ithout the services o an unpaid helper *ere it not *ith the ai# to see" =ustice or her child. $obody in his right #ind could possibly *ish to sta#p his child alsely *ith the stig#a that ollo*s a rape.

n appeal, appellant6s counsel de o7cio changed the theory o the deense. The ne* theory presented by counsel de o7cio is that

il#a @hua consented *hen accused-appellant had seAual intercourse *ith her on &( !arch %0(. t *as stressed by counsel deo7cio that the rape occurred on &( !arch %0( and that, allegedly, it *as the ourth ti#e accused had abused co#plainant. Thisallegation as *ell as the act that co#plainant ailed to loc" the door to the bathroo# could only have been due to the act thatthere *as consent. The charge *as 7led, according to deense counsel de ofcio, only because the co#plainant6s #other caughtthe#. 31

 This theory o the deense on appeal that there had been consent ro# the co#plainant, ails to generate doubt as to the accused6sguilt, or it *ould be an incredulous situation indeed to believe that one, so young and as yet uninitiated to the *ays o the *orld,*ould per#it the occurrence o an incestuous relationship *ith an uncle, a brother o her very o*n #other.

 The Court notes the sudden s*it in the theory o the deense ro# one o total denial o the incident in )uestion, by *ay o alibi, toone o participation, that is, *ith the alleged consent o the co#plainant. This ne* version could only be attributed by the Court tothe act that counsel on appeal is diferent ro# the counsel in the trial court. +lthough the olicitor 5eneral has suggested that thissudden shit be interpreted as an aterthought by the accused or a desperate efort to get hi#sel ac)uitted, 32 the Court dee#s it#ore li"ely that this shit *as caused by counsel de ofcio's preparation o the appellant6s brie *ithout eAa#ining the entire recordso the case. the appointed counsel or the accused, on appeal, had read the records and transcripts o the case thoroughly, he*ould not have changed the theory o the deense or such a shit can never spea" *ell o the credibility o the deense. !oreover,

the rule in civil procedure, *hich applies e)ually in cri#inal cases, is that a party #ay not shit his theory on appeal. the counselde o7cio had been #ore conscientious, he *ould have "no*n that the sudden shit *ould be violative o aore#entioned proceduralrule and detri#ental to the cause o the accused-appellant 1his client2.

 The Court hereby ad#onishes #e#bers o the Bar to be #ore conscious o their duties as advocates o their clients6 causes,*hether acting de parte or de ofcio, or ?public interest re)uires that an attorney eAert his best eforts and ability in the prosecutionor deense o his client6s cause.? 33  La*yers are an indispensable part o the *hole syste# o ad#inistering =ustice in this =urisdiction. 34 +nd a la*yer *ho peror#s that duty *ith diligence and candor not only protects the interests o his clientI he alsoserves the ends o =ustice, does honor to the Bar and helps #aintain the respect o the co##unity to the legal proession. This is sobecause the entrusted privilege to practice la* carries *ith it correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the barand to the public. 35

hile a la*yer is not supposed to "no* all the la*s,  36 he is eApected to ta"e such reasonable precaution in the discharge o his dutyto his client and or his proessional guidance as *ill not #a"e hi#, *ho is s*orn to uphold the la*, a transgressor o its precepts. 37

 The act that he #erely volunteered his services or the circu#stance that he *as a counsel de ofcio neither di#inishes nor altersthe degree o proessional responsibility o*ed to his client. 38 The ethics o the proession re)uire that counsel display *ar# Deal andgreat dedication to duty irrespective o the client6s capacity to pay hi# his ees. 39 +ny atte#pted presentation o a case *ithoutade)uate preparation distracts the ad#inistration o =ustice and discredits the Bar. 40

Returning to the case at bar, even i *e consider the sudden shit o deense theory as *arranted 1*hich *e do not2, the Court is =ustas convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused-appellant is guilty o the cri#e as charged. Eis conviction #ust besustained.

ER3R, the decision o the trial court 7nding the accused-appellant Ricardo Rio guilty beyond reasonable doubt o the cri#e o rape and sentencing hi# to the penalty o reclusion perpetua *ith all the accessory penalties o the la*, is hereby +33R!/. TheCourt, ho*ever, increases the a#ount o inde#nity to be paid by the accused-appellant to il#a @hua to thirty thousand pesos1@8','''.''2 in line *ith prevailing =urisprudence on this #atter. Costs against accused-appellant.

R/R/.