More credible

This is perhaps one of the most unique cases on record as it involves a husband and wife found guilty of rape. As the court here said, sexual relations outside the marriage bond are not a pixyish play for couples as neither one is allowed to bring in a third person just to satisfy the insatiable lust of the other.
The couple here is Dencio and Nimfa living at a Southern Luzon town in a six meters by eight meters house with their two children. Nimfa is a reputed healer in their province who has supposedly healed a lot of people. She performs her healing session in one room of their house.

Among those who got to know of Nimfa’s healing prowess was Lita whose daughter, Nora is an epileptic. Worried about the worsening condition of her daughter and relying on the advice of her sister-in-law, Lita brought Nora to the residence of Nimfa in the nearby town, for healing sessions.
Three days later Lita even invited Nimfa to the 14th birthday celebration of Nora in their residence. After the celebration, Nimfa persuaded Lita to allow Nora to stay in the house of her mother-in-law in their town since she only conducts healing sessions in the evening.

After about a week stay in the mother-in-law’s house, Nimfa asked Nora who was then cleaning the house, to go to her house. She told Nora to lie down on the floor of the room where the healing sessions were conducted. Nora acceded, thinking that she would be treated.

At this juncture, Nimfa called her husband Dencio and told him “o maghubo ka na” Frightened, Nora struggled and exerted efforts to resist the invasion on her womanhood, but to no avail because Nimfa pinned down her hands on the floor and covered her mouth. Dencio thus succeeded in satisfying his lust and invading the young Nora’s womanhood. Nimfa even laughed and laughed while watching her husband consummate the lecherous act in the treatment room. Then Nimfa warned Nora not to divulge the incident to anybody.

After the ordeal, Nora refused to be treated anymore. She was fetched by her aunt and was continuously crying inside the passenger jeepney. The next day, she disclosed to her mother Lita what was done to her. So after medical examination which confirms that there was sexual penetration done on her, Dencio and Nimfa were charged with the crime of rape.

Nimfa denied the accusation. She testified that it was against human nature to commit rape in broad daylight and with her children in the house. She claimed that Lita and Nora were just trying to discredit her for curing the sick and just want to escape from the obligation of paying her services. Dencio on the other hand testified that on the day of the rape, he was at the elementary school, a walking distance from their house, meeting with the barangay captain and another neighbor looking at the voter’s list for the coming election. Then he went to a repair shop where he worked as a mechanic. Both of these persons corroborated his story.

But after trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) nevertheless found Dencio and Nimfa guilty of rape .The RTC found that conspiracy existed between the two of them as it relied more on the straightforward testimony of Nora. Was the RTC correct?

Yes. Nora’s testimony appears straightforward. She positively identified her ravishers and narrated what transpired with simplicity and veracity. Well settled is the doctrine that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. When a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was really committed.

Both Dencio and Nimfa are guilty of rape because there is conspiracy between them. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of an offense and decide to commit it. The facts and circumstances of this case indicate the existence of conspiracy exists: from the time Nimfa called Dencio to remove his pants and pinned down Nora’s hands on the floor up to the time she was laughing and laughing while her husband is perpetrating the act.

So Dencio and Nimfa should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Nora, P50,000 as indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages (People vs. Saban, G.R. 110559, November 24,  1999. 319 SCRA 36).

*      *      *

E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com.

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) 

Garcillano indicted of perjury

THE OFFICE of the Ombudsman has indicted former Commission on Elections (Comelec) commissioner Virgilio O. Garcillano of perjury.

In a 13-page resolution approved yesterday, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales said her office found probable cause to charge Mr. Garcillano with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code and for violation of Section 19 of Republic Act 8239 Philippine Passport Act of 1996.

Ms. Morales said the Office of the Ombudsman found that Mr. Garcillano "made a deliberate and willful assertion of a falsehood" during the congressional hearing when he testified that he never left the Philippines after the so-called "Hello Garci" controversy broke out.

The case stemmed from the complaint-affidavit filed in January 2012 by current and former Bayan Muna Party-list Representatives Neri J. Colmenares and Teddy A. Casiño, respectively, against Mr. Garcillano, who resurfaced after the 2004 "Hello Garci" controversy, for falsely testifying under oath and presenting an alleged spurious passport during the congressional joint committee hearing in December 2005.

The "Hello Garci" controversy arose when audio recordings of an alleged telephone conversation between Mr. Garcillano, and former president and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2nd district) were made public at the height of the 2004 synchronized national and local elections.

Congress investigated Mr. Garcillano in December 2005 after the reported wiretapped telephone conversations between Mrs. Arroyo and the former poll official, who the former president allegedly referred to as "Garci", was leaked to the media. The conversations pertained to the counting of votes in the 2004 presidential race that Mrs. Arroyo won over chief rival Fernando K. Poe, Jr.

The "Hello Garci" scandal triggered the resignation of key Cabinet members, an apology from Mrs. Arroyo and massive protests. An intelligence unit in the military was believed to have taped the conversations and leaked it to the public.

The Ombudsman, in the resolution, said the note verbale dated Aug. 31, 2005 and issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Singapore "confirmed" that [Mr.] Garcillano "transited in Singapore on July 14, 2005 and departed Singapore on July 15, 2005."

The resolution noted that Mr. Garcillano took his oath before former North Cotabato Rep. Emmylou Talino-Santos (1st district) -- a competent officer authorized to administer oaths -- at the start of the congressional proceedings, as evidenced by the transcript of stenographic notes.

Likewise, Mrs. Morales added that her office found that Mr. Garcillano also violated the Philippine Passport Act "when he presented a forged passport before the congressional hearing".

The Ombudsman cited data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Laboratory examination report dated March 20, 2006 which concluded that Mr. Garcillano’s passport "does not conform to standard after discovering badges of forgery." "While the DFA [Department of Foreign Affairs] issued a certification that its Regional Consular Office in Cagayan de Oro issued a passport bearing the number JJ243816 to [Mr. Garcillano], he did not show proof that the questioned passport was the same passport issued by the Cagayan de Oro Regional Consular Office," the resolution read.

Citing jurisprudence, the resolution added that Mr. Garcillano, "being in possession of the forged passport and the one to benefit from its presentation before the congressional joint committee, is presumed to be forger."

Meanwhile, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the charge of falsification by a public officer under the Revised Penal Code because the element of "taking advantage of official position" was found lacking. "[Mr. Garcillano], although a public officer, acted not by reason of his office, his position as a Comelec commissioner not having anything to do with the issuance of a passport," the Ombudsman explained in the resolution.

Ms. Morales said the Office of the Ombudsman will be filing the perjury charges against Mr. Garcillano before the Sandiganbayan. -- Imee Charlee C. Delavin

source:   Businessworld

Case should be filed where the crime was committed

Dear PAO,
I have an officemate who is currently facing a difficult predicament.
Her husband has been accused of homicide which allegedly transpired sometime in December 2013. The complaint was only filed late January of this year. They have no lawyer and to be quite honest, they have no financial capacity to avail of one. Is it possible to secure assistance from your office? What documents do they need to present?
GED

Dear GED,
Our office, the Public Attorney’s Office or PAO, is mandated by law to render free legal assistance to indigent clients and other qualified persons whose cases are meritorious in all civil, criminal, administrative, labor and other quasi-judicial cases (Section 1, Article II, PAO Operations Manual).
Given that a complaint for Homicide is in the nature of a criminal case, our office considers the same as a meritorious case because we recognize the constitutional right of an accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven (Section 2, Article II, PAO Operations Manual).

Nevertheless, the husband of your officemate must establish that he is a qualified indigent client in order for him to avail the services of our office and the representation of one of our lawyers. In connection thereto, he must present any of the following proofs of indigency: (a) Latest Income Tax Return (ITR), pay slip or other proofs of income; (b) Certificate of Indigency from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), its local district office, or the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office which has jurisdiction over his residence; or (c) Certificate of Indigency from the Barangay Chairman having jurisdiction over his residence (Section 3, Article II, PAO Operations Manual).

It would be best for your officemate and her husband to visit our district office nearest to the place where the alleged crime was committed so that they can personally confer with one of our lawyers as well as for the proper rendition of legal assistance in accordance with existing PAO laws, rules and regulations.

As we have mentioned earlier, a complaint for Homicide is in the nature of a criminal case. Hence, it will necessarily have to be filed before the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, or in the absence thereof, the court which has jurisdiction over the place where the crime was committed.
Please be advised that our district offices are usually located at or near the municipal hall, city hall, provincial hall or hall of justice of each respective municipality, city or province. Please inform your officemate to bring all the pertinent documents relative to the case of her husband on their visit to our district office.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net