People v Montesclaros 589 SCRA 320

Facts:

The offended party, ABC, is the daughter of appellant Ida, and was 13 years old at the
time of the incident. Ida worked as a waitress in Bayanihan Beer House, Cebu. Ida and ABC
rented a room in a house owned by Tampus, a barangay tanod. On April 1, 1995, about 4:30
p.m., ABC testified that she was in the house with Ida and Tampus who were both drinking
beer at that time. They forced her to drink beer and after consuming three and one-half glasses
of beer, she became intoxicated and very sleepy. While ABC was lying on the floor of their
room, she overheard Tampus requesting her mother, Ida, that he be allowed to remedyo or
have sexual intercourse with her. Appellant Ida agreed and instructed Tampus to leave as soon
as he finished having sexual intercourse with ABC. ABC fell asleep and when she woke up, she
noticed that the garter of her panties was loose and rolled down to her knees. She suffered pain
in her head, thighs, buttocks, groin and vagina, and noticed that her panties and short pants
were stained with blood which was coming from her vagina. When her mother arrived home
from work the following morning, she kept on crying but appellant Ida ignored her.

ABC testified that on April 4, 1995 around 1:00 a.m., Tampus went inside their room
and threatened to kill her if she would report the previous sexual assault to anyone. He abused
her again. After consummating the sexual act, he left the house. When ABC told appellant Ida
about the incident, the latter again ignored her.

On May 4, 1995, after being maltreated by her mother, ABC sought the help of her
aunt, Nellie Montesclaros (Nellie). She told Nellie about the rape and that her mother sold her.
ABC, together with Nellie and Norma Andales, a traffic enforcer, reported the incident of rape to
the police.

Tampus was found guilty of two counts of rape as principal, and Ida was found guilty of
being an accomplice in one crime of rape. Tampus died pending appeal in the CA, hence the CA
passed judgment upon Ida.

The trial court ordered Tampus and Ida "jointly and severally, to indemnify the offended
party, P50,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 013324-L." The Court of Appeals, however, did not
award any civil indemnity to ABC, and only awarded moral and exemplary damages.

Issue:

a. Whether or not the relationship between Ida and ABC maybe appreciated as a special
qualifying circumstance
b. Whether or not the accomplice is solidarily liable with the principal for the civil liability
in rape cases
c. Whether or not the award of indemnity was proper

Ruling:

a. In the case at bar, although the victim's minority was alleged and established, her
relationship with the accused as the latter's daughter was not properly alleged in the
Information. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which should be given
retroactive effect, every Information must state the qualifying and the aggravating
 circumstances for them to be considered in the imposition of the penalty. Since in the
case at bar, the Information in Criminal Case No. 013324-L did not state that Ida is the
mother of ABC, this circumstance could not be appreciated as a special qualifying
circumstance.

b. This is an erroneous apportionment of the civil indemnity. First, because it does not
take into account the difference in the nature and degree of participation between the
principal, Tampus, versus the accomplice, Ida. But even without Idas previous acts of
cooperation, Tampus could have still raped ABC. Second, Article 110 of the Revised
Penal Code states that the apportionment should provide for a quota amount for every
class for which members of such class are solidarily liable within their respective class,
and they are only subsidiarily liable for the share of the other classes. The Revised Penal
Code does not provide for solidary liability among the different classes, as was held by
the trial court in the case at bar.

Thus, taking into consideration the difference in participation of the principal and
accomplice, the principal, Tampus, should be liable for two-thirds (2/3) of the total amount of
the civil indemnity and moral damages and appellant Ida should be ordered to pay one-third
(1/3) of the amount. Civil indemnity for simple rape was correctly set at P50,000.00 and moral
damages at P50,000.00. However, since the principal, Tampus, died while the case was
pending in the Court of Appeals, his liability for civil indemnity ex delicto is extinguished by
reason of his death before the final judgment. Since Tampus civil liability ex delicto is
extinguished, Idas subsidiary liability with respect to this amount is also eliminated, following
the principle that the accessory follows the principal. Upon the extinguishment of the principal
obligation, there is no longer any accessory obligation which could attach to it; thus, the
subsidiary liability of Ida is also extinguished.

c. We find that exemplary damages were incorrectly awarded by the Court of Appeals.

In criminal cases, exemplary damages are imposed on the offender as part of the civil
liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. They are
intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue
sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of
outrageous conduct.

The minority of the rape victim and her relationship with the offender must both be
alleged in the information and proved during the trial in order to be appreciated as an
aggravating/qualifying circumstance. While the information in the instant case alleged that
ABC was a minor during the incident, there was no allegation that Ida was her parent. Since
the relationship between ABC and appellant was not duly established, the award of exemplary
damages is not warranted.