People vs Calongui G.R. No. 170566 March 3, 2006

People vs Calongui

G.R. No. 170566

March 3, 2006

FACTS: 2:00 AM of January 1, 1998, Marinel, who was 13 years old at that time, slept in the same room as the appellant, Calongui and her three siblings. She was awaken and found that her shorts and panties were already removed by Calongui. He threatened Marinel that he would kill her and her siblings if she would resist his sexual advances. Marinel, however, tried to repel his sexual assault by moving her body and kicking Calongui’s thighs but he still succeeded in having sexual congress with her. The next morning, Marinel learned that her brother, Noel, who was 12 years old at that time, saw the incident but pretended to be asleep out of fear that Calongui would harm him.  Marinel told her brother not to tell anyone what he saw and she also did not say anything to her parents out of fear that Calongui would make good his threats.

On September 26, 1998 at 3:00AM, Calongui again raped Marinel which was witnessed by Noel. She was undressed from waist down and threatened that she and her siblings be killed if she resisted.

Shortly after the second rape incident, Calongui worked as a laborer at B-Meg and stayed at B-Meg barracks. Encouraged by his absence, Marinel told her mother what happened which led to the filing of the instant criminal cases.

Noel testified that he saw her sister being raped by Calongui and on both occasions he pretended to be asleep out of fear and that he did not report the incident to his parents upon Marinel’s instructions and also because of Calongui’s threats. Dr. Salvacion Pantorgo, Medical Officer at the Bicol Medical Center in Naga City also testified that she physically examined Marinel on November 18, 1998 and found some superficial laceration on Marinel’s organ. Dr. Pantorgo also found Marinel to be in a non-virgin state.

Calongui denied that he had sexual intercourse with Marinel on January 1, 1998. He also claimed that the September 26, 1998 incident was consensual since he and Marinel were sweethearts at that time.

In its December 23, 2002 decision, the RTC of Camarines Sur convicted Calongui for two counts of rape; sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and was ordered to indemnify the victim P 50, 000.00 as civil liability, P 50, 00.00 as moral damages and P 30, 000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification as to the payment of exemplary damages. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sexual intercourse was consensual because they are sweethearts, if not, does the victim’s failure to offer tenacious resistance makes the act consensual.

RULING: No. The SC stated that it is already a well-settled rule that the sweethearts defense must be proven by compelling evidence, specifically, that the accused and the victim were lovers and that the victim consented to the alleged sexual relations. The appellant’s claim that he and Marinel were lovers remained uncorroborated and unsubstantiated for there are no momentos, notes, pictures, and love letters presented. Marinel also denied the alleged love relationship on direct cross-examination. Besides, the sweethearts defense cannot also rule out rape and even if it were true, the relationship does not, by itself, establish consent for love is not a license for lust.

The appellant’s claim that Marinel has bigger physique than him and could have resited and overcome his advances or could have shouted for help since her siblings and parents were nearby is also untenable. The time the rape incidents occurred, Marinel was still 13 years old thus she cannot be expected to put up a resistance as would be expected from a mature woman. Marinel also testified that she was not of bigger built than the appellant at the time of the incident although she looked bigger than the appellant at the time she testified after the incidents two years ago. Moreover, Marinel’s failure to offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts.

The presence of force, threats and intimidation during the two rape incidents was also clearly established by the testimony of Marinel during the cross-examination.

The SC therefore denied the appeal and affirmed CA’s decision dated October 26, 2005 modifying the December 23, 2002 Judgment of the RTC of Camarines Sur.

Rufino vs Endriga

Rufino vs Endriga

G.R. No. 139554

July 21, 2006

FACTS: 

On 25 June 1966, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Executive Order No. 30 (EO 30) creating the Cultural Center of the Philippines as a trust governed by a Board of Trustees of seven members to preserve and promote Philippine culture.

On 5 October 1972, or soon after the declaration of Martial Law,    President Marcos issued PD 15, the CCP’s charter, which converted the CCP under EO 30 into a non-municipal public corporation free from the “pressure or influence of politics.” PD 15 increased the members of CCP’s Board from seven to nine trustees.  Later, Executive Order No. 1058, issued on 10 October 1985, increased further the trustees to 11.  

After the People Power Revolution in 1986, then President Corazon C. Aquino asked for the courtesy resignations of the then incumbent CCP trustees and appointed new trustees to the Board.   Eventually, during the term of President Fidel V. Ramos, the CCP Board included Endriga, Lagdameo, Sison,  Potenciano,  Fernandez, Lenora  A. Cabili (“Cabili”), and  Manuel T. Mañosa (“Mañosa”).

            On 22 December 1998, then President Joseph E. Estrada appointed seven new trustees to the CCP Board for a term of four years to replace the Endriga group as well as two other incumbent trustees. The seven new trustees were:

1.  Armita B. Rufino        -     President, vice Baltazar                       

                                  N. Endriga

2.  Zenaida R. Tantoco      -     Member, vice Doreen Fernandez

3.  Federico Pascual        -      Member, vice Lenora A. Cabili

4.  Rafael Buenaventura     -     Member, vice Manuel T. Mañosa

5.  Lorenzo Calma           -     Member, vice Ma. Paz D. Lagdameo

6.  Rafael Simpao, Jr.      -     Member, vice Patricia C. Sison

7.     Freddie Garcia       -     Member, vice Irma Ponce-Enrile

                                        Potenciano

Except for Tantoco,  the Rufino group  took  their  respective oaths of office and assumed  the performance of their duties in early January 1999.

On 6 January 1999, the Endriga group filed a petition for quo warranto before this Court questioning President Estrada’s appointment of   seven new members to the CCP Board.  The Endriga group alleged that under Section 6(b) of PD 15, vacancies in the CCP Board “shall be filled by election by a vote of a majority of the trustees held at the next regular meeting x x x.”   In case “only one trustee survive[s], the vacancies shall be filled by the surviving trustee acting in consultation with the ranking officers of the [CCP].”  The Endriga group claimed that it is only when the CCP Board is entirely vacant may the President of the Philippines fill such vacancies, acting in consultation with the ranking officers of the CCP.

The Endriga group asserted that when former President Estrada appointed the Rufino group, only one seat was vacant due to the expiration of Mañosa’s term.  The CCP Board then had 10 incumbent trustees.

The Endriga group refused to accept that the CCP was under the supervision and control of the President.  The Endriga group cited Section 3 of PD 15, which states that the CCP “shall enjoy autonomy of policy and operation x x x.”

On 14 May 1999, the Court of Appeals granted the quo warranto petition.  The Court of Appeals declared the Endriga group lawfully entitled to hold office as CCP trustees.  On the other hand, the appellate court’s Decision ousted the Rufino group from the CCP Board.

In their motion for reconsideration, the Rufino group asserted that the law could only delegate to the CCP Board the power to appoint officers lower in rank than the trustees of the Board.  The law may not validly confer on the CCP trustees the authority to appoint or elect their fellow trustees, for the latter would be officers of equal rank and not of lower rank.   Section 6(b) of PD 15 authorizing the CCP trustees to elect their fellow trustees should be declared unconstitutional being repugnant to Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution allowing the appointment only of “officers lower in rank” than the appointing power.

On 3 August 1999, the Court of Appeals denied the Rufino group’s motion for reconsideration.  The Court of Appeals also denied the Endriga group’s motion for immediate execution of the 14 May 1999 Decision.

         

Hence, the instant consolidated petitions.  

ISSUE: 

 

Whether or not Sec. 6 (b) of PD 15 is constitutional and CCP trustees have the authority to appoint and elect their fellow trustees when there is vacancy.

RULING:

NO. The SC ruled that Sec. 6 (b) and (c) of PD 15 as amended  which authorizes the remaining trustees to fill by election vacancies in the Board of Trustees of CCP is unconstitutional.

Section 6(b) and (c) of PD 15, which authorizes the trustees of the CCP Board to fill vacancies in the Board, runs afoul with the President’s power of control under Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.   The intent of Section 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 is to insulate the CCP from political influence and pressure, specifically from the President. Section 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 makes the CCP a self-perpetuating entity, virtually outside the control of the President.  Such a public office or board cannot legally exist under the 1987 Constitution.  

Section 3 of PD 15, as amended, states that the CCP “shall enjoy autonomy of policy and operation x x x.”  This provision does not free the CCP from the President’s control, for if it does, then it would be unconstitutional.  This provision may give the CCP Board a free hand in initiating and formulating policies and undertaking activities, but ultimately these policies and activities are all subject to the President’s power of control. 

The CCP is part of the Executive branch. No law can cut off the President’s control over the CCP in the guise of insulating the CCP from the President’s influence.  By stating that the “President shall have control of all the executive x x x offices,” the 1987 Constitution empowers the President not only to influence but even to control all offices in the Executive branch, including the CCP.  Control is far greater than, and subsumes, influence.