FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 116596-98. March 13, 1997]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
LORENZO TOPAGUEN alias “APIAT”, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
LORENZO TOPAGUEN alias Apiat was charged with three (3) counts of rape in separate Informations
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bontoc, Mountain Province. After trial he was found guilty as charged
and sentenced to reclusion perpetua in each case and to indemnify each
victim P40,000.00 for moral damages.[1] The accused now comes to us on appeal.
The facts: At twelve o'clock noon of 15 December 1990, April
Maglanga, 9, and Maura Galasa, 9-1/2, were sitting on the stairs of the house
of a certain Mendoza at White Village, Campo Santo, Caluttit, Bontoc, Mountain
Province, when Lorenzo Topaguen approached them. He showed them some money and asked them to follow him.
Fraulein Grail Sawad,
intimately called Doris, 9, was on her way home from the Bontoc General
Hospital where she fetched water. Her
attention was attracted by the presence of April and Maura sitting on the
stairs of Mendoza. Doris saw Apiat in the act of removing the pants of April and Maura and saying, "I just want to see if you have panties." Doris
then hurried home to bring the water she was carrying and went back to
where she saw April and Maura earlier.
However they were no longer there.
Doris proceeded to the house of
Apiat which was just nearby. As
she was about to peep through the window the accused suddenly grabbed her and
dragged her inside his house. There she
saw April and Maura seated on the bed of accused Apiat. Apiat
ordered the three (3) girls to lie down and threatened to kill them should they talk or disobey
him. He was armed
with a knife. Then he took off
his pants, undressed his victims and had carnal knowledge of them one after
another - first with April, then with Doris, and finally with Maura who resisted at first. However, Apiat whipped Maura until she submitted to his lustful advances. He inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain so she begged the accused to
stop but the latter continued until his lust was satisfied.
After his encounter with the three (3) victims, the accused gave
Maura P16.50. But before sending
them away he told the girls that he enjoyed his sexual intercourse with them.
The following day Maura confided their grisly experience to her
mother Cristina Galasa. Cristina
immediately brought April and Maura to the Bontoc General Hospital where they
were physically examined by Dr. Elaine Fagsao.
The medical findings showed that April's vulva was erythematous
and her hymen fully lacerated.[2] As regards Maura, the medical report
likewise revealed that her vulva was
erythematous, her hymen ruptured, and her skin on the left elbow and
right knee was superficially scraped off.[3]
On 17 December 1990 Cristina also brought Doris to Dr.
Fagsao who found that her patient's vulva was also erythematous with rupture
and lacerations of the hymen, and her right chest, back, as well as left flank swollen. She was in pain.[4]
The physical examination conducted by Dr. Elaine Fagsao confirmed that there was penetration of the vaginas of April, Maura and Fraulein by a male sexual organ.
The accused had a different story to tell. He insisted that he never raped anyone in
his life. He alleged that in the
afternoon of 15 December 1990 he was asleep in his house as he was on a
drinking spree that morning. He claimed
that he already started to drink gin and beer earlier that day so that at
eleven o'clock he had to be brought home by an acquaintance on a tricycle and
went straight to bed and sleep. He was only awakened when he heard voices of children in gay
abandon. They were April, Maura and
Fraulein. According to him, he heard Maura say, "Ka at nan kinaot mo
iska borsana?"[5] At
that time he did not understand
what the question meant as he was still groggy so he just went back
to sleep.
At five o'clock that afternoon he woke up to defecate and look for a cigarette. He went to Mendoza's store but when he was about to pay for the cigarettes he discovered that his money was gone. He then realized that he must have been robbed by the children.
Apiat described his room as being separated by a single wall of 3/8-inch plyboard and any noise originating therefrom could be easily heard by his neighbors. But he claimed that when he went out that afternoon neither the children playing in the yard nor the women playing cards accused him of molesting the three (3) girls. He surmised however that the motive behind the filing of the rape case against him was because the children disliked him as he was a drunkard and that a niece of his wanted him behind bars so she could take possession of his house.
Alfonso Mendoza, a neighbor of the accused as well as of
complainants, attempted to corroborate the version of the defense. According to Mendoza, between eleven in the
morning and twelve o'clock noon of 15 December 1990, while he was sitting on
the stairs of his house, Apiat passed
by. They teased one another. He called Apiat "Commander Pusa." Mendoza claimed
that there were
many children playing at that
time and women playing cards in the backyard of the accused. He also said that he did not know of any
complaint for rape against Apiat
until 15 December 1990.
But the trial court was not persuaded. It found the accused guilty as charged. It observed that -
x x x x the clear and
positive assertions of the complainants-witnesses to the effect that the
accused had sexual intercourse with
them in his quarters at noon or thereabouts on December 15, 1990 are on the whole plausible.
The individual testimonies of April, Fraulein, and Maura
on how the accused inserted
his penis into each of the
girls' vaginas, one after the
other, jibes substantially on material
points. Albeit the
descriptions of the alleged victims of the incidents are not very
much detailed, such narrations
having been made by innocent children is sufficient, taken in its
entirety to establish the truth of the
matter (PP vs. Natan, GR No.
6649, January 25, 1991). The
minor inconsistencies or conflicts in
the gamut of the complainants' statements do not detract from the veracity of
the principal points. The discrepancies may even be considered as
ear-marks of honesty. Given the tender ages of the children,
they are expected to
contradict themselves under extended,
repetitious, and gruelling
interrogations (PP vs. Decena,
GR. No. 3713, February 9, 1952).[6]
In this appeal, accused-appellant assails his conviction. He contends
that the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses
should not have been given credence.
First, he questions the credibility of April Maglanga because her
testimony conflicts with a previously executed sworn statement. Secondly, he challenges the findings in the
medical certificate issued by Dr. Elaine Fagsao as being unreliable because of
her inexperience. He also claims that the trial court erred
in giving weight to the bare and self-serving allegations of private complainants whose testimonies
were not corroborated by other credible and competent evidence. Finally,
he maintains that
it was inherently impossible for
him to commit the crime of rape considering his advanced age, more so that he
allegedly raped all three (3) victims on a single occasion.
We cannot sustain the defense.
It is elementary that conclusions as to the credibility of
witnesses in rape cases
lie heavily on the sound judgment
of the trial court which is generally accorded great
weight and respect, if not conclusive effect. Accordingly, in the appreciation of the evidence the appellate
court accords due deference to the trial court's views on who should be
given credence, since the latter is in a better position to assess the
credibility of witnesses considering its opportunity to observe their demeanor as well as their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial.
Its findings on the credibility
of witnesses will be sustained by the appellate court unless the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the facts or circumstances of weight
and substance which will alter the
assailed decision or affect the result
of the case.[7] In this instance, none of the excepting
circumstances is availing.
The contention of accused-appellant that there are inconsistencies between the testimony of April Maglanga and her sworn statement with respect to the presence of Fraulein as rape victim is bereft of merit. On direct examination, April testified -
COURT:
Q: The answer of the witness is Apiat made sexual intercourse with us, now what do you mean when you said that, with whom among you did Apiat make sexual intercourse?
A: Me and Maura.
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
Q: You know the family name of Maura?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Miss Witness, you said that the accused had sexual intercourse with you, where did this happen, what particular place?
A: At his house.
Q: At the house of Apiat?
A: Yes sir.
Q: When you said Apiat are you referring to the accused in this case?
A: Yes sir.
x x x x
COURT:
Q: What is the full name?
A: Lorenzo Topaguen.
x x x x
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
Q: Miss Witness, when he
told you that you will (sic) go to the
bed, did you like to go to the bed, Miss Witness?
A: No sir.
Q: And what did you do when you did not like to go to the bed?
A: He threatened us.
Q: What did he say when he threatened you?
A: He said that if we do (sic) not like he will (sic) kill us.
Q: Do you know Fraulein Grail Sawad?
A: Yes.
Q: Was she there in the house that time?
A: Yes.
Q: x x x x So how many of you were there in the house with whom Apiat had intercourse?
ATTY. PADONG:
We object to the question being suggestive
, your honor. Witness never told of any intercourse when it comes to Fraulein
Grail Sawad, your honor. I believe,
your honor, that the prosecution has been training this witness in such a way
that he could suggest x x x x vital
facts x x x x on the witness on suggesting certain facts she never testified
to, I object to the manner (by) which the prosecution is trying to obtain and
elicit information from the witness, if he continues, your honor, to ask
questions which are suggestive to witness.
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
We are just trying to get the testimony of the witness to find out if (in) her sworn statement she is telling the truth in this case. She already submitted her sworn statement and we are just trying to follow to bring out the details for the consideration of the court.
COURT:
Q: Let us get this clear x x x when you went to the house of Apiat as you have stated, how many of you went?
A: We first, the two of us.
Q: And then when you were at the house of Apiat what happened there?
A: He took our clothes off and had intercourse.
Q: Who among you did Apiat first strip?
A: Me.
Q: And then when Apiat took off your clothes as you have stated what happened next?
A: He had intercourse with us.
Q: You mean you, after he stripped you as you stated he had sexual intercourse with you?
A: Yes.
Q: What do you mean, inyot, what do you understand by iyot?
A: He placed his penis inside our vaginas.
Q: After that did you feel it when he placed his penis inside your vagina?
A: Yes.
Q: How did it feel?
A: Painful.
Q: After that what happened next?
A: And then he did it also to Maura.
Q: Maura?
A: Galaza.
Q: Will you describe what Apiat did to Maura as you have seen?
A: He stripped her and let her lie in bed and had sexual intercourse with her.
Q: What do you mean, will
you describe when he allegedly made sexual intercourse?
A: He placed it.
Q: What did he put?
A: His penis.
Q: Whose penis?
A: Apiat
Q: He placed it where?
A: To the vagina of Maura.
Q: After that, what happened?
A: He gave us P16.50.
Q: Whom did he give that P16.50, meaning Apiat?
A: Both of us.
Q: Whom did he hand the money?
A: Maura, sir.
Q: After that, what happened?
A: He let us out sir.
Q: So there were only two of you who went to the house of Apiat?
A: Fraulein was peeping at the window and Apiat went to call for her.
COURT:
Fiscal, proceed.
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
Q: Miss Witness, you said that Apiat went to pull Fraulein when she was peeping through the window.
ATTY. PADONG:
We object to that line of questioning your honor, since there was never any mention of peeping at the window.
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
The question is, counsel should listen carefully to the answer of the witness so that we will not be delayed in the presentation of our evidence. Witness said that Fraulein was peeping and we are now asking what time did that happen.
COURT:
Q: When all these things that you had testified to transpired, what else happened there in the house of Apiat, if any?
A: No more.
Q: So meaning to say that when x x x Apiat allegedly had sexual intercourse with you and Maura there was nobody else there and nothing happened after that?
A: None sir.
Q: So meaning they were the only ones x x x x Now, where were you when Apiat went to pull Fraulein?
ATTY. PADONG:
No basis, we object to the questioning as having no basis.
COURT:
The objection is well taken because there was no mention of any Fraulein.
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
There was.
COURT:
Probably the other witnesses can testify to that matter. The understanding of the court is that she was only with Maura.
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
In the statement they were three and she mentioned that at first there were two of them and then later came Fraulein peeping through the window and this Apiat went to pull her inside. That is what the witness mentioned at first which was not accurately translated.
ATTY. PADONG:
The witness was relating having been
molested having had sexual
intercourse with Maura and
the accused and
after that the
accused gave them
P16.50 and they went
out and after that nobody else
was there so nothing happened and they went to the stairs where they
were sitting and then they went home in the
afternoon that was
the only narration
of the witness so far as counsel has noted, your
honor.
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
That is why we are saying your honor that the witness has also mentioned a certain Fraulein Sawad who was pulled inside, that is why we are trying to clarify the participation of this Sawad if she was there during the incident.
COURT:
Q: You were in the house of the accused Lorenzo Topaguen, with you was Maura Galasa is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you see anybody else also around the house when you were there?
A: None sir.[8]
It is clear from the foregoing testimony that April
confirmed the presence of Fraulein at the scene of the crime although she did not categorically state that
Fraulein was also raped. But the
alleged contradiction between April's testimony and her sworn statement may be
explained by the fact that
during her direct examination April was
under unfamiliar surroundings and strange atmosphere and she simply
wanted to end her testimony. The
unrelenting objections posed by defense counsel, followed by the barrage of
questions from the court, caused her to wish her testimony had ended soonest,
thus resulting in the anticlimactic
termination of her testimony which left
out Fraulein as another rape victim.
April was only nine
(9) years old
when she went through her traumatic experience. As
such, error-free testimonies could not be expected especially when she was recounting
details of a terrifying ordeal.[9] Minor lapses should be expected when a
person is made to recall minor details
of an
experience so humiliating and so painful as rape.[10] After all,
the credibility of
a rape victim is not
destroyed by some
inconsistencies in her testimony.[11] Moreover, testimonies of child victims are
given full weight and credit.[12]
Even assuming that on direct examination April failed to testify regarding the presence of Fraulein during the rape such omission is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. Maura, one of the rape victims, testified thus -
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
Q: We will rephrase. When Fraulein was peeping according to you at the window what did Apiat do, if any?
A: Then he went out and pulled Fraulein inside and placed her on his bed so we were all three whom he undressed.
Q: You mentioned Fraulein, what is the complete name of Fraulein?
A: Doris.
Q: The other name?
A: Yes sir.
Q: What is her family name?
A: Sawad.
x x x
PROSECUTOR PATNA-AN:
Q: When he had sexual intercourse with April Maglanga whom did he have sexual intercourse next?
A: Fraulein Sawad and
after that I was next.[13]
Accused-appellant also avers that it was error for the court a
quo to have relied on the testimony and findings of Dr. Elaine Fagsao as
the latter had no experience yet in the
physical examination of rape victims.
We do not agree.
Generally, any person
who by study
or experience has acquired particular knowledge or expertise may be
allowed to give in evidence his opinion upon matters of technical
knowledge relating to such business or employment.[14] While it may be that the cases of
April, Maura and Fraulein were
the initial cases on rape handled by Dr. Elaine Fagsao, such fact is not a bar to her testimony being
given credence since the prosecution was able at the first instance
to qualify her as a medical
expert.
Moreover, it cannot be
said that the prosecution relied solely
on the hymenal lacerations of the victims as
evidence of rape but on the testimonies
of complainants themselves which, standing alone and even without medical examination, were
sufficient to convict.[15] A medical examination is not indispensable
in a prosecution for rape otherwise grave and irreparable injustice would be
inflicted upon hapless victims if
the crime be committed in remote areas where there may be no doctors to conduct a medical examination on the rape victim. So, too,
if the victim would not
submit to physical examination since
what immediately preoccupies her
mind after her ordeal is not necessarily the filing of a complaint but the fear
of what the perpetrator will further inflict upon her should she reveal his
criminal act, or the embarrassment and humiliation accompanying a public disclosure of the ignominy
and dishonor she
suffered in the hands of her tormentor.[16]
Accused-appellant further claims that there was no credible or
competent evidence to show that
April, Maura and Fraulein's
vaginas had been penetrated by a male organ as their hymenal lacerations could
have been caused by several factors other than sexual intercourse. Ironically, while the accused questions
the qualifications of Dr. Fagsao as medical expert, he
nonetheless relies on her findings as to the cause of the injuries. In a case,[17] this Court held -
Appellant loses sight of the fact that while the prosecution
had proved that the laceration was caused by sexual intercourse, contrarily he had failed to
establish that the laceration was caused by other factors. It is elementary in our rules on
evidence that a party must prove his
own affirmative allegations.
Lastly, the defense posits that it was incredulous for
accused-appellant to have committed the rapes considering his rather advanced
age and that he supposedly raped all three (3) girls on just one occasion. We disagree. He was only fifty-six (56) years old at the time he sexually
assaulted his victims. But even if he
was older his age would not mean that sexual intercourse was no longer possible
as age is not a criterion, taken alone, in determining the sexual interest and
capability of middle-aged and
older people.[18]
WHEREFORE, the decision
appealed from finding accused-appellant LORENZO TOPAGUEN alias Apiat guilty of three (3) counts of rape and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua in each case is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the indemnity of P40,000.00 for
each rape victim
is increased to P50,000.00 conformably with existing
jurisprudence. Costs against
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Decision penned by Judge Artemio B. Marrero, RTC-Br. 35, Bontoc, Mountain Province.
[2] Records, Crim. Case No. 814 , p. 7.
[3] Id., Crim. Case No. 816, p. 9.
[4] Id., Crim. Case No. 815, p. 7.
[5] Translated into English, "How much did you get from his pocket?"
[6] Rollo, p. 91.
[7] People v. Cura, G.R. No. 112529, 10 January 1995, 240 SCRA 234.
[8] TSN, 27 August 1991, pp. 12-13, 15-22.
[9] See Note 7.
[10] People v. Dado, G.R. No. 87775, 1 June 1995, 244 SCRA 655.
[11] People v. Abapo, G.R. No. 108584, 22 December 1994, 239 SCRA 373.
[12] People v. Digno Jr., G.R. No. 108958, 23 November 1995, 250 SCRA 237.
[13] TSN, 29 August 1991, pp. 174-175, 177.
[14] People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, 19 June 1986, 142 SCRA 329.
[15] People v. Delovino, G.R. Nos. 116132-33, 23 August 1995, 247 SCRA 37.
[16] People v. Saldivia, G.R. No. 55346, 13 November 1991, 203 SCRA 461
[17] People v. Ching, G.R. No. 103800, 19 January 1995, 240 SCRA 267.
[18] People v. Bahuyan, G.R. No. 105842, 24 November 1994, 238 SCRA 330.