FIRST DIVISION
[G. R. Nos. 122550-51. August 11, 1999]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WINEFRED ACCION, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case is an appeal from a
decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 58, convicting
accused-appellant Winefred Accion of two (2) counts of rape and sentencing him
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and to pay a
total of P100,000.00, as civil indemnity.
The two (2) complaints[2] filed against accused-appellant both dated March 7,
1994, which were signed by complainant Maricris Zanoria y Fabula and her mother
Beatriz Liad Vda. de Zanoria, allege:
Complaint in Criminal Case No. 94-4898 -
“That on or about the 9th day of August, 1992 at around 4:00 a.m. in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned Maricris Zanoria y Fabula who is a 14 year old girl, without her consent and against her will.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.
Makati, Metro Manila.
March 7, 1994.
“BEATRIZ LIAD VDA. DE ZANORIA MARICRIS ZANORIA Y FABULA
(Assisted by her mother) Complainant
“SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9th day of May 1994 at Makati, Metro Manila.
“ELBA TAYO-CHUA
Assistant Prov’l. Prosecutor
“I hereby certify that a preliminary investigation has been conducted in this case; and that I have personally examined the complainant and her witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence; and that this complaint is filed with the approval of the Provincial Prosecutor having been first obtained.
“ELBA TAYO-CHUA
Assistant Prov’l. Prosecutor
“SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th day of May 1994 at Makati, Metro Manila.
“HENRY M. SALAZAR
Asst. Provincial-Prosecutor.”
Complaint in Criminal Case No. 94-4899 -
“That on or about the 9th day of August, 1992 at around 2:00 a.m., in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned Maricris Zanoria y Fabula who is a 14 year old girl, without her consent and against her will.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.
Makati, Metro Manila.
March 7, 1994.
“BEATRIZ LIAD VDA. DE ZANORIA MARICRIS ZANORIA Y FABULA
(Assisted by her mother) Complainant
“SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th day of May, 1994 at Makati, Metro Manila.
“ELBA TAYO-CHUA
Assistant Prov’l. Prosecutor
“I hereby certify that a preliminary investigation has been conducted in this case; and that I have personally examined the complainant and her witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence; and that this complaint is filed with the approval of the Provincial Prosecutor having been first obtained.”
“ELBA TAYO-CHUA
Assistant Prov’l. Prosecutor
“SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th day of May 1994 at Makati, Metro Manila
“HENRY M. SALAZAR
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor”
At his arraignment on July 26,
1994, accused-appellant, assisted by Public Attorney William Uy, pleaded not
guilty to the charges.[3] In an order dated November 4, 1994,[4] the trial court denied accused-appellant’s petition
for bail.
After due trial, on August 31,
1995, the trial court rendered decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Rape defined and penalized in paragraph one (1) of Article 335, Revised Penal Code, accordingly, the accused is hereby sentenced as follows:
“I. In criminal case no. 94-4899:
To suffer the single and indivisible penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
“II. In criminal case no. 94-4898:
To suffer the single and indivisible penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; and
“III. To indemnify private
complainant Maricris Zanoria the amount of P50,000 for (sic) offense for
a total of P100,000.00 for the two offenses as and for moral damages in
accordance with Article 2219, new Civil Code.
“In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment upon a showing that he agreed to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners; otherwise, the accused shall be credited with 4/5 of the time of such preventive imprisonment.
“With costs against the accused.
“Furnish the accused thru counsel and the private complainant with a copy each, of this Judgment.
“IT IS SO ORDERED.
“Makati City, August 31, 1995.
“ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ, JR.
Presiding Judge”
The facts are as follows:
The crime scene was in a small
store inside a parking lot located at the corner of Rada and De la Rosa Streets,
Legaspi Village, Makati City.[5] The family of private complainant Maricris Zanoria (
hereinafter, Maricris) owns the store, while accused-appellant was formerly a
parking attendant at the lot. Maricris’
mother, Beatriz Liad, usually tended the store. But as Beatriz Liad was in the hospital for a check-up on the
date in question, her daughter Maricris tended the store and slept there alone.
At around 2:00 in the morning of
August 9, 1992, accused-appellant, clad in mere sando and intoxicated, entered
the store and poked his knife on the breast of the sleeping Maricris. She woke up and sensing the lustful intent
of accused-appellant, she pushed, kicked and scratched him but to no
avail. Accused-appellant ordered
Maricris to undress, and repeatedly punched Maricis Zanoria in the stomach
whenever she refused. The continuous
beating finally took its toll on Maricris who later on succumbed to the beastly
desires of accused-appellant. The
forced coition lasted for about two (2) minutes. After accused-appellant had satisfied his lust, he stood up, and
threatened to kill Maricis should she disclose the incident to anybody. Maricris could not escape since
accused-appellant was sitting on top of a table near the door, smoking a
cigarette.[6]
Accused-appellant forced himself
upon Maricris a second time at around 4:00 a.m. of the same morning. As in the first encounter, he repeatedly
punched Maricris until he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. After satisfying his lust anew,
accused-appellant reiterated his death threats on Maricris. He went behind the store to put on his
underwear and pants, then headed to the guardhouse to get his clothes and the
key of the parking lot gate. Maricris
was left alone inside the store, weeping in fear and dejection.[7]
Maricris did not tell anyone of
the incidents for more than a year because accused-appellant persistently
followed and threatened her with death.
December 19, 1993, however, was the last day accused-appellant would
stalk Maricris. As she, accompanied by
her younger brother and a neighbor, was making a phone call in a store a
kilometer away from their house in Fairview, accused-appellant who was holding
a bladed weapon and a companion approached and asked her: Sinong pinagsusumbungan mong pulis o
kamag-anak mo?” (Who are you reporting
to, a policeman or a relative?)
Maricris and her companions lost no time in heading for home. As Maricris looked pale and frightened, her
mother Beatriz asked her what happened.
Maricris was hesitant at first, but when Beatriz slapped her, she
finally revealed her sexual ordeal in the hands of accused-appellant. The next day, they reported the rape
incidents to the police.[8]
On December 19, 1993,
accused-appellant was arrested and brought to the Makati Police Station where
he knelt before Maricris and her mother Beatriz to ask for forgiveness.[9]
Accused-appellant anchored his
defense on alibi and a “sweetheart story”.
At the time the alleged rapes were committed on August 9, 1992, he could
not exactly recall where he was but he knew he was at home with his small
sister.[10] Accused-appellant also claimed that he and Maricris
were lovers from September of 1991 up to May of 1992. They went out on dates on occasions, but they never had any
intimate sexual encounters.[11] He ended the relationship when he saw her talking to
another man. Accused-appellant
thereafter cohabited with Imelda Catacutan in September of 1993. That was the reason why Maricris fabricated
the rape charge against him.[12]
Imelda Catacutan confirmed the
amorous relationship between accused-appellant and Maricris which lasted from
1991 to around April of 1992.[13] Sometime in December of 1993, the mother of Maricris
(Beatriz Liad) confronted her at the accused-appellant’s house and informed her
that Maricris was no longer a virgin.
Beatriz turned her ire on accused-appellant and held him responsible for
Maricris’ loss of virginity. Upon
Beatriz’ prodding, accused-appellant and Imelda went to Maricris’ house where
Beatriz asked her daughter if it was accused-appellant indeed who deflowered
her. Maricris, however, denied it. Beatriz then warned accused-appellant that
she would file a complaint against him if Maricris’ medical examination would
confirm that she was no longer a virgin.[14]
On the basis of the foregoing
facts, the trial court convicted accused-appellant.
Seeking reversal of his
conviction, accused-appellant challenges the credibility of complainant
Maricris’ story and reiterates his defense of alibi and amorous relationship
with Maricris.
We find the appeal unmeritorious.
We will not disturb the trial
court’s conclusion on the credibility of Maricris and the truthfulness of her
version. So often repeated by the Court
is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is
best and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched
opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the
various indicia available but not reflected in the record.[15] And in a prosecution for rape, the complainant’s
credibility becomes the single most important issue.[16] The trial court, in passing upon the credibility of
Maricris, has provided a vivid description of how she conducted herself on the
witness stand which validated her charges of rape. Thus:
“On the witness stand, private complainant Maricris Zanoria, by her
frank and open manner and prepossessing appearance, convinced the Court that
she is truthful, unbiased and worthy of confidence. She is reliable because her answers in general were prompt,
concise, responsive to the interrogatories, outspoken, and entirely devoid of
evasion or any semblance of shuffling.
There were no hesitations, no labored or confused explanations, no
parrying of uncomfortable inquiries, or partial statements of occurrence. The narration of facts contained in the
testimony of the principal witness for the prosecution was delivered in a
straightforward, natural style, without hesitation or embarrassment, and
although upon minor points she was in error, her story was in no material point
falsified or discredited despite a very lengthy and exhaustive
cross-examination. Her testimony is
sufficient in connection with other evidence to support conviction. The private complainant narrated her ordeal
that fateful dawn of August 9, 1992 with reasonable detail.”[17]
On the other hand, the
accused-appellant failed to impress the trial judge who made the following
observations on his demeanor in the courtroom, viz:
“Right from the arraignment, the Court keenly observed how he
stared at the private complainant as if he would swallow the latter alive. If only looks could kill, the dagger looks
he gave the private complainant could have erased the latter from the face of
the earth. The accused’s countenance,
tone of voice, and manners while testifying contradicted and denied the truth
of the words that came from his lips.
Certainly, the law does not require that the court shall believe the
testimony of one thus self-impeached.
His quibbling, his reluctance and his hesitation, not expressed in
words, discredited him. In such case,
the Court is at liberty to refuse to find in accordance with his
statements. The appearance and manner
of the accused indicated that he is crafty, cunning, unfair and unreliable. The note of insincerity in the voice of the
accused, the furtive glance of his eyes, the shrug of his shoulders weakened
the value of his testimony.”[18]
We have consistently adhered to
the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on
the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies,
findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not ordinarily be
disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court
has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of
weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. The reason for the rule is an excellent chance
on the part of the trial court, an opportunity that is not equally open to an
appellate court, of being able to personally observe the expression of
declarants on the witness stand and their demeanor under questioning.[19] And the Court agrees with the observation of the
trial court that the testimony of Maricris was straightforward, guileless and
credible.[20] She gave a plain and candid account of her harrowing
experience in a manner reflective of honest and unrehearsed testimony.[21] The rule is well settled that when the question of
credence as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the
defense where a rape was committed is in issue, the trial court’s answer is
generally viewed as correct.[22]
Verily,
the denial/alibi interposed by accused-appellant must fail. Maricris could not have mistakenly
identified accused-appellant as her rapist considering their familiarity with
one another - they being neighbors in Fairview and friends, not lovers. Positive identification of the accused as
the rapist prevails over his defense of alibi.[23]
The Court also rejects the
“sweetheart story” espoused by accused-appellant. Not only does Maricris vehemently deny any amorous relationship
with the accused-appellant, he presented no credible evidence to prove such
special relationship such as love letters and gifts.[24] Accused-appellant presented a picture of him and
Maricris taken at a park sometime in 1991 to prove that they were
sweethearts. Maricris explained that
the picture shown by accused-appellant was only one among several pictures
taken by pairs when he, she and other friends had a group outing at the Quezon
City Memorial Circle.[25] Clearly, accused-appellant’s “sweetheart story” is
purely self-serving which carries no evidentiary weight at all. This argument based on the much abused
“sweetheart story” in rape cases rashly derides the intelligence of the Court
and sorely tests its patience.[26]
The testimony and medical findings[27] of Dr. Annabelle Soliman who conducted a genital
examination on Maricris support her charges of rape. Her written report revealed that Maricris’ genital bore a healed
hymenal laceration at 6:00 o’ clock position.
She stated that the laceration was possibly due to sexual intercourse
and that her description of the hymenal laceration is compatible with the date
of the alleged rape.[28]
Accused-appellant cannot validly
claim that his kneeling down before Maricris’ mother (Beatriz Liad) at the
police station is inadmissible against him because he was merely forced to do
so. On the contrary, accused-appellant’s
testimony reveals that he knelt voluntarily without being denied the option to
do so or not. Thus:
“Q: But what compelled you to kneel down?
A: I just followed what was asked by the policewoman.
Q: In short, you are telling that (sic) Court that you knelt voluntarily, is that so?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: You will agree with the Court that you had the opportunity to stand up when your photograph was taken and you did not agree or disagree?
A: Because the police officer was beside me.
Q: Was the police officer beside you holding you on (sic) pinning you down?
A: She was just standing beside me.
Q: Let me repeat the question, when your photograph was taken, was there anybody holding on you and pinning you down?
A: No, your Honor.
Q: In other words, you had the opportunity to stand up when your photograph was taken, true or false?
A: That is right, your Honor.
Q: In other words, nobody prevented you from standing when your photograph was taken at that time, true or false?
A: That is correct,
your Honor.” (Underscoring ours.)[29]
Even assuming arguendo that
they were lovers, rape can still be committed if accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge with the complainant against her will.[30]
The fact that it took Maricris and
her mother more than a year before reporting the rape incidents to the
authorities does not destroy the case against accused-appellant. Being only fourteen (14) years old when
Maricris was sexually violated, she was understandably cowed into silence as
accused-appellant repeatedly warned her not to divulge the incidents to
anybody, otherwise she would be killed.
Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not
necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily
explained. Fear of reprisal, social
humiliation, familial considerations and economic reasons have been considered
as sufficient explanations.[31] It was also understandable for Maricris not to
immediately report the rape as Filipino women are known to be affectedly shy
and coy, and rape stigmatizes the victim, not the perpetrator.[32]
The Court cannot consider
Maricris’ charges of rape as purely fabricated or maliciously motivated. A young girl’s revelation that she has been
raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and
willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out
details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be easily dismissed as mere
concoction.[33] For, it is difficult to imagine that she would
undergo the indignities and hardships concomitant to a prosecution for rape
unless motivated by a desire to have the offender apprehended and punished.[34] Moreover, no mother would sacrifice her own daughter,
a child of tender years at that, and subject her to the rigors and humiliation
of a public trial for rape if she were not motivated by an honest desire to
have her daughter’s transgressor punished accordingly.[35]
As to the penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed on accused-appellant for each count of rape, the Court
finds the same to be in accord with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The indemnity of P50,000.00 per
offense, or a total of P100,000.00, awarded to Maricris is also correct
since civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is automatically given to the
offended party without need of further evidence other than the commission of
the rape.[36] Maricris is also entitled to moral damages because
under prevailing jurisprudence, moral damages are imposed in rape cases
involving young girls between thirteen (13) and nineteen (19) years of age,
taking into account the immeasurable havoc wrought on their youthful feminine
psyche.[37] An additional P50,000.00 for each count of rape, or a
total of P100,000.00 to be given Maricris by way of moral damages, seems proper
under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, except for the MODIFICATION awarding complainant
Maricris Zanoria y Fabula an additional amount of P100,000.00, as moral
damages, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.
Costs against accused-appellant
Winefred Accion.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Judge Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr.,
Records, pp. 173-208.
[2] Records, p. 2, 4.
[3] Records, p. 22.
[4] Records, pp. 73-74.
[5] TSN, August 16, 1994, p. 7.
[6] TSN, August 16, 1994, pp. 9-21.
[7] TSN, August 16, 1994, pp. 24-28.
[8] TSN, August 16, 1994, pp. 33-39.
[9] TSN, November 29, 1994, p. 25
[10] TSN, November 22, 1994, p. 33.
[11] TSN, November 22, 1994, pp. 23-27.
[12] TSN, November 22, 1994, p. 37.
[13] TSN, November 29, 1994, pp. 38-39.
[14] TSN, November 24, 1994, pp. 44-47.
[15] People vs. Mayor Antonio Sanchez, G.
R. Nos. 121039-45, January 25, 1999; People vs. Sarabia, 266 SCRA 471
[1997]; People vs. Tacipit, 242 SCRA 241 [1995].
[16] People vs. Dacoba, 289 SCRA 265 [1998]
[17] RTC Decision, p. 29.
[18] RTC Decision, p. 33.
[19] People vs. Malagar, 238 SCRA 512
[1994]; People vs. Manual, 234 SCRA 532 [1994].
[20] People vs. Tulop, 289 SCRA 316 [1998].
[21] People vs. Gementiza, 285 SCRA 478
[1998].
[22] People vs. Erardo, 277 SCRA 643
[1997].
[23] People vs. Escober, 281 SCRA 498
[1997].
[24] People vs. Tismo, 204 SCRA 535 [1991].
[25] TSN, January 11, 1995, p. 19, 26.
[26] People vs. Cabel, 282 SCRA 410 [1997].
[27] Records, p. 12.
[28] TSN, September 27, 1994, p. 22, pp. 18-19.
[29] TSN, November 29, 1994, pp. 25-26.
[30] People vs. Vallena, 244 SCRA 685
[1995]; People vs. Tacipit, 242 SCRA 241 [1995].
[31] People vs. Lusa, 288 SCR 296 [1998];
People vs. Viovicente, 286 SCRA 1 [1998]; People vs. Astorga, 283
SCRA 420 [1997]; People vs. Fuensalida, 281 SCRA 452 [1997].
[32] People vs. Luzorata, 286 SCRA 487
[1997].
[33] People vs. Molas, 286 SCRA 684 [1998].
[34] People vs. Balmoria, 287 SCRA 687
[1998].
[35] People vs. Tumala, 284 SCRA 436
[1998]; People vs. Oliva, 282 SCRA 470 [1997].
[36] People vs. Pili, 289 SCRA 118 [1998].
[37] People vs. Erese, 281 SCRA 316 [1997];
People vs. Sabellina, 238 SCRA 492 [1994].