FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 128149. July 24, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JIMMY
ANTONIO and MICHAEL AREDIDON y MONTEJO, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case before
this Court is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Cavite City, Branch 17,
finding accused Jimmy Antonio (hereinafter referred to as "Antonio")
guilty of three counts of rape, imposing on him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count, ordering him to indemnify the victim, Adelina S.
Guillang (hereinafter referred to as "Adelina") in the amount of P50,000.00
and to pay one-half of the costs of suit and finding accused Michael Aredidon
(hereinafter referred to as "Aredidon") guilty as an accomplice in
each of the three acts of rape, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of
nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, for each count of rape, ordering him to pay the
victim indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 and one-half of the costs
of suit.[2]
We state the
relevant facts.[3]
On September 3,
1989, at nine o'clock in the evening Aredidon fetched Adelina from her house.
After asking permission from her mother, she left with Aredidon. They went to
the house of Aredidon's friend, known only as "Gov." Adelina and
Aredidon stayed in "Gov's" house for a while. Adelina was offered
softdrinks. After drinking, she fell asleep.[4]
On the same day,
September 3, 1989, Adelina woke up in a hotel room, naked, her whole body
aching and her vagina bleeding. She was about to stand when Aredidon entered
the room. Aredidon told her that should she attempt to escape, he would kill
her with the knife he was holding.
Shortly thereafter,
Antonio arrived. Antonio told Adelina that he "used her". He
"again used" her. Antonio pointed a gun at her and threatened to kill
her should she attempt to escape.
On September 4,
1989, Antonio raped Adelina for the second time.
On September 5,
1989, Antonio hit Adelina on the stomach and pointed a gun at her. He succeeded
in sexually violating her for the third time. At that time, Adelina was only
fourteen (14) years old.
During her
three-day stay in the hotel, Adelina did not eat. She narrated that during that
time, Antonio and Aredidon would take shabu.
The room was on the
first floor of the hotel.[5] It had no windows. No hotel personnel ever entered
the room. Adelina explained that although she was "anxious to get out of
the hotel," she could not escape because Antonio and Aredidon did not
sleep on account of the shabu they took.
On September 5,
1989, Adelina escaped, wearing Aredidon's clothes, taking his bag and money.
Afraid of Aredidon and Antonio's threats, Adelina proceeded to a friend's house
in Pandacan, Manila. She stayed there for a week and then went home. Upon
reaching home, she told her mother about everything that happened to her.[6]
On September 26,
1989, Adelina executed a sworn statement before the police in Camp General
Pantaleon Garcia in Imus, Cavite accusing Antonio and Aredidon of rape.[7]
On September 27,
1989, Dr. Prospero A. Cabanayan of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
examined Adelina. The medical report revealed that Adelina's hymen had "a
recently healed deep laceration at 8:00 o'clock position."[8]
On March 28, 1990,
Adelina filed three separate complaints[9] against accused Aredidon and Antonio, to wit:[10]
In Criminal Case
No. 114-90--
"That on or
about September 5, 1989, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, by means
of , force and intimidation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against her
will.
Contrary to
law."
The complaints in
Criminal Cases Nos. 115-90[11] and 116-90[12] alleged the same facts except for the dates of
commission of the crime, which were September 4, 1989 and September 3, 1989,
respectively.
On March 28, 1990,
the trial court issued the corresponding warrants of arrest.[13]
On June 29, 1990,
since both accused were at large, the trial court ordered that Criminal Case
Nos. 114-90 and 115-90 be archived.[14]
On October 31, 1991,
Criminal Case No. 116-90 was likewise archived.[15]
On October 13,
1995, Antonio was apprehended in Dalahican, Cavite City.[16]
On October 23,
1995, Antonio was arraigned. He entered a plea of "not guilty" to the
three charges of rape.[17]
On November 15,
1995, the three criminal cases were consolidated and tried jointly.[18]
On May 12, 1996,
accused Aredidon voluntarily surrendered to the police at Cavite City.[19]
On May 13, 1996,
upon arraignment, accused Aredidon entered a plea of "not guilty" to
all charges.[20]
Accused interposed
the defense of denial.
Essentially,
Aredidon and Antonio testified that Adelina was a prostitute who voluntarily
went to the hotel with them. Adelina stated that she could no longer live with
her mother who would beat her.[21] Antonio testified that he and Adelina frequently
met, and sometimes the meetings would "end up with sex"[22] and he would give her P500 or P600
"depending on her needs."[23]
On November 20,
1996, after trial, the lower court found accused guilty and sentenced them as
follows:[24]
"WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Jimmy Antonio guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE in the above-entitled cases and he is hereby
sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA in each case, to indemnify the offended
party Adelina Guillang in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay one-half
(1/2) of the costs.
"Likewise,
Michael Aredidon is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE as an
accomplice in the above-entitled cases and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment
of from nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prison mayor as
minimum, to thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion
temporal as maximum in each case, to indemnify the offended party Adelina
Guillang in the amount of P30,000.00 and to pay one-half (1/2) of the
costs.
"SO
ORDERED."
Hence, this appeal.[25]
Accused-appellants
make issue of the trial court's reliance on Adelina's testimony. We have
consistently held that the credible, natural and convincing testimony of the
victim is sufficient basis to convict. Rape is committed in private.
Eyewitnesses are very seldom available.[26]
Accused-appellants
point out that Adelina contradicted herself several times regarding the
question of when she first met Antonio. At one time, she testified that she met
Antonio for the first time at the hotel.[27] Then another time, she stated that the first time
she met Antonio was in "Gov's" house.[28]
We are not
persuaded.
The inconsistencies
cited by accused-appellants cannot overthrow the trial court's conviction. The
substance of Adelina's testimony was that Antonio raped her. On this matter,
she did not waiver. Whether she met Antonio at "Gov's" house or at
the hotel is not relevant. To disregard Adelina's testimony on this basis will
result in injustice. Hae nugae seria ducent in mala. Consideration of
these trifles will lead to serious mischief.[29] For a discrepancy in testimony to acquit, such must
refer to significant facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of
accused-appellants. Inconsistencies irrelevant to the elements of the crime are
not grounds to reverse the conviction.[30]
True, Adelina
waited six (6) months before she reported the crime to the police. However,
this will not discredit her. It is not uncommon for a girl of tender age to be
intimidated into silence by the mildest threat on her life.[31]
We affirm the trial
court's finding of guilt which was based on sound legal reasons, to wit: First,
the trial court categorically pronounced that "the evidence for the
prosecution is more credible than that of the defense."[32] The trial court described Adelina's manner of
testifying as "straight forward" and "unflinching".[33] Any inconsistency in Adelina's testimony was trivial
(a "small matter") and excusable given the lapse of time from the
time the crimes were committed to the time of testifying.[34] Second, the trial court found the testimonies
of both accused-appellants unbelievable and contradictory. While Antonio
testified that he personally knew Aredidon, Aredidon denied knowing Antonio and
even feigned inability to identify him in court.[35] Third, Adelina's positive identification of
accused-appellants prevails over their defense of alibi. Fourth, even if
Adelina was indeed a prostitute, that does not mean that she was not raped. The
victim's character and previous sexual relations are immaterial in rape.[36]
The settled rule is
that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled
to great respect. The court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses'
demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.[37]
Adelina was
fourteen years old when she was raped. Only a desire to have the culprits
apprehended and punished would motivate a woman of such tender age to allow an
examination of her private parts and undergo a public trial. Youth and
immaturity are generally considered badges of truth and sincerity.[38]
We note that both
accused-appellants were at large for five (5) years.[39] Flight indicates guilt. Accused-appellants' act of
not confronting their accuser goes against the principle that the first impulse
of an innocent man when accused with wrongdoing is to express his innocence at
the first opportune time.[40]
However, unlike the
trial court, we find the existence of conspiracy between the two accused-appellants.
Conspiracy is shown by the conduct of accused-appellants, before, during and
after the commission of the crime. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all.[41] Aredidon is not a mere accomplice. He clearly
concurred with the criminal design of Antonio and performed overt acts which
led to the multiple rape committed.
Consider that:
(1) He fetched
Adelina from her mother's house.
(2) He brought
Adelina to Gov's house where she was offered spiced softdrinks that made her
unconsciousness;
(3) He guarded
Adelina at knife-point and prevented her from leaving the hotel where she was
detained for three days and where Antonio raped her.
Conspiracy may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. It may
be inferred from the acts of the accused, evincing a joint or common purpose
and design, concerted action and community of interest.[42]
We also find the
trial court's award of damages erroneous.
An award of civil
indemnity ex delicto in favor of the offended party in the amount of P50,000.00
is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[43] The award is for each count of rape proved.[44]
Likewise, moral
damages for each count of rape must also be awarded without further need of
proof of mental and physical suffering.[45]
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with modification the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Cavite City. We find accused-appellant Jimmy Antonio
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape and sentence him to reclusion
perpetua for each of the three counts of rape.
We also find the
existence of a conspiracy, hence, accused-appellant Michael Aredidon y Montejo
is likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principa1 in the
three acts of rape and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each of the
three acts of rape committed.
Both
accused-appellants are held solidarily liable and ordered to pay Adelina
Guillang P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages for
each of the three counts of rape proved.
Costs against
accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and
Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Dated November 20, 1996, in Criminal Case Nos.
114-90, 115-90 and 116-90, Judge Rolando D. Diaz, presiding.
[2] Rollo, pp. 17-32.
[3] Rollo, pp. 19-21.
[4] TSN, January 29, 1996, p. 6.
[5] Holiday Hotel in PN, Cavite City.
[6] TSN, January 29, 1996, pp. 6-39.
[7] Regional Trial Court Record, Crim. Case No. 114-90,
pp. 47-48.
[8] Regional Trial Court Record, Crim. Case No. 114-90,
p. 49.
[9] Subscribed and sworn to before Agapito S. Lu, Third
Assistant City Prosecutor and Manuel C, Medina, Actg. First Asst. City
Prosecutor and approved by Evergisto D. Gabriel, City Prosecutor, all of Cavite
City.
[10] Rollo, p. 5; Regional Trial Court, Record,
Crim. Case No. 114-90, p. 1.
[11] Rollo, p. 6; Regional Trial Court Record,
Crim. Case No. 115-90, p. 1.
[12] Rollo, p. 7; Regional Trial Court Record,
Crim. Case No. 116-90, p. 1.
[13] Regional Trial Court Record, Crim. Case Nos. 114-90,
115-90 and 116-90, p. 2.
[14] Regional Trial Court Record, Crim Case No. 114-90, p.
5; Crim Case No. 115-90, p. 5.
[15] Regional Trial Court Record, Crim. Case No. 116-90,
p. 6.
[16] Regional Trial Court Record, Crim. Case No. 114-90,
p. 10.
[17] Rollo, p. 18; Regional Trial Court Record,
Crim. Case No. 114-90, pp. 19-20.
[18] Regional Trial Court Record, Crim. Case No. 116-90,
p. 12.
[19] Regional Trial Court Record, Crim. Case No. 114-90,
p. 72.
[20] Rollo, p. 18; Regional Trial Court Record,
Crim. Case No. 114-90, pp. 66, 69.
[21] TSN, May 13, 1996, pp. 13-21.
[22] TSN, May 14, 1996, pp. 6-7.
[23] Ibid., p. 22.
[24] Rollo, pp. 31-32; Regional Trial Court Record,
Crim. Case No. 114-90, pp. 86-100.
[25] The notice of appeal was filed on November 26, 1996 (Rollo,
p. 33; Regional Trial Court Record, Crim. Case No. 114-90, p. 104)
[26] People v. Sancha, G.R. Nos. 131818-19,
February 3, 2000.
[27] Rollo, p. 58 citing TSN, January 29, 1996, pp.
21-22.
[28] Ibid., citing TSN, May 16, 1996, p. 12.
[29] People v. Villablanca, G.R. No. 89662, October
1, 1999.
[30] People v. Sancha, G.R. Nos. 131818-19,
February 3, 2000; People v. Bato, G.R. No. 134939, February 16, 2000.
[31] People v. Abalde, G.R. No. 123113, March 31,
2000.
[32] Rollo, p. 28.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Rollo, p. 29.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Rollo, p. 30.
[37] People v. Juntilla, G.R. No. 130604, September
16, 1999; People v. Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000.
[38] People v. Juntilla, supra; People v.
Mitra, G.R. No. 130669, March 27, 2000.
[39] From 1990 to 1995.
[40] People v. Malapayon, G.R. Nos. 111734-35, June
16, 2000.
[41] People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18,
1999.
[42] People v. Francisco, G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May
31, 2000.
[43] People v. Mendiona, G.R. No. 129056, February
21, 2000.
[44] People v. Mangila, G.R. Nos. 130203-04,
February 15, 2000; People v. Omar, G.R. No. 120656, March 3, 2000;
People v. Alicante, G.R. Nos. 127026-27, May 31, 2000.
[45] People v. Mangila, supra; People v.
Gajo, G.R. No. 127749, March 9, 2000.