EN BANC
[G.R. No. 138401.
July 11, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERRY LINING and LIAN SALVACION, accused.
GERRY LINING, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
Gerry Lining and
Lian Salvacion were both charged with the crime of Abduction with Rape under an
Information that read:
That on or about the 5th day of October, 1997, at 1:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, in sitio Buho,
Barangay Mabuslot, municipality of Pinamalayan, province of Oriental Mindoro,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and acting in common accord,
with lewd and unchaste design, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously
and with threat and intimidation with use of a deadly weapon, forcibly abduct
one Emelina Ornos, a 15-year-old girl, towards an unoccupied house and thereat
and pursuant to their criminal conspiracy and motivated with lustful desire,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and had carnal knowledge one
after the other of said victim against
her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
That in the commission of the
crime, the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, use of deadly weapon and
abuse of superior strength are attendant.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
Accused Lian
Salvacion remained at large and trial proceeded against Gerry Lining alone, who
entered a plea of Not Guilty.
Gleaned from the
questioned decision of the trial court, as well as the records of the case, the
facts are as follows:
On October 4,
1997, at around 12:30 in the afternoon, Emelina Ornos, then fifteen (15) years
old,[2] requested
permission from her parents to visit her aunt Josephine at Sitio Buho, Barangay
Nabuslot, Pinamalayan Oriental Mindoro where she was supposed to spend the night.[3] She
arrived at her aunt’s house at around one o’clock in the afternoon.[4] While in
her aunt’s house, Emelina was invited by one Sajer to a dance party to be held
at the barangay basketball court.[5] Emelina
accepted the invitation and at around seven o’clock in the evening of the same
day, she went to the party, accompanied by her aunt.[6] Josephine
then left Emelina at the party, telling her that she had to go home but she
would return later to fetch her.[7]
Josephine’s house was about 500 meters away from the barangay basketball court.[8]
At around 12:30
in the morning, the party ended but Josephine still had not returned.[9] Emelina
decided to go home alone. On her way to
her aunt’s house, Emelina was accosted by Gerry Lining and Lian Salvacion, both
of whom were known to her since they were her former neighbors.[10] Lining
poked a kitchen knife at Emelina’s breast and the two held her hands. Emelina was dragged towards the ricefield
and was forcibly carried to an unoccupied house owned by Mila Salvacion.[11]
Inside the
house, Lining removed Emelina’s t-shirt, pants and undergarments. She was pushed to the floor and while
Salvacion was holding her hands and kissing her, Lining inserted his penis
inside her vagina.[12] Emelina
shouted and tried to ward off her attackers, but to no avail.[13] One Russel
heard her cries and tried to help her but he left when told not
to interfere (“Huwag kang makialam”).[14] After
Lining had satisfied his lust, he held Emelina’s hands and kissed her while
Salvacion in turn inserted his penis inside her vagina.[15] Thereafter,
the two directed Emelina to put on her clothes. The accused then looked for a vehicle to transport Emelina to
Barangay Maningcol. Emelina saw an
opportunity to escape, and she returned to her aunt’s house.[16] However,
because of fear, as the accused threatened her that she would be killed if she
would reveal what they did to her, she did not tell her aunt what transpired. [17] She next
went to the house of her friend Evelyn Saguid where Gerry Selda, a friend of
her father, saw her crying. She told
him about the rape incident and Selda accompanied her to the barangay captain.[18] However,
since the barangay captain was not in his house, Selda brought Emelina to the
Chief of Police, Commander Amador Mogol.[19] Emelina's
statements were taken at the police station and she was subjected to a medical examination.[20] The Chief
of Police immediately ordered the arrest of Lining but Salvacion was able to
escape.
Dr. Adelaido
Malaluan, the Municipal Health Officer of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, who
conducted the medical examination on Emelina on October 6, 1997,[21] reported
the following findings:
GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL -
Fairly developed, fairly nourished,
coherent and ambulatory, breast and conical with brownish areola, right breast
with contusion on nipple inner part measuring 1.5 cm., abdomen is flat and
soft.
Contusions on antero-lateral part
of the neck left and right area.
GENITALIA:
There is scantly distribution of
pubic hair, Labia Majora are full, cervex and coaptated, there is superficial
fresh erosion along the vaginal wall, with healed laceration 6, 8 and 9 o’clock
on the part of the hymen. External
vaginal orifice offers moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining
finger and the virgin-sized speculum.
Tinea cruris is also noted on the inguinal region.
LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
Negative for Spermatozoa.
REMARKS:
SUBJECT IS IN NON-VIRGIN STATE
PHYSICALLY.[22]
Dr. Malaluan testified
that Emelina’s contusions could have been caused by a blunt object, a forcible
kiss or a bite,[23] and that
the fresh erosion along the vaginal canal could have been caused by an erect
penis.[24]
Accused Lining
denied the accusations against him and disputed the findings of the trial
court. He alleged that in the morning
of October 4, 1997, his brother-in-law Artemio Salvacion invited him to attend
a barangay dance in Nabuslot.[25] Later that
afternoon, he fetched Ildefonso Magararu and together, they went to the house
of Artemio, arriving thereat at about eight o’clock in the evening where they
also met Russel Bolquerin, Allan Salvacion and Lian Salvacion.[26] However,
Lining was not able to attend the dance party because Artemio requested him to
look after the palay in his house.
Instead, he and Ildefonso had some beer and pulutan in the house
of Artemio.[27]
At around 12:00
midnight, after they had finished their drinks and when Artemio returned from
the dance, Ildefonso requested Lining
to accompany him on his way home because of his poor eyesight. Thus, Ildefonso, Allan, Lian, Russel and
Lining proceeded to Barangay Palayan, about one and a half (1-½) kilometers
away.[28] Since it
was raining when they arrived at Palayan, the group spent the night in Ildefonso’s
house and only returned to the house of Artemio at around five o’clock in the
morning.[29] Lining
then decided to proceed and sleep in the house of Mila Salvacion where the
police later apprehended him.[30]
Artemio
Salvacion, brother-in-law of Lining and father of Lian, as well as Ildefonso
Magararu, corroborated the testimony of Lining.
Salvacion
declared before the court that Lining did not attend the dance and stayed in
his house until about one o’clock in the morning when he joined Lian, Allan and
Russel in bringing Ildefonso home.[31] When asked
where his son Lian was, Salvacion stated that he left the house because he got
a job and had not returned since. He
disclaimed any knowledge of the whereabouts of his son who, according to him,
had not written any letter nor sent any money since he left.[32]
Ildefonso
Magararu confirmed that the group of Lining accompanied him home and stayed in
his house from one-thirty to around five o’clock the morning of October 5,
1997.[33]
After trial, the
court found Gerry Lining guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
forcible abduction with rape, and for another count of rape. It ruled:
ACCORDINGLY, accused GERRY LINING
is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principal of the complex
crime of ABDUCTION WITH RAPE and another count of RAPE and is hereby sentenced
to TWO (2) DEATH penalties.
Additionally, accused is ordered to
indemnify Emelina Ornos the amount of P50,000.00.
In so far as the accused at large
LIAN SALVACION is concerned, let the records of this case be sent to the
archives without prejudice to its being revived upon his arrest.
SO ORDERED.[34]
Before this
Court, accused-appellant alleges:
I
THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME CHARGED.
II
ASSUMING
ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT INDEED HAD CARNAL KNOWLEDGE WITH PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT, THE TRIAL COURT, NONETHELESS, ERRED IN IMPOSING UPON HIM THE
SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH.[35]
After a careful
review of the records of this case, the Court finds no reason to reverse the
findings of the trial court.
Time and again,
the Court has ruled that the factual findings of the trial court deserves
respect, if not finality, since the trial judge had the unique opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify.[36] The
straightforward and candid testimony of Emelina Ornos, who was crying as she
recalled her ordeal before the trial court, is certainly more credible than the
testimonies of the defense witnesses.
Emelina testified:
Q. While
you were on your way going home that night, what happened? Please tell us.
A. Lian
Salvacion and Gerry Lining accompanied me (sinabayan) sir.
Q. And
at that time, do you know personally this Gerry Lining and Lian Salvacion?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Why
do you know personally Gerry Lining?
A. Because
Gerry Lining is a kumpadre of my father, sir.
Q. How
about Lian Salvacion, under what circumstance did you come to know him?
A. They
were my former neighbors at Buho, sir.
Q. Tell
us: Did you reside formerly at Buho?
A. Yes,
sir.
FISCAL (Continuing):
Q. When
you were already going home and (these) two accused were in company with you,
what happened? Tell us if there is any.
A. Gerry
Lining poked a kitchen knife at my breast, sir.
Q. After
poking that kitchen knife on your neck, what else did Gerry Lining and Lian
Salvacion do, if any?
A. They
held my both hands, sir.
Q. And
after holding both your hands, what else did they do?
A. “Kinaladkad
po nila ako”.
FISCAL (Manifesting):
The
witness-complainant is again shedding tears and crying.
Q. When
they dragged you, towards what direction were you brought?
A. To
the ricefield, sir.
Q. And
ultimately, where were you brought?
A. In
the house where there was no occupant, owned by Mila Salvacion, sir.
Q. How
far was that house from the place where you were first poked with a knife by
Gerry Lining?
A. Very
far, sir.
Q. And
after dragging you towards that house, will you please tell the Court if you
were ultimately brought inside the house?
A. They
undressed me sir. (Hinubaran ako ng
kamiseta)
FISCAL (Continuing):
Q. Who
among the two actually undressed you?
A. Gerry
Lining, sir.
Q. At
that time, what were you wearing?
A. I
was wearing T-shirt and pants, sir.
Q. Who
removed that pants and T-shirts?
A. Gerry
Lining, sir.
Q. And
how about your panty and your bra, who removed the same?
A. Gerry
Lining also, sir.
Q. And
after removing everything from you and when you were already totally undressed,
what did Gerry Lining do?
A. He
pushed me towards the floor, sir.
Q. And
when you are (sic) already lying on the floor, what else transpired? What did Gerry Lining do?
A. He
placed himself on top of me sir.
(Sumapaw na po siya)
Q. After
placing himself on top of you, what was Lian Salvacion doing?
A. He
was holding my two hands and kissing me, sir.
Q. You
said that Gerry Lining placed himself on top of you; after he placed himself on
top of you, what else did he do?
Witness:
A. “Ako
po ay inaayod ng inaayod”.
FISCAL (Continuing):
Q. When
you stated that, what do you mean?
A. “Inayod
po ako ng inayod”.
Q. What
did you feel when he was already making that kayod motion?
A. I
felt pain on my vagina, sir.
Q. Why
did you feel pain in your vagina when he was making that pumping motion?
A. Because
it was painful, sir.
Q. What
was causing the pain in your vagina?
A. His
penis, sir.
Q. At
the time that he was making that pumping motion, where was his penis?
A. Inside
my vagina, sir.
Q. After
a short while making that pumping motion, what happened next?
A. I
felt something hot, sir.
Q. And
thereafter, what did Gerry Lining do?
A. After
that, Gerry Lining held my both hands, sir.
FISCAL (Continuing):
Q. And
while Gerry Lining, this time, holding your both hands, what happened next?
A. Lian
placed himself on top of me, sir.
Q. What
is the surname of this Lian?
A. Lian
Salvacion, sir.
Q. While
Gerry Lining, this Gerry Lining, this time was holding both your hands and Lian
Salvacion placed himself on top of you, what else transpired?
A. Inayod
din po ako ng inayod.
Q. What
did you feel when Lian Salvacion was doing this pumping motion?
A. I
felt also a hot thing, sir.
Q. Where
did you feel that:
A. Inside
my vagina, sir.
Q. At
the time that Lian Salvacion was making that pumping motion, what actually was
Gerry Lining doing?
A. He
was kissing me also, sir.
Q. And
at the same time, what was he doing with your both hands?
A. He
was squeezing my hands, sir.
Q. And
after something had came out of Lian Salvacion inside your vagina, according to
you, what else transpired?
Witness:
A. They
required me to dress up, sir.
FISCAL (Continuing):
Q. Did
you comply?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And
after that, where were you brought?
A. After
that, they were looking for a vehicle to hide me at Maningcol, sir.
Q. While
they were looking for vehicle, what did you do if any?
A. I
escaped from the place, sir.
Q. Where
did you go when you escaped?
A. To
the house of auntie Josephine, sir.
Q. Thereafter,
were you able to talk with Josephine?
A. No,
sir.
Q. Why?
A. Because
I was afraid of telling that happened to me, sir.
Q. Why
were afraid of revealing these things that happened to you that night, to your
Auntie Josephine?
A. Because
at that time, I was very much afraid, sir.
FISCAL:
May it be
made of record that the witness is crying.
At this juncture, may we respectfully request for a recess, your honor
and we will continue after the witness regain composure.
COURT:
We resume at exactly 9:30.
xxx
Note: Trial resumed at 10:00 o’clock A.M.
COURT:
This is a
continuation of the direct-examination of Emelina Ornos. Proceed.
FISCAL (Continuing his
direct-examination):
Q. During
all the time that you were being raped, by either of the accused, Gerry Lining
and Lian Salvacion, what were you doing?
A. I
shouted and tried to fight, sir.
Q. How
long did you shout while you were ganged up and raped by the two?
A. Quite
a long time, sir. I cannot remember
anymore.
Q. For
how many hours more or less were you held by the two in that unoccupied house?
A. More
or less four (4) hours, sir.
FISCAL (Continuing):
Q. What
time more or less were you able to leave that morning?
A. 4:30
o’clock in the morning, sir.
Q. Was
it already dawn?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. You
stated that while the two were looking for a vehicle with which to take you to
Maningcol, you were able to escape and according to you you went to the house
of your Auntie Josephine and you were not able to reveal what happened to you,
to your Auntie Josephine. My question
is, were you not able to reveal what happened to you to your Auntie Josephine?
A. Because
they threatened me not to reveal this matter because I will be killed.[37]
Accused-appellant
has nothing to offer other than alibi.
Unfortunately for him, alibi is weak in face of the positive
identification by the victim of the perpetrator of the offense.[38] Further,
the testimonies of accused-appellant and the other witnesses for the defense
are not consistent on some material points.
Accused-appellant testified that he was not able to attend the dance
party because his brother-in-law Artemio Salvacion asked him to look after the palay.[39] On the
other hand, Artemio Salvacion testified that Lining did not attend the party
upon the request of Elding (Magararu) who would not attend as he was only
wearing shorts.[40] Lining and
Magararu testified that when they arrived at Artemio’s house, the beer and the
pulutan were already on the table.[41] In
contrast, Artemio testified that Lining requested for a case of beer and
pulutan, and that Lining, Elding (Magararu), Lian (Salvacion), Russel and Allan
were already in his house when he brought the beer and pulutan inside.[42] These
inconsistencies only added doubt on the mind of the Court regarding the
veracity of the statements of the defense witnesses.
The
non-presentation of Russel to prove that he saw Emelina being raped does not
weaken the cause of the prosecution since his testimony would at best only be
corroborative. In rape cases,
corroborative testimony is not absolutely necessary.[43] The lone
testimony of the victim may suffice to convict the rapist.[44] The Court
notes that neither the defense presented Russel to contradict the testimony of Emelina and to bolster the claim
that accused-appellant never left the house of Artemio.
The medical
finding that the victim was already a non-virgin, nor the fact that she had
sexual relations before, would not matter.
Even a woman of loose morals could still be a victim of rape, for the
essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her will and without
her consent.[45] Neither
the absence of physical injuries negates the fact of rape since proof of
physical injury is not an element of rape.[46] In the
same way, the absence of spermatozoa does not mean that the rape did not take
place.[47] The
absence of spermatozoa in the genitalia of the victim does not destroy the
finding of rape since ejaculation is never an element thereof.[48]
Nevertheless,
accused-appellant could only be convicted for the crime of rape, instead of the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
Indeed, it would appear from the records that the main objective of the
accused when the victim was taken to the house of Mila Salvacion was to rape
her. Hence, forcible abduction is
absorbed in the crime of rape.[49]
The Court
sustains the trial court in not appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity. The mere fact that the rape
was committed at nighttime does not make nocturnity an aggravating
circumstance.[50] Further,
the fact that the accused took turns in holding Emelina’s hands while the other
was raping her would not warrant the appreciation of abuse of superior
strength. In People vs. Quiñanola,[51] the Court
ruled that “the law[52] should be
deemed to have already considered this circumstance in qualifying the crime to
its 'heinous' character rendering in the context abuse of superior strength as
an inherent element thereof.”[53] The Court
could not separately appreciate as aggravating circumstance the use of a knife
in the commission of the crime of rape, as there was no evidence that the knife
was used to subdue Emelina while the rape was being committed. The testimony of Emelina showed that the
accused poked a knife at her when they accosted her.[54] However,
Emelina was taken by the accused to another place, particularly, to the house
of Mila Salvacion. The testimony on the acts of rape no longer mentioned the knife,
not even to threaten Emelina to submission.
She only recalled that the accused took turns in raping her and that one
would hold her hands while the other would perform the act of rape.
Where the rape
is committed by two or more persons, the imposable penalty ranges from reclusion
perpetua to death; however, where there is no aggravating circumstance
proved in the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty shall be applied.[55] Anent the
award of damages, the Court sustains the award of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity to the victim and, in addition, grants a separate award of P50,000.00
as moral damages founded on the victim’s shame, mental anguish, besmirched
reputation, moral shock and social humiliation which rape necessarily brings to
the offended party.[56]
Finally, it
should be stressed that one who clearly concurred with the criminal design of
another and performed overt acts which led to the multiple rape committed is a
co-conspirator.[57] For this
reason, accused-appellant is deemed a co-conspirator for the act of rape
committed by his co-accused Lian Salvacion and should accordingly be penalized
therefor.
WHEREFORE, accused-appellant GERRY LINING is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape and is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case. Accused-appellant is likewise ordered to pay
Emelina Ornos the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
damages for each count of rape. Costs
against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p.
1.
[2] Per her birth certificate, Emelina was born on
January 14, 1982, id., at 9.
[3] TSN, March 16, 1998,
pp. 18-19.
[4] Id., at 4.
[5] Id., at
4-5.
[6] Id., at 5,
21.
[7] Id., at
23-24.
[8] Id.,at 5.
[9] Id., at 5,
24.
[10] Id., at 6.
[11] Id., at 7.
[12] Id., at
7-9.
[13] Id., at
12.
[14] Id., at
13.
[15] Id., at
9-10.
[16] Id., at
10-11.
[17] Id., at
14.
[18] Id., at
14-16, 29.
[19] Id., at
16.
[20] Id.,at 17.
[21] TSN, March 3, 1998,
p. 4.
[22] Records, p.
8.
[23] TSN, March 3, 1998,
pp. 5-6.
[24] Id., at 6.
[25] TSN, August 10, 1998, pp. 3-4.
[26] Id., at
4-5.
[27] Id., at 6.
[28] Id., at
7-8.
[29] Id., at
8-9.
[30] Id., at 9.
[31] TSN, March 23, 1999,
pp. 4-9.
[32] Id., at
14-15.
[33] TSN, June 22, 1998,
p. 7.
[34] Records, p.
63.
[35] Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[36] People vs. De Villa, 351 SCRA 25
(2001).
[37] TSN, March
10, 1998, pp. 6-14.
[38] People vs.
Ayungon, G.R. No. 137752, June
19, 2001.
[39] TSN, August
10, 1998, p. 6.
[40] TSN, March
23, 1998, p. 5.
[41] TSN of Lining,
August 10, 1998, p. 6; TSN of
Magararu, June 22, 1998, p. 12.
[42] TSN, March
23, 1998, p. 5.
[43] People vs. Tabanggay, 334 SCRA 575
(2000).
[44] People vs. Bacalano, 336 SCRA 615 (2000).
[45] People vs. Bernaldez, 322 SCRA 462
(2000).
[46] People vs. Rafales, 323 SCRA 13 (2000).
[47] People vs. Sapinoso, 328 SCRA 649
(2000).
[48] People vs. Baid, 336 SCRA 656 (2000).
[49] See People vs. Mejorado, 224 SCRA 837
(1993), People vs. Sabredo, 331 SCRA 663 (2000).
[50] People vs. Lomerio, 326 SCRA 530
(2000).
[51] 306 SCRA 710 (1999).
[52] Republic Act No. 7659.
[53] At 737.
[54] TSN, March 10, 1998, p. 6.
[55] People vs. Sabredo, 331 SCRA 663
(2000).
[56] People
vs. Galeno, G.R. No. 135976-80, June 20, 2001.
[57] People vs. Antonio, 336 SCRA 366
(2000).