THE
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
DOMINGO
HAPIN y JAZO,
Appellant.
Promulgated:
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
On
automatic review is the Decision[1] promulgated
by the Court of Appeals, affirming the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) judgment[2] in
Criminal Case No. 2002-5649 finding Domingo Hapin y Jazo (appellant) guilty of
rape.
Appellant was charged with the crime
of rape in an Information which reads:
That on the 13th day of April 2002, at more or less 8:00
o’clock in the evening at [XXX],[3]
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused motivated with lust by means of force and intimidation
while armed with a bladed weapon did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously had carnal knowledge of one [AAA],[4] 28
years of age, against her will and without her consent, to her damage and
prejudice.
That the victim was a passenger of the tricycle then driven by the
accused at the time the crime was committed in an isolated area of the
CONTRARY TO
LAW.[5]
On arraignment, appellant entered a plea
of not guilty. During trial, the prosecution
presented four (4) witnesses, namely: the victim, AAA, her mother, BBB,[6]
PO2 Edward Hebres (PO2 Hebres) and the medico-legal expert, Dr. Andrew de
Castro (Dr. de Castro), who testified on the following antecedent facts.
On
Upon reaching their town, there was a
heavy downpour. Suddenly, appellant
stopped the tricycle on the right shoulder of the road, switched off the
headlights and told AAA that there was an engine defect. Thereafter, appellant alighted from his seat
and went inside the sidecar where AAA was seated. He sat on AAA’s knees, immediately hugged her
and demanded the she submit to his carnal desire. AAA struggled but she saw
appellant holding a bladed instrument. Appellant then started kissing her and
forcibly removed her clothes, including her underwear. Appellant removed the backseat of the
tricycle and made AAA lie down on her back and succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her. During her ordeal,
AAA struggled but she was overpowered by appellant. After consummating the
sexual act, appellant assisted in putting her clothes back and brought her up
to the gate of her house.[8]
Upon reaching the house, AAA was met
by her parents. BBB narrated that when
AAA arrived, she was crying, her hair was in disarray and she was holding her skirt
closed. She told her parents that she
was raped by appellant.[9] Enraged, AAA’s father contacted the police
while BBB, accompanied by some barangay
tanod, proceeded to the police station in the town to report the incident.[10] AAA, meanwhile, was brought to the
-
Erythema (L) Breast
-
Erythema labia majore with multiple old laceration
-
(+) for smear for spermatozoa[11]
During the direct examination, Dr. de
Castro explained that AAA sustained redness on her left breast and her genitals
which could have been caused by trauma, meaning there was force employed. These findings, according to Dr. de Castro,
could be consistent with the claim of AAA that she was raped.[12]
AAA then met with her parents at the
police station where the details of the alleged rape were entered in the police
blotter.[13] The
police blotter book containing Entry No. 82[14]
was brought to the court by PO2 Hebres.
For his part, appellant denied having
raped AAA. He contended that he and AAA
were having a relationship;[15]
that in the afternoon of 13 April 2002, AAA boarded his tricycle;[16]
that on their way home between the boundary of Tughan and Casiguran, AAA asked
him to stop the tricycle[17]
and they had sex inside the tricycle;[18]
that thereafter, appellant brought AAA home;[19]
that around 10:00 p.m., he was apprehended by policemen and brought to the
police station;[20] and
that AAA filed a criminal complaint against him to preserve her reputation
because she was worried that somebody might recognize her when the tricycle was
parked in the boundary of Casiguran.[21]
Appellant’s
brother and sister, Estela and Niño Hapin, corroborated his defense that he and
AAA were lovers. Both testified that AAA
often visited appellant at home and that the two usually rode in the tricycle
together. They also claimed that the two
would frequently take a bath together.[22]
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court finds the accused Domingo Hapin y Jazo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, defined and penalized under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to
pay the private offended party, the sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000,00)
Pesos, as indemnity ex delicto and
the further sum of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, as moral damages,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
SO
ORDERED.[23]
In
finding appellant guilty, the trial court relied heavily on the testimony of
the complainant while discarding the defense raised by appellant. Moreover, the trial court emphasized the fact
that AAA and her parents had immediately reported the incident to the police
authorities.
This
case was originally elevated before this Court on automatic review in view of
the penalty imposed on appellant.
However, in line with our ruling in People
v. Mateo,[24] the
case was referred to the Court of Appeals.
On
P25,000.00 was additionally awarded.[25] Hence, the present appeal.
In
a Resolution dated
In
his Brief,[28] appellant
maintains that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. He underscores the supposed confusing and conflicting statements of AAA.[29] On the other hand, the Office of the
Solicitor General argues that AAA’s testimony being positive, consistent, and
categorical deserves full faith and credence.[30] The arguments and counter-arguments essentially
pertain to AAA’s credibility.
It is doctrinal that factual findings
of the trial court which are supported by evidence, especially on the
credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will
not be disturbed on appeal.[31]
The trial court convicted appellant
on the basis of AAA’s testimony which it found to be “categorical, spontaneous,
candid and straightforward.”[32] Furthermore, the Court of Appeals observed that
AAA’s deportment after the alleged rape, as well as during trial, bolstered her
credibility, to wit:
Certainly,
a victim of rape would not come out in the open if her motive were anything
other than to obtain justice. Her
testimony as to who abused her is credible where she has absolutely no motive
to incriminate or testify against the accused.
We are thus convinced that when [AAA] cried rape, allowed her private
parts to be examined, and exposed herself to the ordeal of narrating in court
all the sordid details of her traumatic experience, she had nothing in mind but
to seek justice for the sexual transgression perpetrated upon her. Noteworthy also is the fact that Gina broke
down as soon as she saw her mother when she was brought home by appellant. She forthwith related to her parents her
ordeal and lost no time in submitting herself to a medical examination and
pursuing the criminal complaint against him.
It has been held that the conduct of a woman immediately following the
alleged assault is of utmost importance as it tends to establish the truth or
falsity of her claim.[33]
After a careful scrutiny of the
evidence on record, we find no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the
lower courts.
For conviction to be had in the crime
of rape, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1)
that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was
accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation; or (b) when the
victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the victim
is twelve years of age, or is demented.[34]
When a victim says that she has been
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been
committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may
be convicted on the basis thereof.[35]
AAA recounted her harrowing
experience as she testified that appellant had carnal knowledge of her through
the employment of force, as follows:
Q: What did he do when he
was already inside the side car?
A: He hugged me he said that I should give it to him.
Q: Where were you seated
then, [M]adam witness?
A: I was inside the side car of the tricycle.
Q: How did you react to
that action of the accused Domingo Hapin? When he went inside the side car of
the tricycle?
A: When he hugged me, I tried to struggle so that I could came [sic] out from the side car of the tricycle but I was about to hold his hand, I felt that he was holding a bladed instrument.
Q: Were you wounded?
A: No, [M]adam[,] because I concentrated all my strength by holding his hand holding [sic] the bladed instrument.
Q: What was it that he
said that you should give him?
A: According to him, I should give him that thing because he has not yet tasted it.
Q: How did the accused hug
you, [M]adam witness?
A: He seated himself on my knees so that I could not come out of the side car of the tricycle considering that it was just a small space there and kissed me all over my face while he was hugging me and holding my hair. ([W]itness demon[s]trated by pulling her hair backward)
Q: What else happened
after he kissed you on your face?
A: There was a jeepney that passed by[.] I was about to ask help from the people of the jeepney that passed by but he told me if I shout anything he will kill me.
Q: Was it already heavily
raining when the accused was already inside the car?
A: The rain was already getting heavier.
Q: And, did you shout for
help?
A: I was not able to shout because he told me that if I shouted, he will kill me.
Q: While the accused was
seated on your knees and he was pulling your hair, what did you do?
A: What I did was to hold his hand holding the bladed instrument and using
my left hand to remove his hand from my hair and I was pushing him.
Q: Then what else did he
do?
A: He forcibly remove[d] my skirt and shirt and my underwear too.
Q: What were you wearing
then?
A: I was wearing [a] skirt, then.
Q: And what was your upper
garment?
A: Blouse.
Q: Is that the uniform of
the Robertson Dept. Store?
A: Yes, [M]adam.
Q: When you were seated[,]
up to what part of your thigh did your skirt reach?
A: The skirt is knee length but when I am seated, it reached my thigh 4 inches above my knees and whenever I ride on any vehicle, I usually put my hand bag on my lap. ([W]itness demonstrated by placing her handbag on her lap)
Q: Now, during that time
when you were already struggling with the accused and he was seated on your
lap, what happened to your skirt?
A: At first, he raised my
skirt but he could not do so, so what he did was to place his hand at the back
of my waist line to remove the zipper of my skirt and he was able to pull it down.
Q: You said that he also
removed your undergarment, how did he remove it?
A: He removed my other
undergarments by doing like this ([W]itness demonstrated by as if clawing her
waist downwards)[,] because at that time he could not use his other hand holding
the knife because I was also holding it.
Q: And, what did you do
while the accused was taking off your skirt and undergarments?
A: I did not release his
hand because my purpose was to go out of the side car of the tricycle but I
could not do so because he is very strong during that night.
Q: Madam witness, the side
car of the tricycle is rather a small space, could you describe to us how the two (2) of you struggled inside the
tricycle?
A: He removed the back
seat of the tricycle and threw it at the child seat and there I was made to lie
down on my back.
Q: After he removed your
skirt and your undergarment, what did he do next?
A: When I was made to lie
down in that place which I had describe[d][,]he pressed me down there up to the
time that he used me.
Q: How did he use you?
A: I was in this position
([W]itness went down from the witness stand and sat on the 1st step
of the witness stand in [an] incline[d]
manner and raised [her] body a little bit upward with her feet supporting her
place on the floor and her arms on her sides and bag on the left side and the
testimony of the witness is this: [sic]
during that time, I was holding his right hand with the knife holding my left
hand and I was pushing him with my right hand.
Q: Are you telling us, [M]adam
witness, that your legs were then dangling outside the side car of the
tricycle?
A: Yes, madam.
COURT: (TO THE WITNESS)
Q: At that time, your
skirt and undergarment was already removed?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
PROS. GABIT: (TO THE WITNESS)
Q: And, you continued to
struggle?
A: Yes, [M]adam.
Q: What did the accused do
to you when you said he used you?
A: He was pressing me down and I was pushing him to release myself but I could not do so. He did not stop in doing that until his semen came out.
Q: Why? [M]adam witness,
what did he do?
A: What he did was to
unzip his pants so that he could let his penis came [sic] out.
Q: What did he do with his
penis?
A: He inserted it into my
vagina.
Q: And, while his penis
was inserted into your vagina, what does [sic]
he doing?
A: He was pumping me and I
told him to stop because it was very painful.
Q: And, you said, that he
did not stop until he ejected his semen?
A: Yes, madam.
Q: In all the while, what
were you doing?
A: I was moving my
buttocks in order to release myself from him ([W]itness demonstrated by moving
her buttocks from side to side) but I could not disengage.
Q: After that, [M]adam
witness, what else happened?
A: He released me.
Q: And, then?
A: He replaced [sic] my panty up to my knee and I was
the one who pulled it up and also put on my skirt but I was not able to zip it.
Q: Then, what happened
after that?
A: He delivered me up to
the gate of our house.
Q: In that same tricycle.
A: Yes, madam.
Q: So the tricycle did not
suffer any engine failure?
A: During that time when
the jeepney passed by, I sensed that part of the tricycle was hit by the bladed
instrument.
Q: What I mean, [M]adam
witness is, you said, the accused was able to deliver you to Tughan, Juban,
Sorsogon, so there was no engine failure as previously told you?
A: None, [M]adam.
Q: When you arrived in
your house[,] up to what part of your house did the accused accompany you?
A: Up to our gate and I
was made to alight from the tricycle then he left.
Q: Who did you come upon
in your house?
A: When I went down
towards our house, I was crying and I was met by my parents and I told them
that I was raped by Domingo Hapin.[36]
It must be noted that even during the
cross-examination, AAA did not waver and remained consistent all throughout, viz:
Q: You said that he sat
on your knees?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So, he sat on your
knees in such a way that he was facing you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you sat firm
inside the tricycle, you just keep sitting inside the tricycle?
A: While he was seated
on my knees, I tried to remove his hand from my hair and pushed him away from
me with my left hand. When I tried to hold [h]is other hand with
my right, that was the time I noticed that he was holding a bladed instrument.
Q: It was your right hand
that holds the right hand of the accused which was holding the knife, you felt
that he was holding the knife with his right hand?
A: It was my right hand
which touched his hand holding the bladed instrument.
Q: The right hand of the weapon was the one holding the bladed
instrument?. . . And because of your struggle, you persisted in raising the
left hand of the accused which was holding the knife.
A: I did not release his
left hand.
Q: Did you persist in holding
his left hand?
A: He was holding the
knife with the bladed instrument facing downward so he was [sic] I was holding his right hand which
was also holding the handle of the knife and tried to push it but it did not f[a]ll.
([W]itness demonstrated by using her hands to show the relative positions).
Q: For [sic] how long was the knife, the bladed
instrument?
A: Considering that he
was holding the knife, the length of the bladed instrument was this ([W]itness
demonstrated the length of about four inches) The type of knife he used was a
folding knife.
Q: Did you really see the
knife?
A: I was able to see that
knife when the policeman was able to retrieve it from his pocket.[37]
Appellant asserts that AAA’s
testimony made no mention of the use of a bladed instrument which would justify
the presence of force or intimidation as an element of the crime charged. Moreover, he argues that AAA’s claim that he
was armed with a bladed weapon appears to be dubious since AAA only testified
to having “felt” that appellant was holding a bladed instrument and it was only
when the policemen retrieved the knife from appellant’s pocket at the time of
his arrest that AAA was able to see the weapon.[38]
Contrary
to appellant’s contention, AAA clearly described in her recital on the stand
how appellant used the knife on her. She
testified that she held on to the right hand of appellant, who was then in
possession of the knife, all throughout her ordeal. Given her position inside the tricycle
relative to that of appellant’s and the fact that the tricycle was merely
parked on the road side which was not lighted, it was entirely possible for AAA
not to have seen the bladed weapon quite clearly. In fact, AAA testified that she actually saw
the weapon in its entirety when the policeman retrieved it from appellant. This testimony, however, does not negate her testimony
that appellant had used the weapon in the commission of rape as she in fact
stressed that he was poking the knife while she was holding on to his hand.[39]
Now,
the “sweetheart defense” espoused by appellant.
The appellate court rejected it in this wise:
Appellant imputes ill-motive
against the private complainant recounting that at the time that they were
allegedly having sex inside his tricycle that fateful evening, a passenger
jeepney passed by. Appellant claims that
she became apprehensive that a passenger might have recognized her and make
public of [sic] their
relationship. Meanwhile, appellant’s own
witness seem to disagree. Appellant’s
sister, Estela Hapin, testified that AAA’s parents are behind the charge
because they are against the relationship of AAA and appellant. It has been held, however, that while motive,
bias or interest of the witness in testifying affects a witness’s credibility,
the supposed presence of improper personal motives on the part of a witness to
testify against his testimony may be considered biased. In the present case, other than bare and
unsupported allegations and suspicions, the defense failed to present
compelling evidence to support the imputation of ill-motive. Given, therefore,
the absence of evidence that the prosecution’s sole witness was actuated by
ill-motive, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and
the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[40]
The
"sweetheart theory" is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge
of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the
supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial
acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial, or
other evidence.[41] Appellant presented her siblings, Estela and
Niño Hapin, to testify on the alleged existence of an amorous relationship
between him and AAA. The declarations of
the siblings are understandably biased in favor of appellant who is their
brother and their family’s breadwinner. Absent
any corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens, that
such romantic relationship had really existed,[42]
this defense must be rejected.
All told, appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape through force or intimidation. Therefore,
the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals are both correct. The sentence on appellant to reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Articles
266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and the imposition of civil
indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages, are proper. Moral damages is automatically granted in
rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime,
because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries
entitling her to such award.[43] The presence of the aggravating circumstance
of use of a deadly weapon justifies the award of exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision
dated P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]Rollo, pp. 3-22. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
[2]CA rollo, pp. 18-24. Presided by Judge Honesto A. Villamor.
[3]The
address of the victim is withheld per R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262. See People
v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[4]The real name of the victim is withheld to protect her privacy also pursuant to R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262. Supra note 3.
[6] The real name of the victim’s mother is likewise withheld to protect her and the victim’s privacy. Supra note 3.
[14]Records, p. 60. The Entry reads:
That on this time and date [BBB], 48 years old and resident of Brgy[.] Tughan, Juban, Sorsogon, appeared to [sic] this station and complained that on or about 8:30 pm, 13 April 2002[,] her daughter [AAA] was sexually abused by a certain Domingo Hapin y Jazo, 21 years, single and resident of same barangay at Sitio Cagpacol, boundary of Juban-Casiguran, Sorsogon. That said Domingo Hapin y Ja[z]o, a tricycle driver unload [sic] the passenger [AAA] and the reportee saw her daughter crying and saying that she was raped by Domingo Hapin y Ja[z]o.” (Sgd.) [BBB].
[35]People v. Galido, G.R. Nos. 148689-92,