THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- SIMEON SUYAT y JOSE, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 173484 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR.,* CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For
review is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00997, which affirmed the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Branch 46, in Criminal Case
No. U-12563 entitled, “People of the
Philippines v. Simeon Suyat y Jose.”
The
prosecution charged accused-appellant with the crime of rape in an Information
the accusatory portion of which reads:
The undersigned accuses SIMEON J. SUYAT of the crime of
RAPE, committed as follows:
That on or about
CONTRARY to Art. 266-A, par. 1, in rel. to Art. 266-B, 1st
par., as amended by R.A. 8353.[4]
Accused-appellant, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not
guilty to the charge.[5]
The People’s version of the incident that precipitated this
case is concisely presented by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Brief
for the Appellee in this wise:
On May 7, 2003, twenty-eight
(28) year old AAA, widow with two children, was alone in her house at Barangay
Baro, Asingan, Pangasinan, preparing to go to bed for the night. Her children were with her mother who settled
in a house close by. Because AAA’s house
had no electrical facilities, she made use of a kerosene lamp for illumination. At about
AAA immediately recognized sixty (60) year old appellant
who is her mother’s live-in partner.
Withdrawing his hand from her mouth, appellant reached down, raised the
victim’s skirt, grabbed and pulled her under garment all the way down her legs,
then got on top of her. Appellant parted
her legs with his own. He loosened his
short pants and guided his penis to the victim’s organ. AAA felt appellant’s penis penetrate her
vagina. Appellant made push and pull
movements. After a while, the knife
eased off from her side.
Finding an opportunity to escape, AAA courageously shoved
appellant off on top of her, ran outside, and shouted for help. Her mother, BBB, chanced upon her outside the
house and asked what happened. AAA, distressed,
told her mother the harrowing incident she experienced at the hands of the
appellant. Her mother – anxious of
embarrassment – told her to keep the ‘scandalous’ matter a secret between
themselves. Committed to obtain justice
though, AAA reported the incident to the police authorities the morning after.
SPO4 Fausto Casilang Marza initially attended to the
victim who was advised to settle the matter with the Baranggay. Not finding the Baranggay
captain at his house, AAA went back to the police the afternoon of that
same day and told the policeman that she decided to file a rape case against
the appellant. SPO4 Marzan took her statements under oath. On her way home, she heard appellant
screaming “Vulva (sic) of your mother.
Where is that AAA. Maybe she
reported to the police station again.”
The victim ran back to the police and requested that they escort her
home. SPO2 Rodrigo Estacio, SPO4 Marzan,
and a certain SPO3 Ponseca accompanied AAA back to her home. At her house, the policemen arrested the
appellant when they saw (him) screaming (Urayno
agipulong ka dita police, saanac nga mabuteng, kayat mo ta ulyenca manen.)[6]
On
On the other hand, accused-appellant’s defense depended on
the following testimonies:
Accused-appellant claimed that at around
When asked what made him think that AAA’s incendiary
statement was directed at him, accused-appellant surmised that AAA must have
heard him relay to a certain Mr. Gascon, who was having a drinking spree with
other men inside BBB’s compound, the alleged amorous relationship AAA had with
his younger brother Felipe Suyat.[14]
To bolster accused-appellant’s version of the story, the
defense presented the testimonies of BBB and of Genaro Pascual (Pascual), a barangay kagawad, of Barangay Baro, Asingan, Pangasinan.
BBB is AAA’s mother and accused-appellant’s live-in
partner. When she initially took the
witness stand on
When BBB’s testimony was resumed on
Pascual declared on the witness stand that on
In its Decision dated
WHEREFORE, finding the accused, SIMEON SUYAT, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, he is hereby sentence to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to pay the victim, AAA, P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the
costs.[21]
Accused-appellant seasonably filed a
Notice of Appeal.[22]
On
WHEREFORE,
in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant appeal is perforce
dismissed. Accordingly, the assailed decision dated
On
Accused-appellant
makes the following lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE.[27]
In
resolving rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an
accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering
that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the
crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with
great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.[28]
Accused-appellant
argues that the testimony of AAA as to how she was raped was replete with
incredible allegations which are “contrary to human nature and which raised
doubts on the truthfulness of her account as to what really happened on that
fateful day.” Particularly,
accused-appellant harps on the physical impossibility of accused-appellant
being able to do three things simultaneously – poke a knife on AAA’s side,
cover her mouth with his other hand, and lower her panty.[29] Accused-appellant goes on to argue that while
it is well-recognized that conclusions and findings of facts of the trial court
are binding on this court, still, the rule accepts of an exception, which is,
when the trial court ignored and overlooked facts and circumstance that could
alter the result.[30]
Also,
accused-appellant faults the trial court and the Court of Appeals in not
considering Pascual’s testimony that AAA did not mention anything about her
being raped by accused-appellant on 7 May 2003; instead, AAA merely complained
about being yelled at by accused-appellant.[31]
Finally,
accused-appellant argues that the findings of the medico-legal officer failed
to corroborate AAA’s claim that she was indeed raped a few days before she was
subjected to physical examination.[32]
Accused-appellant’s
contentions fail to persuade.
It is
doctrinally settled that findings of the trial court as regards the credibility
of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal the rationale being that the trial
court enjoys the singular privilege of observing firsthand the demeanor of the
witnesses as they are subjected to intense examinations by lawyers and even the
court. Thus, unless it is shown that the
trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or
circumstances, weight and substance which could have affected the outcome of
the case, we are bound to affirm their findings.[33]
In rape
cases specifically, the credibility of the complainant is of paramount
importance as oftentimes her testimony, when it satisfies the test of
credibility, may be the sole basis for an accused’s conviction.[34] In People
v. Tismo,[35]
we reiterated the rule that –
x x x the culpability of the
offender almost invariably hinges on the story of the complainant. In the light of the presumption of innocence
that the accused enjoys, the complainant’s testimony must perforce be carefully
scrutinized and examined to satisfy the judicial conscience that the accused
did in fact commit the crime. Her
testimony should not be received with precipitate credulity, especially when
the conviction depends at any vital point upon her uncorroborated testimony, it
should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from
suspicion. Such testimony must be
impeccable and ring true throughout, or credible and positive. Clearly, therefore, as in other criminal
cases, the evidence for the prosecution in rape cases must stand or fall on its
own merits; it cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.[36]
We have
scrutinized the records of this case and found nothing that could convince us
to overturn accused-appellant’s conviction. On the contrary, we agree in the
trial court’s observation that AAA’s retelling of her harrowing experience in
the hands of accused-appellant was “positive, straightforward, spontaneous, and
unadorned”[37]
thus:
ATTY. IGNACIO: DIRECT
EXAMINATION:
Q. Madam witness,
do you know Simeon Suyat?
WITNESS:
A. Yes sir.
Q. Why do you
know him?
A. Because he is
the live-in partner of my mother, sir.
Q. What is the
name of your mother?
A. BBB sir.
Q. What else, why
do you know Simeon Suyat?
A. Because he
raped me sir.
Q. If Simeon
Suyat is in court, will you please point to him?
A. Witness pointing to a person sitted inside the courtroom, and
when asked his name, answered, Simeon Suyat.
Q. You said that
Simeon Suyat raped you, when?
A.
Q. Where did he
rape you?
A. In our house
sir.
Q. Where is that
house where Simeon Suyat raped you?
A. At Brgy. Baro,
Asingan, Pangasinan, sir.
Q. How did it
happen why Simeon Suyat rape you?
A. He forced me
sir.
Q. Before he forced
you, where did this Simeon Suyat come from?
A. He came from
their yard, sir.
Q. Whose yard was
that where Simeon Suyat came from?
A. Simeon Suyat
sir.
Q. Where did he
rape you specifically?
A. In our yard
sir.
Q. Not inside
your house?
A. Inside my house
sir.
Q. How did Simeon
Suyat enter your house?
A. When he entered the house, I told him “why are you coming,”
and then he poked the knife to my leftside and closed my mouth with his palm,
and told me not to talk, sir.
Q. Will you please describe to the Honorable Court your house
look like, is it two (2) storey house or single house?
A. My house has
only one room, sir.
Q. Where did
Simeon Suyat enter your house?
A In our door
sir.
Q. How come he
was able to enter your door?
A. The door was opened because my two (2) children went to the
other house to view television, sir.
Q. How far is that house where your children viewed television?
A. Little bit
far, sir.
Q. Can you point
a distance?
A. From here to
the gate is about 70 to 80 meters, sir.
ATTY. VELASCO:
About 40 to
50 meters.
COURT INTERPRETER:
That was
already measured, 70 to 80 meters, your Honor.
ATTY. IGNACIO:
Q. Going back where Simeon Suyat enter press on your side a
knife, what happened next?
WITNESS:
A. When he poked the knife on my side and closed my mouth with
his palm, then raise my shirt and then lowered my panty, sir.
Q. The forcing in
lowering your panty, what happened next?
A. He went on top
of me and then he press my two legs, sir.
Q. What happened
next?
A. And then he
removed his shortpant and he removed his brief, sir.
Q. After removing
those shortpant and brief, what happened next?
A. He placed his
organ to my vagina, sir.
Q. What about the
knife?
A. The knife was
still poked on my side, sir.
Q. Was his penis
able to penetrate your vagina?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What did you
do when he was able to penetrate?
A. I pushed him
sir.
Q. What did you
feel?
A. Painful sir.
Q. Then what did
you do when he executed a push and pull?
A. When I felt
that the knife was loosen, then I pushed him away, sir.
Q. Were you able
to push him away?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What did you
do after pushing him away?
A. After pushing
him, I went out from the house, sir.
Q. By the way,
does your house with electricity?
A. None sir.
Q. What are you
then using as lighting facility?
A. Kerosene sir.
Q. At that night,
you have kerosene?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Was that
kerosene lighted when he was raping you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. After getting
out from your house, what did you do?
A. I called for
help sir.
Q. Did somebody
come to help you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Who came and
helped you if any?
A. My mother sir.
Q. You mean to
say the living partner himself?
A. Yes sir.
Q. BBB is your
mother?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What did BBB do when she came out to response for help?
A. She asked what happened and I told her, Simeon Suyat raped me, and my mother told me not to talk, we will settle the matter.[38]
Similarly unavailing is accused-appellant’s
argument that it was physically impossible for him to have raped AAA in the
manner that she described in her direct testimony. It must be pointed out that AAA’s testimony
did not end with her direct testimony.
When she underwent cross-examination by accused-appellant’s counsel, she
was able to narrate in an even more detailed manner how she was raped –
ATTY. VELASCO:
Q. The three (3) simultaneous
acts that you have just demonstrated was before the actual penetration. Then you stated in your sworn statement as
well as you claimed in the direct examination conducted on you that while Simeon
Suyat doing all these three (3) acts simultaneously you stated that he raised
your skirt and then removed your panty.
Dou you remember that?
WITNESS:
A.
Yes sir.
Q. Now, I will ask again
and demonstrate before the Honorable Court how Simeon Suyat do (sic) this
considering the fact that the right hand already holding the knife poking on
your side and the other hand covering your mouth and your two (2) legs were
pressed by the two (2) legs of the accused, according to you. Will you please demonstrate now how he
removed your skirt and removed your panty?
A. When he removed the hand
that closed my mouth that was the time and used in raising my skirt and
lowering my panty, sir.
Q. It was only hand that used to cover your mouth that used in
raising your skirt and removing your panty?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did he
encounter difficulty in removing your panty?
A. He did sir,
because what I’m wearing at that time was a duster.
Q. When he was able to remove and lower your panty, what did he
do next?
A. He inserted
his penis to my vagina, sir.
Q. Before he inserted his organ to your vagina, did he not place
again his hand to cover your mouth?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And when you said that thereafter lowering your panty, he
inserted his sexual organ to your vagina.
Did he use his hand in inserting his organ to your organ?
A. Yes sir. Witness demonstrating that the accused
holding his penis.
Q. Will you please demonstrate what hands in holding his penis
in inserting to your organ?
A. It is the right hand holding the knife while the left hand
guiding in inserting the penis to my vagina, sir.
Q. To your recollection, did you help in anyway in the inserting
of the penis to your vagina?
A. No sir.
Q. But did he encounter again difficulty in inserting his organ
to your organ?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Are you telling the Honorable Court that you exerted some
effort in order that his penis could not enter to your reproduction organ?
A. I pushed him
sir.
Q. When did you
push him?
A. When the organ had already penetrated my vagina and he was
about to ejaculate, I pushed him, sir.
Q. When you said the accused was able to penetrate, you mean his
penis was already in your vagina?
A. Yes sir, his
organ was able to penetrate my vagina.
Q. And when you said that he was about to ejaculate, what about
you, did you produce any orgasm?
A. I felt pain in
my vagina, sir.
Q. And so when he was on top of you and he was about to
ejaculate, that was the time when you pushed him?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you
already shouted for help right after you pushed him?
A. Yes sir.[39]
It is clear from the foregoing that
despite the determined cross-examination by the opposing counsel, AAA remained
steadfast in her assertion that accused-appellant was able to have sexual
intercourse with her against her will.
Accused-appellant’s abridged reading of AAA’s testimony fails to
overcome her positive and forthright candid recollection of the unfortunate
incident that night. The rule is that
when a rape victim’s testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid
cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its
vital points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[40]
We likewise
cannot give credence to accused-appellant’s contention that Pascual’s testimony
should prevail over that of AAA’s. While
it may be true that AAA did not mention anything about the rape to Pascual and Barangay Captain Gaspar when they met in
the morning of
As for
accused-appellant’s claim that the charge of rape was not corroborated by the
result of the physical examination conducted by Dr. Luna, suffice it to state
here that for a conviction of rape, it is not necessary that the same be
supported by medical findings of injuries as proof of injuries is not an
essential element of the crime.[43] An accused can still be convicted of rape on
the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[44] In the present case, the prosecution was able
to prove, through AAA’s testimony, that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge
of her against her will and consent. As
we find her testimony to be free of material prevarication, we find the same
sufficient to sustain accused-appellant’s conviction.
We likewise find the defense’s account
of the events to be replete with inconsistencies. Foremost of these is the
exact place where AAA allegedly uttered the remarks which triggered her verbal
joust with accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant categorically stated in his testimony that AAA walked
into BBB’s kitchen and there expressed her desire to engage in sexual activity
that night.[45] On the other hand, BBB, who claimed to be
with accused-appellant before the latter went home, stated that AAA was in
front of her house when she said that statement.[46] More importantly, during her first turn at
the witness stand, BBB failed to recall any happening as she accompanied
accused-appellant to the gate of her house.[47] Similarly out of synchronization are
accused-appellant’s and BBB’s accounts of who actually witnessed the exchange
of words between accused-appellant and AAA. Accused-appellant categorically
stated that Gascon was the only one who heard his argument with AAA while BBB
stated that her other daughter, CCC, witnessed that same incident. These inconsistencies, to our mind, seriously
undermine the veracity of accused-appellants’ contention that he and AAA
engaged in a verbal tussle that night which could have precipitated the filing
of the rape charge against him.
We likewise affirm the penalties imposed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals on accused-appellant. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, “(w)henever rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons,” the penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same statute instructs us that in the event the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
In this case, the information does
not allege any attending circumstance in the execution of the crime of
rape. We, therefore, sustain the penalty
of reclusion perpetua that was
imposed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
Similarly
proper is the award of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages given by the
court a quo and the Court of Appeals
for it is settled that, that these two are distinct from one another. As we explained in People v. Caratay[48]:
With regard to his civil liability, however, the trial
court’s award of damages should be modified.
Under the present law, an award of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. This is exclusive of the award of moral
damages of P50,000.00, without need of further proof. The victim’s injury is now recognized as
inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling crime
of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision
dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
On leave
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third 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 were 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] Penned by Associate Justice
Bienvenido L. Reyes with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Mariflor
P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring; rollo,
pp. 2-13.
[2] Records, pp. 134-145.
[3] Consistent with the policy of the State to value the dignity of women and children and to afford full respect to their human rights as enunciated in Republic Act No. 9262 or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004,” the real name of the victim, together with that of of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, in order to protect her privacy.
[4] Also known as “The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.” This statute reclassified the crime of rape as a crime against persons. Records, p. 27.
[5]
[6] “Even if you will report to the police, I am not afraid. Do you like, I will go on top of you again.”
[7] Rollo, pp. 87-89.
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10]
[11] “You are a sex maniac, you old man;” id. at 11.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] TSN,
[16]
[17] TSN,
[18]
[19] TSN,
[20]
[21] Records, p. 145.
[22]
[23] Rollo,
p, 13.
[24] CA rollo, pp. 117-118.
[25] Rollo,
p. 14.
[26]
[27] CA rollo, p. 32.
[28] People
v. Arango, G.R. No. 168442,
[29] CA rollo, p. 39.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] People
v. Sgt. Bayani, 331 Phil. 169, 191 (1996).
[34] People
v. Gabelinio, G.R. Nos. 132127-29,
[35] G.R. No. 44773,
[36]
[37] Records, p. 144.
[38] TSN,
[39] TSN,
[40] People
v. Caratay, 374 Phil. 590, 607 (1999).
[41] People
v. Melendres, 393 Phil. 878, 894 (2000).
[42] People
v. Domingo, G.R. No. 97921,
[43] People
v. Bantisil, G.R. No. 116062,
[44] People
v. Cabalse, G.R. No. 146274,
[45] TSN,
[46] TSN,
[47] TSN,
[48] Supra note 40 at 610-611 (1999).