Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
-versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.
Promulgated:
JOSE TUAZON,
Appellant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
AAA
is the daughter of BBB by her first marriage. After the death of AAA’s father, BBB
contracted marriage with the appellant, Jose Tuazon; they then lived together
as husband and wife, together with the former’s children.
Instead
of guarding his stepchildren/children against wrongful acts of strangers, the appellant
committed lustful acts against one of them, by repeatedly abusing AAA. The first of this series of acts was
committed in 1995 while AAA was still in Grade V.[1] She was at that time 11 years old, having
been born on November 14, 1984 as shown in her certificate[2] of
live birth.
One
night sometime in 1995, AAA was inside their house with the appellant, together
with her younger brothers and sisters, while BBB was out as she went to harvest
coffee at Calakkad, Tabuk. Appellant
then went inside the room where all of the children were sleeping; approached
the place where AAA was lying down; removed her panty; kissed her; brought out
his male organ; placed his penis inside her vagina; then made the push and pull
movement, after which AAA felt that there was liquid coming out of his
penis. She was then in pain and her private
part bled. She could not offer
resistance at that time because the appellant threatened to kill her if she
would report the incident. Immediately
after satisfying his lustful desire, appellant put on AAA’s panty.[3] Unsatisfied, he repeated the incident several
times, always when BBB was out. The last
incident took place on
AAA
did not reveal her gruesome experience to anybody – not even to her mother BBB,
because of her fear that the appellant would make good his promise of killing
her if she would report the incident.
Sometime
in May 1997, AAA’s grandmother CCC, invited her to sleep in the latter’s house
but she was prevented by the appellant. The
next day, CCC went to the house of the appellant and inquired why AAA did not
sleep at her house. Instead of answering
CCC, AAA started crying. When CCC asked
why, she answered that “she was raped.”[4] It was then that she revealed her ordeal at
the hands of the appellant.
CCC
thereafter reported the matter to AAA’s uncle who, in turn, reported it to BBB’s
brothers. Together, they reported the incident to the Municipal Hall of XXX,
Isabela.
On
May 29, 1997, AAA submitted herself to medical examination by Dr. Alpha Dulig
(Dr. Dulig), Rural Health Physician of XXX, Isabela, who subsequently issued a
medical certificate,[5]
the pertinent portion of which reads:
GENITALIA
Pubic
hairs: few(,) fine, short hair
Labia
Majora: reddish and swollen
Labia
Minora: reddish and swollen
Fourchete: healed laceration, not coaptated
Vestibules: reddish
Hymen: absent
Orifice: Accepts 2 finger (sic) withease (sic) and
without
pain
Vagina:
Walls: reddish,
Rugosities: rough
Uteros
(sic): palpable; small
Cervix: soft close, reddish
Discharge: none
Thereafter,
AAA and CCC executed their respective sworn statements[6]
before the XXX police. Subsequently, AAA
filed a complaint[7] dated
After
the requisite preliminary investigation, on
That
on or about the 27th day of May, 1997, in the municipality of XXX,
province of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, by means of force, intimidation and with lewd designs,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lay with and have
carnal knowledge with one AAA, a girl of 12 years of age, against her will and
consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
That on or about the year 1995, in
in (sic) the municipality of XXX, province of Isabela, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of force,
intimidation and with lewd design, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, lay with and have carnal knowledge with one AAA, a girl below
12 years of age, against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[9]
Appellant pleaded “Not Guilty” to both charges. Accordingly, joint trial ensued.
For
his part, appellant denied the charges imputed against him. He testified that they were fabricated by AAA’s
paternal grandmother, CCC, who was angry at him because of his marriage to BBB.[10]
The
defense likewise presented BBB who testified that she did not know of anyone
who opposed her relationship with the accused but she did not answer when asked
if her in-laws opposed such marriage.[11] She likewise testified that she did not have
personal knowledge that the appellant abused her daughter AAA.[12]
After
trial, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision[13]
dated
WHEREFORE,
finding the accused guilty beyond any iota of doubt, of the offenses as charged
in both informations above-quoted, the court hereby sentences the accused to
RECLUSION PERPETUA for each count of rape and to pay the sum of Fifty Thousand
(P50,000.00) Pesos as damages for each offense and additional
Seventy-five (sic) (P75,000.00) Pesos as civil damages or a total of One
Hundred Twenty-five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos for each count following
prevailing jurisprudence, with all the necessary penalties provided for by law,
and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[14]
The records of this case were
originally forwarded to this Court by the RTC in view of the notice of appeal
filed by the appellant. After the parties submitted their respective briefs,
conformably with our Decision in People
v. Mateo,[15] we
transferred this case and its records to the Court of Appeals (CA) in a Resolution[16]
dated
In his Brief,[17] appellant
raised the following as errors of the RTC:
I.
THE
COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
UNBELIEVABLE AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, AAA.
II
THE
COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT
OF THE CRIME OF RAPE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.
23-829.
III
THE
COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 23(-)830 HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.[18]
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela dated
SO ORDERED.[20]
Hence, the present appeal.
The Court stresses that conviction or
acquittal in a rape case more often than not depends almost entirely on the
credibility of the complainant’s testimony because of the very nature of this
crime. It is usually the victim who alone
can testify as to its occurrence. In
rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony
of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[21] The credibility given by the trial court to
the rape victim is an important aspect of evidence which appellate courts can
rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses,
particularly their demeanor, conduct and attitude during direct and
cross-examination by counsel. Absent any
showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some
facts and circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case,
his assessment of credibility deserves the appellate court’s highest respect.[22]
We agree with the conclusion of the
RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that the testimony of AAA was direct, unequivocal
and consistent, and thus deserves full faith and credit. She testified:
1st Incident of Rape
Sometime in 1995
(Criminal Case No. 23-830)
Q:
If that is the case tell all what happened to you that first night?
A: That night he went to our room, he make (sic)
me naked then he raped me, sir.
Q:
Did he kiss you?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
When he kissed you, did he bring (sic) his male organ?
A: Yes, sir.[23]
x x x x
Q:
When he brought out his penis, what did he do?
A:
He had sexual intercourse with me, sir.
Q:
Did he place his penis into your vagina?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
Will you tell the Court if his penis penetrated in your private parts?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q: After the insertion of his penis
into your vagina, what did he do?
A:
He told me that whenever I will report the matter he would kill me, sir.
Q:
When his penis was inside your vagina, did you ever feel any liquid
coming out from his penis?
Atty. Lamorena:
Objection,
Your Honor.
A:
There was, sir.[24]
x x x x
Q:
Did you notice if he made the push and pull movement?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
And did he kiss you while he was making that movement?
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
After you have feel (sic) that there was a liquid coming out from his
penis, what else happened?
A:
After he finished, sir, he put on my panty.[25]
2nd Incident of Rape
(Criminal Case No. 23-829)
Q: On
A: He went again in our room where we were lying
down, then he made me naked, and told me that if I will report the matter he
will kill me, sir.
Q: After removing your clothes, and you were
already naked, what did he do?
A: He abused me again, sir.
Q: How did he abuse you?
A: When I was already naked he had sexual
intercourse with me, sir.
Q: Did he go on top of you after he made you
naked?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did he kiss you before he place (sic) his
penis inside your vagina?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did he kiss your breast?
A: No, sir.
Q: When his penis entered into your private
parts, did you feel anything?
A: There was, sir.
Q: Did you still feel pain while according to
you you had so many sexual intercourse with him?
A: Yes, sir, I felt pain because it was long
time ago already. We went to Dagupan to
earn for a living there for harvesting palay then Jose Tuazon came and fetched
me, sir.
Q: And you did not protest when he placed his
penis inside your vagina?
A: No, sir, because he told me that he will kill
me, sir.
Q: And did he make the same movement as he made
before?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did he go on top of you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did he spread your legs?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: He did not put pillow under your buttocks?
A: No, sir.[26]
x x x x
Q: How about Jose Tuazon whenever he commits or
makes sexual intercourse with you, did he also remove his clothes?
A: He removed only his brief, sir.
Q: Can you tell the Honorable Court how long did
Jose Tuazon make that sexual intercourse with you?
A: A little bit long, sir.
Q: Around three (3) minutes or five (5) minutes?
A: Around five (5) minutes, sir.[27]
The
above testimony of AAA says everything.
Jurisprudence has recognized the inbred modesty of a Filipina,
especially a young child, who would be unwilling to allow examination of her
private parts, suffer the humiliation of a public trial, endure the ordeal of
recounting the details of an assault on her dignity unless her purpose is to
bring the perpetrator to the bar of justice and avenge her honor. Testimonies of rape victims who are young and
immature demand full credence.[28]
Moreover,
the testimony of AAA was corroborated by Dr. Dulig’s medical report[29]
and testimony that when she conducted the medical examination on the person of
AAA, her orifice accepted two fingers with ease and without pain which means
that there had been multiple penetration on the vaginal orifice. She likewise claimed that there was no more
hymen at the time she conducted the examination. She further testified that the labia minora
in AAA’s vagina were still swollen which means that she was sexually abused one
or two days prior to the examination.
The Court held that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent
with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that
the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established.[30]
We
now come to the specific defenses set forth by appellant in his brief in his
attempt to seek the reversal of his conviction.
First,
he avers that rape could not have been committed inside a room where AAA and
her younger brothers and sisters were sleeping, otherwise, it would have
aroused their attention.[31]
We
do not agree.
We
have held in a number of cases that lust is no respecter of time and
place. Rape can be committed even in
places where people congregate, in parks along the roadsides, in school
premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where
other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to
many, would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. Besides, there is no rule that rape can be
committed only in seclusion.[32] This
is especially true in the present case as the brothers and sisters of AAA who
were with them inside the room were even younger than her. They did not have the slightest idea of what
was happening nor even had a suspicion that appellant was committing a crime
against their sister because of their innocence brought about by their young
age.
Second,
appellant claims that the evidence for the prosecution failed to show that the
room where the rape was committed was properly illuminated considering that the
incident took place at nighttime.
Otherwise, it would have been impossible for AAA to properly identify
the assailant.[33]
During
rape incidents, the offender and the victim are as close to each other as is
physically possible. In truth, a man and
a woman cannot be physically closer to each other than during a sexual act.[34] Moreover, per testimony of AAA, while
appellant was performing the lustful act, he threatened to kill her. As such, she heard the voice of her
assailant. Identification of an accused
by his voice has also been accepted particularly in cases where, such as in this
case, the witnesses have known the malefactor personally for so long and so
intimately.[35] Considering that appellant and AAA lived
together in one house, and the former repeatedly abused her, she is undoubtedly
familiar not only with his physical features but also with his voice. Not surprisingly therefore, she readily and
positively identified appellant in court during the trial as the man who raped
her.
Third,
appellant questions the act of AAA in belatedly reporting the incident. He goes on by saying that the period from 1995 until 1997
is so long such that she had the chance to report it as there were times when
appellant was not by her side.[36] He likewise questions the failure of AAA to
report the incident to her mother. He
avers that it is contrary to human experience that an adolescent could actually
keep to herself such a traumatic experience for a long time.[37]
The
Court has acknowledged in several cases that the hesitance of the victim in
reporting the crime to the authorities is not necessarily an indication of a
fabricated charge. This is especially
true where the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the
threats of bodily harm made by a person who exercises moral ascendancy over the
victim.[38] Neither can appellant find refuge in AAA’s
failure to promptly report the sexual assault to her relatives especially her
mother.[39] This applies with greater force in the
present case where the offended party was barely 11 years old at the time of
the first rape incident and more or less 13 years old at the time of the last
incident, and was therefore susceptible to intimidation and threats to physical
harm.
Fourth,
appellant insists that he should be acquitted because the prosecution failed to
prove that he employed force in fulfilling his lustful act and because of the
admission made by AAA that she did not resist the sexual assault.
Physical
resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon
the victim who submits against her will to the rapist’s lust because of fear
for her life or personal safety. The
force, violence or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending not only
on the age, size, and strength of the parties but also on their relationship
with each other. A woman of such young
age like AAA can only cower in fear and
yield into submission. Rape is nothing
more than a conscious process of intimidation by which a man keeps a woman in a
state of fear and humiliation. Thus, it
is not impossible for a victim of rape not to make an outcry against an unarmed
assailant.[40] Because of AAA’s youthfulness, coupled with
the fact that the assailant is her stepfather, it was easy for her to believe
that appellant would make good his threat to kill her should she resist.
Lastly,
in his attempt to impute ill motive on the part of AAA, appellant claims that
the case was filed due to the malicious instruction of her grandmother CCC who
strongly opposed his marriage to BBB.
It
is unnatural for a parent (or grandparent) to use her offspring as an
instrument of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter (or granddaughter)
to embarrassment and even stigma. It is
highly inconceivable that a mother (grandmother) would willfully and
deliberately corrupt the innocent mind of her young daughter (granddaughter)
and put into her lips the lewd description of a carnal act to justify a
personal grudge or anger against the appellant.[41] This Court cannot give weight to the bare
assertion of appellant without sufficient evidence to prove the same.
In
view of the foregoing, we find appellant’s defense of denial to be unavailing
in the face of the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution
witnesses. His guilt has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
The
trial court correctly convicted appellant of statutory rape for the crime
committed in 1995 and simple rape for that committed on
Article
335. When and how rape is committed. –
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
1. By using force or
intimidation;
2.
x x x
3.
When the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Moreover,
appellant shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. Section 2 thereof provides
that the law “shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with
death penalty or life imprisonment.”
Although the law makes no reference to persons convicted to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua such as
the appellant herein, the Court has consistently held that the Indeterminate
Sentence Law likewise does not apply to persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua.[42]
As
to the civil liability of appellant, we modify the same. The RTC awarded P50,000.00 as damages
and P75,000.00 as civil damages.
This Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 for each count of rape
as moral damages instead of “damages,” and reduces the amount of P75,000.00
to P50,000.00 for each count as civil indemnity instead of “civil
damages.” This is pursuant to the prevailing
doctrine enunciated in the cases of People
v. Bascugin,[43] People v. Tolentino,[44] People v.
Espinosa,[45]
and People v. Rote.[46] Furthermore, as held in People v. Malones,[47]
this is not the first time that a child has been snatched from the cradle of
innocence by some beast to sate its deviant sexual appetite. To curb this disturbing trend, appellant should,
likewise, be made to pay exemplary damages which is pegged at P25,000.00
for each count of rape.
WHEREFORE,
the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; P100,000.00 as moral
damages; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify 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] TSN,
[2] Records, p. 2.
[3] TSN,
[4] TSN,
[5] Exhibit “B”; Records, pp. 3-4.
[6] Records, pp. 6-7.
[7]
[8]
[9] Records (Criminal Case No. 23-830), p.1.
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13] Penned by Judge Teodulo E. Mirasol; records, pp. 133-137.
[14] Records, pp. 136-137.
[15] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[16] CA rollo, pp. 102-103.
[17]
[18]
[19] Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 100-123.
[20] CA rollo, p. 122.
[21] People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 318 (2004).
[22] People v. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 647, 658; People v. Cayabyab, G.R. No. 167147, August 3, 2005, 465 SCRA 681, 686; People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 504, 512.
[23] TSN,
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] People v. Malones, supra note 21, at 323-324; see also People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 168101, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 435, 448; People v. Guambor, 465 Phil. 671, 678 (2004); People v. Aspuria, 440 Phil. 41, 52 (2002).
[29] Exhibit “B.”
[30] People v. Mahinay, 462 Phil. 53, 66 (2003).
[31] CA rollo, p. 51.
[32] People v. Ortizuela, G. R. No. 135675, June 23, 2004, 432 SCRA 574, 582-583; People v. Malones, supra note 21, at 326; People v. Evina, 453 Phil. 25, 41 (2003).
[33] CA rollo, p. 52.
[34] People v. Evina, supra, at 40.
[35] People v. Intong, 466 Phil. 733, 742 (2004).
[36] CA rollo, p. 52.
[37]
[38] People v. Manlod, 434 Phil. 330, 350 (2002).
[39] People v. Ballester, 465 Phil. 314, 321 (2004).
[40] People
v. Barcena, G.R. No. 168737,
[41] People v. Malones, supra note 21, at 327, citing People v. Zabala, 409 SCRA 51 (2003).
[42] See
People v. Enriquez, Jr., G.R. No. 158797,
[43] G.R. No. 144195,
[44] 467 Phil. 937, 960 (2004).
[45] G.R. No. 138742,
[46] 463 Phil. 662, 675 (2003).
[47] Supra note 21, at 333.