THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - CONRADO BARANGAN y GENERALAO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G. R. No. 175480 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA,
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals promulgated on
Accused-appellant Conrado Barangan[3] y
Generalao prays for the reversal of the appellate
court’s decision, affirming in toto the judgment of the trial court, finding him
“guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a principal of the crime of rape under
Article 266-A, paragraph (1), (a), of the Revised Penal Code, with the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling,”[4] and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua coupled with the accessory penalties and
to indemnify the victim in “the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay P50,000.00
as moral damages,”[5]
plus the cost of suit.
A
thorough review of the records of the case at bar discloses the following:
On
That on or about October 20, 1998 at
11:00 o’clock in the evening, more or less in P-1, Brgy.
XXX, YYY, ZZZ, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused with full freedom and intelligence, deliberate intent
and with lewd design and with force and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one AAA, a
15 year-old girl against her will much less her consent, thus causing damage
and prejudice to the aforesaid AAA in such amount as may be proved during the
trial.
CONTRARY to Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7659 and further amended by
Republic Act 8353 with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the crime
being committed inside the dwelling of the offended party.
The
case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 782.
Upon
arraignment, accused-appellant, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded “Not
Guilty” to the crime charged. Thus,
trial ensued, with the prosecution presenting four witnesses, namely: Dr. Benjamin
Cabrera (Dr. Cabrera),[8]
Medical Officer, Rural Health Unit and Family Planning Center, WWW, ZZZ; Cesar Villacencio, the Punong Barangay of Baranggay XXX;[9]
Paciencia Salumayag,
neighbor of the victim;[10]
AAA, the victim and the private complainant;[11]
and EEE, older sister of AAA, to establish accused-appellant’s culpability
beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime charged. On the other hand, to rebut the foregoing evidence, the
defense offered the testimonies of accused-appellant;[12] BBB, the younger sister of AAA;[13]
and Joseph Barangan, the son of accused-appellant.[14]
The People’s version of the incident that precipitated this case, as
established by the above-named prosecution witnesses, put forward the following
antecedents:
As testified to on the witness stand,
AAA recounted her harrowing experience in the hands of accused-appellant:
Prosecutor
Servillas (conducted the direct examination):
Q: Do you know Conrado
Generalao Balagan [Barangan]?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know him?
A: He is our neighbor.
Q: How long he has been your neighbor?
A: Five years.
Q: How far is his house to your house?
A: 40 meters more or less x x x.
x x x x
Q: Now, if this accused Conrado
Generalao will be shown to you, can you identify him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please look around?
A: (Witness pointing to a person who upon
being asked answered that his name is Conrado Generalao.)
Q: By the way, how old are you last October
20, 1998?
A: 15 years old.
Q: Do you have proof that you are fifteen
years old?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is your birth date?
A:
x
x x x
Prosecutor
Servillas:
Q: Do you recall where were
you last October 20, 1998 at
A: I was in our house in barangay XXX, YYY, ZZZ.
Q: Were you alone on that date?
A: I was with my younger sister.
Q: What about your mother where was she on
that date?
A: She died already.
Q: What about your father?
A: He is now in Bukidnon.
Q: Now, who is the name of your sister with
you on that date?
A: BBB, ten years old.
Q: On last October 20, how old was she?
A: 9 years old.
Q: Now, on that said date
A: I was sleeping.
Q: What about your sister?
A: She was also sleeping.
Q: Now, what happened while you…if you
recall while she was sleeping on said date and time?
A: At first he entered our house.
Q: Whom do you refer he?
A: Conrado Barangan.
x
x x x
Q: Now, this accused Conrado
when he entered what did he do?
A: He kept on touching my private organ.
Q: What were you doing while he was
touching your private parts?
A: I woke up and then he immediately
covered my mouth with his hand.
Q: Now, what was his attire if any?
A: He was only wearing a brief.
Q: When he entered [your] house and started
to touch your private parts what was your position in relation to you?
A: He was kneeling (witness pointing his
left hand to an imaginary object as if holding something).
x
x x x
Q: Then after he covered your mouth what
did you do next?
A: While covering my mouth his other hand
is holding my neck.
Q: What happened next he held your neck and
covered your mouth?
A: Then he told me to keep quiet [or] I
will kill you together with your sister.
Q: What did you do when he told you that
thing?
A: I don’t (sic) do anything.
Q: Since you don’t do anything?
A: I could not do anything.
Q: What did you next?
A: Then he removed my panty, he kept on
kissing my face and sucked my nipple.
Q: What did he do next?
A: Then he placed himself between my two
legs.
Q: After he placed his legs, himself to
your two legs what did he do next?
A: He removed his brief and he placed
his…. he inserted his penis to my private part.
Q: Can you demonstrate to this court what was his position and how he placed to your private part?
A: He was lying down.
Q: Then when he inserted to your private
part what did he do what was he doing?
A: He make (sic) a push and pull motion
against my private part.
Q: Then what did you do when he made a push
and pull motion to your private part?
A: I observed that his semen ejaculated
inside my private part.
Q: Now, when he was making a push and pull
to your vagina what did you do?
A: Nothing.
Q: Why did you not do anything?
A: I could not shout I could not move
because he placed himself between my two legs.
Q: Now, what did you feel whether push and
pull between your vagina?
A: I felt pain. I felt pain and I was very ashamed of myself.
Q: Because of the shame and pain when he
pushed and pull to your vagina what did you feel?
A: Very painful because he inserted his
penis to my vagina to my private part.
Q: How long he has been doing a push and
pull?
A: Quite a while. I could not determine how long its quite a while.
Q: What about your sister?
A: There was a typhoon and my sister was aslept (sic).
Q: You said it was the accused who
assaulted you how do (sic) you recognize it was a nighttime?
A: He is a neighbor and I knew him very
well. And I always see his face because
I am familiar with him for quiet a long time.
Q: After you feel the fluid (sic) the pain,
what happened next?
A: That is the time he went outside. But before he went outside I heard my sister,
said, “ate.” And he said, don’t shout.
Q: When she said, “ate”, was she awakened or what?
A: No, she was not awakened. She was half asleep.
Q: Then after your sister said, ate, to you, what did your sister do to
you?
Court: What did Conrado do
to you?
A: He went down.
Q: Where did he pass?
A: At the door.
Prosecutor
Servillas:
Q: What did you do when he went
outside?
A: I was not able to stood up (sic) and I
could not stand up I feel the pain of my vagina.
Q: Then what… when you felt that your
vagina was painful what did you do?
A: After that I stood up and closed the
door of the house.
Q: What time was that when you closed the
door of your house?
A: It was about
Q: What did you do when you closed the
door?
A: I returned to my bed, go back to my
bed.
Q: When did you wake up to your bed?
A: About
Pacencia Salumayag,
the neighbor of AAA, narrated what occurred on the morning of the next day. She stated that on the morning of 21 October
1998, at 7 o’clock, AAA went to her house; that she observed AAA to be afraid
of something; that upon further prodding, AAA asked her to accompany the former
to the house of Vivian Silvano to ask him to go along
with them to see the Punong Barangay; and
that after entrusting AAA to the Punong Barangay, she went home. During cross-examination, the defense counsel
elicited from the witness the statement that though she and accused-appellant
were also neighbors, she actually did not like him; that when AAA went to see
her, the former was crying. When asked
on redirect examination if AAA had identified the person who allegedly
committed the rape, the witness answered in the affirmative and proceeded to
name accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Cesar Villacencio, the Punong Barangay of Barangay XXX,
To further
make out a case for the crime of rape, the prosecution presented Dr. Cabrera,
Municipal Health Officer and Rural Health Physician, Rural Health Unit and
Family Planning Center, WWW, ZZZ. Dr. Cabrera
gave evidence as to the injuries sustained by AAA as a result of her alleged
rape on the night of
EEE, the
older sister of AAA, was presented last to establish merely the date of birth
and age of the latter.
When the time came for the defense to
controvert the evidence of the prosecution, a different version was laid out. Diametrically
opposed to the version of the prosecution, accused-appellant did not deny that
he had sexual intercourse with AAA. He claimed,
however, that his sexual relations with the victim was
consensual, they being sweethearts. He
related that what occurred on the night of
A: I was taking a bath at the spring.
Q: Where is that spring located?
A: Very near to our house.
Q: How far is that spring to the house of the private complainant AAA?
A: About more or less 100 meters.
Q: We may know also how far from your house to the house of AAA?
A: The same distance, about 300 meters.
Q: Are you referring to the distance between the house of AAA to your house?
A: About the same distance.
Q: We may know who was your companion in
the spring in the morning of
A: We happened to meet each other and she was washing clothes.
Q: Aside from the two of you, there were other persons present?
A: She was with her younger sister.
Court:
(to the witness)
Q: Who was there in the spring?
A: They were three of us, your honor.
Q: Who were the three of you?
A: BBB, AAA and me, your honor.
Atty. Moleta:
We may know if you have conversation with the private complainant in this case?
A: We had a (sic) jokes.
Q: And we may know what did you tell to AAA?
A: I courted her.
Q: How did you court AAA?
A: I told her, since your manang is already dead, maybe I will ask you to be my wife.
Q: And we may know what was her answer?
A: She said she is very young. She even said, “since you are older and I am very young I think there is no age limit in terms of love.” And so at that time I requested her that during night time I be allowed to visit her.
Q: What was her response to your request?
A: She said it’s up to you.
Q: And we may know what was
your last words with the private complainant in the morning of
A: After taking a bath, I told her I will visit her and she said its up to you.
Q: After that what happened?
A: At
Q: In the morning of
A: I promised at nighttime.
Q: Aside from the time we may know if there are other mattes that you agreed with the private complainant?
A: That I will visit her at nighttime. She said just knock at the door if she is asleep. When I knocked the door, nobody opened it, so I just moved the door.
Q: Mr. Baranggan,
we may know where were you in the afternoon of
A: In the municipal building.
Q: Where did you proceed after going to the municipal building?
A: Then I happened to talk with barangay captain Bebot Ecleo in his house.
Court:
Q: To whom did you talk?
A: The friends of Bebot Ecleo, your honor.
Atty. Moleta:
Q: We may know at what time did you go home?
A: From the house of Bebot
Ecleo, I went home at
Q: And where did you proceed to your house?
A: Towards my house and since I was able to remember our agreement so I went to her house.
Q: What agreement are you referring to that you remember?
A: To visit her.
Q: To whom?
A: AAA.
Q: And we may know what happened?
A: When I arrived at their house, I knocked at the door but nobody opened it. So I tried to move aside the door of the house and it was not locked, and then I saw her lying.
Q: Mr. Baranggan, you said that the door of the house of AAA was not locked, do you know the reason why the same was not locked?
Prosecutor Villaces:
It calls for opinion, you honor.
Court:
It calls for opinion.
Atty. Moleta:
Your honor please, the accused in this case has personal knowledge why the same was not locked, your honor.
Court:
The witness testified that he was supposed to knock the door, there was no such agreement, there is no basis.
Atty. Moleta:
We believe, your honor, that this witness may have personal knowledge as to why the door was not locked.
Court:
There is no testimony to that effect previously. As matter of fact he said that when nobody opened the door, he just pushed it.
Atty. Moleta:
We will reform the question.
Q: Mr. Baranggan,
do you have any personal knowledge why the door of the house of the private
complainant is not locked when you have gone to the house of the private
complainant in the evening of
Pros. Villaces:
Already submitted, your honor.
Court:
Sustained.
Atty. Moleta:
Q: Can you estimate the consumed time when
you knocked the door of the private complainant in the evening of
A: At about
Q: And when you opened the door, we may know who was the persons present inside?
A: Only the two of them.
Q: We may know who were these persons?
A: AAA and BBB.
Q: What were they doing when you entered the house?
A: They were asleep.
Q: We may know how did they position while they were sleeping?
A: There were sleeping with their arms across their chest.
Q: Were they sleeping together or lying together?
A: They were lying together side by side.
Q: We may know how far were they from each other?
A: Very near, sir, about one foot distance.
Q: Were they using a mat?
A: Yes, sir, singular size.
Q: How big is this single size mat?
A: More than a meter wide and the distance from each other is less than a meter.
Q: When you opened the door of the house of the private complainant, we may know what happened next?
A: I touched her leg in order to awaken her?
Q: We may know if she got awake?
A: She stood up.
Court:
(to the witness)
Q: Who stood up?
A: AAA, your honor.
Atty. Moleta:
Q: We may know what did she say when she stood up?
A: She said, “you are here?”
Q: What was your answer?
A: I said, “I have not forgotten our agreement that’s why I’m here.”
Q: We may know what happened next?
A: I asked her “what about my request?”
Q: We may know what was her response?
A: She said “you really abided with our agreement.”
Q: And we may know what happened next?
A: I placed my arms around her shoulder.
Q: We may know what was her position when you placed your arm around in her shoulder?
A: We were facing each other seated and placed my arm around her shoulder.
Q: And we may know what happened next?
A: So I kissed her because at that time I was already craving for sex.
Q: Before you kissed the private complainant in this case, we may know if you have a conversation with her?
A: A little conversation.
Q: What was you conversation about?
A: Regarding the life of the widower and I told her that I wanted a companion.
Q: After you kissed the private complainant in this case, we may know what happened next?
A: After kissing her on her face including her neck, I placed a kissed mark on her neck, and she said, “don’t do it in my neck because it is noticeable.”
Q: When you kissed the private complainant in this case, we may know what was her reaction?
A: She had no reaction. She just let me kissed her and she even stretched her neck.
Q: After that what happened next?
A: Since she does not want that a kissed mark be placed on her neck then I asked her, “where will I place the kissed mark.”
Q: And what was her answer?
A: She said “in the hidden part.”
Q: And then we may know what happened next?
A: And so I placed the kissed mark on her left breast. She even opened her blouse so I placed a kissed mark.
Q: After kissing the private complainant in this case and after she opened her blouse, we may know where was her sister at that time?
A: She was there sleeping.
Q: How come that while you were kissing with the private complainant in this case, her sister BBB was not able to awaken?
Pros. Villaces:
It calls for opinion, your honor.
Court:
Sustained.
Atty. Moleta:
Q: Mr. Baranggan, you are aware of the presence of BBB, the sister of the private complainant, when you kissed the private complainant?
Pros. Villaces:
Leading, your honor.
Atty. Moleta:
Q: How did you kiss the private complainant that was not awakened the sister, BBB?
Pros. Villaces:
We object, your honor.
Court:
The witness may answer.
A: Very silent.
Atty. Moleta:
Q: And after the private complainant in this case opened her blouse, we may know what happened next?
A: When she opened her blouse, I embraced her and then I romanced with her on her breast and on her body/
Q: Then after that what happened?
A: Then we laid down side by side. I requested her that I be allowed to perform the private act.
Q: And what was her response to your request, if there was any?
A: And she said, “you want to use me when I still have my underwear.”
Q: Whose underwear the private complainant are you referring to?
A: Her underwear.
Q: So, what did you do?
A: After removing her underwear, I romanced with her, I kissed her private parts.
Q: We may know who took her panty?
A: She was the one who removed her underwear.
Q: What have you observed with her companion BBB?
A: She was not yet awakened at that time.
Q: After that we may know what happened?
A: After romancing her breast and her private parts, she held my head and then I kissed again her face.
Q: After that what happened?
A: After that we had sexual intercourse.
Q: While you were already having sexual act with the private complainant, we may know what have you observed from her?
A: Since I am a man, I asked her “why are you not a virgin anymore as if you have already delivered a child.” That was really I asked her.
Court:
(to the witness)
Q: What did she answer?
A: She said “you have nothing to do with that.”
Atty. Moleta:
Q: We may know what have you observed from her bodily reaction when you had a sexual intercourse with her?
A: That she was not a virgin. After a while she wrapped her legs around my waist and that was the time that BBB was able to wake up.
Q: Can you point to BBB if she is present in this courtroom?
A: BBB is not here.
Q: Was there a noise created when the private complainant… I will reform the question, you honor.
Why did you say that BBB was able to wake up?
A: She was already woke up because she asked “Ate, who is your companion?”
Q: When BBB said ate to whom was she referring to?
A: Ate AAA.
Q: We may know what was the answer or reaction of AAA?
A: She said “keep quiet just go to sleep.” She even covered her face with a blanket.[17]
Wherefore, premises considered, the Court finds the accused, Conrado Generalao Baranggan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a principal of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), (a), of the Revised Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties; and to pay the costs.
The
accused is ordered to pay to the victim, AAA, the sum of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity and the further sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages.[18]
Since it was admitted that the accused
engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant, the burden lay upon him to
prove by clear and convincing proof that it was with her consent. This (sic)
the accused failed to do to the satisfaction of the court.
x x x x
[E]ven assuming arguendo that the complainant had lovers and was no longer
a virgin, this gave no license to the accused to force himself on a defenseless
girl. The victim who was only fifteen years old was not shown to possess the
shrewdness and callousness to concoct a story of rape. AAA appeared to be a
simple country girl who would not endure physical examination and public trial
if her story were untrue. She had absolutely no motive to testify falsely
against the accused. Her testimony is entitled to full faith and credence
(citation omitted).[19]
And in the
end concluded that:
On
Affirming
in toto the
judgment of the RTC, the Court of Appeals confirmed accused-appellant’s
conviction in a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing
considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed
Decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.[24]
The present case is again before us for our final disposition.
Accused-appellant
is still seeking the reversal of the decision of the RTC, as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape on the lone assignment of error stating:
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE.[25]
Essentially,
it is his contention that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not
sufficient to establish the existence of the crime of rape. In his Brief, he avers that AAA’s accusation
of rape, vis-à-vis her lack of
physical injuries and her reputation, do not establish occurrence of the crime
of rape. Accused-appellant maintains the
defense that the sexual intercourse that occurred on the date and time in
question was a tryst between sweethearts. It is then his conclusion that the absence of
external evidence of physical injuries on AAA’s person, the latter’s loose
morals or naughty reputation, in addition to the fact that they had a thing
going between them, all point to reasonable doubt respecting his legal culpability
of the crime charged. And there being
reasonable doubt, his constitutionally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent
was not overcome.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), for the People of the
We find no merit in the
petition.
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code,
defines and punishes the crime of rape, viz:
Art. 266-A. Rape; When and
How Committed. – Rape is committed: –
1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:
a) Through
force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the
offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
The crime of rape is penalized
by a sentence of reclusion perpetua under the terms of Article 266-B of the same
law:
Art. 266-B. Penalties.
– Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
In the case at bar, having weighed
the evidence for the contending parties, we find no cogent reason to reverse
the findings and conclusion of the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. From a painstaking and meticulous review of
the records, we find, and so hold, that the crime of rape was committed on the
person of AAA, and that accused-appellant was the perpetrator of the crime that
he had been charged with and convicted of.
From the quoted provisions of Articles
266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, for conviction in the crime of rape,
the following elements must be proved 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.
Basic is the principle in criminal law that
the evidence presented must be sufficient to prove the corpus delicti –
the body or substance of the crime; and, in its primary sense, refers to the
fact that a crime has been actually committed.[28] The corpus delicti
is a compound fact composed of two things: 1) the existence of a certain act or
result forming the basis of the criminal charge; and 2) the existence of
a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result.[29] In all criminal prosecutions, the burden is on
the prosecution to prove the body or substance of the crime. In the case at bar, accused-appellant himself does
not deny that he had sexual intercourse with AAA. His contention, however, is that his carnal
knowledge of the victim on the date and time in question did not amount to the
crime of rape because such coitus was consensual. The foregoing being an affirmative defense, accused-appellant
now has the burden of proving the claim of consent to the sexual act.
The evidence presented by the prosecution –
the testimony of AAA that accused-appellant raped her, coupled with the testimony
of Dr. Cabrera narrating that the medical examination he conducted on AAA and
the result of such examination attesting to her injuries were consistent with
the penetration of the vagina by a hard object – added to the admission by
accused-appellant that he had sexual intercourse with AAA, fully buttresses the
existence of the crime of rape. The
burden of proof having shifted to accused-appellant, was he able to prove the non-existence
of the two components of the corpus delicti?
In his defense, accused-appellant advances
the so-called “sweetheart theory.” He admits the sexual encounter, but avers
that it was consensual because of his alleged relationship with the victim. He bolsters his claim of consent by pointing
to AAA’s lack of external physical injuries along with her loose morals or
naughty reputation.
The “sweetheart theory” or “sweetheart
defense” is an oft abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of
this Court and sorely tests our patience.[30] By asserting the existence of such a
relationship, accused-appellant seeks to prove that AAA willingly participated
in the sexual act. But she did not. Accused-appellant
is but a neighbor. From the testimony of
AAA, he was nothing more than an acquaintance. Therefore, contrary to his claim that such
familiarity explains the mutual attraction that was spawned in a day’s time,
this Court’s estimation is that if at all there was attraction, it was merely
one-sided – from his end. Absent any
other tangible and concrete evidence of a relationship beyond acquaintanceship
or neighborly relations, we cannot give credence to accused-appellant’s
self-serving claim of intimate association between him and AAA that would
validate the sexual intercourse that occurred on the date and time in question.
And even if it were true that they were
sweethearts, a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be
sexually violated against her will.[31] A man does not have an unbridled license to
subject his beloved to his carnal desires.[32]
In his Brief, accused-appellant wants us to
open our minds to the possibility of
a one-day courtship that led to an irrepressible attraction and culminated in a
late night tryst. Other than surmise and
conjecture, nothing substantial or corporeal has been put forward by him. Lest it be forgotten, surmises and conjectures
have no place in a judicial inquiry and are especially anathema in a criminal
prosecution.[33] In a criminal prosecution, a reasonable doubt
can be created by many things; but to be sufficient to prevent conviction, it
must arise from the evidence adduced or from the lack of evidence, and can
arise from no other legitimate source.[34] Absolute certainty is not demanded by law to
convict an accused of any criminal charge; but quite surely, mere possibility
is not the type of evidence that will amount to a speck of reasonable doubt
that will engender an acquittal. In the instant case, accused-appellant’s
assertion that due to the long standing familiarity between him and AAA, the
one-day courtship during their chance encounter at the spring was possible. But that was just it – only a possibility.
Anent accused-appellant’s argument
concerning the absence of external physical injuries on the person of AAA,
suffice it to say that the absence of physical injuries on AAA’s body does not,
of itself, negate the latter’s testimony of rape, nor does it make her a
willing partner in the sexual act in the case at bar. This Court is satisfied that the evidence
elicited from Dr. Cabrera apropos the
laceration and abrasion sustained by AAA on her hymen is consistent with a very
recent sexual intercourse.
The force used in the commission of rape
need not be overpowering or absolutely irresistible.[35] What is essential is simply that the force
employed was sufficient to enable the offender to consummate the lewd purpose
which the offender had in mind. In this case, there is no question that
accused-appellant succeeded in his brutish objective. The threat made on the life of AAA and her
sister BBB, coupled with accused-appellant’s strength, was more than enough to facilitate
his bestial intentions.
Worth noting further is the fact that
accused-appellant has not shown any motive on the part of AAA, to accuse him falsely
of the crime of rape. If
accused-appellant’s defense was real – that AAA willingly submitted to his
embraces and voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse with him – it is very
difficult for us to understand why AAA should, without much ado or
prevarication, rush to her neighbor to ask to be accompanied to the Punong Barangay,
crying that accused-appellant violated her. We agree with the RTC that it is quite unreal
to suppose that AAA, a young country lass, with no apparent reason to bear
false witness against accused-appellant, would tell such a nauseating story,
seek police assistance, endure the humiliation of having someone examine her
privates, and go through the rigors of a public trial, if indeed she had not
been raped.
As to accused-appellant’s civil
liability, the RTC correctly awarded to AAA P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages, but failed to award
exemplary damages. Given the presence of
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and in line with current
jurisprudence, the additional award of P25,000.00 to AAA as exemplary
damages is appropriate.
In fine, the above-quoted
excerpts from AAA’s account of the rape that occurred on the night of
WHEREFORE, in light of
the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated P50,000.00) as civil
indemnity; 2) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages; and 3)
Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages. Costs de oficio.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
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 Court of Appeals Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 3-21.
[2] Penned by Judge Diomedes M. Eviota; CA rollo, pp. 17-26.
[3] Also spelled as Baranggan in other records.
[4]
[5]
[6] Per this Court’s Resolution dated 19 September 2006 in A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC, as well as our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419), pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victims and their immediate family members other than the accused are to be withheld and fictitious initials are to be used instead. Likewise, the exact addresses of the victims are to be deleted.
[7] CA rollo, pp. 6-7.
[8] TSN, 10 May 1999.
[9] TSN,
[10]
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN, 21 May 2001.
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] CA rollo, pp. 25-26.
[19]
[20]
[21] Records, p. 104-A.
[22] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[23] CA rollo, p. 119.
[24] Rollo, p. 21.
[25] CA rollo, p. 67.
[26]
[27]
[28] R. Francisco, BASIC EVIDENCE, p. 38 of the Supplement (1999).
[29] 23 C.J.S. 264.
[30] People v. Maglantay, 363 Phil. 615, 623 (1999).
[31] People v. Jimenez, 362 Phil. 222, 234 (1999).
[32] People v. Lozano, 357 Phil. 397, 407 (1998).
[33] People v. Furugganan,
G.R. Nos. 90191-96,
[34] People v. Calma, 356 Phil. 945, 974 (1998).
[35] People v. Villaflores,
G.R. No. 66039,