THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- RAMON ARIVAN y FORNILLO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 176065 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA,
and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1]
dated
Appellant
Ramon Arivan y Fornillo was charged with raping AAA in a criminal complaint[4]
which reads:
The undersigned accuses RAMON ARIVAN Y FORNILLO, of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
That [on] or about 31st day of December 1998, in Quezon City, Philippines, while [AAA] was looking for her brother, the said [appellant] offered to help her but however brought her to a shanty and while there, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with her, against her will and without her consent.[5]
Upon arraignment, the appellant,
assisted by counsel de oficio,
pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crime charged.
The pre-trial conference yielded no positive results, thus, the same was
declared closed and terminated.
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The
prosecution presented the following witnesses: AAA, the victim; SPO1 Reynaldo
Pangilinan (SPO1 Pangilinan), the police officer who apprehended the appellant;
Dr. Emmanuel Reyes (Dr. Reyes), Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City, who conducted a
physical examination on AAA; and SPO4 Mila Billones (SPO4 Billones), the
investigating officer assigned at Police Station 6, Batasan Hills, Quezon City.
AAA
testified that in 1996, she was taken by her mother from their house in xxx
City to stay in the house of her uncle, CCC and aunt, DDD located at xxx,
Barangay xxx, xxx City.[6] Her 17-year old brother, BBB, likewise stayed
in said house. AAA admitted that she
already stopped schooling[7] and
while she was living with her uncle and aunt, she worked as a scavenger and was
able to gain friends.[8]
On
Once inside the hut or shanty, the
appellant dragged her to a room where there was a mosquito net. The place was dark. When she turned her head, her forehead hit a
hard object, which made her a little bit dizzy.[16] Thereafter, the appellant forced her to lie
down and forcibly removed her garterized[17]
shorts and panty. She pushed the
appellant to prevent him from pulling down her shorts and panty, but her
efforts remained futile. The appellant was
able to get on top of her, held her two hands outwards and spread her
legs. AAA kept on struggling by pushing
the appellant away. She struggled to
free herself by moving her body from side to side and by crossing her legs, but
to no avail. She likewise tried to shout
but the appellant covered her mouth. Despite
her tenacious resistance, the appellant kept on forcing himself on her and also
threatened her that if she would not accede to his lustful desire, he would
kill her and her brother. Out of fear,
she finally gave in. The appellant then
kissed her on the lips and also succeeded in inserting his penis into her
vagina and made push and pull movements for several times. She felt pain.[18] After satisfying his lust, the appellant
stood up, got dressed and threatened her not to tell anyone what had happened;
otherwise, he would kill her, her brother and her aunt. Then, the appellant left. When the appellant left, she also stood up,
put on her clothes and went home running and crying.[19]
When
AAA reached their house, her uncle saw her and asked her why she was running
and crying. She immediately told him
that she was raped but she did not know the name of her ravisher. Her uncle told her that they should report
the incident to the police.[20] At dawn of
At
Police Station 6, she narrated to the police officer what happened to her. After she made her complaint, she stayed at
the police station while SPO1 Pangilinan and her uncle, CCC, immediately
proceeded to Payatas, the place where the alleged rape incident happened. In Payatas, SPO1 Pangilinan and AAA’s uncle
saw the appellant walking along the street or near the dumpsite. AAA’s uncle immediately pointed the
appellant to SPO1 Pangilinan as the person who abused his niece. SPO1 Pangilinan approached the appellant and
invited him to go with them to the police station. The appellant voluntarily submitted. The appellant was apprehended on the evening
of
SPO1
Pangilinan corroborated the testimony of AAA that the latter made a complaint
at Police Station 6 as regards the alleged rape incident. He likewise affirmed that upon receiving the
complaint of AAA, he, together with AAA’s uncle, immediately proceeded to the
place where the alleged rape incident happened.
And when they arrived at the said place, they saw the appellant walking
around. He was able to recognize the
appellant as AAA’s uncle pointed the appellant to him. He then invited the appellant to go with them
at Police Station 6. Upon their arrival
at Police Station 6, AAA positively identified the appellant as her
malefactor. Thereafter, he turned over
the case to SPO4 Billones, the investigator assigned at Police Station 6.[24]
SPO4
Billones testified that on
Dr. Reyes declared in court that on
For its part, the defense presented
the testimonies of the appellant and his brother, Rizaldy Arivan (Rizaldy), to
refute the allegations of AAA.
The appellant vehemently denied that he raped AAA. He even claimed that AAA was his
girlfriend. He testified that he met AAA
for the first time in November, 1998 at the dumpsite in Payatas,
Appellant claimed that on
Thereafter, appellant went to his
house, which was only eight houses away.
In going to his house, he was with Noli and AAA. His other friends stayed at a party near
Angelo’s house. In his house, he got his
jacket and cap and had them worn by AAA.
They stayed in his house for less than 30 minutes. Then, they proceeded to another friend’s
house, Ver, who was also his neighbor.
On the way to Ver’s house, they met AAA’s brother who told AAA to go
home as their grandfather was looking for her.
AAA retorted that her brother should not bother with her. When they arrived at Ver’s house, Ver’s
mother was there. Appellant told AAA to
go home because he had to attend to something and that he will go somewhere
else. AAA kept on following him and
Noli. They left Ver’s house at around
Subsequently, appellant and his
companions went home. When he arrived at
his house, where the alleged rape incident happened, he went to sleep. Noli, who also lived there, likewise slept. The appellant woke up at around
Rizaldy, appellant’s brother,
testified that on
Rizaldy
disclosed that he knew AAA as he always saw her with the appellant at the
dumpsite. On
On
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds the [appellant], RAMON ARIVAN Y FORNILLO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. He is hereby sentenced:
1.
To suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Considering that he has been detained since [
2.
To indemnify [AAA], in the amount of P50,000.00;
3.
To pay [AAA] moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00;
and
4. To pay the costs of the suit.[31]
The
records of this case were originally transmitted before this Court on
appeal. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[32] the records were transferred to the
Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
In
his brief, the appellant’s lone assignment of error was: the trial court gravely erred in finding the appellant guilty of the crime
charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.[33]
The
Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on
The
appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.[34] In view thereof, the appellate court
forwarded to this Court the records of this case.
On
After
a meticulous review of the records, this Court finds no reason to reverse the
judgments of the trial court and the appellate court.
A
rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for the
appellant and the complainant; hence, utmost care must be taken in the review
of a decision involving conviction of rape.[36] Thus, in the disposition and review of rape
cases, the Court is guided by these principles:
First, the prosecution has to
show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt or that degree
of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction. Second,
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. Third,
unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially
regarding the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will
not be disturbed on appeal. Fourth, an accusation for rape can be
made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove; and fifth,
in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are
usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution.[37]
In
the case at bar, the appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According
to him, he could not have perpetrated the act complained of because at the time
that the alleged rape incident happened, he and the private complainant were in
the company of other persons. This Court
finds this argument unmeritorious.
As
this Court has repeatedly said, lust is no respecter of time and place and the
crime of rape can be consummated even when the malefactor and victim are not
alone. In fact, it can be committed in
places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school
premises, inside an occupied house, and even in the room where other members of
the family are also sleeping. Its
commission is not limited to isolated places.[38]
Moreover,
a candid narration by a rape victim deserves credence particularly where no ill
motive is attributed to the rape victim that would make her testify falsely
against the accused. For no woman in her
right mind will admit to having been raped, allow an examination of her most
private parts and subject herself as well as her family to the humiliation and
shame concomitant with a rape prosecution, unless the charges are true. Where
an alleged victim says she was sexually abused, she says almost all that is
necessary to show that rape had been inflicted on her person, provided her
testimony meets the test of credibility.[39]
The issue of credibility has, time and
again, been settled by this Court as a question best addressed to the province
of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that
elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment on the stand
while testifying which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Absent any substantial reason which would
justify the reversal of the trial court’s assessments and conclusions, the
reviewing court is generally bound by the former’s findings, particularly when
no significant facts and circumstances were shown to have been overlooked or
disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[40] The
rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained
by the Court of Appeals.[41]
In
this case, no cogent reason can be appreciated to warrant a departure from the
findings of the trial court with respect to the assessment of AAA’s
testimony.
As
can be gleaned from the records of the present case, when AAA testified in
court, her testimony described in details the hideous experience she suffered
on
The
contentions of the appellant that the trial court made a mistake in not
believing that he and the private complainant were sweethearts and that they
did not engage in any sexual intimacy are likewise unavailing.
This
Court is in conformity with the findings of both the trial court and the
appellate court that, indeed, the appellant and the private complainant were
not sweethearts. The “sweetheart
defense” is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the
Court and sorely tests its patience.
Being an affirmative defense, the allegation of a love affair must be
supported by convincing proof. In the
present case, other than the appellant’s self-serving assertions, there was no
support of his claim that he and AAA were lovers. His “sweetheart defense” cannot be given
credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, mementos,
pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship really existed.[45] Moreso, as the appellate court stated in its
Decision, the following circumstances or actuations of the private complainant immediately
after the alleged raped incident belies appellant’s claim of such a
relationship, to wit: (1) AAA immediately disclosed to her uncle that she was
raped; (2) AAA immediately sought the help of the police authorities in
apprehending the appellant; (3) AAA subjected herself to physical examination;
(4) AAA outrightly filed the criminal complaint against the appellant; and (5)
AAA never knew the name of the appellant until after the appellant’s statement
was taken at Police Station 6.[46] In addition, the corroborative testimony of
Rizaldy that the private complainant and the appellant were sweethearts cannot
be given any credit because of his relationship with the appellant. This Court notes that Rizaldy is the brother
of the appellant and it is well settled that the testimonies of close relatives
and friends are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the unequivocal
declaration of the complaining witness.[47]
The
appellant similarly avers that force and intimidation were not attendant in the
case at bar and the requisites for the crime of rape were not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
The
law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance,
particularly when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself to the appellant’s
advances out of fear for her life or personal safety. The test remains to be whether the threat or
intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she
resists or does not yield to the desires of her attacker, the threat would be
carried out. It is thus not necessary for the victim to have resisted unto death
or to have sustained physical injuries in the hands of the accused. So
long as the intercourse takes place against the victim’s will and she submits
because of genuine apprehension of harm to her and her family, rape is
committed.[48]
Based
on the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court, which findings
are affirmed by this Court, the testimony of the private complainant clearly
proves that the appellant had carnal knowledge of her and the same was done
through force and intimidation. It bears
emphasis that when the private complainant learned that her brother, BBB, was
not in the hut, she decided to leave.
The appellant, however, grabbed her right hand and prevented her from
leaving. Threatening that he would kill
her brother, he dragged her inside the hut where he succeeded in ravishing
her. Under the circumstances, she indeed
could not do anything but cry in fear.
She tried to scream but he prevented her by covering her mouth and
threatening to kill her, her brother, aunt, and uncle. That she struggled and resisted is shown by
the medical findings that she sustained an abrasion on her forehead measuring
0.5 by 3 centimeters[49]
which could have been caused by the rubbing of the skin against a hard rough
object. Indeed, force and intimidation
were applied by the appellant in order to perpetrate the commission of the
crime of rape against AAA.
The
medico-legal findings that AAA has a remnant hymen, meaning it was possible that
she had engaged in sexual intercourse prior to
It
is well-settled that the rupture of the hymen or vaginal lacerations are not
necessary for rape to be consummated. A
medical examination is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape
victim. Insofar as the evidentiary
weight of the medical examination is concerned, we have already ruled that a
medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is
merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for
conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about
the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible, and this we find here to be
the case.[50] Further, well-settled is the rule that prior sexual intercourse which could have
resulted in hymenal laceration is not necessary in rape cases for virginity is
not an element of rape.[51] Hence, it is of no moment that there is a
finding that AAA’s hymen was remnant.
Similarly,
it must be stressed that the absence of spermatozoa in the private complainant’s
sex organ does not disprove rape. It
could be that the victim washed or urinated prior to her examination, which may
well explain the absence of spermatozoa.[52]
In sum, the straightforward testimony
of AAA, as well as her unwavering and positive identification of her defiler
and tormentor, was sufficient to convict the appellant. Besides, appellant’s flimsy and self-serving sweetheart
defense and denial were not able to destroy the truthfulness and the
credibility of AAA’s testimony. As the
Court of Appeals stated in its Decision dated
As to damages. This Court affirms the award of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity given by the lower courts to the victim. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the
nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the
fact of rape.[55]
Moral
damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim
suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting
the basis thereof. These are too obvious
to still require their recital by the victim at the trial, since we even assume
and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[56] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral
damages by both lower courts in the amount of P50,000.00 proper.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 01163 dated
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 Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring, rollo, pp. 3-14.
[2] Penned by Judge Rosalina L. Luna Pison; CA rollo, pp. 43-61.
[3] This is pursuant
to the ruling of this Court in People of
the Philippines v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693,
The Supreme Court took note of the legal mandate on the utmost confidentiality of proceedings involving violence against women and children set forth in Sec. 29 of R.A. No. 7610, otherwise known as Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act; Sec. 44 of R.A. No. 9262, otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004; and Sec. 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children effective November 15, 2004.
[4] CA rollo, pp. 10-11.
[5]
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14]
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN, 26 February 1999, pp. 8-12; TSN, 21 April 1999, pp. 7-9, 15-21, 25-26; TSN, 7 May 1999, pp. 9-10, 14-15.
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21] TSN,
[22]
[23] TSN,
[24] TSN,
[25] TSN,
[26] As
evidenced by Medico-Legal Report No. M-004-99, Records, p. 122.
[27] TSN,
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30] TSN,
[31] CA rollo, pp. 60-61.
[32] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[33] CA rollo, pp. 76 and 82.
[34]
[35] Rollo, p. 15.
[36] People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 318 (2004).
[37] People
v. Lou, 464 Phil. 413, 421 (2004).
[38] People v. Parcia, 425 Phil. 579, 590 (2002).
[39] People v. Sampior, 383 Phil. 775, 783 (2000).
[40] People v. Glabo, 423 Phil. 45, 49-50 (2001).
[41] People
v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
[42] TSN,
[43] People v. Ancheta, 464 Phil. 360, 371 (2004).
[44] People
v. Macapal, Jr., G.R. No. 155335,
[45] People v. Rapisora, G.R. No. 147855,
[46] Rollo, p. 13.
[47] People v. Opeliña, 458 Phil. 1001, 1014 (2003).
[48] People v. Musa, 422 Phil. 563, 579 (2001).
[49] TSN,
[50] People v. Lerio, 381 Phil. 80, 88 (2000).
[51] People v. Cajara, 395 Phil. 386, 396 (2000).
[52] People v. Balleno, 455 Phil. 979, 987 (2003).
[53] 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;
x x x. (Revised Penal Code).
[54] ART. 266-B. Penalties.-Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceeding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. (Revised Penal Code).
[55] People v. Callos, 424 Phil. 506, 516 (2002).
[56] People v. Docena, 379 Phil. 903, 917-918 (2000).