SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - JESUS BALIGOD
y PINEDA, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 172115
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio morales, tinga, velasco, jr., and BRION, JJ.
Promulgated: August
6, 2008 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This is an
appeal from the Decision[1]
dated February 9, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00368, which
had affirmed the Judgment[2]
dated July 20, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of xxx, Cagayan, Branch
11 in Criminal Case No. 971-T, finding appellant Jesus Baligod y Pineda guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a)[3]
in relation to Article 266-B[4]
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua; and ordering him to pay the victim P50,000 as civil
indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.
The
Information[5] dated
x x x x
That on or about August 16, 2001, in the Municipality
of [xxx], Province of [xxx], and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, JESUS BALIGOD Y PINEDA, with lewd design and by the
use of force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have sexual intercourse with the offended party, [AAA],[6] against her will.
Contrary to law.
When
arraigned, Baligod pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued thereafter.
Based on the testimonies of AAA, the victim herself, and BBB, the wife
of AAA’s nephew, the prosecution established that at around
BBB was at
her residence around
The medical
certificate issued by Dr. Rowena Martina Cardenas-Sion, who physically examined
AAA, sets forth the following:
1.
Contusion,
about 2x2.0 cm. mandibular area.
2.
Periorbital
contusion-hematoma, right with subconjunctival hemorrhage.
3.
Perioral
contusion-hematoma.
4.
(+)
Positive erythema, anterior neck.
5.
Cyanotic
tongue.
6.
(+)
Positive edematous gingivae, lower.
7.
(+)
Positive severe tenderness anterior chest.
8.
(+)
Positive superficial abrasions irregular knee, bilateral.
9.
I.E.
– Edematous clitoral area with severe tenderness.
HYMEN –
very old healed lacerations at 2, 6,
Vagina
admits 2 fingers snuggly with tenderness.[9]
Baligod denied the charges against him and testified that
on
After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment convicting Baligod
of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A(1)(a) in relation to Art. 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended. The
trial court gave weight to AAA’s testimony, which was given clearly,
convincingly and logically. It also
ruled that absent any imputation of ill-motive on AAA, she had no reason to
concoct a false tale of rape against Baligod.
It also considered the corroborating testimony of prosecution witness
BBB as part of the res gestae and noted the medical findings of AAA as
well. The fallo of the decision
reads,
WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby finds that the guilt of the
accused Jesus Baligod Y Pineda alias Kisut for the crime of rape defined and
penalized under [A]rt. 266-a:1(a) in relation to Art. 266-b both of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 8353 has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt and hereby sentences the said accused JESUS BALIGOD Y PINEDA to suffer
imprisonment of twenty five (25) years of Reclusion Perpetua. He is further sentenced to pay the private
complainant [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity plus the
further amount of P25,000.00 as moral damages.
SO
ORDERED.[11]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s
ruling but modified the award of moral damages.
It regarded AAA as a credible witness and accorded full credence to
AAA’s testimony because it was categorical, straightforward and
consistent. It also ruled that appellant’s
acts of grabbing AAA, holding her neck, boxing her several times on the chest
and mouth and threatening to kill her are strongly suggestive of force or at
least intimidation sufficient to bring her to submission.[12] The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision in Criminal Case 971-T is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accused-appellant Jesus Baligod y Pineda is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. He is further ordered to
indemnify the private complainant the sums of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[13]
The case
is now before us for final disposition.
In his brief, appellant faults the trial court in
…CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE WHEN THE
LATTER’S GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[14]
Essentially,
the issue for our resolution is whether appellant’s guilt has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
In his brief,
appellant assails the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence and contends that
the prosecution should not draw its strength from the weakness of his defense. He claims that he was drinking liquor with a
group when AAA approached her to accompany her to xxx. He refused her plea, but he got worried
because his companions informed him that she has a suicidal tendency. So, he followed her to advise her to go home
instead, but she insisted to do otherwise.
Appellant admits he boxed her, but denies raping her. He also argues that he could not have raped
her because she was already 68[15]
years of age.
For the
State, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the following elements
of rape were proven: (1) that the
offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act is accomplished
by using force or intimidation. It cites
the trial court’s findings according credence to the testimonies of AAA and
BBB. It also points out that appellant’s
acts of boxing AAA negate appellant’s testimony “that he only boxed AAA because
he respected her.”
We affirm
appellant’s conviction.
Rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to
testify for herself.[16] Thus, in resolving rape cases, the victim’s
credibility becomes the primordial consideration. If a victim’s testimony is straightforward,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,
unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of
credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[17] To ensure that justice is meted out, extreme
care and caution is required in weighing the conflicting testimonies of the
complainant and the accused.
During trial,
AAA recounted the terrible experience which had befallen her as follows:
FISCAL:
x x x x
Q What
was that?
A I was
holding a wick lamp going to the house of my relatives to ask for a tricycle
available.
Q What
happened while you were on your way?
A He
suddenly grabbed me by the neck from behind then I fell to the ground and the
lamp I was holding also fell to the ground.
Q Who
grabbed you?
A Jesus
Baligod.
Q If
this person will be shown to you, will you be able to identify him?
A Yes,
sir.
Q If
he is around the courtroom will you please point at him.
A There,
sir. (Witness pointed to a person and
who was asked his name and he answered that he is Jesus Baligod).
COURT:
Q Where
did Jesus Baligod come from before he grabbed you?
A From
behind.
x x x x
Q You
said that the accused grabbed you and you fell to the ground, what did he do
after that?
A He
boxed me, held my neck and he even boxed my chest.
Q How
many times did he box you?
A I can’t
remember anymore, sir.
COURT:
Q Did he
stay on top of you?
A Yes,
sir.
FISCAL:
Q Then
what did he do next?
A He
removed my short pant[s] and panty.
Q How
about him when he removed your shorts and panty, what did he do?
A He
inserted his penis.
Q Where?
A In my
vagina.
Q How
do you know that his penis was inserted into your vagina?
A I felt
his penis entering my vagina.
x x x x
COURT:
Q Did he
perform a sexual motion into your vagina? I mean the pushing in and out
motions?
A [Y]es,
sir.
Q And
what did you feel or notice?
A I felt
pain.
FISCAL:
x x x x
Q After
the sexual assault by the accused, what did he do next?
A He ran.
Q How
about you what did you do?
A I just
stayed sitting on the road and then a help came.[18]
x x x x
In open
court, AAA had subjected herself to the glare of public prosecution for rape,
positively identified appellant as her rapist and candidly revealed the ugly
details of the deplorable violation of her person. Notably, both the trial and appellate courts
gave credence to her testimony and they both regarded her as a credible
witness. Absent any showing that the
lower courts had overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if
considered might affect the result of the case, we find no basis to doubt or
dispute, much less overturn, the findings of credibility by both courts. As we
have held in People v. Malejana,[19]
Having the opportunity to observe [the witnesses in
open court], the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between
fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere
reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court.
The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that
will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an
insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous
mutter of a reluctant answer [or] the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have
darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a
serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed
in anger, or in shame or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all
these on the basis of his observations arrive[d] at an informed and reasoned
verdict.[20]
Juxtaposed against the prosecution evidence, appellant’s
defense of denial is inherently weak. As
often stressed, a mere denial constitutes negative evidence and warrants the
least credibility or none at all absent any strong evidence of
non-culpability. It cannot prevail over
the positive and credible declarations of the victim and her witnesses
testifying on affirmative matters.[21]
Further, appellant’s admission of boxing AAA negates his own premise
that he was only concerned with AAA’s safety when he advised the latter to go
home instead. Also, the fact that the
victim is already in her late 60’s does not negate the possibility of rape
because what is decisive in rape cases under Art. 266-A(1)(a) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, is whether the prosecution, as in this case, has
sufficiently proved the commission by the accused of having carnal knowledge
with a woman by use of force.
As to the
award of damages, both courts are consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence
on simple rape and correctly imposed P50,000 as civil indemnity. Conformably too, the Court of Appeals
correctly modified the award of moral damages from P25,000 to P50,000[22]
as the latter amount is automatically granted in rape cases without need of further
proof other than the commission of the crime because it is assumed that a rape
victim has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.
WHEREFORE, the
Decision dated P50,000
as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages. No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
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] CA rollo, pp. 112-120. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De los
[2] Records, pp. 95-96. Penned by Judge Orlando D. Beltran.
[3] Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How
Committed. – Rape is committed –
1) By
a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
x x
x x
[4] Art. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of
the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
x x x x
[5] Records, p. 14.
[6] The real name of the victim is withheld;
see People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA
419, 425-426.
[7] CA rollo, p. 113.
[8]
[9] Records,
p. 3.
[10] CA rollo, p. 114.
[11] Records, p. 96.
[12] CA rollo, p. 116.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] People v. Penaso, G.R. No. 121980,
[17] People v. Gabelinio, G.R. Nos.
132127-29,
[18] TSN,
[19] People v. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002,
[20]
[21] People v. Penaso, supra note 16, at 320.
[22]