THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ABDELKARIM
AHMAD ALKODHA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 178067 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,* AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: August
11, 2008 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
This is an
Appeal from the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01632 dated
Accused-appellant
was charged with rape in two separate Informations, which read:
In Criminal Case No. 127752-H
On or about March 14, 2004, in Pasig City
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, by means of
force, threat or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA],[2]
against her will and consent, which is aggravated by the circumstances of abuse
of superior strength, nighttime and dwelling, to the damage and prejudice of
the said victim.[3]
In Criminal Case No. 127753-H
On or about March 15, 2004, in Pasig City
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused by means of
force, threat or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], against her will and consent, which
is aggravated by the circumstances of abuse of superior strength, nighttime and
dwelling, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim.[4]
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Dr. Joseph C.
Palmero and complainant AAA.
Complainant AAA testified that she was hired on
Later that night, while AAA was watching television with
accused-appellant’s son, accused-appellant called AAA and talked to her about
the policies in his store. AAA went back
to the other room but was again called by accused-appellant. Accused-appellant then pulled AAA towards his
room, covered her mouth, boxed her on the stomach, dragged her inside his room,
and pulled her towards the bed. AAA
resisted but accused-appellant succeeded in holding her hands and covering them
with pillows. Accused-appellant then
undressed her by removing her blouse, pajamas, bra and underwear. Accused-appellant thereafter proceeded to rape
her by inserting his penis inside her vagina. AAA felt weak at this time, and was not able
to resist. Accused-appellant warned her
not to tell anybody; otherwise, he would kill her.
On 15 March 2004, at around
On
Dr. Palmero testified that he conducted a medical examination
of AAA on
The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of
accused-appellant, Rowena A. Fajardo, Ahmad Abdelkarim, and Senior Police
Officer 2 (SPO2) Gerry Bautista.
Accused-appellant testified that he hired AAA on
On P1,500.00 for her to
give to her parents. Accused-appellant refused to give AAA the cash advance
considering that she was hired as a stay-in saleslady only the day before. At
On
Rowena
Fajardo, Ahmad and SPO2 Bautista testified on the whereabouts of
accused-appellant during said dates.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment
is hereby rendered finding accused ABDELKARIM AHMAD-ALKODHA:
1. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 127752-H and he is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
2. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 127753-H and he is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
and
3. Further, he is ordered to pay the victim,
[AAA] Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) as civil indemnity; Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000) as moral damages; and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000)
as exemplary damages, in each case.[9]
Accused-appeallant appealed to the Court of Appeals. On
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS,
the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the judgment appealed from
AFFIRMED in toto. Costs shall be taxed against the
accused-appellant.[10]
Accused-appellant
elevated his conviction to this Court, assigning the following errors:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY
ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S HIGHLY INCONSISTENT
TESTIMONY.
II
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
Accused-appellant
claims there were inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA, to wit:
1. AAA testified
that she and the accused-appellant’s son, Ahmad, were the only two persons in
the house; however, in her sworn statement, she said that at around 5:00 p.m. of
14 March 2004, the accused-appellant called the housemaid to tell AAA to dress
up and go to the cell phone store.
2. When asked, “Who woke up first, you or the
accused?” AAA answered that she woke up
first. Later, when she was asked again,
she said that it was accused-appellant who woke up first.
3. On direct examination, AAA testified that she
was raped by the accused on
We have held that inconsistencies which refer to minor,
trivial, or inconsequential circumstances only serve to strengthen the
credibility of said witnesses, as they erase doubts that such testimonies have
been coached or rehearsed.[12] The presence of the maid at one point during
the afternoon of 14 March 2004, and who between AAA and accused-appellant woke
up first on the morning of 15 March 2004 are clearly trivial matters which have
no bearing at all on the commission of the crime of rape.
Furthermore,
an error-free testimony cannot be expected of a rape victim, for she may not be
able to remember and recount every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and the
appalling outrage she went through, especially so since she might in fact be
trying not to recall the same, as they are too traumatic and painful to
remember.[13] Minor lapses are to be expected when a person
is recounting details of a traumatic experience too painful to recall. The rape victim was testifying in open court,
in the presence of strangers, on an extremely intimate matter, which, more
often than not, is talked about in hushed tones. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising
that her narration was less than letter-perfect.[14]
Also, the
first discrepancy refers to one between AAA’s sworn statement and her testimony
in court. This Court has held that affidavits
are generally subordinate in importance to open court declarations. Affidavits are not complete reproductions of
what the declarant has in mind because they are generally prepared by the
administering officer and the affiant simply signs them after the same have
been read to him.[15]
As regards
the third alleged discrepancy, AAA’s testimony on cross examination is as
follows:
Q Would
you remember, what time when Kim pulled you to his room?
A No,
sir.
Q Did
you have any sexual intercourse then?
A I
do not know what happened next because I fainted, sir.
Q When
was your last time of recollection, Madam witness?
A He
was already through with me, sir.
Q How
did you know he was through with you?
A I
was already bleeding, sir.[16]
We do not
see an inconsistency here. At most, this
only proves that the part of AAA’s testimony on direct examination in which AAA
said accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina did not come from
personal knowledge, but from an inference from her bleeding when she woke
up. This, however, is not sufficient
reason for us to overturn the appealed Decision. We have ruled that carnal knowledge of the
victim by the accused may be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence that rape has been committed and that the accused is the perpetrator
thereof.[17] The actuations of accused-appellant before
AAA fainted, the bleeding of AAA’s private part afterwards, and the
corroboration by physical evidence on the part of Dr. Palmero, when taken
together, convincingly prove the carnal knowledge of AAA by accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant
then argues that AAA was actuated by improper motives in haling him before the
court. Claims accused-appellant:
In this case, there was a strong
manifestation of improper motive on the part of the private complainant to
testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the
commission of the crime charged.
First, the private complainant was asking for a One
Thousand Five Hundred (Php1,500.00) Pesos advance from the accused and the
latter did not give her the said amount since she was still new in the
job. Second,
she was scolded by the accused when she answered the telephone which was the
cause of her disappearance from the latter’s store.
While it may be debated that the above
reasons are too flimsy to accuse a person of a serious crime as rape, still,
the private complainant was motivated by hatred and in order to get even with
the accused, she filed the instant cases.[18]
Accused-appellant
then proceeds to argue that the application of the presumption that a young
Filipina will not charge a person with rape if it is not true goes against the
constitutional presumption of innocence.[19] Accused-appellant cites People v. Godoy,[20]
wherein we held:
The trial court, in holding for
conviction, relied on the presumptio
hominis that a young Filipina will not charge a person with rape if it is
not true. In the process, however, it
totally disregarded the more paramount constitutional presumption that an
accused is deemed innocent until proven otherwise.
It frequently happens that in a particular
case two or more presumptions are involved.
Sometimes the presumptions conflict, one tending to demonstrate the
guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. In such case, it is necessary to examine the
basis for each presumption and determine what logical or social basis exists
for each presumption, and then determine which should be regarded as the more
important and entitled to prevail over the other. It must, however, be remembered that the
existence of a presumption indicating guilt does not in itself destroy the
presumption against innocence unless the inculpating presumption, together with
all of the evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, is sufficient
to overcome the presumption of innocence by proving the defendant’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt until the defendant’s guilt is shown in this manner,
the presumption of innocence continues.
Accused-appellant
was correct in anticipating that we would see the flimsiness of the alleged ill
motives he imputed to AAA. He, thus,
claims that his actuations of not giving AAA a cash advance and scolding her
for answering the phone were enough to create such a deep-seated hatred as to
charge him with a very grave crime of rape.
Almost needless to state, accused-appellant’s arguments remain flimsy.
As regards
the jurisprudence concerning the alleged presumption of guilt arising from the
accusation by a young Filipina, suffice it to state here that
accused-appellant’s conviction was not the mere result of this jurisprudence,
but of the clear and convincing evidence presented by the plaintiff-appellee,
consisting of the testimony of AAA and the corroborative medical evidence. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted
solely on the testimony of the victim, provided such testimony is credible, natural,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things;[21]
and 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.[22]
As regards
accused-appellant’s defense of alibi, we quote with approval the findings of
the trial court:
Accused Ahmad Alkodha,
however, disputes [AAA]’s version claiming that it is not credible due to some
improbabilities in her testimony.
Firstly, he contends that he cannot possibly commit the crime attributed
against him due to physical impossibility.
That on
Secondly,
the accused contends that on
Thirdly,
accused claims that on
x x x
x
This
Court rejects the accused’s defense of alibi.
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish with
clear and convincing evidence not only that he was somewhere else when the
crime was committed physically but also that it was impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Aside from his testimony, the accused never
presented any other evidence to prove that he was not at the scene of the crime
at the time the rape took place. He did
not present any other witness, whom he claimed was with him during the time he
attended the baptismal party until the time he allegedly went to Alabang,
Finally,
accused-appellant argues that if he was indeed guilty, he would not have sought
the help of police officers in locating AAA as evidenced by the blotter that
was presented.[24] We are not swayed by this argument. The police blotter presented by
accused-appellant clearly shows that his seeking the help of police officers
was in reaction to the complaint filed by AAA against him:
PAGE NO. :
0417
ENTRY
NO. :
1845
DATE :
TIME :
Reportee
one Abdel Karim Ahmad Alkodha, 46 yrs. Old, married, businessman and a resident
of Unit 11 Casa Enrica, Mercedez Ave., Brgy. Caniogan,
Signed
Abdelkarim
Ahmad Alkodha[25]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01632 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
* Justice
Antonio T. Carpio was designated to sit as additional member replacing Justice
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Renato
C. Dacudao with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Arturo G. Tayag,
concurring; rollo, pp. 2-13.
[2] People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4]
[5] TSN,
[6]
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9] CA rollo, pp. 31-32.
[10] Rollo, p. 12.
[11]
[12] People
v. Pamor, G.R. No. 108599,
[13] People
v. Canoy, 459 Phil. 933, 943 (2003); People
v. Callos, 419 Phil. 422, 430 (2001); People
v. Aguero, Jr., 417 Phil. 836, 849 (2001).
[14] People v. Perez, 337 Phil. 244, 250 (1997).
[15] People
v. Sanchez, 372 Phil. 129, 145 (1999); People
v. Lusa, 351 Phil. 537, 544 (1998).
[16] TSN,
[17] People v. Sumarago, 466 Phil. 956, 966 (2004).
[18] Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 63.
[19]
[20] G.R. No. 115908-09,
[21] People
v. Gastador, 365 Phil. 209, 225 (1999); People
v.
[22] People
v. Tabion, 375 Phil. 542, 551-552 (1999).
[23] CA rollo, pp. 29-31.
[24] Appellant’s Brief, rollo, p. 63.
[25] Records, p. 224.