THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 177756 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
31 October 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02006, which
affirmed the Decision[2]
dated 15 September 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City,
Branch 46, in Criminal Cases No. U-10586 and No. U-10587, finding herein
appellant Salvador Nieto y Cabalse @ “Ador” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of simple rape in both cases committed against AAA,[3] a
mental retardate with a mental age of five years and three months, and
sentencing him in each case to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify AAA in the amount of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages with the
modification for an additional award of moral damages amounting to P50,000.00.
On
Criminal Case No. U-10586
The undersigned accuses SALVADO NIETO alias “Ador,” of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
That on or
about [
CONTRARY to Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353.[5]
Criminal Case No. U-10587
The undersigned accuses SALVADOR NIETO Y CABALSE, alias “Ador,” of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:
That on or about [
CONTRARY to Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353.[6]
When
arraigned on
The
pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove its allegations are
the testimonies of the following witnesses: AAA, the victim; SPO3 Maximiano
Balelo, Chief Investigator of the Pozorrubio Philippine National Police (PNP);
Dr. Francisco Llamas, Medico-Legal Officer of the Pozorrubio Community
Hospital; and Ruby Martinez Bell, the psychologist at the Philippine Mental
Health Association, Inc., Baguio-Benguet Chapter.
AAA
was already 24 years old when the alleged first rape incident happened. Her parents BBB and CCC were already
separated.[7] Since the separation, she started to live
with her grandmother in Barangay XXX,
In
her testimony, AAA stated that on the night of
Again,
on the night of
AAA revealed her harrowing experience in the
hands of the appellant to her sister, DDD, and brother, EEE. Her brother cried when she told him about her
ordeal; but, her sister was brave enough to tell their mother what had happened
to AAA.[11]
AAA,
accompanied by her sister and aunt, went to the police station to report the
rape incidents that happened to her on
During
her cross-examination, AAA disclosed that she had been previously raped, five
times, by one Arsenio Corpuz when she was still living in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija.[13]
SPO3
Maximiano Balelo corroborated the testimony of AAA. He admitted
that AAA was brought to him for investigation on
Dr.
Francisco Llamas, the Medico-Legal Officer of
Ruby
Martinez Bell, the psychologist who examined[19]
AAA to determine her mental condition, was also presented by the prosecution to
prove the allegation that AAA is indeed a mental retardate. The said psychologist declared that she gave
AAA a Stanford-Binet Test, Draw-a-Person Test, Bender-Gestalt Test and Vineyard
Social Maturity Scale and she even attempted to give AAA a Sentence Completion
Test, but AAA could not do it as she could not understand the same. Based on the result of the psychological
tests, she concluded that AAA belonged to the severely mentally retarded category
with an Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.) of 30 and an I.Q. level equivalent to that
of a five-year-and-three-month-old child.
She further stated that on the basis of the different tests she gave to AAA,
she noticed that AAA was unable to comprehend those tests. Although she can recognize some common objects,
she cannot, however, do much in terms of reasoning and definition of abstract
terms.[20]
On
the part of the defense, it presented the testimony of the following witnesses
to prove that it was impossible for the appellant to have raped AAA on 30
December 1999 and 3 January 2000, namely: Calixto Parocha; Ernesto Salvatierra;
CCC, the father of the victim; Dominador Nieto, the brother of the appellant;
Leticia Nieto, the sister-in-law of the appellant; and herein appellant.
The
testimonies of Calixto Parocha, Ernesto Salvatierra and CCC focused on the rape
incident that happened to AAA while she was still in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, which
was allegedly committed by Arsenio Corpuz.
The aforesaid witnesses admitted that their statements before the trial
court were given in connection with the rape incident that happened in Cuyapo,
Nueva Ecija, and not on the matters that transpired in Barangay XXX,
According to Dominador Nieto, on the
night of
Leticia Nieto testified that she is
the wife of Melecio Nieto, the brother of the appellant. She stated that on
Appellant was the final witness
presented by the defense. The justification offered by him by way of
exculpation was both denial and alibi.
He denied having seen AAA on
During his cross-examination, he
affirmed that the dance hall where he was on
After
trial, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision on
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered CONVICTING beyond reasonable doubt SALVADOR NIETO of the crime of Simple Rape and the Court sentences him:
1.
CRIM. CASE NO. U-10586, to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify AAA the
sum of P50,000.00 and to pay another sum of P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages;
2.
CRIM. CASE NO. U-10587, to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify AAA the
sum of P50,000.00 and to pay another sum of P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages.[26]
The
records of this case were originally transmitted before this Court on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[27] 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 court a quo gravely erred in finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.[28]
Accordingly,
the Court of Appeals, taking into consideration the assignment of error stated
by the appellant in his Appellant’s Brief and after a thorough study of the
records of the case, rendered a Decision on 31 October 2006, affirming the
conviction of the appellant for two counts of simple rape with the modification
for an additional award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in
each case. The dispositive portion of
the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, of P50,000.00 each in both instances is hereby awarded to the complainant.[29]
The
appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.[30] In view thereof, the appellate court forwarded
to this Court the records of this case.
On
After
a meticulous review of the records of the present case, this Court finds no reason
to reverse the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court.
There
appears to be no controversy that the victim in this case is a mental
retardate. Such fact was proven by the
testimony of Ruby Martinez Bell, the psychologist who examined AAA to determine
her mental condition, and by the psychological report she prepared. The series of psychological tests she gave to
AAA revealed that the latter is a mental retardate. AAA belonged to the severely mentally
retarded category with an I.Q. of 30 and an I.Q. level equivalent to that of a
five-year-and-three-month-old child.[32] Thus, the only issue left for this Court’s
resolution is the credibility of the victim’s testimony as regards the fact of
sexual congress between her and the appellant.
The appellant averred that the
testimony of AAA should be disregarded, as there are serious and inexplicable
discrepancies in material details in the said testimony; hence, there is doubt
as to its credibility. The discrepancies
referred to by the appellant were embodied in the following testimony of the
victim during her cross-examination regarding an alleged prior rape incident
with another person, thus:
Q: Madam Witness, will you tell us of your experience while you were in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija?
A: I lived in Cuyapo. What happened there is another thing.
Q: You said that what happened there is another thing, will you tell us what is that another thing?
A: The brother of the wife of my father fooled me also, sir.
COURT: Who raped you?
A: Jolin-jolin raped me, sir.
Q: Who is Jolin-jolin?
A: The husband of the sister of my father, sir.
ATTY. FLORENDO: You are referring to Arsenio Corpuz, am I correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In other words, Arsenio Corpuz raped you also while you were in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija?
A: Yes, sir, he raped me.
x x x x
Q: How many times did Jolin-jolin or Arsenio Corpuz fuck you?
A: Five times, your Honor.
Q: That five times that Jolin-jolin or Arsenio Corpuz fucked you, was it on the same day or on different days?
A: Different dates but successive nights, your Honor.
Q: Did you mother come to know what Jolin-jolin did to you in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija?
A: When I was already in [Brgy. xxx], sir.
x x x x
Q: [The appellant] is a relative of your father, am I correct?
A: My grandparents are the relatives of [the appellant] and they are neighbors, sir.
Q: And because of what Jolin-jolin did to you in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, you cannot forget that anymore?
A: I always remember it, sir.
Q: That
is why whenever you see [the appellant] you remember what happened to you in
Cuyapo?
A: I
can also remember what he did to me, sir.
Q: Eventhough
[the appellant] did not really fuck you you said he fucked you because of what
happened to you in Cuyapo, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.[33] (Emphases supplied.)
The aforesaid argument raised by the
appellant is untenable.
Sexual
crimes where the culprit denies culpability is actually a test of credibility. 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 are shown to have been overlooked or
disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[34] The rule finds an even more stringent
application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[35]
In
the present 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 this case, this Court notes that
the testimony given by AAA before the trial court can be characterized as
categorical and straightforward. She was
able to describe before the court a quo
how she was ravished by the appellant on
More so, hymenal lacerations, whether
healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. And when the unwavering and forthright
testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, there is
sufficient basis to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisites of
carnal knowledge have been established.[40] In this case, Dr. Llamas’s medical findings showed
that AAA’s hymen had a day-old healed laceration at the
The appellant cannot find protection in
the discrepancies in the victim’s testimony during her cross-examination to
relieve him from culpability. As the
Court of Appeals opined in its Decision, thus:
The Court notes that the prior alleged rape is not relevant in the present case. The previous rape, if it indeed occur (sic), cannot in anyway prove that [appellant] did not rape AAA. Moreover, considering the mental age of the victim and the tenor of questions asked during the cross-examination, it is understandable why AAA gave the apparently conflicting answers. What is important is that during her direct examination, she testified that [appellant] had sexual intercourse with her.[41] (Emphasis supplied.)
It
bears emphasis that in the victim’s testimony during her cross-examination, she
admitted that Arsenio Corpuz, also known as “Jolin-jolin,” raped her five times at the time when she was still
in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. She also
affirmed that “Jolin-jolin” was a relative of her father. She emphasized, though, that what happened in
Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, was “another thing.”
On the other hand, when she testified as regards the rape incident that had
happened to her in Brgy. XXX,
As this Court previously stated, AAA
positively identified the appellant as the person who had raped her on
Hence, this Court agrees in the
findings of both the trial court and the appellate court that the testimony of
AAA was credible and deserves full faith and credit.
In stark contrast to the simple but
clear declarations of AAA, all that the appellant stresses in his defense are
denial and alibi.
It is an established jurisprudential
rule that a mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can
scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and
involvement of appellant in the crimes attributed to him.[42] The defense of alibi is likewise unavailing.
Firstly, alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct
and difficult to disprove. Unless
substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative,
self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[43] Secondly,
alibi is unacceptable when there is a
positive identification of the accused by a credible witness.[44] Lastly,
in order that alibi might prosper, it
is not enough to prove that the accused has been somewhere else during the
commission of the crime; it must also be shown that it would have been
impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.[45]
In the case at bar, the appellant
denied that he had raped AAA. He avowed that
on the
This Court notes that the witnesses
who corroborated the testimony of the appellant that he was somewhere else during
the commission of the rapes were his brother, Dominador Nieto, and sister-in-law,
Leticia Nieto. Because they were his
close relatives, we cannot give credence to their testimonies. The testimonies of close relatives and
friends are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the unequivocal
declaration of the complaining witness.[46]
The appellant also failed to present
convincing proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis during the aforementioned
dates when the separate acts of rape were committed.
Surprisingly, the appellant himself,
as well as Dominador Nieto, admitted before the trial court that the place
where the dance party was held on
In sum, the straightforward testimony
of AAA, as well as her unwavering and positive identification of her defiler
and tormentor, corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Francisco Llamas, was
sufficient to convict the appellant. Besides,
the appellant’s flimsy and self-serving defenses of denial and alibi were not
able to destroy the truthfulness and the credibility of AAA’s testimony. Thus, this Court is convinced that the trial
court and the appellate court correctly convicted the appellant of the crime of
simple rape[48] in both
cases, which is punishable by reclusion
perpetua.[49]
As to the damages. The award of civil indemnity to
the rape victim is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[50] Thus, this Court affirms the award of P50,000.00
in each case as civil indemnity given by the trial court to the victim.
As regards the award of exemplary
damages, Article 2230 of the New Civil Code provides:
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
In this case, there being no
aggravating circumstance that can be considered, as it is not even alleged in
the information, the award of exemplary damages by the lower courts would have
to be deleted.
With respect to moral damages, case
law requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without need of
proof because from the nature of the crime it can be assumed that she has
suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. This award is separate and distinct from
civil indemnity, which case law also automatically awards upon proof of the
commission of the crime by the offender.[51] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral
damages by the appellate court in the amount of P50,000.00 for each
count of rape proper.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
02006 dated 31 October 2006 finding herein appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of two counts of simple rape committed against AAA, a mental retardate
with a mental age equivalent to a five-year-and-three-month-old child, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count, is hereby AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that the
amount of exemplary damages awarded by the lower courts is deleted for want of
legal basis. Costs against appellant.
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 Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo concurring; rollo, pp. 3-20.
[2] Penned by Judge Modesto C. Juanson; CA rollo, pp. 25-34.
[3] This is pursuant to the ruling of
this Court in People 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 Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act; Sec. 44 of Republic Act 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] Otherwise known as “The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.”
[5] CA rollo, p. 10.
[6]
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] Records, pp. 5-6.
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] Records, p. 7.
[19] As evidenced by the Psychological Report prepared by Ruby Martinez Bell, id. at 8-10.
[20] TSN,
[21] TSN,
[22] TSN,
[23] TSN,
[24] TSN,
[25]
[26] CA rollo, p. 34.
[27] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[28] CA rollo, pp. 70.
[29] Rollo, p. 20.
[30]
[31]
[32] Records, pp. 9.
[33] TSN,
[34] People v. Glabo, 423 Phil. 45, 50 (2001).
[35] People
v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
[36] TSN,
[37]
[38] People
v. Macapal, Jr., G.R. No. 155335,
[39] People v. Agravante, 392 Phil. 543, 551 (2000).
[40] People
v. Limio, G.R. Nos. 148804-06,
[41] Rollo, pp. 16, 19.
[42] People v. Olaybar, 459 Phil. 114, 127 (2003).
[43] People
v. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 141162-63,
[44] People
v. Medios, G.R. Nos. 132066-67,
[45] People v. Olaybar, supra note 42.
[46] People v. Opeliña, 458 Phil. 1001, 1014 (2003).
[47] TSN,
[48] 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) x x x;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. (Revised ` Penal Code).
[49] ART. 266-B. Penalties.-Rape
under paragraph 1 of the next preceeding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. (
[50] People v. Alay-ay, 416 Phil. 80, 100-101 (2001).
[51] People v. Orilla, 467 Phil. 253, 286 (2004).