THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- REYNALDO SANZ LABOA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 185711 Present: CARPIO
MORALES,* J., CHICO-NAZARIO,** Acting Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,*** and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August 24, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For
review is the Decision[1]
dated
Appellant
Reynaldo Sanz Laboa was charged before the RTC of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat with
raping AAA in an Information which reads:
That on or about in the afternoon of [26 June 2001], at Barangay XXX, Municipality of XXX, Province of XXX, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said [appellant] with lewd and unchaste design and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully and feloniously lie and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of one AAA, a minor, under twelve (12) years old against her will and consent.[4]
Upon
arraignment, the appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crime charged. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the
merits ensued.
The
prosecution presented the testimonies of the following witnesses: Dr. Alfredo
Calingin (Dr. Calingin), Municipal Health Officer of Sen. Ninoy Aquino, Sultan
Kudarat, who conducted the physical examination on AAA; Police Inspector (PO) 1
Melinda Dedoro Rosal (PO1 Rosal), Women and Children Protection Desk Officer at
Sen. Ninoy Aquino Municipal Police Station, who conducted the investigation on
the complaint of AAA; Ariel Estabillo (Ariel), laborer at the corn drier of the
victim’s parents; BBB, the mother of AAA; and AAA, the private complainant
herself.
The
evidence for the prosecution, culled from the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses,
established the following facts:
On
While
AAA was sleeping on a long bench inside their house, the appellant entered,
went directly to where she was and started removing her short pants and
underwear. AAA was awakened, but the
appellant still proceeded to undress her.
The appellant then placed saliva on her vagina, spread her legs and went
on top of her. Thereafter, the appellant
unzipped his pants, held his penis and placed it in AAA’s vagina. AAA felt that the penis of the appellant was
hard. She also felt pain when the
appellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina. She tried to resist but to no avail. After a while, AAA felt something wet in her
vagina.[6]
At
this juncture, Ariel arrived; he went there in order to return an adjustable
tool that he borrowed from the parents of AAA.
Ariel was so shocked seeing the appellant, whose pants’ zipper was open,
on top of AAA, who was naked from the waist down. At once, Ariel struck the appellant at the
back with the tool he was holding. The
appellant immediately stood up, fixed his long pants, closed his zipper,
gathered his carpentry tools and left.
AAA was then crying and asked Ariel to punch the appellant. Subsequently,
Ariel brought AAA to her parents, who were at their corn drier. AAA was silent but teary-eyed when Ariel
informed her mother about her ordeal.[7]
Upon
being informed, BBB, together with AAA, immediately reported the rape incident
to the barangay chairman. As the latter was unavailable, they reported
the said incident to the officer-in-charge, who ordered to look for the
appellant. With the help of the Civilian
Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), the appellant was picked up in the
house of one Bartoloy Dema. He was then
brought to the barangay hall.[8]
AAA
and her parents also went at the Municipal Police Station of Sen. Ninoy Aquino
to report the rape incident. It was PO1
Rosal, the Women and Children Protection Desk Officer assigned to that Police
Station, who conducted the investigation on the said rape incident. She took AAA’s sworn statement on how the
appellant ravished her. Then, she
referred AAA to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and to
the Municipal Health Office for medical examination.[9]
AAA was examined by Dr. Calingin, the
Municipal Health Officer of Sen. Ninoy Aquino.
Dr. Calingin found incomplete fresh hymenal lacerations on AAA’s vagina
at the
Thereafter, a Criminal Information
for Rape was filed against the appellant.
After an Order of Detention was issued, the appellant was arrested by
the Philippine National Police (PNP) personnel.[12]
For
its part, the defense presented the lone testimony of the appellant, who
interposed the defense of denial.
The
appellant claimed that on
After
trial, a Decision was rendered by the court a
quo on
WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the [appellant], Reynaldo Sanz Laboa, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
Accordingly, the Court hereby sentences the [appellant], Reynaldo Sanz Laboa:
(a) to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA;
(b) to indemnify the private offended party, AAA;
1.
the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, as moral damages
2.
the amount of SEVENTY
FIVE THOUSAND (P75,000.00) PESOS, by way of civil indemnity,
consistent with current prevailing jurisprudence;
3.
the amount of TWENTY
FIVE THOUSAND (P25,000.00) PESOS, as exemplary damages; and
(c) to pay the costs.
Being a detention prisoner, the [appellant] Reynaldo Sanz Laboa, is entitled to full credit of the entire period of his preventive imprisonment, in accordance with Article 27 of the Revised Penal code, as amended by R.A. No. 6127, provided he had agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules and regulations imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, with only four-fifths (4/5) thereof.[14]
The
records of this case were originally transmitted to this Court on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[15] the records were transferred to the
Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
In
his brief, the appellant raised his lone assigned error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE [APPELLANT] OF THE CRIME OF CONSUMMATED RAPE WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[16]
On
P75,000.00 to P50,000.00.
The
appellant appealed to this Court, contending that his conviction for the crime
charged was based mainly on the testimonies of AAA, Dr. Calingin and
Ariel. Appellant claimed that the
testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses showed uncertainty as to his participation
or how he consummated the crime charged.
According to the appellant, AAA herself admitted that she did not know
whether the appellant’s penis penetrated her vagina. Similarly, Dr. Calingin testified that the
fresh hymenal lacerations on AAA’s vagina could have been possibly caused by
bicycle riding, horse riding or an attempt to sexually penetrate AAA’s
vagina. In the same way, Ariel admitted
that he failed to see neither the penis of the appellant nor the actual
penetration of the same on AAA’s vagina.
With the foregoing circumstances, the appellant claims that penetration
of AAA’s vagina by his penis was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, he may only be held guilty of the crime
of attempted rape and not of consummated rape.
Appellant’s
contentions are bereft of merit.
It
is a fundamental rule that the trial court’s factual findings, especially its
assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and
respect and are binding upon this Court, particularly when affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.[17] This is so because the trial court is in a
better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed
their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The appellate courts will generally not
disturb such findings, unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance
and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[18]
In
this case, this Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of both
the trial court and the Court of Appeals that, indeed, appellant is guilty of
the crime of consummated rape and not merely of attempted rape.
As
it has been repeatedly said, no woman would want to go through the process, the
trouble and the humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense, unless she
actually has been a victim of abuse and her motive is but a response to the
compelling need to seek and obtain justice.[19]
As observed by the trial court, AAA
had testified in a straightforward, candid and convincing manner on how she was
raped by the appellant. Truly, AAA did
not know whether the penis of the appellant penetrated her vagina or not. But, it does not mean that the appellant did
not consummate the crime of rape. Settled
is the rule that in order to establish rape, it is not necessary to show that
the hymen was ruptured, as full
penetration of the penis is not an indispensable requirement. What is fundamental is that the entrance, or
at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, is
proved. The mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the victim’s genitalia, and not the full penetration
of the complainant’s private part, consummates
the crime. Hence, the “touching” or
“entry” of the penis into the labia majora
or the labia minora of the pudendum
of the victim’s genitalia constitutes consummated rape.[20]
In
this case, AAA categorically stated that the appellant raped her by having
sexual intercourse with her. She vividly
described that after the appellant removed her shorts and underwear, the
appellant, in turn, opened his pants and unzipped it. Thereafter, the appellant spread her legs, held
his penis and placed it in her vagina. At
such instance, she felt pain in her private part.[21] From the said testimony of AAA, there can be
no doubt that there was at least a partial entry, so as to make the crime
consummated rape, considering the pain the entry caused.
The fact that the rape was
consummated was also supported by the medical findings of the examining
physician, Dr. Calingin, who found incomplete fresh hymenal lacerations at the
Although Ariel, one of the prosecution
witnesses, failed to see the penis of the appellant or its actual penetration
on AAA’s vagina, still, his testimony clearly established and corroborated
AAA’s testimony that, indeed, she was raped by the appellant. Records revealed that Ariel declared before
the court a quo that when he saw the
appellant on top of AAA, who was naked from the waist down, the appellant’s
pants were lowered down to his buttocks while doing the push and pull movement.[23] Such action of the appellant cannot be
interpreted in any way other than having sexual intercourse with AAA.
In contrast, the evidence presented
by the defense consisted mainly of bare denials. Denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak
defense. Unless supported by clear and
convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of
the victim,[24] who, in
a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the appellant as
the one who had sexually molested her in the afternoon of
Clearly from the foregoing, the prosecution
witnesses persuasively established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the
appellant of the crime of consummated rape.
Thus, this Court is convinced that the trial court and the appellate
court correctly convicted him of the crime of rape,[25]
which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.[26]
This
Court affirms the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity given by the Court
of Appeals 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.[27]
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 the
victim’s recital thereof at the trial, since we even assume and acknowledge
such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[28] Thus, this Court finds the award of moral
damages by both lower courts in the amount of P50,000.00, proper.
As to the award of exemplary damages,
the same must be deleted. Article 2231
of the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be awarded if the crime
was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[29] Thus, this Court is constrained not to award
exemplary damages in this case, since no aggravating circumstances attended the
commission of the crime.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00211-MIN dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice Acting Chairperson |
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
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.
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Acting 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
* Per
Special Order No. 679 dated
** Per
Special Order No. 681 dated
*** Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro was
designated to sit as additional member replacing Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with Associate Justices Teresita
Dy-Liacco Flores and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring; rollo, pp. 6-23.
[2] Penned
by Judge German M. Malcampo; CA rollo,
pp. 10-30.
[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. 4-5.
[5] Testimony
of AAA, TSN,
[6]
[7] Testimony
of Ariel Estabillo, TSN,
[8] Testimony
of BBB, TSN,
[9] Testimony
of PO1 Melinda Dedoro Rosal, TSN,
[10] Records,
p. 12.
[11] Testimony
of Dr. Alfredo Calingin, TSN,
[12] Testimony
of PO1 Melinda Dedoro Rosal, TSN,
[13] Testimony
of the appellant, TSN,
[14] CA rollo, pp. 29-30.
[15] G.R.
Nos. 147678-87,
[16] CA rollo, p. 61.
[17] People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 179190,
[18] People v. Jose, 367 Phil. 68, 76 (1999).
[19] People v. Lopez,
362 Phil. 285, 293 (1999).
[20] People v. Velasquez, 427 Phil. 454, 461 (2002).
[21] Testimony
of AAA, TSN,
[22] People v. Galisim, 421 Phil. 638, 647 (2001).
[23] Testimony
of Ariel Estabillo, TSN,
[24] People v. Agravante, 392 Phil. 543, 551
(2000).
[25] 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:
x
x x x
d) When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age x x x (Revised Penal Code).
[26] ART.
266-B. Penalties.-Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. (Revised Penal Code).
[27] People v. Callos, 424 Phil. 506, 516 (2002).
[28] People v. Docena, 379 Phil. 903, 917-918
(2000).
[29] People v. Amba,
417 Phil. 852, 865 (2001).