Republic
of the SUPREME
COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - JESUS
PARAGAS CRUZ,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186129 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO,
JR., and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: August
4, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 30, 2008
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01760, which affirmed the August 12, 2002 Decision in
Criminal Case No. 99-329 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 259 in Parañaque City.
Accused-appellant
Jesus Paragas Cruz was convicted of one (1) count of rape or violation of
paragraph 1(a), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. He was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Facts
The
Information dated February 23, 1999 against Cruz alleged the following:
That on or about the 6th day of June 1998
in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge
with one [AAA],[1] a minor,
9 years old, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Upon arraignment on July 8, 1999, Cruz
pleaded not guilty.
The
prosecution offered the testimony of the following witnesses: PO3 Maria
Bautista; Dr. Winston Tan; the victim’s mother, BBB; and Emiliano Mariano, the barangay tanod of San Dionisio,
Version of the Prosecution
On
June 6, 1998, AAA, then a nine-year old, was at her house watching television
with her cousin Jady. It was past three in the afternoon when Jady left to go to
her grandmother’s house. Upon her departure, Cruz abruptly entered the house
and turned off the television. He closed the windows and told AAA to remove her
shorts. She did as instructed. Cruz
later kissed AAA and touched her vagina. She felt pain as he inserted his penis
into her vagina. She did not do anything, however, as she was fearful of Cruz.
To intimidate her further, Cruz threatened to kill her should she report what
had just happened. He then left in a
hurry and closed the door of the house.[3]
AAA
tried her best to keep the rape a secret as she was terrified that Cruz would
come back and kill her. Nevertheless, she told her mother BBB what happened to
her a few months later. BBB subsequently told Cruz’s wife of what she had just
discovered. Thereafter, BBB took her
daughter to the barangay hall and
then to the police station to report the matter to the authorities.[4]
A
medical examination was conducted on AAA by Dr. Winston Tan. His report showed
that AAA had two (2) hymenal lacerations. One was a deep-healed laceration at
the 3 o’clock position and another one a shallow healed laceration at the 5
o’clock position.[5]
Version of the Defense
Maintaining
his innocence, Cruz claimed that at the time of the rape he was with Antonio
Gonzales in
Cruz’s
wife Melinda corroborated his story by saying that they seldom had sexual
intercourse after 1995 as he had become impotent. Dr. Darius Mariano,
meanwhile, diagnosed Cruz in 2001 as suffering from erectile dysfunction.[7]
The Ruling of the Trial Court
The
RTC found Cruz guilty for the crime charged. It found Cruz’s defense too
shallow in light of his positive identification as the perpetrator of the rape.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding accused Jesus
Paragas Cruz GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under par. 1(c) Art. 266-A
RA 8353 in relation to Sec. 5(b) RA 7610; this Court hereby sentences him to
reclusion perpetua and to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law,
particularly Art. 41 of the Revised Penal Code. For the civil liability, he is
further condemned to pay the amount of P100,000.00 as actual and moral damages.
x x x
x
SO
ORDERED.[8]
On
June 25, 2008, Cruz filed his Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision.
The Ruling of the CA
Cruz,
in arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him, alleged that AAA’s
hymenal lacerations could have been caused by means other than sexual
intercourse. He furthermore submitted that his erectile dysfunction raised
doubts as to his culpability.
Additionally, he claimed that the corroboration of his alibi by two
other witnesses should not have been disregarded.
The
CA found Cruz’s assertions without merit. It ruled that his impotency was not
proved with certainty. The appellate court pointed out that the medical finding
of erectile dysfunction was based on an examination more than three years after
the rape occurred; thus, no categorical conclusion could be made that Cruz was
impotent when the rape was committed.
Following
jurisprudence on the subject matter, the appellate court held that it was hard
to believe AAA’s mother would file rape charges against Cruz because of a land
dispute, seeing as it would cause AAA embarrassment and subject her to a
lifelong stigma. As to Cruz’s alibi, the CA opined that he was not able to
prove the physical impossibility of his having committed the crime.
The fallo of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that accused-appellant JESUS PARAGAS CRUZ is
ordered to pay private complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00
as moral damages, and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. The
awarded amount of P100,000.00 is DELETED. The Decision stands in all other
respects.
SO
ORDERED.[9]
On March 11, 2009, this Court required the parties to submit
supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested their
willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already submitted.
The Issue
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE
Cruz
reiterates his previous assertions, i.e., that (1) the victim’s hymenal
lacerations could have been caused by a non-sexual act; (2) Cruz’s erectile
dysfunction made it impossible for him to commit rape; and (3) his alibi that
he was elsewhere at the time of the rape deserves more weight as it was
corroborated by two other witnesses.
Non-Sexual Cause of Hymenal Lacerations
Courts
use the following principles in deciding rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but
more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) due to
the nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are
usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense. Due to the nature of this crime, conviction for rape
may be solely based on the complainant’s testimony provided it is credible,
natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of
things.[10]
Bearing
the aforementioned principles in mind, we find the prosecution’s evidence
sufficient for a conviction. The claim that AAA’s hymenal lacerations could
have been caused by something other than sexual congress is distinctly
speculative and does not throw any doubt as to the fact of rape. What is more, proof
of hymenal laceration is not even an element of rape so long as there is enough
proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the
female organ.[11]
We
have gleaned from the records a credible and straightforward account of the
rape from the victim herself. She was unflinching both during her direct and
cross-examinations and was categorical in identifying Cruz as the rapist. We,
thus, concur with both the trial and appellate courts in holding that AAA’s
testimony is enough to hold Cruz liable. Most important in a prosecution for
statutory rape is to prove the following elements: (1) that the accused had
carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was below 12 years of
age. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape.[12] These elements were sufficiently established
during trial and were not rebutted by the defense with any solid evidence to
the contrary. As the trial court was in
a better position to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, we
respect its findings of fact especially as these were sustained by the CA.[13]
Impotence as a Defense
As
a defense, impotence is both a physical and medical question that should be
satisfactorily established with the aid of an expert and competent testimony.[14] Impotency as a defense in rape cases must
likewise be proved with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of
potency.[15] While
Cruz was indeed diagnosed as suffering from erectile dysfunction, this does not
preclude the possibility of his having sexual intercourse with AAA. As the CA observed
accurately, AAA was raped in 1998 while the medical examination of Cruz was
conducted in 2001. A good three years had already lapsed since AAA had been
sexually abused. The diagnosis on Cruz in 2001 is, therefore, useless to
disprove his sexual potency at the time of the rape incident. It merely
corroborates his assertion that he is currently sexually impotent, and not that
he has been so since 1995. Cruz was not able to adduce hard evidence to demonstrate
his impotency prior to or on June 6, 1998 when the crime of rape was committed.
Moreover, assuming arguendo that he
was indeed impotent since 1995, it does not discount the possibility that his
erection was cured by drugs like Viagra or
Ciales. There was simply no proof of
his alleged impotency on June 6, 1998 when the beastly act of rape was
committed against AAA.
Furthermore,
we find the testimony of Cruz’s wife Melinda more harmful than helpful to the
theory of the defense. It can be recalled that she testified as to having
infrequent sexual intercourse with her husband after 1995 because he had become
impotent. This contradicts Cruz’s claim that it was impossible for him to have
raped AAA because of his medical condition. Apparently his alleged impotence,
which started in 1995, did not completely stop him from engaging in sexual
intercourse over the years.
Erectile
dysfunction or ED can be a total inability to achieve erection, an inconsistent
ability to do so, or a tendency to sustain only brief erections. These
variations make defining ED and estimating its incidence difficult.[16] The testimony of the doctor who examined Cruz
in 2001 did not specify what kind of ED Cruz was suffering from. Cruz’s
impotency cannot, therefore, be considered as completely eliminating the
possibility of sexual intercourse.
Defense of Alibi
Cruz’s
final argument likewise fails to convince this Court. He relies on as alibi his
presence in
Penalty Imposed
The
award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 in simple rape cases without need of
pleading or proof is correct.[18]
In addition, moral damages of PhP 50,000 were also correctly awarded.[19] These are automatically granted in rape cases
without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[20] Exemplary damages were appropriately
awarded by way of public example and to protect the young from sexual
predators. We, however, increase the award to PhP 30,000 in accordance with
prevailing jurisprudence.[21]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01760
finding accused-appellant Jesus Paragas Cruz guilty of statutory rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is increased to
PhP 30,000.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
RENATO C. CORONA MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
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.
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] The real name and the personal circumstances of the victim and her immediate relatives are withheld per R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act). See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426.
[10] People v. Lagarde, G.R. No. 182549, January 20, 2009; citing People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 167756, April 9, 2008, 551 SCRA 16, 31.