Republic
of the
SUPREME
COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ELMER
BARBEROS alias “EMIE,” Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 187494 Present: VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, PERALTA,
and Promulgated: December
23, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
Before
us is an appeal from the Decision[1]
dated March 5, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 00316
which affirmed with modification the Judgment[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 in Cebu City, convicting accused-appellant
Elmer Barberos alias “Emie” of the crime of rape.
The Facts
In
an Information dated January 11, 1999 filed before the RTC of Cebu City and
docketed thereat as Criminal Case No. CBU-49307, appellant Elmer was indicted
for the crime of rape, as defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353,[3] allegedly committed as follows:
That on
or about the 22nd day of December 1998, at around 12:00 o’clock past dawn, more or less, in
Sitio Cambuntan, Barangay Bolinawan, Municipality of Carcar, Province of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, with lewd
design and by means of force and intimidation, the accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously choke her throat and threaten her “SABA
RON KAY PATYON TA KA” (GO AHEAD SHOUT AND I WILL KILL YOU), then forcibly open
her short pants and panty, tearing her sando, place himself on top of her and
forcibly insert his penis into her vagina and succeed in having sexual
intercourse with x x x [AAA], a 15 year-old girl against her will and consent.[4]
Upon
arraignment, Elmer pleaded not guilty to the above charge.
Version of the
Prosecution
The
prosecution presented the following witnesses: AAA, the private complainant,
and Dr. Daphnie Rana, the examining doctor, to establish the following facts:
In
the evening of December 21, 1998, AAA, then 15 years old, along with four
friends, watched a variety show near the
After
a while, Elmer made his move and, despite AAA’s loud protestation, succeeded in
placing himself on top of AAA, who shouted for help but only to be choked and
told, “Saba ron kay patyon ta ka.” (Do not shout, otherwise I
will kill you.) AAA’s attempt to wrestle
herself free from Elmer’s hold did not prevent the latter from getting inside
her, although she felt a less-than-total penetration. And at some point during
the struggle, AAA was able to cover her private part with her left hand while
grabbing Elmer’s sex organ with her right hand.
Then,
someone knocked at the door. When Elmer stood up to open it, AAA lost no time
in picking up her short pants and panty and jumped out the window. Upon
reaching her grandmother’s place at around 1:00 a.m., she told her grandmother
the ordeal she just went through. She
then washed herself. Even at that late
hour, she was raring to report the incident to the police until she noticed
Elmer standing outside their house.
At
about 10:00 a.m. of December 22, 1998, AAA, with her mother, reported the
matter to the police. From Carcar, AAA and her mother, accompanied by a
policewoman, proceeded to the
Version of the Defense
Elmer denied the crime imputed to him. To buttress his defense, Elmer presented his
wife, Paterna, who testified being in the vicinity of AAA’s grandmother’s house
when AAA’s father and uncle were having an argument. Apparently, the uncle fired at AAA’s father, with
the explosion and noisy altercation attracting the neighbors.
Upon
reaching home on the night in question, Paterna was surprised to find a crying AAA
on the second floor, visibly afraid because of the firing incident and crying
her help. When Elmer arrived with one Elijorde Paniroso,[5]
AAA rushed toward the window apparently to flee and, despite Elmer’s admonition
to be careful, eventually jumped out.
The
defense proffered the theory that the fabricated rape charge was due to a
standing feud between the Barberoses and AAA’s family which started when the
Barberoses built their house on a piece of land formerly tilled by AAA’s
family.
The Ruling
of the RTC
After
trial, the RTC, on November 13, 2000, rendered judgment,[6]
finding Elmer guilty of the crime charged and accordingly sentenced him,
thus:
WHEREFORE,
foregoing premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered finding the accused
ELMER BARBEROS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE falling under paragraph
1, subparagraph a, ART. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No.
8351 [sic] and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA as
imposed under ART. 266-B of the same Code, as amended.
Accused
is, likewise, ordered to pay private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as
his civil liability to her.
SO
ORDERED.[7]
Therefrom,
Elmer appealed directly to this Court, the appeal initially docketed as G.R.
No. 147241. Following, however, the
submission by the parties of their respective briefs, People v. Mateo[8]
was promulgated. And in line with Mateo, the Court, via its November
22, 2004 Resolution,[9]
referred the instant case to the CA for intermediate review.
The Ruling
of the CA
On March 5, 2008, in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No.
00316, the appellate court rendered the appealed decision, affirming that of
the RTC, but with the modification awarding AAA moral damages in the amount of
PhP 50,000. The fallo of the CA decision reads:
All
told, the assailed Decision dated 13 November 2000 by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 14, in
SO
ORDERED.[10]
On
April 3, 2008, Elmer filed his notice of appeal, to which the CA, per its resolution
of December 12, 2008, gave due course.
In response to the Court’s Resolution for them
to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired, the parties manifested their
willingness to have the case resolved on the basis of the Brief for the
Accused-Appellant[11]
and Brief for the Appellee,[12]
respectively, filed in G.R. No. 147241.
The Issues
Consequently,
from his Brief, appellant raises the same assignments of errors earlier passed
over and resolved by the CA, to wit: first,
that the courts a quo erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of rape; and second, that the courts a quo gravely
erred in adjudging him guilty of consummated rape instead of attempted rape.
The
Court’s Ruling
After
a circumspect review of the records, the Court affirms appellant’s conviction.
Prefatorily,
while it is not wont to go over and re-assess the evidence adduced during the
trial, more so when the appellate court affirms the findings and conclusions of
the trial court, the Court, in criminal cases falling under its review
jurisdiction under the Constitution,[13]
is nonetheless tasked to assiduously review such cases, as in the instant
appeal. Besides, utmost care is required
in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape due to the pernicious
consequences such conviction bear on both the accused and the offended party.[14]
By
the distinctive nature of rape cases, conviction usually rests solely on the
basis of the victim’s testimony, provided it is credible, natural, convincing,
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[15]
Accordingly, the Court has unfailingly adhered to the following guiding
principles in the review of similar cases, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; while the accusation is difficult to
prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove;
(2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons are usually
involved in the crime of rape, 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. [16]
Complementing
the foregoing principles is the rule that the credibility of the victim is
always the single most important issue in prosecution for rape;[17]
that in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, the highest degree of
respect must be afforded to the findings of the trial court.[18]
Rape
is defined and penalized under Arts. 266-A and 266-B of the RPC, as amended,
which provide:
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;
b.
When
the offended party is deprived of
reason or is otherwise unconscious;
x x x x (R.A. No. 8353, October 22, 1997.)
ART.
266-B. Penalties. — Rape under
paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus,
in context, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that
(1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2) through force,
threat, or intimidation.
In
the instant case, the prosecution established the elements of carnal knowledge
and the force, threat, or intimidation employed. AAA, with firmness and
certainty, pointed to appellant Elmer as the person who sexually molested
her. She never wavered in her
identification and was straightforward in her narration of how the assault occurred. Both the RTC and CA found the eloquent
testimony of AAA positive and candid, and not at all rebutted during the
cross-examination, thus deserving full weight and credit. To quote directly from the records:
Atty.
Yongco: What is the full name of this
Emie you are referring to?
AAA: Elmer Barberos my neighbor.
Q: You mean the accused in this case?
A: Yes.
x x x x
Q: After he put his arms around your
shoulder, what did he say if any?
A: He told me that don’t worry about that ….
x x x x
Q: After then (sic) after that, what
happened next?
A: He told me he will keep me in his
residence.
Q: Did you not ask why he is going to keep
you in his residence?
A: He told me that he will just keep me in
his residence because if my uncle would see me he might kill me.
x x x x
Q: After you were told by Emie that he will
keep you in his residence, what did you do?
A: I went with him.
x x x x
Q: Was there anybody in the house when you
reached the house?
A: None.
x x x x
Q: After Elmer Barberos told you that you
will go upstairs, what did he do if any?
A: He told me that we will put off the
light because if the house is lighted my uncle might see me and he will kill me
and I might be seen outside.
Q: And so did Elmer Barberos put off the
light inside the house?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
x x x x
Q: After the accused and you entered the
room, what did the accused do?
A: He closed the door.
Q: After Elmer Barberos closed the door,
what did Elmer Barberos do after he closed the door?
A: Maybe he locked the door because I
cannot really see it because it was dark.
Q: So when you were already inside the room
and after the accused closed and locked the door, what happened next?
A: He conversed with me.
Q: What was the topic he conversed with
you?
x
x x x
Q: After you told him that you wanted to go
home, what did Elmer Barberos answer?
A: He told me later only.
Q: So what did you do when Elmer Barberos
told you to wait?
A: I told Elmer Barberos I will just go
home because they might be looking for me and they might have finished their
fight.
Q: So when you [said] that to Elmer
Barberos, what did Elmer Barberos do?
A: Elmer Barberos told me you are a fool
and he immediately put his body on top of me.
Q: So after Elmer Barberos told you you are
a fool and put himself on top of you, what happened to you?
A: I shouted for help.
Q: How did you exactly shout for help at
that time?
A: I shouted Ma, help me Ma because Elmer
Barberos put himself on top of me.
Atty.
Yongco: I would like to put on
record, Your Honor, that the witness is crying when she uttered the statement.
Q: After you made a shout for help, what
did Elmer Barberos do?
A: He choked my throat and told me if
you will shout I will kill you.
Q: After Elmer Barberos told you that he
will kill you, what did Elmer Barberos do after that?
A: His body was on top of me and he pushed
and pull.
COURT: If the accused is inside the courtroom,
can you identify him?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you point to the person?
A: That one.
COURT
INTERPRETER: The witness pointed to
the person who responded that his name is Elmer Barberos while the victim kept
on crying.
Q: At that time what were you wearing?
A: I was wearing a white t-shirt and maong
short pants.
x x x x
Q: You said that after Elmer Barberos
choked you and told you not to make any noise because he will kill you, he made
a push and pull motion. At that time he
was making the push and pull motion were you wearing your shorts?
A: I was wearing maong short pants and he
immediately pulled out my short pants.
x x x x
A: He forcibly pull[ed] down my short pants
because it was loose.
Q: When accused Elmer Barberos pull[ed] down
your short pants, was there anything left in your underwear?
A: No more because when he pulled down my
short pants my panty went with the short pants.
x x x x
Q: And so after Elmer Barberos pulled down
your short pants together with your panty, what did Elmer Barberos do after
that?
A: We wrestled because I resisted. There was a time that I was on top and the
next time I was under him.
Q: So after you wrestled with Elmer
Barberos, what happened?
A: His penis was inside my vagina but it
did not penetrate. It just stayed on the
lip of my vagina.
Q: And at that time what did you feel?
A: I felt pain but then again I resisted.
Q: You were telling that the penis of the
accused has touched your vagina, what was your position at that time in
relation to the position of the accused Barberos?
A: At that time when his penis touched the
lip of my vagina my position was lying.
Afterwards I wrestled again so at that time I was on top of him again.
x x x x
Q: So with that position that you were
lying with your right hand at your back, what did the accused Elmer Barberos
do?
A: When I was lying while my right hand was
at my back he wanted again for the second time to insert his penis into my
vagina but I used my left hand in covering my vagina.
x x x x
Q: And so when you were in that position,
what did you feel if any on your vagina because accused Barberos according to
you was trying to push his penis to your vagina?
A: Since I kept on moving at that time
my right hand was able to release from my back and I took hold of his penis.
Q: After you took hold of the penis of the
accused Elmer Barberos, what happened?
A: Somebody knocked at the door.
x x x x
Q: And so did Elmer Barberos open the door?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: So when Elmer Barberos went to open the
door, what did you do?
A: I took my short pants and panty. And since I was near the window I prayed for
the help of God, I made a sign of the cross and immediately jumped over the
window.[19] (Emphasis supplied.)
The
foregoing positive testimony of AAA, as well as the rage that went into it, are
badges of truth and sincerity. When the
offended party is of tender age and immature, as here, courts are inclined to
give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her
relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which she would
be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true.[20] Judging from her live birth certificate,[21] AAA was 15 years old at the time of the
incident, barely 16 or 17 when she took the witness stand in 2000. It is
settled that when a girl, more so when she is in her early teens, says she has
been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was
committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, that is
sufficient to convict the accused.[22] As
it were, AAA’s testimony as to her hideous experience in the hands of appellant
deserves full faith and credit, given as it were in a straightforward and
candid manner, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and bereft of inconsistencies,
or contradictions in material points.[23]
Auguring
well for AAA’s credibility was her eagerness to report right away to the proper
authorities a crime committed against her person. When her grandmother exhibited reluctance
about immediately reporting the matter to the police, she took it upon herself
to do so, but was prevented only by the presence of appellant outside her
grandmother’s house. But the very next
morning, she lost no time in going to the police station to report the rape
incident.
The
physical examination Dr. Rana conducted on AAA several hours after the incident
happened also amply explains and corroborates her testimony on the fact of
partial penile penetration. The medical
findings of Dr. Rana embodied in her Medical Report[24]
are consistent with the partial penetration testified to.
Appellant has made much of Dr. Rana’s
report on the absence of medical traces of hymenal laceration on
AAA. Given, however, the unwavering
sworn account of AAA as to what she went through in appellant’s hands,
the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical
manifestation of rape weakens the case against the latter. The medical report
on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of external
signs or physical injuries on the complainant’s body does not necessarily negate
the commission of rape.[25]
This is because hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape,[26]
albeit a healed or fresh laceration is a compelling proof of defloration.[27]
What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s
testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical
examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the
victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[28]
In
a long line of cases, the Court has consistently held that full penile penetration
of the penis into the vagina is not required for the commission of rape, as
mere penile entry into the labia of the pudendum of the vagina,
even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a
conviction for rape. In People v.
Diunsay-Jalandoni,[29]
citing People v. Iluis,[30]
we ratiocinated, thus:
Further,
the absence of external signs of violence does not negate the commission of
rape. Nor is the absence of spermatozoa
material in the prosecution of a rape case.
A freshly broken hymen is, likewise, not an essential element of rape,
and healed lacerations do not negate rape because full penetration is not
necessary to consummate rape. Penetration
of the penis by entry into the labia of the pudendum of the
vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a
conviction of rape.[31] (Emphasis supplied.)
In
light of the foregoing disquisition, the Court need not belabor the issue as to
whether appellant’s liability is only for attempted, not consummated, rape. Suffice
it to state that the trial court, joined by the CA, found appellant’s penis to
have touched the labia and penetrated
AAA’s vagina, albeit unsuccessful in completely entering it. Full penile penetration is not a consummating
ingredient in the crime of rape. The mere knocking at the door of the pudendum by the accused’s penis suffices
to constitute the crime of rape.[32]
As
to the means used in the sexual assault, the prosecution had likewise
sufficiently showed the force, threat, and intimidation employed by appellant
to satisfy his lust. It must be borne in
mind that in rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in light of the
victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the
crime. As a matter of settled
jurisprudence, rape is subjective and not all victims react the same way; there
is in fine no stereotypical form of behavior of a woman when facing a traumatic
experience, such as a sexual assault.[33]
In
the instant case, however, AAA, true to human nature, resisted with all her
might the beastly act perpetrated on her. When appellant grabbed her and placed
himself on top of her, AAA cried for help which prompted Elmer to choke her and
threaten her with death. Yet, while
deterred from shouting, AAA still struggled resolutely—as her eloquent
testimony above-quoted shows—such that Elmer was not able to achieve full
penile penetration. Her vigorous
resistance resulted in her being able to cover her vagina with her left hand
while eventually holding Elmer’s penis forcefully with her right hand.
Not
lost on the Court is the established fact of AAA jumping from the second floor
of Barberoses’ dwelling. She said that
she did it just to escape from Elmer’s clutches, unmindful of the physical harm
it might bring to her. This is similar
to running away from danger out of uncontrollable fear, heedless of any
resultant injury that might occur, considering, in the instant case, that the
leap entailed a fall from a considerable height.
The
defense had offered a theory about the jumping incident. The arrival of appellant
and his friend, Elijorde, allegedly so frightened the hiding AAA that she was
forced to jump from the second floor window. This is, of course, incredulous,
for if AAA indeed sought shelter in the Barberoses’ residence out of fear of
her uncle, as Paterna asserted in the witness box, the Court cannot understand
why the mere arrival and sight of the appellant and Elijorde would give AAA a
scare.
Paterna’s
naturally biased testimony in support of her husband’s denial of culpability
deserves scant consideration in light of the positive identification and
categorical declaration made by AAA against the appellant. When the denial of the accused is tended to be
established only by himself, his relatives, or friends, such denial should be
accorded the strictest scrutiny––it is necessarily suspect and cannot prevail
over the testimonies of the more credible testimonies for the prosecution.[34]
So it must be here.
The thesis the defense espoused that AAA’s
family fabricated the charge against Elmer owing to some misunderstanding over
a piece of land taxes credulity. For
one, no credible evidence had been adduced to prove the supposed land dispute. For
another, the lengthy narrative of AAA of how appellant ravished her strikes the
Court as a product of her thirst for justice, not as a jumping board to settle
old slight. And for a third, the
presence of the elements of the crime of rape had been sufficiently established.
In People v. Gagto, we
held that “not a few accused in rape cases have attributed the charges brought
against them to family feuds, resentment, or revenge. But such alleged
motives have never swayed the court from lending full credence to the testimony
of the complainant who remained steadfast throughout her direct and cross
examinations, especially a minor in this case.” [35]
The
Court also affirms the penalty thus meted on the appellant, reclusion perpetua being the imposable
penalty even for unqualified rape. Finally, the award by the CA of moral
damages in the amount of PhP 50,000, on top of the award of PhP 50,000 as civil
indemnity ex delicto, is
in order, even without further proof of moral suffering or anguish, as People v.
Jumawid[36] and
other cases teach.[37]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we AFFIRM IN TOTO the March 5, 2008 Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 00316.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
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.
RENATO C. CORONA
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] Rollo, pp. 4-20. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 20-26. Penned by Presiding Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza, Sr.
[3] Otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which became effective on October 22, 1997.
[4] CA rollo, p. 12. Amended Information.
[5] His testimony for the defense was stricken off the record for his failure to appear during cross examination.
[6] Supra note 2.
[7]
[8] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[9] CA rollo, pp. 130-131.
[10] Rollo, p. 19.
[11] CA rollo, pp. 42-58, dated January 22, 2002.
[12]
[13] Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2)(d) of the 1987 Constitution provides:
SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: x x x x
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts x x x.
[14] People v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 318, 329.
[15] People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 168101, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 435, 444.
[16] People v. Glivano, G.R. No. 177565, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 656, 662; citing People v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA 318, 329.
[19] TSN, February 14, 2000.
[20] People v. Candaza, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 280, 295-296; Llave v. People, G.R. No. 166040, April 26, 2006, 488 SCRA 376, 400.
[21] Exhibit “D.”
[22] People v. Bidoc, G.R. No. 169430, October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 481.
[23] People v. Canuto, G.R. No. 169083, August 7, 2006, 498 SCRA 198, 216; citing People v. Baway, G.R. No. 130406, January 22, 2001, 350 SCRA 29, 46.
[24] Exhibit “A.”
[25] People v. Boromeo, G.R. No. 150501, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 533, 546.
[26] People v. Esteves, 438 Phil. 687, 699 (2002).
[28] People v. Logmao, 414 Phil. 378, 387 (2001).
[29] G.R. No. 174277, February 8, 2007, 515 SCRA 227.
[30] G.R. No. 145995, March 20, 2003, 399 SCRA 396, 406.
[31] Supra note 29, at 236.
[32] People v. Plurad, G.R. Nos. 138361-63, December 2, 2002, 393 SCRA 306.
[33] People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 172373, September 25, 2007, 534 SCRA 140, 145; People v. Balonzo, G.R. No. 176153, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 760, 771.
[34] People v, De Guzman, G.R. No. 173197, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA 207.
[35] G.R. No. 113345, February 9, 1996, 253 SCRA 455, 467-468.
[36] G.R. No. 184756, June 5, 2009.
[37] People v. Baldo, G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009, 580 SCRA 225.