|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee,
- versus - WILLY MARDO GANOY y
MAMAYABAY, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 174370 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO,*
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,**and BRION, JJ.
Promulgated: July
23, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
On appeal is the June 30, 2006 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. H.C.- CR No. 01196 which affirmed with
modification the August 8, 2003 Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela City in Criminal Case No. 222-V-02 finding Willy Mardo Ganoy y Mamayabay
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. The accusatory portion of the Information against
appellant reads:
That on or about March 28, [2002] in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of one [AAA], 17 years old, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said [AAA], 17 years old, thereby subjecting the said minor to sexual abuse which debased, degraded and demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.[3]
Gathered from the evidence for the prosecution is the following version:
In
the early morning of March 28, 2002, AAA, then 17 years old and working as a waitress
at Manay’s Videoke Bar in Ugong,
Valenzuela City, served two bottles of beer to appellant who had a year earlier
been introduced to her by her boyfriend.[4]
Since the introduction, however, appellant
had made attempts to win her affection.
At around 1:30 a.m., AAA boarded a tricycle on her way to a brother’s residence
at Mapulang Lupa, Valenzuela. About 70 meters away from the videoke bar,
appellant flagged down the tricycle and boarded it.
Asked by appellant where she was
going, AAA replied that she was going to meet her brother at his house. [5] Upon reaching the house, however, her brother
was not around. The two thereupon boarded
another tricycle to look for him at the Home Centrum, also in Mapulang Lupa.[6]
As tricycles could not enter the Home
Centrum, the two alighted from the tricycle and proceeded to the inner area
going towards it. On approaching a dimly lighted area, appellant suddenly grabbed
AAA and dragged her to a nearby vacant lot. When AAA tried to run, appellant twisted her
hands and arms and as she struggled to free herself and shouted for help, the
more appellant twisted her hands and pulled her down. Her head hit a stone on
the ground which rendered her dizzy. Appellant then held her by the neck,
pulled out a knife which he poked at the side of her body, and warned her that
“lalagyan ng gripo ang tagiliran ko.” Appellant
then pulled down her underwear and lifted her skirt and had sexual intercourse
with her against her will. He later brought
her to a deserted bodega and held her there until daybreak.[7]
Upon her release, AAA went directly
to the Paso de Blas Police Substation at the Malinta North Luzon Expressway Exit
to report that she was raped. Police
officers, accompanied by AAA, thus proceeded to the house of appellant where he
was arrested.[8]
Dr. Winston S. Tan, Medico-Legal
Officer of the Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City who examined AAA on the
same day, March 28, 2002, concluded in his Medico-Legal Report[9]that the
“findings are compatible with recent sexual intercourse” based on the
following:
GENERAL
AND EXTRAGENITAL:
PHYSICAL BUILT: Medium built
MENTAL STATUS: Coherent female subject
BREAST: Hemispherical in shape with dark brown areola and nipples from which no secretions could be pressed out.
ABDOMEN: Flat and soft
PHYSICAL INJURIES: An abrasion is noted at the left costal region, measuring 9 x 2 cm, 14 cm from the posterior midline.
GENITAL:
PUBLIC [sic] HAIR: Abundant growth
LABIA MAJORA: Full, convex and gaping
LABIA MINORA: Pinkish brown
HYMEN: Carunculae myrtiformis
POSTERIOIR [sic] FOURCHETTE: Abraded
EXTERNAL VAGINAL ORIFICE: Offers slight resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger.
VAGINAL CANAL: Wide with flattened rugosities.
CERVIX:
PERIURETHRAL AND VAGINAL
SMEARS: POSITIVE for spermatozoa but NEGATIVE for gram-negative diplococci.
x x x x (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
For the defense, appellant and his
witnesses Raulito Bato and Amy Bilamera took the witness stand.
Raulito Bato testified that before
3:00 a.m. of March 28, 2002, while he was sleeping at the warehouse located at
Candido Compound, Valenzuela City which also served as the sleeping quarters of
his four co-stay-in workers, he was awakened by a noise. He later saw appellant jump over the gate of
the warehouse. Fifteen minutes later, he
saw a girl whom he recognized as AAA, who used to go to the warehouse once a
month, enter the compound. He soon heard
AAA asking money from appellant.[10]
Amy Bilamera, who was also working
at the videoke bar, testified that on March 27, 2002, she saw AAA talking
to appellant whom she knew to be AAA’s boyfriend, AAA telling appellant that
she would go to Bulacan.[11]
She further testified that before the
incident, AAA delivered a child on
Appellant claimed that on March 28,
2002, he went to the videoke bar as instructed by AAA, his girlfriend since May
1998. He left the videoke bar at 2:00 a.m.
and proceeded to the warehouse. AAA
followed him as she wanted to apologize for their quarrel the night before.[13]
Appellant further claimed that he impregnated
AAA but she had the child aborted, hence, she needed money to pay for hospital
bills. He did not give her money,
however, so she left. He then went home where
he was arrested at around
Finding for AAA, the trial court ratiocinated:
The
claim of the accused that he and the complainant were sweethearts is simply fantastic
under the obtaining circumstance of the case. Outside of his assertion that
they were sweethearts, there was no evidence adduced by the accused to show
such relationship from 1998 to the day he went to the Manay Videoke Bar in the
evening of March 28, 2002. No lovenote and no momento [sic] were presented to prove that such romantic relationship
existed.
The
conduct of the complainant of reporting the incident to the police right after
[s]he was freed by the accused indicates the truthfulness of her claim that she
was raped. The finding of the medico[-]legal officer as to the presence of
physical injuries on the person or the complainant and the fact that she
was tested positive for spermatozoa when she was examined a few hours
after the incident corroborate the testimony of the complainant that the
accused forcedfully [sic] imposed his sexual gratification on her.
Testifying
in support of his alibi, the accused was confused and evasive. The accused
was less than categorical as to the alleged date when the complainant had an
abortion of the child he had with her. This is so because the accused never
had a child with the complainant. The accused and Bato who was presented
to corroborate the alibi of the accused contradicted each other as to
what happened when the accused allegedly arrived at the warehouse that early
morning of
By Decision of August 8, 2003,[16]
the trial court found him guilty as charged, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused WILLY MARDO GANOY y MAMAYABAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt and as principal of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Further, the accused is sentenced to pay complainant [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Finally, the accused is sentenced to pay the costs of suit.[17] (Underscoring in the original)
This Court to which
appellant appealed[18] referred
the case to the Court of Appeals by Resolution of June 8, 2005[19] following
People v. Mateo.[20]
By Decision of June 30, 2006,[21]
the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. Thus it disposed:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the court a quo’s Decision
dated 08 August 2003 is perforce AFFIRMED,
with the MODIFICATION that aside
from the moral damages awarded to the victim, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00
be likewise awarded in line with the ruling in People v. Calisao, 372 SCRA
25.[22] (Emphasis and italics in the original)
In his Supplemental Brief[23]
filed before this Court, appellant, describing the testimony of AAA as not
“clear, convincing and free from material contradictions,” argues that his
guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and that his sweetheart
defense should not have been brushed aside as it is credible and corroborated
by two witnesses.
The evaluation of the credibility
of witnesses in rape cases is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
judge whose conclusion deserves much weight and respect because he/she has the
direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are
telling the truth or not.[24]
In brushing aside the defense of appellant, the appellate
court held:
It is an undisputed fact that on the fateful
day of 28 March 2002, [AAA] was only 17 years old. Mathematically speaking, if
we were made to believe accused-appellant Ganoy’s claim that he and [AAA] were
sweethearts in 1998, she was only barely thirteen at that time. As to when,
where and under what circumstances they came to know each other, were
not established by sufficient and competent evidence. In fact, in 2001 [AAA]
was still studying at the
AAA’s credibility gains light from the fact that she lost no time to immediately
report the commission of the rape to police authorities.[26]
The presence of spermatozoa in
complainant’s vagina as reflected in the above-quoted Medico-Legal Report of
her examination on the same day she claimed to have been raped all the more
fortifies the case for AAA.
In fine, the Court finds that appellant failed to overcome the
prosecution evidence showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the June 30, 2006 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-GR H.C. – CR No. 01196 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISU
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
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