THIRD DIVISION
|
People of the Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - benjie
resurreccion,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 185389 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: July 7, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is an appeal from the
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals filed by Benjie Resurreccion (Benjie), dated 24 March 2008,
which affirmed with modifications the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Branch 8, finding him guilty
of Simple Rape.
On
That on or about the 5th day of December,
2000 in the afternoon, at Purok XXX, Barangay XXX, Municipality of XXX, Province
of XXX, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the
above-named accused being the domestic helper of the parents of AAA,[3]
prompted by lewd designs, grabbed the hands of AAA an 11 year old girl and
forcibly brought the latter inside the room of AAA, cover her mouth did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally undress AAA and have sexual
intercourse with AAA against her will, to the damage and prejudice of AAA in
such amount as may be allowed by law.[4]
When arraigned on
2) That the private complainant, AAA, was only 12
years old at the time of the alleged incident of 5 December 2000, as evidenced
by her Certificate of Live Birth x x x.[6]
Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued.
The evidence of the prosecution -- as
culled from the testimonies of the victim (AAA), the victim’s aunt (BBB), and
Dr. Marlyn Valdez-Agbayani (City Health Officer who examined the victim), as
well as the documentary evidence -- are as follows:
AAA was born on
Right after the coitus, Benjie warned
AAA not to tell the incident to anyone; otherwise, something would happen to
her.
On
Dr. Marlyn Valdez-Agbayani examined
AAA and found that the victim had no laceration in her external organ or her
hymen. The former also testified that
there were no spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina. Despite these findings, Dr. Valdez-Agbayani
clarified that if the hymen of a woman is elastic and so thin, as in AAA’s
case, laceration may not be present.[9] As to the absence of spermatozoa in the
victim’s vagina, Dr. Valdez-Agbayani said that it was possible that the victim
washed her genitalia, especially since she was examined only after two days
following the alleged rape incident.[10]
The defense, on the other hand, raised
the defense of denial and presented the oral testimony of its lone witness,
Benjie.
Benjie denied raping AAA. He claimed AAA and her parents falsely accused
him since he often quarreled with her and was often scolded for this. Benjie claimed that the false accusation
against him was a retribution of AAA’s parents since they suspected him of
stealing P8,000.00 from them.
In a Decision dated P50,000.00
as damages. The decretal portion of the
RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused GUILTY of the
crime of simple rape only beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly sentences him
to the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all its accessories penalties and to
pay the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 as damages and the costs of
this suit.[11]
Unfazed, Benjie appealed the RTC
decision to the Court of Appeals. In a
Decision dated P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00
as moral damages. The dispositive part
of the Decision of the Court of Appeals states:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 8 in P50,000.00
as civil indemnity, in addition to the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages.[12]
Hence, the instant recourse.
Benjie contends that the RTC erred in
convicting him of rape, considering that the prosecution failed to present
evidence to warrant a finding of conviction. Benjie strongly objects to the RTC’s giving
credence to the victim’s testimony as to how the rape was committed, which,
according to him, was improbable. Benjie
insists that it is too difficult to imagine how he could have effectively had
sexual intercourse with AAA considering that, as the latter testified, his left
hand was covering her mouth and his right hand was pinning her down; thereby,
he was left with no hand to neutralize the legs of the victim, which were
violently kicking at him.
Benjie insists that there is a great
possibility that he did not commit the charge against him, since the medical
findings reveal no traces of sperm cells in AAA’s vagina. Likewise, Benjie stresses that AAA’s parents
had ill motive in accusing him, since the imputation came right after he was
being suspected of stealing their money.
To ascertain the guilt or innocence
of the accused in cases of rape, the courts have been traditionally guided by
three settled principles, namely: (a) an accusation for rape is easy to make,
difficult to prove and even more difficult to disprove; (b) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with utmost caution; and (c) the evidence of the prosecution must
stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.[13]
Since the crime of rape is
essentially one committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually
only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced coitus.[14] In its prosecution, therefore, the
credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important issue
to deal with.[15] If her testimony meets the test of
credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis thereof;
otherwise, he should be acquitted of the crime.[16]
Under the law and prevailing
jurisprudence, the "gravamen of the offense of statutory rape as provided
under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code is the carnal
knowledge of a woman below twelve years old.”[17] "The only elements of statutory rape
are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge
of a woman; and (2) that such woman is under 12 years of age. It is not necessary to prove that the victim
was intimidated or that force was used against her because in statutory rape
the law presumes that the victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot
have a will of her own.”[18] Although the prosecution inadvertently
proposed during the pre-trial conference the admission of the age of the victim
as being 12 years old, the pre-trial order was silent on whether the defense
concurred in such proposal. Such being the case, there was no categorical
admission as to the age of the victim. During
trial, the prosecution insisted on its stance that the victim was only 11 years
old at the time of the commission of the crime.
Without the objection of the defense, the prosecution presented the oral
testimony of the victim and her birth certificate tending to prove her age. Since the prosecution alleged in the
information and successfully proved during trial that the victim was below 12
years old, the alleged crime can be categorized as statutory rape. Having established the age of the victim, the
only remaining question is whether Benjie had carnal knowledge of her.
Here, after an assiduous evaluation
of the victim’s testimony, the RTC found that AAA was indeed abused by Benjie. The RTC was convinced of the trustworthiness
of AAA’s declarations, thus:
The Court has scrutinized carefully and in detail the
testimony of the private-complainant x x x and it is convinced that she is
telling the truth, which the accused failed to controvert by overwhelming
contrary evidence to establish his innocence.[19]
This Court itself, in its desire to
unveil the truth as borne out by the records, has painstakingly pored over the
transcripts of stenographic notes of this case, and like the RTC, finds the
victim’s testimony of the incident candid and straightforward, indicative of an
untainted and realistic narration of what transpired on that fateful day. She related the sexual assault in this manner:
Q: On December
5, year 2000, in the early afternoon, can you recall where were you?
A: I was in
our house.
x x x x
Q: You
said that you were in your house in that afternoon on December 5, year 2000,
who were your companions, if any, in your house?
A: Inside our
house aside from me was Benjie Resurreccion, because my other younger brothers
were outside the house playing.
Q: Now,
what kind of a house do you have, is it a two (2) storey house or one floor
only?
A: Our
house is a two storey house.
Q: You
said that you and Benjie Resurreccion, you mean Benjie Resurreccion, the
accused in this case?
A: Yes.
Q: Now,
where was he particularly in your house at that time?
A: In our
kitchen.
Q: How
about you, where were you particularly in your house during that time?
A: I was
already going inside in order to close our windows in the second floor and
first floor as it was already getting late.
x x x x
Q: Now,
after you closed the windows, what happened, if any?
A: I was
on my way to the first floor when Benjie grabbed me.
Q: Earlier
you said that you were closing the windows, windows of what portion of your
house, upper part of your house or first floor?
A: The
second storey, Your Honor.
Q: So
after as you said you were able to close the windows of the upper storey, what
happened next?
A: I was
then going down and on my way, I was suddenly grabbed by Benjie Resurreccion.
x x x x
Q: You
said that you were suddenly grabbed by Benjie, in what particular place were
you grabbed by Benjie?
A: When I
was on the first step of the stairs going down.
Q: After
you were grabbed by Benjie, what did he do next, if any?
A: He then
strongly covered my mouth and pulled me towards my own room.
x x x x
Q: After
you arrived inside your room, what happened next, if any?
A: He then
took me to the bed and he undressed me but at the same time he was still
covering my mouth with his hand.
Q: Now,
after you were brought to the bed, what did he do next, if any?
A: He then
undressed me, he removed my shorts including my T-shirt.
x x x x
Q: What
happened next, after your shorts and T-shirt were removed?
A: He laid
me down and then he molested me. (gi-iyot ko niya) .
COURT:
Q: Earlier
you stated that in the room he undressed you, meaning, by way of taking off
your shorts and T-shirt, does the Court understand that your panty was not
removed?
A: My
panty was also removed, Your Honor.
PROS. TORIBIO
Q: Now,
was his penis able to enter into your vagina, Miss AAA?
A: Yes.
Q: What
did you feel when the penis of the accused was already inside your vagina?
A: I felt
pain.
Q: After
that, what did the accused do next, if any?
A: After
he was through, he told me that I should not divulge the matter because if I
will do it, something is going to happen to me.[20]
The testimony of AAA adequately
proved beyond reasonable doubt that she was subjected to a bestial act by her
tormentor on
In stark contrast to the damning
evidence adduced by the prosecution, what Benjie could rally was only a defense
of denial. Between the self-serving testimony of Benjie, uncorroborated by any
witnesses or documents, and the positive declaration of the victim who was of
tender age, the latter deserves greater credence. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, Benjie’s baseless
allegations -- that the charge of rape was prompted by his constant bickering
with AAA and aggravated by her family’s anger at his alleged stealing of P8,000.00
from the family business -- were too flimsy and beg the Court’s credulity. Oft repeated is the truism that being a woman
of tender age, shy and ignorant of the sophistication of a man’s world, by no
stretch of imagination can we believe that considering her innate modesty,
humility and purity as a young Filipina, AAA would have permitted herself to be
the object of public ridicule, shame and obloquy as a victim of sexual assault
or debauchery.[21] It takes an extreme sense of moral depravity
for a very young girl to accuse someone of a heinous crime, such as rape, and
expose him to the perils attendant to a criminal conviction for such feeble
reasons. No parent would expose his or
her own daughter to the shame and scandal of having undergone such debasing
defilement of her chastity if the charges were not true.[22] It is unnatural for a parent to use his own
offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment
and even stigma.[23]
Benjie tries to discredit the
victim's testimony by questioning the odd position at which the rape was done. While
Benjie’s position, i.e., covering
AAA’s mouth with his left hand and pinning her down with the right hand, may be
considered difficult, such does not exclude the possibility that rape can be
consummated under said situation. Depraved
individuals stop at nothing in order to accomplish their purpose. Perverts are not used to the easy way of
satisfying their wicked cravings. It
should be noted that the victim was a very young and fragile 11-year-old, who was
easy to be subdued by an abuser who was used to manual labor and was already 18
or 19 years old.
In his last-ditch effort to be
exculpated, Benjie calls this Court’s attention to the medical findings that no
sperm cells were present in the victim’s vagina just two days following the
rape. He intimates that no rape occurred
because of the absence of the sperm cells.
This contention is not well-taken. The absence of spermatozoa in the victim’s
genitalia does not negate rape, the slightest penetration even without emission
being sufficient to constitute and consummate the offense.[24] The mere touching of the labia of the woman’s pudendum
or lips of the female organ by the male sexual organ consummates the act.[25] Where the victim is a child, the fact that
there was no deep penetration of her vagina and that her hymen was still intact
does not negate the commission of rape.[26] Furthermore, the absence of fresh lacerations
in the hymen cannot be a firm indication that she was not raped.[27] Hymenal lacerations are not an element of
rape.[28] In this case, therefore, the medical finding
of the absence of lacerations and sperm cells in the victim’s organ cannot
affect the fact that sexual molestation took place, taking into account the
prosecution’s sufficient establishment of the commission of sexual abuse. In fact, Dr. Valdez-Agbayani explained that if
a woman’s hymen is elastic and thin, penetration may not cause any lacerations
to it. Dr. Valdez-Agbayani opined that the absence of hymenal lacerations in
the victim was largely due to the fact that her hymen was elastic and thin. The absence of sperm cells can also be
attributed to the fact that the medical examination of AAA happened two days
after the molestation took place.
In sum, the Court finds that the RTC,
as well as the Court of Appeals, committed no error in giving credence to the
evidence of the prosecution and finding accused-appellant Benjie guilty of the
charge. The Court has long adhered to
the rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and
their testimonies are accorded great respect unless it overlooked substantial
facts and circumstances, which if considered, would materially affect the
result of the case.[29] Such is not the case here.
Likewise affirmed is the penalty
imposed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. There being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance, the RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly imposed upon Benjie the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.[30]
The award of damages imposed, which the
Court of Appeals fixed at P50,000.00[31]
for the civil indemnity and another P50,000.00[32] for
the moral damages, are in order.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, is AFFIRMED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate 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 Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Mario V. Lopez, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-20.
[2] Penned by Judge Rolanda S. Venadas, Sr., CA rollo, pp. 19-33.
[3] Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victim’s privacy.
[4] Records, p. 19.
[5]
[6]
[7] Exhibit “A,” the Birth Certificate of AAA; id. at 4.
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] Id at 12.
[11] Records, pp. 78-79.
[12] CA rollo, p. 147.
[13] People v. Orquina, 439 Phil. 359, 365-366 (2002).
[14] People v. Baylen, 431 Phil. 106, 118 (2002).
[15] People v. Quijada, 377 Phil. 202, 209 (1999).
[16] People v. Babera, 388 Phil. 44, 53 (2000).
[17] People v. Apostol, 378 Phil. 61, 76 (1999).
[18]
[19] Records, p. 76.
[20] TSN,
[21] People v.
[22] People v. Monteron, 428 Phil. 401, 410 (2002).
[23]
[24] People v. Lozano, 423 Phil. 20, 27 (2001).
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] People v. Dagpin, 400 Phil. 728, 739 (2000); People v. Velazquez, 399 Phil. 506, 515 (2000).
[30] People v. Garcia, 395 Phil. 722, 741 (2000).
[31] People v. Biong, 450 Phil. 432, 449 (2003).
[32] People v. Pagsanjan, 442 Phil. 667, 688 (2002).