PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - HENRY GUERRERO y AGRIPA, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 170360
Present: *QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, carpio MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: March 12, 2009 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
We
review in this appeal the
ANTECEDENT FACTS
The
prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with the crime of rape under
an Information that states:
That on or about the 30th day of
May, 1998, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused by means of force and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously touch [AAA’s][3]
private part, a minor 13 years of age, removed her panty and inserted his index
finger on her vagina and thereafter have carnal knowledge with the undersigned
complainant against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
The appellant pleaded not guilty to
the charge. The prosecution presented the following witnesses in the trial on
the merits that followed: AAA; BBB; SPO4 Susano San Diego (SPO4 San Diego); SPO4 Milla Billones (SPO4 Billones); and Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra (Dr. Freyra). The appellant took the witness stand for the defense.
AAA
testified that the appellant was the “kumpadre”
of her mother, and was a frequent visitor at her parents’ house. She recalled
that on
She
went to school after two (2) days, but slept in the classroom because she had a
headache and felt pain all over her body. She only informed her mother of the
sexual abuse after her (AAA’s) brother informed their mother that she had been
sleeping during school hours. Their mother filed a complaint before the police when
she learned of the rape.
On
cross examination, AAA admitted that the appellant had “touched” her prior to
BBB,
the mother of AAA, declared on the witness stand that she discovered the rape
incident only in June 1998. According to her, she noticed that her daughter was
always “tulala” and would not respond
when talked to. When she forced AAA to disclose what her problem was, she (AAA)
replied that “Kuya Henry raped me.” AAA’s brothers and sisters were present when she
made this revelation. She responded to
the disclosure by accompanying AAA to the Batasan Police Station 6 where the
desk officer, SPO4 Billones, took AAA’s statement. They went to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for AAA’s medical examination upon police instructions.[6]
SPO4
San Diego narrated that on
SPO4
Billones testified that AAA and her mother went to the police station sometime
in July 1998 to report that the appellant had “sexually abused” AAA. She took AAA’s statement and prepared a
referral letter for the victim’s medico-legal examination. She recalled that
AAA, at that time, looked tired and uneasy.[8]
Dr.
Freyra, the medico-legal officer of the PNP Central Crime Laboratory, testified
that she conducted a medical examination of AAA on
F I N D I N G S:
GENERAL
AND EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and
coherent female subject. Breasts are undeveloped. Abdomen is flat and soft.
GENITAL:
There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora
are full, convex and coaptated with pinkish brown labia minora presenting in
between. On separating the same disclosed an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with
deep, healed lacerations at 4 and
C
O N C L U S I O N:
Subject
is in non-virgin state physically.
There are no external signs of recent
application of any form of trauma at the time of examination.
REMARKS:
Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative
for gram-negative diplococcic and for spermatozoa. x x x.[9]
On cross examination, she stated that
the hymenal lacerations on AAA’s private part could have been caused by the
insertion of a blunt object into her vagina.[10]
The appellant was the sole defense
witness, and gave a different version of the events. He declared on the witness stand that he had
known AAA and her parents for about six (6) years; they both live on the same
street. He recalled that before
On cross examination, he admitted
that the parents of AAA were his “kumpare”
and “kumadre,” respectively, and stated
that his place of work was a 30-minute walk, more or less, from his residence.[11]
The RTC convicted the appellant of
the crime of rape in its decision of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
finding the herein accused Henry Guerrero Agripa GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Rape and hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify
the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.
SO
ORDERED.[12] [Emphasis
in the original]
The records of this case were originally transmitted to this
Court on appeal. Pursuant to our ruling
in People v. Mateo,[13]
we endorsed the case and the records to the CA for appropriate action and
disposition.[14]
The CA, in its
decision[15] dated P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The CA gave
credence to AAA’s testimony which it found to be corroborated on material
points by the testimony and findings of Dr. Freyra. The appellant, on the other
hand, merely presented the weak defenses of denial and alibi.
In his brief,[16] the
appellant argued that the RTC erred in convicting him of the crime charged
despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
THE COURT’S RULING
We resolve to deny the appeal
for lack of merit.
Sufficiency of
Prosecution Evidence
An established rule in appellate
review is that the trial court’s factual findings, including its assessment of
the credibility of the witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies,
as well as the conclusions drawn from the factual findings, are accorded
respect, if not conclusive effect. These actual findings and conclusions assume
greater weight if they are affirmed by the CA. Despite the enhanced persuasive
effect of the initial RTC factual ruling and the results of the CA’s appellate
factual review, we nevertheless fully scrutinized the records of this case as
the penalty of reclusion perpetua
imposed on the accused demands no less than this kind of scrutiny.[17]
The
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,[18]
defines and penalizes Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, as follows:
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 otherwise unconscious;
c) By
means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When
the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
x
x x x
Thus, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act through force,
threat or intimidation, or when
she was deprived of reason or was otherwise
unconscious, was under 12 years of
age, or was demented.[19]
In
her testimony, AAA positively identified the appellant as her rapist; she never
wavered in this identification. To directly quote from the records:
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR BEN DELA CRUZ
Q: On
[AAA]
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was that unusual incident?
A: He
called me. He was just standing by the window, and then he dragged me inside
the house.
Q: What
happened after you were dragged inside the house?
A: He
removed my dress.
Q: What
followed after he undressed you?
A: He
also undressed himself.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ
At this juncture the witness is
crying, Your Honor, may we ask that the continuation of the testimony of witness
be reset tomorrow x x x.
CONTINUATION OF DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ
Q: Ms. Witness, for clarity, will you
please step down from the witness stand and tap the shoulder of the accused in
this case, Henry Guerrero Agripa?
[AAA]
A: Yes, sir. This man, sir.
COURT INTERPRETER
Witness tapping the right shoulder of the man
who is wearing a yellow T-shirt and who when asked identified himself as Henry
Guerrero Agripa.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ
Q: Yesterday,
during the direct examination, you were telling us about your ordeal, what you
experienced on
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, Ms. Witness, again, I will ask you,
what happened on
x x x
A: I was then near their window and he
grabbed me inside their house.
Q: When you said “nila,” to whom are you
referring to?
A: The house of the suspect.
Q: You mean Henry Guerrero Agripa, the
accused in this case?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What happened after you were dragged
inside the house of the accused?
A: He undressed me.
Q: What was removed by the accused when you
said he undressed you?
A: My shorts and panty.
Q: And then what did he do next, if he did
anything, after he undressed you?
A: He also undressed himself.
Q: Thereafter, what happened next, if any.
ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ
At this juncture, your honor, may we put on
record that the witness is crying.
x x x
A: “Ginalaw
na niya po ako.”
x x x
COURT:
I will ask her a question. When you said “ginalaw,”
you mean he only held your hands?
[AAA]
A: No, your honor, he touched my whole
body.
Q: Including what?
A: My private parts.
x x x
Q: About how many times did he do to you
this touching of your body as well as your private parts?
A: Many times.
x x x
Q: When you said he touched your private parts, you mean he touched you with his hands?
A: He
used his private parts.
Q: You
mean his penis?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What did you feel?
A: I
felt pain.
Q: And what did he do exactly when you said
you felt pain, what was he doing at this time when you felt pain?
A: Because
he was trying to force his private part into mine, into my vagina.
Q: Aside from the pain that you felt, was
there anything else that happened to you on account of that act of the accused
trying to penetrate you?
A: No more, sir.
Q: Okay. What did you observe in you[r]
private parts after the accused tried to penetrate you?
A: There
was blood.
Q: And how did you react when you said there
was blood in your private part?
A: I just cried.
Q: You
said he tried to penetrate you with his penis, how many times did he do this?
A: Once
only. x x x[20] [Emphasis supplied]
AAA’s testimony strikes us to be
clear, convincing and credible, corroborated as it was in a major way by the
medico-legal report and the testimony of Dr. Freyra. It bears emphasis that
during the initial phases of AAA’s testimony, she broke down on the witness
stand when the prosecution asked her questions relating to the rape she
suffered. This, to our mind, is an eloquent and moving indication of the truth
of her allegations. In addition, our examination of the records gives us no
reason to doubt AAA’s testimony or suspect her of any ulterior motive in
charging and testifying against the appellant. We have held time and again that testimonies of rape
victims who are young and immature, as in this case, deserve full credence
considering that no young woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a
story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter
subject herself to a public trial if she had not been motivated solely by the
desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[21]
Clearly, the prosecution positively
established the elements of rape required under Article 266-A. First, the appellant succeeded in having
carnal knowledge with the victim;
AAA was steadfast in her assertion that the appellant tried to force his penis
into her vagina. We have said often enough that in
concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal
orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen
necessary; the mere
touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act (as
part of the entry of the penis into the labias
of the female organ) is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.[22]
Our ruling in People v. Bali-Balita[23]
is particularly instructive:
We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal
knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an
essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of
consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching
should be understood here as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the
labias of the female organ and not
mere touching alone of the mons pubis
or the pudendum.
Thus, touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean
mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a
slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s
vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this
case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed
touched the labias or slid into the
female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an
accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be
“touched” by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons
pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain
some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that
touching the labia
majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum constitutes consummated rape.[24] [Emphasis and italics
supplied]
Undoubtedly, there was touching of
the labia as AAA testified that the appellant “was trying to force” his private part into her vagina, as a result
of which, she felt pain. She also
testified that her vagina bled after
the incident. More importantly, Dr. Freyra testified that there were deep hymenal lacerations on AAA’s
private part, thus:
ATTY. RONALD ANCHETA
Q: Doctor,
in your findings, you said that you found out that the hymen was lacerated at 4 and
DR. FREYRA
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Doctor,
what could have been the cause of the laceration?
A: The cause of such laceration is the
insertion of any blunt object inside the vagina.
Q: Now
doctor, would you be able to distinguish if only the tip of the penis or full
or the whole penis was inserted. Would you determine that considering that the laceration is [at] 4 and
A: The laceration is inflicted in the hymen if
there was insertion of any hard blunt object and the size of the laceration would
depend on the object that penetrated and it does not matter whether the tip of
the penis is short or inverted.
Q: Are
you saying that even the tip of the penis could have caused the laceration at 4 and
A: As
I have said, it would depend on the diameter of the thing that enters the hymen
and it would break that would need to accommodate the diameter of the thing
that enters [sic].
Q: So
how about in this case, Doctor, if the male factor is an adult at the time of
the sexual abuse and there was full penetration. Is it not a fact that there
could have been more laceration than what has been stated there in your report?
A: No,
sir because the hymen is elastic and it would break and produce lacerations
that are made in order to accommodate the diameter of the thing that enters and
since the thing that penetrated only
required two lacerations located at 4 and
Q: How
about if the finger was inserted in the hymen of the victim, would it produce
that type of lacerations?
A: If
it was a finger that penetrated the hymen, perhaps I would see a smaller
laceration in the hymen. Then also it would depend on the size of the smaller
finger that entered the hymen and did not do any other movements like sideward
movement it would be a shallow laceration. But
in this case, it is a deep healed laceration of the hymen.
x x x[25] [Emphasis ours]
Second, the
appellant employed force and
intimidation in satisfying his lustful desires. AAA categorically stated
that she was dragged by the appellant – who was wielding a knife – inside his
(appellant’s) house. AAA likewise testified that the appellant continued to
threaten her while they were inside his house; and that she (AAA) did not
attempt to run for fear for her life. As an element
of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible; it may be just enough
to bring about the desired result. What is necessary is that the force
or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that
the accused had in mind.[26] In People v. Mateo,[27]
we held:
It is a settled rule that the force contemplated by law
in the commission of rape is relative, depending on the age, size strength of
the parties. It is not necessary that the force and
intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great and of such character as
could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in
mind.
Intimidation, more
subjective than not, is peculiarly addressed to the mind of the person against
whom it may be employed, and its presence is basically incapable of being
tested by any hard and fast rule. Intimidation is normally
best viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the
time and occasion of the crime.[28]
By itself, the act of
holding a knife is strongly suggestive of force or at least
of intimidation, more so if the knife was directed at a minor, as in this case.
Clearly, AAA could not be expected to act with equanimity and with nerves of
steel, or to act like an adult or a mature and experienced woman who would know
what to do under the circumstances, or to have the courage and intelligence to
disregard the threat.[29]
Under the circumstances
obtaining in this case, the overt acts of the appellant were sufficient to
bring AAA into submission.
The Appellant’s Defenses
In stark contrast with
the prosecution’s case is the appellant’s alibi of having been in the Felipes’
house at the time the rape was committed. He maintained that he never left the Felipes’ house from
Moreover, we cannot help but note that the
alibi of the accused is totally uncorroborated; only the appellant testified
about his presence elsewhere. Already a
weak defense, alibi becomes even weaker when the defense
fails to present corroboration. The alibi totally falls if,
aside from the lack of corroboration, the accused fails to show the physical
impossibility of his presence at the place and time of the commission of the
crime.[31]
The Proper Penalty
The applicable provisions of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (effective
Article 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;
x x x x
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under
paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
x x x x
Although the prosecution proved during
trial that the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon, we cannot
appreciate this qualifying circumstance as it was not alleged in the
Information. The lower courts therefore are correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant.
The Proper Indemnity
We
sustain the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages in accordance with
prevailing jurisprudence. Civil indemnity, actually given as actual or
compensatory damages, is awarded upon the finding that rape was committed.[32] Similarly, moral damages are awarded to rape
victims without need of pleading or evidentiary basis; the law assumes that a
rape victim suffered moral injuries entitling her to the award.[33]
WHEREFORE, in
light of all the foregoing, we hereby AFFIRM
the
SO
ORDERED.
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 581
dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, and concurred in by Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine and Associate Justice Arcangelita Romilla Lontok; rollo, pp. 3-10.
[2] Penned by Judge Romeo F. Zamora; CA rollo, pp. 18-21.
[3] This appellation is pursuant to our ruling
in People
v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693,
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5] TSN,
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9] Records, p. 9.
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] CA rollo, p. 21.
[13] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[14] Per our Resolution dated
[15] Rollo, pp. 3-10.
[16] CA rollo, pp. 50-62.
[17] People v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 172696, August 11, 2008 citing People v. Garalde, G.R. No. 173055, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 327, 340.
[18] The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
[19] People
v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294,
[20] TSN,
[21] See People
v. Villafuerte, G.R. No. 154917,
[22] See People
v. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433,
[23] G.R. No. 134266,
[24]
[25] TSN,
[26] People
v. Oliver, G.R. No. 123099,
[27] People
v. Mateo, G.R. No. 170569,
[28]
[29] See People
v. Adora, G.R. Nos. 116528-31,
[30] See People
v. Aure, G.R. No. 180451,
[31] People
v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90,
[32] See People
v. Crespo, G.R. No. 180500,
[33] See People
v. Mingming, G.R. No. 174195,