Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - YOON CHANG WOOK, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 178199 Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES,* VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: October 5, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO,
JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1]
dated October 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
01942, affirming the April 24, 2000 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 259 in Parañaque City. The RTC adjudged Yoon Chang Wook guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape.
In two (2) separate informations filed before the Parañaque City RTC,
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 98-824 and 98-825, Yoon Chang Wook (Yoon) and
four (4) John Does were charged with the crime of rape and robbery, allegedly
committed as follows:
CRIMINAL
CASE No. 98-824
That on or about June 6, 1998, in Parañaque City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Yoon Chang Wook with four (4) John Does whose true identities have not been ascertained as of this writing, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, while confederating, conspiring, conniving and mutually helping one another, with malicious intent and lewd design, employing force and physical violence upon the person of [AAA],[2] have carnal relationship with the latter, against her will and consent to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL
CASE No. 98-825
That on or about June 6, 1998, in Parañaque City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Yoon Chang Wook and four (4) John Does whose true identities have not been ascertained as of this writing, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, while confederating, conspiring, conniving and mutually helping one another; with intent to gain, employing force and violence upon the person of [AAA] causing serious physical injuries to her, steal, take and carry away the money of [AAA] amounting to Y50,000,000 and $350 to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
When arraigned for both charges, Yoon entered a “not guilty” plea.
Accused John Does remained at large.
To buttress its case, the prosecution presented the testimonies of private
complainant AAA, Dr. Armie-Soreta Umil of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), and one Janet Collado, a security guard of the Ocean’s Best Restaurant.
The totality of the prosecution’s evidence tends to establish the
following course of events:
Yoon and AAA, both Korean nationals, met in Seoul, South Korea in 1995
through a third party to whom AAA intimated her wish to send her daughter to
the Philippines to study. Yoon, claiming to be familiar with the country, asked
20 million Won (approximately PhP 600,000) from AAA to defray processing
expenses. Yoon then traveled to the
In January 1996, Yoon enrolled AAA’s daughter at
Soon enough, both Korean nationals entered into a relationship. The
affair, however, was short-lived owing to guilt feelings on the part of AAA and
her realization that Yoon was just after her money.
Sometime in April 1998, AAA, now back in
Once inside, Yoon and four unidentified Korean nationals brought her to
the second floor of the restaurant. Yoon then stripped her of clothes while his
companions punched and kicked her, gagged her mouth, bound her legs and arms,
and blindfolded her. They then dragged
her to the bathroom where they poured gasoline all over her body. The men scratched a lighter as if to set her
on fire. Thereafter, the men forcibly
pulled her back into a room and asked that she call her husband. AAA refused and pleaded to spare her husband
and daughter from harm. Subsequently,
the men untied her arms, removed the tape on her mouth and the blindfold, and she
was made to lie down on the sofa. She
then saw some men wearing caps and sunglasses, while Yoon, who was stark naked,
approached her. AAA’s struggles and pleadings for mercy proved in vain as Yoon
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. The others gave her a beating for every
effort she made to free herself. AAA fainted even before Yoon could completely
be done with her. When AAA regained her
consciousness, she found herself tied up again beside Yoon. There and then,
Yoon asked her to copy a promissory note showing indebtedness to Yoon, which
she did against her will. After she had put on her clothes, AAA was allowed to
leave. When she looked into her bag, ¥50,000,000 and USD 350 were missing. As AAA would later testify, the barbaric acts
of Yoon gave her sleepless nights. Her husband, who took pictures (Exhibits “G”
and “G-1” to “G-27”) of her injuries as a result of the beatings, also suffered
from mental stress.[6]
Yoon denied raping AAA, but admitted to having a two-year relationship
with her which ended in 1997 when AAA suggested that he eliminate her husband.
Testifying on what transpired on
Lee corroborated for the most part Yoon’s testimony, stating that AAA,
whom she met twice before, was in the second floor of Ocean’s Best Restaurant
in the afternoon of
Rogelio Loquinario, AAA’s driver from October 1995 to July 1999,
testified driving AAA to Ocean’s Best Restaurant on
Abelyn de Vera testified that on
On
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, for insufficiency of evidence and for failure of the prosecution to present that quantum of proof necessary to sustain a judgment of conviction for the crime of Robbery as defined and penalized under Arts. 293-294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 9 of RA 7659, this Court hereby pronounces Yoon Chang Wook NOT GUILTY in Crim. Case No. 98-825. In Crim. Case No. 98-824 for Rape as defined and penalized under Art. 266-A par. 1 and Art. 266-B par. 1 of RA 8353, this Court finds Yoon Chang Wook GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences him to imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law, specifically Art. 41 of the Revised Penal Code as amended and to indemnify [AAA], the private complainant, the amount of P50,000.00 in line with existing jurisprudence, P50,000.00 in moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages and P9,000 and 500,000.00 Won Korean currency for her medical expenses.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Yoon filed a Notice of Appeal on
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the assailed
SO ORDERED.[12]
Yoon is again before us in view of the Notice of Appeal he interposed from
the CA’s affirmatory decision. Despite
their receipt of the Court’s resolution for the submission, if they so desired,
of supplemental brief, the parties, by their respective manifestations,[13] chose to submit the case for resolution on
the basis of available records and the pleadings they have respectively filed,
thus effectively reiterating the same arguments raised before the CA.
Yoon claims that the trial court and necessarily the CA erred:
1. [I]n ruling that the lone testimony of private complainant met the required test of credibility to warrant conviction of accused for an alleged crime of rape.
2. [I]n concluding that “It is therefore the word of private complainant [AAA] against the word of accused Yoon Chang Wook” that led to the conviction of the accused.
3. [I]n appreciating the prosecution’s Exhibits “G”, “G-1” up to “G-27” as evidences for alleged crime of rape.
4. [I]n appreciating the Medical Center Parañaque medico-legal certificate and Roentgenological report (Exhibits “I” and “J”, respectively) as evidences for alleged crime of rape.
5. [I]n appreciating that the Department of Justice-[NBI] Medico-Legal Division-Manila “Preliminary Report” and “Living Case No. MG-98-700” (Exhibits “K” and “L”, respectively) as evidences for alleged crime of rape.
6. [I]n giving probative value on the testimony of Jennet Collado, a security guard on duty on June 6, 1998 at Ocean’s Best Restaurant which was dispensed with upon stipulation of the parties relative to her presence at the said restaurant at 7:00 in the evening of June 6, 1998 x x x.
7. [I]n appreciating that there was stipulation by the parties that Charlie Yoon and private complainant spent the night together until morning of June 7, 1998.
8. [I]n giving probative value on the testimony of Dr. Armie Soreta-Umil which was dispensed with upon stipulation of the parties relative to her findings on private complainant appearing in MG-98-700 (Exhibits “K” and “L”—particularly on the reverse side of Exhibit “L” thereof) as proof of commission of an alleged crime of rape.
9. [I]n not appreciating the circular markings of the sleeveless t-shirt of private complainant imprinted under her armpit as depicted on exhibits offered as proof that she was not naked when she was mauled allegedly.
10. [I]n not appreciating the presence of hematomas on private complainant’s body existing as of June 4, 1998 as testified and identified by a 14 year old witness Abelyn de Vera which proves that private complainant is a chronic liar.
11. [I]n disregarding the probative value of the testimonies of the defense witnesses namely, Lee Hyeon Sook, Rogelio Loquinario, Abelyn de Vera, Eleonor Cambel and accused himself as sufficient to establish reasonable doubt on prosecution’s evidence thus warranting the acquittal of the accused.[14]
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
In essence, Yoon faults the trial court and the CA for according full
faith and credit and giving undue weight to the People’s evidence, particularly
AAA’s testimony, but disregarding his evidence. In net effect, he would have
the Court set aside his conviction on the ground that the private complainant’s
tale of rape is one big lie and that the prosecution’s other testimonial and
documentary pieces of evidence do not deserve the weight and credibility
extended them.
It is basic, almost elementary, that the trial court’s factual determinations, especially its assessments of the witnesses’ testimony and their credibility, are entitled to great respect, barring arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[15] For having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their demeanor while in the witness box, the trial court is in a better position to address questions of credibility.[16]
The perceived misapplication or
misunderstanding on the part of the trial court of some substantive fact or
circumstance does not, to us, just as it did not to the CA, obtain. First, in
adjudging Yoon, as accused below, guilty of rape, the trial court did not rely
on what security guard Jennet Collado and Dr. Armie Soreta-Umil of the NBI were
supposed to testify on upon stipulation as to AAA’s presence at the restaurant
in the evening of
Yoon, under items 10 and 11 of the assigned errors, faults the RTC for
not appreciating in his favor the testimonies of certain witnesses. Foremost of
these is that of Abelyn de Vera, mentioned in item 10, who asserted noticing
hematomas in AAA’s body even before the
We are not persuaded. The trial court appeared to have thoroughly
evaluated and winnowed the testimonies on direct and cross examinations of all
those who took the witness stand, including that of Yoon and others called by
the defense, such as de Vera, Eleonor Cambel, who described Yoon, her neighbor,
as a good man,[17] Loquinario, AAA’s driver, and Lee. The defense witnesses, however, failed to
disprove the testimony of the victim as to the fact of rape and those
responsible for the crime. AAA clearly
and consistently stated that Yoon raped her after he, along with his
companions, forcefully stripped of her clothing, gagged, tied, and blindfolded her,
and beat her up.
And as if these inhuman treatments were not enough, they poured gasoline
on her bruised body. Pictures of AAA’s
injuries, marked as Exhibits “G” to “G-27,” lend compelling support to AAA’s
account of the beating and other acts of violence. The pictures show the hematomas all over her
body which do not appear to be self-inflicted. The medical report, Exhibit “2,”
confirms the finding of hematomas and contusions on the victim’s body. These exhibits, the contents of which have
not successfully been rebutted by the defense, augur well for AAA’s
credibility. Anent the circular markings
that allegedly prove that AAA was not naked when mauled, it should be
remembered that AAA was dragged from the entrance of the restaurant to the
second floor while she was fully clothed.
In any case, said markings only confirm the fact of a struggle or beating. Hence, the assigned errors 3, 4, 5, and 9
deserve no merit. For reference, items
3, 4, and 5 of the assignment of errors relate to the appreciation by the RTC
of Exhibits “G” and “G-1” to “G-27,” representing pictures taken by AAA’s
husband showing hematomas in her body; the medical examination report issued by
the Medical Center of Parañaque City and the NBI physical examination report,
respectively. Under item 9, Yoon bemoans the fact that the RTC did not
appreciate the circular markings of the sleeveless t-shirt of AAA imprinted
under her armpit as proof that she was not naked when she was allegedly
beaten.
Under items 1 and 2 of the assignment of errors, Yoon submits that the trial
court erred in ruling that AAA’s “lone testimony x x x met the required test of
credibility to warrant conviction” and in concluding that the fate of Yoon
boils down to the “word of [AAA] against the word of [Yoon].” In fine, the
alleged errors 1 and 2 go directly to the trial court’s appreciation of the
private offended party’s testimony and its sufficiency to sustain a finding of
guilt. They need not detain us long. By the peculiar nature of rape cases,
conviction most often rests solely on the basis of the victim’s testimony, if
credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things.[18]
When a woman testifies to having been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has been committed, for as long as her testimony
hurdles the test of credibility.[19]
In the case at bench, AAA had testified to the physical and sexual abuse
she suffered in the hands of Yoon and his companions. Yoon has invited
attention to inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony, but which the trial court
dismissed as insignificant and surely not of such character as to vitiate the
credibility of the witness. We reproduce with approval what the trial court
wrote on the matter:
The defense counsel in her Memorandum enumerated a litany of alleged inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of private complainant [AAA] but as ruled by the High Court time and again, a few discrepancies or inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the basic aspects of the whys and wherefores of the crime, do not impair their credibility (People vs. Custodio, 197 SCRA 538). Said defense counsel speaks of discrepancies in the testimony of the private complainant such as that she was married but the truth is she and [BBB] are just living together as common-law husband and wife; that she cannot communicate in English but the truth is she undertook six years of English lessons; that it was dark at 2:00 P.M. of June 6, 1998 but later she retracted. But then, these alleged discrepancies, among others do not in actuality touch upon the basic aspects of the why and wherefores of the crime and they do not therefore impair her credibility.[20]
Yoon’s allegation that AAA fabricated the charges in a bid to free
herself from unpaid obligations to him strikes the Court as an obvious but
puerile afterthought. We join the trial court in saying that this claim is
“absurd and too flimsy a reason for the complainant to expose herself to
dishonor and public ridicule” attendant in a rape case.[21] The trial court found AAA to be a financially
secured Korean who can afford to send her daughter to a foreign land to study
in what may be viewed as an exclusive school.
Moreover, AAA is a family woman who would not likely suffer social
humiliation if not for the purpose of seeking justice and vindicating her
honor.
It may be, as Yoon has pointed out, that AAA did not timely report the
incident to the authorities. This failure, however, does not undermine her credibility.
The CA correctly stated why not:
[AAA]’s failure to report to the authorities and to
subject herself to genital examination right after the rape incident do not
diminish her credibility. [AAA] is a
foreigner and is not familiar with the
Yoon has denied AAA’s allegations of rape. Denial is to be sure a legitimate defense in
rape cases. But bare assertions of not
having committed the acts complained of cannot overcome the positive,
straightforward, unequivocal, and categorical testimony of the victim. An
affirmative testimony, especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible
witness, is far stronger than a negative one.[23] Mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is inherently weak, being self-serving negative evidence
undeserving of weight in law;[24] it cannot be given greater evidentiary value
than the positive testimony of a rape victim.[25] In the case at bar, Yoon failed to present
convincing proof in support of his denial.
Rape, in context, is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a
woman through force, threat, or intimidation.[26]
The elements of carnal knowledge and the use of force, threat and/or
intimidation have sufficiently been proved. The second element came in the form
of being threatened, beaten up, bound on a chair, and blindfolded by Yoon and
his bullies. But being threatened with death by fire before the molestation was
perhaps the most frightful act of violence employed on AAA on the fateful day
of
In the matter of damages, the Court hereby reduces the PhP 50,000 award
as exemplary damages to PhP 30,000.[27]
The reduction is in line with prevailing jurisprudence assessing exemplary
damages at that level as proper deterrent to repugnant sexual behavior. Moreover, the award of PhP 9,000 and 500,000
Korean Won as medical expenses is unsubstantiated. There is nothing in the records to prove that
private complainant incurred expenses in the amount aforestated for her medical
examination or recovery. Unlike moral damages which may be imposed against the
accused in rape cases even without allegation or proof of the emotional
suffering or anguish of the victim, the award of actual damages is a different
matter altogether. The trial court
failed to justify the grant of medical expenses in its decision, this award
appearing as it did only in the dispositive portion of its decision. Nowhere in the prosecution’s offer of
evidence or pleadings such amounts were claimed as medical expenses. Hence, said award should be deleted.
WHEREFORE, the
CA Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
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.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
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. 4-15. Penned by Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza and Sesinando E. Villon.
[2] The
real name and the personal circumstances of the victim and her immediate
relatives are withheld per Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 (Special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and RA 9262
(Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act). See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[3] CA rollo, pp. 6-9.
[4] Rollo, p. 4.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] CA rollo, p. 40. Penned by Judge Zosimo V. Escano
[11] G.R.
Nos. 147678-87,
[12] CA rollo, p. 225.
[13]
Plaintiff-appellee chose not to file a supplemental brief, while accused-appellant
indicated his inability to file one in view of his counsel’s death.
[14] CA rollo, pp. 222-223.
[16] People v. Cea, 464 Phil. 388 (2004).
[18] People
v. Fernandez, G.R. No.
172118,
[20] RTC Decision, p. 18, CA rollo, p. 37.
[21]
[22] Rollo, p. 9.
[23] People
v. Astrologo, G.R. No. 169873,
[25]
[26] Art. 266-A of RA 8353 or the “Anti-Rape Law of 1997.”