SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ROLDAN
ARCOSIBA alias “Entoy,” Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 181081
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio MORALES, BRION, ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: September 4, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated
The Information[6] dated
x x x x
That on or about the 21st day of March, 2004, in
the Municipality of [xxx], Province of [xxx], and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent and with lewd
designs and by use of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with [AAA],[7]
a 14 year old girl, against her will, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.
Arcosiba was
arrested and jailed on
Based
on the testimonies of AAA, the victim herself, and BBB, her friend, the
prosecution established that on
While
at the yard, Arcosiba embraced and kissed AAA.
He likewise ordered her to sit on a sack of charcoal. At first, AAA tried to evade Arcosiba’s
kisses but the latter threatened her.
Arcosiba then undressed AAA and instructed her to lie down on the
ground. He was about to rape AAA when he
suddenly changed his mind. Instead, he
told AAA to proceed to the back of the house.
AAA resisted, but Arcosiba dragged her.
As ordered, AAA proceeded to the back of the house while being followed
by Arcosiba. AAA walked totally naked while
Arcosiba had her dress on his face and held her shorts in his hand.
Upon
reaching the back portion of the house, Arcosiba ordered AAA to lie down, to
which she acceded. Arcosiba then took
off his clothes and directed AAA to hold his penis. He ordered her to masturbate his penis. AAA tried to refuse, but Arcosiba threatened
to shoot her. After a while, Arcosiba
ordered her to stop. He then inserted
his penis into her vagina. However,
Arcosiba was not able to ejaculate because of the timely arrival of AAA’s
neighbors who were called by BBB. Arcosiba
then tried to bring AAA to the nearby river.
AAA resisted but Arcosiba threatened her, saying, “Hurry because if you will not go with me I will kill you.”
While
on their way to the river, a neighbor saw them and shouted at Arcosiba,
prompting the latter to release AAA and flee.
AAA, on the other hand, ran towards the house of her neighbor. They reported the incident the following day
and she underwent a medical check-up.[10]
The medical
certificate issued by Dr. Maribeth R. Aguilar who physically examined AAA on
Findings: = Upper & Lower Extremities = (–) abrasion/hematoma
= Head & Neck (–) abrasion/hematoma
= Breast
= Back
= Gluteal
area (–) abrasions/hematoma
= Abdomen
= Pelvic Exam
:
Ext.
[G]en[i]talia
= Hymen = old
healed lacerations on the [
= erythema noted on the (R) labia m[i]nora
lower 3rd &
(L) labia minora middle 3rd
S.E. Vaginal
canal = no abrasion, no hematoma
Cervix =
small, closed
I.E. PPE – I
–nulliparous
C – closed, small
U
– Small
A
– (–) mass / tenderness
D
– scanty whitish
Mgt. - Patient is for CVS = Result:
No spermatozoa seen[11]
Arcosiba
denied the charges against him and testified that on
After
trial, the RTC rendered judgment convicting Arcosiba of the crime of rape under
Articles 266-A[13] and 266-B[14]
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The trial court gave credence to AAA’s testimony. It ruled that no woman who is of tender age,
would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private
parts, and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience not to mention the
trauma of a public trial, if she is not motivated solely by the desire to have
the culprit apprehended and punished. It
also ruled that in light of the positive identification of the accused, his
defense of denial and alibi cannot be sustained. The fallo of the decision reads,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, applying
Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and the
amendatory provisions of R.A. 8353, (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997), in relation to
Section 11 of R.A. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law), the Court found accused, ROLDAN
ARCOSIBA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE
charged under the information and sentenced [him to] suffer the maximum penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay civil indemnity in the amount of
Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos and moral damages in the amount of
Twenty[-]Five (P25,000.00) Thousand Pesos to the victim, [AAA]; and
Pay the Cost.
SO ORDERED.[15]
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling but modified the
award of damages by including an award of exemplary damages. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the accused,
ROLDAN ARCOSIBA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and
[sentencing him to] suffer the maximum penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay
civil indemnity in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos,
moral damages in the amount of Twenty[-]Five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos
and pay the cost to [AAA] is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the
private complainant is also entitled to the award of exemplary damages in the
amount of Twenty[-]Five Thousand [P]esos (P25,000.00).
SO ORDERED.[16]
The case is now
before us for final disposition. In his
brief, appellant faults the trial court, to wit:
I.
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE.
II.
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF
THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.[17]
Simply, the issue before
us is whether appellant’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In his brief,
appellant assails the credibility of the victim. He claims that the victim’s testimony is
inconsistent.
For the State, the
Office of the Solicitor General contends that the testimonies of the
prosecution’s witnesses, including that of the victim, are credible and worthy
of faith and belief.
We affirm
appellant’s conviction.
This
Court has held in the case of People v. Baligod[18]
that rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to
testify for herself. Thus, in resolving
rape cases, the victim’s credibility becomes the primordial consideration. If a victim’s testimony is straightforward,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,
unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of
credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. To ensure that justice is meted out, extreme
care and caution is required in weighing the conflicting testimonies of the
complainant and the accused.[19]
During trial, AAA recalled
the harrowing ordeal she had gone through as follows:
PROSECUTOR
MERIN:
x x x x
Q Do you know the person of Roldan Arcos[i]ba
alias Intoy?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is he inside
this courtroom now?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where is he?
A Witness at this juncture is pointing to
a person inside the courtroom who when asked of his name identified himself as
Roldan Arcos[i]ba.
Q Why do you
know the accused in this case Roldan Arcosiba alias Intoy?
A Because he is a resident in the brgy.
where I [am also residing.]
x x x x
Q On
A I was in the house of my friend.
Q Who is that
friend who was with you at that time?
A [BBB].
Q After you were
in the house of [BBB] where did you proceed[?]
A We went to our house.
x x x x
Q When you
reached your house about
A When we went to our house[,] our house
was already opened.
x x x x
Q When you were
already inside your house what[,] if any[,] did you observe?
A Our rice was missing.
x x x x
Q And noticing
the absence of that 1 sack [of] rice[,] what did you do next?
A I looked for it because I was thinking
that it might have been kept by my sister in the cabinet.
Q Were you able
to find it?
A No, sir.
Q What did you
do when you were not able to find it?
A We stayed inside the house and at that
time that we were intending to go out I have seen this person (witness referring
to the accused).
Q Where was
Roldan Arcos[i]ba when you were trying to go out of your house?
A He was in our yard.
Q Was your
house lighted at that time?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q Noticing the
presence of Roldan Arcos[i]ba at your yard[,] what next transpired if any
[please] tell the court?
A We ran together with my friend to the
kitchen.
x
x x x
Q You mean you
went back inside your house and ran towards the kitchen?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is your house
a one[-]storey house or a two-storey house?
A One[-]storey house.
Q Is that
kitchen separated from the main house?
A It is inside our house.
Q When you both
ran back to your house and proceeded to the kitchen what next transpired if
any?
A This person [of]Roldan Arcos[i]ba
uttered words.
Q What [were] his
utterances?
A He asked where my father was.
Q When did he
utter that[?] [While] you were still
facing him or when you ran already?
A We were still inside our house but not
yet in the kitchen.
Q How far was
the accused when he uttered [his] posing query [as] to the whereabouts of your
father?
A From here to the DSWD Officer
(Witness indicating a distance of about
4 meters).
Q After he
uttered such statement posing query to the whereabouts of your father what did
you do?
A I said he is not here and then he said
come here first.
Q To whom was
he directing [the words “come here”]?
A Me.
Q What about
[BBB] where was she?
A Also in the kitchen.
Q You mean you
were separated from each other?
A Yes, sir.
Q When the
accused directed such statement come here what did you do?
A I drew near to him[,] but I was still
inside our house near the [window].
x x x x
Q When you drew
near to him and stayed by the window what [happened next]?
A He told me that my father owed him [a]
big amount of money.
Q And when he
uttered that what did you say?
A I said, [“that is not true”].
Q When you made
a retort to that statement that it is not true what [happened next]?
A He said, “Your father owes a big amount
of money and I am the one who is supporting your studies.”
Q What was your
answer then?
A Nothing and I just cried.
Q After you
cried[,] what next transpired[,] if any?
A Then he said, [“Y]ou get out from that
house and we have something to talk [about”].
Q Did you
comply [with] such statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you go [out]
alone?
A Yes, sir.
x
x x x
Q When you go out did you go out alone or
with the accused already?
Yes,
sir.
Q After you
reached that yard where you first saw [the] accused what next transpired[,] if
any?
A He embraced me and kissed me and then
he told me to sit down on a sack.
Q What is [the]
sack for?
A Full of
charcoal.
x x x x
Q You said you
were kissed to what portion of your body was kissed?
A My lips.
Q What did you
do when [he kissed your lips]?
A I refused.
Q How did you
show your refusal when you were kissed?
A I was evading
to be kissed.
Q Were you
kissed indeed?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why?
A Because he
said keep quiet if not I will kill you.
Q When you were
kissed how did [the] accused try to kiss you tell the Court?
A He was
standing and I was sitting.
Q Where was his
right hand?
A He was
holding my body.
Q What portion
of your body?
A My left
shoulder.
Q How about his
left hand where was it?
A The same.
x
x x x
Q After he uttered threatening word[s]
for you not to evade his kisses what did you do?
A I did nothing
but cry.
Q Why? Why is
it that you were not able to do anything but cry?
A Because I was
afraid.
Q Why were you afraid?
A Because he
threatened me.
Q How did he
threaten you?
A He said, “don’t
cry or I will shoot you.”
x x x x
Q After that
statement for you to keep quiet what next thing did the accused do upon your
person?
A He undressed
me.
Q How did he
undress you?
A He took off
my apparels and ordered me to lie down?
Q What were you
wearing?
A [Striped
T-shirt and shorts.]
Q What was
taken first by the accused, was it your upper apparel?
A Short[s].
Q Were you
[wearing a] panty that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q After the
short[s] was taken was it along with the panty?
A Yes, sir.
Q After he was
successful in taking off your panty and your short[s] what next did the accused
do?
A He touched
me.
Q What do you
mean he touched you?
A He raped me.
Q How about the
upper apparel was it still intact with his body?
A Yes, sir.
Q You said you
were made to lie down, to what place where you made to lie down?
A Beside the
sack.
Q You mean on
the ground?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q After you
[laid] down on the ground as commanded by the accused[,] what next did [the]
accused do upon your person?
A He was intending to rape me but he said
let’s do it at the back of your house.
Q After he
uttered such statement[,] what did you do?
A I was
resisting but he dragged me.
Q How did he
drag you?
A He told me to stand up and then told me
to go first to the back of my house.
Q Did you not
try to run away after he told you to go to the back of your house?
A No[,] because
he was situated on my back.
Q You mean he
was at your back?
A Yes, sir.
Q You mean he
was following you?
A Yes, sir.
Q How far was
the accused upon your person while you proceeded to the back of your house?
A A meter distance.
Q Was he
holding your body?
A No, sir.
Q Were you
still half naked that time?
A I don’t have anymore my dress because
he placed it on his face.
Q You mean he
put it on his head?
A My dress
only.
Q How about
your short[s]?
A He took it.
Q You mean you
were totally naked at that time?
A Yes, I was
naked.
Q Were
you able to reach the back of your house?
A Yes,
sir.
Q To what
portion [at] the back of your house did you go?
A At the back
of our comfort room.
Q Is it near a
kitchen?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about
your companion [BBB] where was she?
A She ran to
her house and had told what happened.
Q In what
period of time when [BBB] ran to her house, was it on the time when you were on
your way of going out to your house?
A When we were
already at the back of our house.
Q You mean at
the back of your comfort room?
A Yes, sir.
Q After you
were at the back of your comfort room what [happened next] if any tell the
Court?
A He told me to
lie down and he took off his [shorts].
Q Did you lie
down as instructed?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why did you
lie down?
A Because I was
ordered.
Q Why did you
not try to run?
A No, sir.
Q Why did you
not try to run away?
A Because I was
afraid.
Q Afraid of
what?
A Because he
might shoot me.
x x x x
Q After he was
already naked what transpired next[,] if any?
A He took off
his briefs and he let me hold his penis.
Q While you
were already on a lying position.
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you hold
his penis?
A I was
refusing then but he threatened me.
Q Threatened
you how?
A The same
saying.
Q What is that?
A That he will
shoot me.
Q Did you hold
his penis?
A Yes, sir.
Q What hand was
used by you in holding his penis?
A The two
hands.
Q And what did
you do when you [held] his penis with your two hands?
A He told me to
masturbate.
Q Did you
masturbate?
A Yes, sir.
Q For how long?
A It did not
take long.
Q What happened
to the penis when you masturbated that?
A He told me to
stop and then he inserted it to my vagina.
Q What was your
relative position when he inserted his penis?
A Lying.
Q How did you
feel when the penis was inserted to your vagina?
A Pain.
Q Did you not
try to evade the insertion of his penis to your vagina?
A I did not.
Q After the
penis was inserted to your vagina was the accused able to ejaculate?
A No, sir.
Q Why?
A It did not
take long because a person arrived.
Q [Who is that
person?]
A Kuya Bombom.
Q Who is he?
A My neighbor.
Q When your neighbor
Kuya Bombom arrived what did the accused do?
A He immediately stood up and he intended
to bring me to the river.
Q Did you go
along with the accused?
A I was
refusing.
Q Because you
refused, what did the accused do?
A He said, “Hurry because if you will not
go with me I will kill you.”[20]
There appears
nothing inconsistent with AAA’s testimony.
Despite being merely 14 years old she subjected herself to the glare of
public prosecution for rape, positively identified appellant as her rapist and
candidly revealed the ugly details of the deplorable violation of her person. Her
testimony appears straightforward and clear. It is thus correct that both the trial and
appellate courts gave credence to her testimony and they both regarded her as a
credible witness. Absent any showing
that the lower courts had overlooked certain facts of substance and value
which, if considered might affect the result of the case, we find no basis to
doubt or dispute, much less overturn, the findings of credibility by both
courts.
Compared
to the evidence presented by the prosecution consisting notably of the positive
identification of the appellant not only by AAA herself but by two other
witnesses, the appellant’s defense of denial is inherently weak and dubious. As often stressed, a mere denial constitutes
negative evidence and warrants the least credibility or none at all absent any
strong evidence of non-culpability. It
cannot prevail over the positive and credible declarations of the victim and
her witnesses testifying on affirmative matters.
As to the award of
damages, both courts are consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence on simple
rape and correctly imposed P50,000 as civil indemnity. Conformably too, the Court of Appeals
correctly modified the award by including an award for exemplary damages in the
amount of P25,000 in conformity with Article 2230 of the Civil Code
which provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the
civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances which in this case is AAA’s minority.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated P50,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000
as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. Costs against
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD 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.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING 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 |