SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MELVIN LOLOS, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 189092 Present: CARPIO J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: August 19, 2010 |
x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This appeal seeks to set aside the
July 15, 2009 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03280, which affirmed the November
19, 2007 Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Sorsogon City (RTC), finding accused Melvin Lolos guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of rape which he committed against 8-year-old AAA.[3]
In an
information dated
That on October 25, 2000 at more or less
7:00 o’clock in the evening, Barangay San Isidro, Municipality of Castilla,
Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, thru force and
intimidation, and taking advantage of the tender age of the victim, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with
[AAA], a nine year- old girl, who is incapable of giving intelligent consent,
against her will to her damage and prejudice.[4]
During the trial, the prosecution
presented, as its witnesses, AAA, the victim herself; BBB, the grandmother of
the rape victim; and Dr. Salve B. Sapinoso, the attending physician who
examined AAA.
As culled from the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, it appears that AAA was just eight (8) years old on
On Fridays or Saturdays, BBB would
fetch AAA and accompany her back to their house. One day, AAA informed BBB that
she was being maltreated and beaten up with a belt by Melvin. BBB confronted him about it but he reasoned
out that he was just trying to discipline her. BBB also came to know that DDD, a
cousin of AAA’s father, heard a rumor from a barbershop that Melvin had raped AAA.
When BBB asked AAA about it, the latter confirmed it.
AAA narrated that on P2.00 and
she went out to a store nearby.
After hearing her story, BBB and DDD
brought her to the police station to report the incident and later to a
physician for examination. Dr. Salve B. Sapinoso’s examination showed her hymen
with incomplete superficial healed lacerations meaning these did not go beyond
one-half of the width of the hymen and could have been sustained more than two
or three weeks prior to the examination. She added that the lacerations could
have been caused most probably by the penetration of a male organ.
The defense, on the other hand, presented
three (3) witnesses: Melvin Lolos, the accused himself;
Melvin Lolos introduced himself as 23
years old and living in CCC’s house at the time the alleged incident took place
on
The testimony of his cousin, Alvin
Legaspi, was to the effect that Melvin could not have raped AAA on the night of
The mother of Alvin, Ligaya A.
Legaspi, testified that her son was in the house of CCC on the night of
On
WHEREFORE, finding accused MELVIN LOLOS
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape, he is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the offended party, [AAA], the amount of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO
ORDERED.[6]
In ruling against the accused, the trial court held that
the categorical statements of the victim must prevail over the bare denials of
the accused. It found the testimony of AAA, that she was raped by the accused not
just on
Apparently
not in conformity, the accused appealed the decision of the trial court. On
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing,
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 51 of Sorsogon City dated
SO
ORDERED.[7]
Aggrieved, the accused now comes to this Court via this
appeal presenting the following:
ASSIGNMENT
OF ERRORS
THE COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
THE COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE DESPITE
BEING CONTRARY TO HUMAN EXPERIENCE.
Accused Melvin Lolos argues that the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses were not only inconsistent but also highly
incredulous. He claims that the inconsistencies did not only refer to minor
details. First, AAA testified that there were only three (3) people staying in
the house where the alleged rape incident took place but BBB said that there
were four (4) occupants in the house. Second, AAA claimed that she was afraid
of the accused but he never threatened or forced her in any way. AAA also
related that after the rape incident, she was still able to go out of the house
and buy something from a store which makes her story hard to believe.
Her story is all the more doubtful considering that
she could not recall the exact date of the incident. She admitted that BBB only
told her that the date was
In
the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases,
courts consider the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made
with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more
difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that
in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of
rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence
for the defense.[8]
The gravamen of the offense of
rape is sexual congress with a woman by force and without consent. As
provided in the Revised Penal Code, sexual intercourse with a girl below 12
years old is statutory rape. The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that
the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman was below
12 years of age. Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape.[9]
From the foregoing, it is clear that what only needs
to be established is that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim who was
under twelve (12) years old.
Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings
of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
are binding upon this Court. As a general
rule, on the question whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that
of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and
entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so,
having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on
the witness stand as they gave their testimonies. The trial court is, thus, in the best
position to weigh conflicting testimonies and to discern if the witnesses were
telling the truth.
Both courts below were thoroughly and morally convinced
of the guilt of the accused. We see no cogent reason to disturb such finding.
After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary records, we found no cause to
overturn the findings of fact and conclusions of both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals. In this case, the
accused was charged with statutory rape. The first element was proven by the
positive, straightforward and credible testimony of the victim herself which
was supported by the findings of the medico-legal report. The second element was established by the
presentation of AAA's Certificate of Live Birth showing that she was born on
With respect to the inconsistency on the number of
occupants inside the house, the matter is inconsequential
as it does not bear upon the elements of the crime of rape. The decisive
factor in the prosecution for rape is whether the commission of the crime has
been sufficiently proven. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the
testimony of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must refer to the
significant facts indispensable to the guilt or innocence of the accused for
the crime charged.[10]
Thus, the cited inconsistency does not vitiate
the integrity of the prosecution evidence.
The fact that the accused never threatened or forced AAA
on that particular night and that she was still able to go out of the house and
buy something from a store cannot exculpate him. Even if she did not resist him or even gave
her consent, his having carnal knowledge of her is still considered rape considering
that she was only eight (8) years old at that time. It must be remembered that the accused is an
uncle of the victim and has moral ascendancy over her. Her behavior can be explained by the fear she
had of the accused, who had repeatedly beaten her for various reasons. His moral ascendancy over her, combined with
memories of previous beatings, was more than enough to intimidate her and
render her helpless and submissive while she was being brutalized.
x
x x. The behavior and reaction of every person cannot be predicted with
accuracy. It is an accepted maxim that different people react differently
to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of
behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling
experience. Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to
the usual expectations of everyone. Some may shout; some may faint; and
some be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the
intrusion. Behavioral psychology teaches us that people react to similar
situations dissimilarly. There is no standard form of behavior when one
is confronted by a shocking incident. The workings of the human mind when
placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. This is true
specially in this case where the victim is a child of tender age under the
moral ascendancy of the perpetrator of the crime.[11]
On her failure to recall the exact
date when she was raped, it is quite understandable because he did it to her on
several occasions. At any rate, the entrenched doctrine is that the
“date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the
said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through
force and intimidation. The precise time when the rape took place has no
substantial bearing on its commission.”[12]
We agree with
the appellate court when it ruled that there was no merit in the contention of
the accused that the presence of “superficial healed laceration” disproves the
commission of rape on
Finally, in addition to the award of civil indemnity
and moral damages, the Court also awards exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00
in favor of the victim. The reason behind the award is to set a public example and to protect the
young from sexual abuse.[13]
WHEREFORE, the P30,000.00 as exemplary damages to AAA.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 7-13. Penned by Judge Jose L. Madrid.
[3] Pursuant to the ruling of this Court in People v. Cabalquinto, G. R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, fictitious initials shall be used to respect the dignity and protect the privacy of the rape victim and that of her family.
[4] Cited in RTC Decision, CA rollo, p. 7.
[5]
[6]
[7] Rollo, p. 16.
[8] People v. Rante, G.R. No. 184809,
[9] People
v. Perez, G.R. No. 182924,
[10] People v. Escoton, G.R. No. 183577,
[11] People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 168693,
[12] People v. William Ching, G.R. No. 177150,
[13] People v. Lorenzo Layco, G.R. No. 182191,