Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- RENE CELOCELO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 173798 Present: CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, DEL
CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: December 15, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated February 28, 2006, which affirmed with
modification the Decision[2]
rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 275, Las Piñas City, in Criminal Case No. 98-1079, finding
accused-appellant Rene Celocelo (Celocelo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in
relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 8353, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
and ordering Celocelo to pay the offended party Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral
damages.
On September 22, 1998, Celocelo was charged before the RTC for the crime of Rape. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the 26th day of July, 1998, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with knife and by means of force, violence and intimidation with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [AAA] against her will and consent thereby subjecting her to sexual abuse.[3]
Celocelo pleaded not guilty to the
charge when he was arraigned on December 1, 1999.[4]
Trial on the merits followed the termination of the pre-trial
conference.
The
prosecution offered three witnesses: (1) Dr. Aurea P. Villena, Medico Legal
Officer II of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), who personally
examined AAA;[5] (2) Senior Inspector Marilyn N. Samarita,
the police investigator who requested the NBI to conduct the medico-legal
examination on AAA; and (3) private complainant AAA, the 19-year-old
victim. The defense had two
witnesses: (1) Rene Celocelo, the
accused; and (2) Edgardo de Vera, the accused’s brother in law.
The
prosecution first presented Dr. Aurea P. Villena, the Medico Legal Officer II
of the NBI who conducted the physical examination on AAA on July 26, 1998. Her findings, as stated in the medico-legal
report, are as follows:
FINDINGS
x x x x
PHYSICAL INJURIES:
Contusion, purplish, 0.5 cm x 1.0 cm., right breast.
GENITAL EXAMINATION:
Pubic hairs, fully grown, abundant. Labia majora and minora, gaping. Fourchette, lax. Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen, tall, thick, with an old healed complete laceration at 6:00 o’clock position corresponding to the face of a watch, edges rounded, non-coaptable. Hymenal orifice admits a tube 2.0 cm. in diameter. Vaginal walls, lax. Rugosities, shallow.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The above-described physical injury was noted on the body of the subject at the time of the examination.
2. Hymenal laceration present.[6]
Dr. Villena also testified that after
conducting a medico-legal examination on AAA, she took three vaginal smears
from her and brought it to the laboratory for seminal examination.[7]
The results were recorded in Laboratory Report No. S-98-267.[8] The report indicated that the vaginal smears
gave a positive result for the presence of human spermatozoa. When the prosecutor asked Dr. Villena what
this meant, she testified that positive semenology is highly indicative of
recent sexual intercourse.[9]
The second witness presented was
Marilyn N. Samarita. She was the police
investigator who requested the NBI to conduct a medico-legal examination on
AAA. She was assigned as Chief of the
Women and Children’s desk at the Las Piñas City Police Station at the time AAA
went to her office. She testified that
she made the request when AAA came to her office to file a complaint.[10]
She also testified that AAA came back on July 29, 1998 to inform her
that the results will be out the following day, July 30, but AAA will just come
back on July 31 to give her statement as she was not yet ready.[11]
The third witness who took the stand
was the victim herself, AAA. She
testified that on July 26, 1998, at around two o’clock in the morning, while
she was sleeping in their house with her siblings, she was awakened by
Celocelo, who covered her mouth, and told her “not to make any scandal.”[12]
She testified that Celocelo pulled her by her hair and dragged her out
of the bedroom towards the comfort room which was located outside their
house. AAA said she pleaded to Celocelo
not to abuse her but he ignored her pleas and told her to undress. AAA claimed that Celocelo removed her jogging
pants and panty while pointing a lansetang
dipindot (automatic knife) at her.
She was then forced to sit on top of Celocelo, face to face, who by then
positioned himself on the toilet bowl, and while holding a knife with his right
hand and holding her arm with his left hand, proceeded to rape her by moving
AAA up and down. AAA said that after
Celocelo raped her, he told her to dress herself and not to tell anybody or he
will come back to kill her. AAA said
that after the incident, she found herself on her sister’s doorsteps,
inconsolably crying. AAA, together with
her sister, her sister’s husband, and one of her brothers, went back to AAA’s
house to tell their parents who became hysterical upon learning that AAA was
raped. They proceeded to the Barangay
office to report the incident, and Celocelo was arrested that morning in his
work place.
Celocelo, in his testimony, denied
AAA’s claim that he raped her. He said
that he had been seeing and courting AAA for three months prior to the
incident. On July 25, 1998, he went to
AAA’s house at around eight o’clock in the evening. AAA allowed him to enter her house, and it
was then when he told her that he liked her.
AAA favorably responded to his proposal with “Oo, sinasagot na kita,” and when he asked for a kiss, she
willingly obliged. However, after about
30 seconds of kissing, Celocelo said that AAA stopped for fear that her mother
might catch them as they were in the living room. She then took his hand and led him to the
comfort room outside their house.
Celocelo said that it was AAA who undressed herself and it was she who sat
on top of him to have sexual intercourse.
They agreed to meet again the following day as it was his pay day, but
when he reported for work, he was arrested for allegedly raping AAA.[13]
Edgardo de Vera was also presented as a
witness for Celocelo. De Vera is
Celocelo’s brother-in-law and he testified that he was the one who introduced
Celocelo to AAA. He claimed that AAA
always watched Celocelo play basketball and she was particularly happy whenever
the ball was in Celocelo’s hands. He
also claimed that AAA would hold Celocelo’s hands when congratulating him and
would ask him to pass by their bench during time-outs.[14]
On August 31, 2004, the RTC convicted
Celocelo for the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the
offended party the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is rendered finding accused Rene Celocelo GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt as charged and hereby sentenced to suffer the prison term of reclusion
perpetua and likewise suffer the accessory penalty provided for by law and to
pay the complainant, [AAA], the sum of P100,000.00 and to pay the costs.[15]
The RTC, in its decision, said that
the issue it was faced with was whether or not the sexual congress was attended
with the use of force or intimidation.
The RTC resolved the issue in the affirmative and held that it believed
that there was indeed force and intimidation when Celocelo poked a knife at AAA
while having sexual intercourse with her.
The RTC said that it was but natural for AAA to not fight back or even
make any noise for fear of what Celocelo might do to her and her family. The RTC found AAA to be a credible witness as
it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of AAA and saw that she was
“straightforward in denouncing the accused while [he] appeared [to be] impishly
smiling as [AAA] denounced him.”[16]
On
intermediate appellate review before the Court of Appeals, Celocelo alleged that the RTC erred
in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and assigned the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF [THE] PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT MAKING A FINDING OF FACTS IN ITS DECISION, WHICH IS A REVERSIBLE ERROR.[17]
Celocelo
alleged that AAA’s “account of how she was raped by [Celocelo] is contrary to
human experience”[18] when she said that her jogging pants
and panty were pulled down to her ankles and yet she was able to sit on top of
him. Celocelo also asserted that the RTC
was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as it relied mainly on
the testimony of AAA. Moreover, Celocelo
claimed that the RTC’s decision was constitutionally and procedurally infirm as
it “did not bother to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it was based,”[19] as required by both the 1987 Constitution[20] and the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure.[21]
The Court of Appeals sustained
Celocelo’s conviction and addressed each of the assigned errors. With regard to the inconsistencies in AAA’s
testimony, the Court of Appeals believed that the inconsistency Celocelo was
pointing out was fully explained in the same testimony.
Next, the Court of Appeals defended
the RTC’s reliance on the testimony of AAA, as the RTC found AAA’s demeanor
consistent with her allegation that Celocelo raped her. The Court of Appeals stated that the findings
of the RTC “on the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies are
generally accorded great respect by an appellate court,”[22] and since Celocelo was unable to
present proof of overlooked or misappreciated facts and circumstances that
would alter the results of the case, there was no reason to disregard the RTC’s
findings of facts.
On the last assignment of error, the
Court of Appeals held that the fact that the judgment may not be satisfactory
to Celocelo is not enough to convince it that the decision is flawed.[23]
The Court of Appeals maintained that the conviction was based on facts
on record and sound doctrines applicable to the case. The Court of Appeals further noted the
Solicitor General’s argument that, while the RTC’s decision may be short, it is
neither constitutionally nor procedurally infirm as only the “essential
ultimate facts” upon which the court’s conclusion is drawn are required to be
stated in the court’s decision.[24]
In
finding that the prosecution was able to establish Celocelo’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the Court of Appeals, on February 28, 2006, affirmed the RTC
with clarification on the award, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of
conviction is AFFIRMED with
clarification that the award of “P100,000.00” should cover the (a) civil
indemnity of P50,000.00 and (b) moral damages of P50,000.00.[25]
On
March 23, 2006, Celocelo filed his Notice of Appeal and subsequently filed a
Manifestation that he is adopting the arguments in his Appellant’s Brief in
this appeal.
This
Court believes that the resolution of this case hinges upon whether or not
Celocelo’s guilt for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. x x x.[26]
In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three settled 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 person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, 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 merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[27]
Rape is a serious transgression with grave consequences for both the accused and the complainant. Using the above guiding principles in the review of rape cases, this Court is thus duty-bound to conduct a thorough and exhaustive evaluation of a judgment of conviction for rape. [28]
This Court has made a painstaking scrutiny of the entire records of the case, including both parties’ exhibits and the transcript of stenographic notes, and finds no reason to reverse the Courts below.
Celocelo was charged in the information under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.[29]
Carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following instances constitutes rape: (1) when force or intimidation is used; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; and (3) when she is under twelve (12) years of age.[30] In the case at bar, AAA gave categorical testimony that Celocelo was armed with a knife when he forced himself upon her, to wit:
Q: How did
you come to know that he is made, very mad?
A: He
pulled my hair.
Q: What
else, if any?
A: He is
also pointing to me a LANSETANG DIPINDOT on my right side.
Q: Now,
after pulling your hair and pointing a knife at the right side of your body,
what else did Rene Celocelo do?
A: He told
me to undress myself.
Q: What
did you do when Rene Celocelo [told] you to undress yourself?
A: Still I
pleaded to him, continuosly pleading to him but he did the raped to me.
Q: And
what happened after that?
A: And he
removed my panty.
Q: How did
he remove your panty?
A: While
his left hand is pointing to me, at my right side of my body, he uses his other
hand in removing the panty.
Q: After
removing the panty, what else did he do?
A: GINALAW
NA NIYA PO AKO, he inserted his private parts to my genital.[31]
It is evident from the foregoing that force with the use of a deadly weapon was in fact employed by Celocelo on AAA to accomplish his depraved desires that dawn. AAA pleaded for Celocelo to not abuse her but instead he threatened her and her family, to wit:
Q: Why did
you not, at the time that Rene was dragging you towards the bathroom, why did
you not shout and ask for help from your housemate?
A: Because,
according to him if I will shout, he will not hesitate to kill me.
Q: How did
you feel, when he uttered those words to you?
A: So, I
kept silent fright and pleading to him.
Q: Why did
you cry?
A: I only
cried, sir, because I do not want that my brothers who are also inside the
bedroom will be affected, or will be involved.
Q: Now,
how did you feel when Rene Celocelo uttered those words to you?
A: PURO
TAKOT NA PO. I am afraid, sir.
Q: From
the time that Rene Celocelo was removing your Jogging Pants, or pulling down
your Jogging Pants as well as your panty, why did you not shout and ask for
help?
A: Because
he is threatening me that he will kill me if I will shout including my brothers
and sisters.[32]
Celocelo insists that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in giving full weight and credence to AAA’s testimony, claiming that her testimony was incredible as the “manner as to how she was allegedly raped by [Celocelo] is patently incredible and contrary to human experience and observation.”[33]
Celocelo makes much of the fact that in one part of AAA’s testimony, she said that during the sexual intercourse, her jogging pants and panty were only pulled down up to her ankles, while she was sitting on top of Celocelo, with her legs spread wide open.[34] Celocelo however missed the more important fact that the RTC itself clarified this issue in the same testimony:
Court: By the way, while the accused was pulling you up and down, were you facing him or your face backwards of him?
A: I was facing.
Court: And at that time, you had your jogging pants down to your ankle?
A: Well,
it was only the other pair of the jogging pants was not removed, the other one
was completely removed.
Court: Do I understand correctly, that while the accused was doing the push and pull movement, you legs were open?
A: Yes, your Honor.[35] (Emphasis ours.)
It is only human for AAA to not be able to readily narrate the exact details of her experience when questioned. The Court has in the past observed that “[i]t would not really be unusual for one to recollect a good number of things about an eventful incident but what should be strange is when one can put to mind everything.”[36] As this Court has time and again declared:
Etched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that a
victim of a savage crime cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then
give an accurate account of every lurid detail of a frightening experience - a
verity born out of human nature and experience.
This is especially true with a rape victim who is required to utilize
every fiber of her body and mind to repel an attack from a stronger aggressor.
x x x.[37]
This error cannot impair the
credibility of AAA especially since first, the imputed inconsistency or
incredible testimony was later explained and clarified by no less than the RTC
itself, and second, the RTC, who was in the best position to determine if AAA
were indeed credible, believed her to be so, to wit:
The Court had been observant of the demeanor of the complainant and the accused in the course of the trial and found that the complainant was straightforward in denouncing the accused while the accused appeared impishly smiling as the complainant denounced him.[38]
We once again reiterate the
time-honored maxim that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of
witnesses is entitled to the highest respect.
It was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the
witnesses’ manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs and the
scant or full realization of their oath.[39]
Celocelo also claims that the
prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In rape cases, there are usually only two
witnesses: the complainant and the accused.
It is a settled rule that rape may be proven by the uncorroborated
testimony of the offended victim, as long as her testimony is conclusive,
logical and probable.[40]
As we have ascertained that AAA was a
credible witness, it bears stressing that her lone testimony, which was also
shown to be conclusive, logical, and probable, is enough to convict Celocelo of
the crime of rape.
What is essential is that AAA categorically identified her attacker as Celocelo after she stated in open court and in her sworn statement that Celocelo dragged her by her hair into the comfort room outside her house, threatened her with a knife, undressed her, and then raped her. These are the fundamental points in her testimonies constitutive of the crime of rape.[41]
What AAA did after the rape is also telling. Immediately after the incident, she mindlessly walked towards the house of her sister and just cried on her doorstep. They then informed their parents about what happened, and without delay, they reported the incident to the Barangay office. On the very same day, AAA subjected herself to a thorough medico-legal examination. The foregoing actions of AAA, subsequent to the rape, overwhelmingly establish the truth of the charge of rape. They were spontaneous, impulsive and unpretentious.
Moreover, Celocelo has not shown any improper motive on the part of AAA for her to accuse him of rape. This Court has in many cases held that no young Filipina would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished, unless it is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.[42]
These facts were also found by the RTC, and stated in its decision, however short it may be. Borrowing the Court of Appeals’ words:
The assailed decision may not be the kind of judgment
rendered to the satisfaction of the accused.
But such is not enough to convince Us that it is flawed.[43]
The RTC based its decision on the transcript of stenographic notes, and all the documents collected during the course of the trial. It explained why it believed AAA to be a credible witness and even described Celocelo’s demeanor during the trial. It used settled principles, as established by this Court in its evaluation of the evidence and the records. The RTC cannot be faulted for its desire to be brief, concise, and straight to the point in penning its decision.
In fine, the prosecution was able to
discharge its burden of proving Celocelo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt under
Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the
Revised Penal Code.
Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape.[44] Moral damages are automatically awarded
without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has
actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[45] Taking into account the fact that the rape
was attended with the use of a deadly weapon, a qualifying circumstance under
Article 266-B, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, an award of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages is justified. This kind of damages is intended to serve as
deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty
of outrageous conduct. [46]
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 28, 2006 finding Rene Celocelo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of RAPE is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is
further ordered to pay private complainant exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00
plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum on ALL damages from the date of
finality of this judgment. No Costs.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-20; penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E.
Veloso with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Amelita G.
Tolentino, concurring.
[2] CA
rollo, pp. 37-38; penned by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda.
[3] Records,
p. 1.
[4] Id.
at 23.
[5] 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.
[6] Records,
p. 7.
[7] TSN,
March 9, 2001, p. 15.
[8] Records,
p. 142.
[9] TSN,
March 9, 2001, p. 17.
[10] TSN,
August 3, 2001, pp. 3-7.
[11] Id. at 13.
[12] TSN,
November 7, 2001, pp. 10-11.
[13] TSN,
August 13, 2003, pp. 3-23.
[14] TSN, March 25, 2004, pp. 9-13.
[15] CA rollo,
p. 38.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
at 52.
[18] Id.
at 59.
[19] Id.
at 61.
[20]
Article VIII, Section 14.
[21] Rule
36, Section 1.
[22] Rollo,
p. 14.
[23] Id.
at 15.
[24] Id. at 16.
[25] Id.
at 19.
[26] People v. Suarez, 496 Phil. 231, 249
(2005).
[27] People v. Antivola, 466 Phil. 394, 408 (2004).
[28] People
v. Bagaua, 442 Phil. 245, 250 (2002).
[29] Records, p. 1.
[30] People v. Erese, 346 Phil. 307, 314 (1997).
[31] TSN, November 7, 2001, pp. 12-13.
[32] Id.
at 19-20.
[33] CA rollo, p. 60.
[34] TSN,
December 7, 2001, p. 24.
[35] Id.
at 33.
[36] People v. Mirafuentes, 402 Phil. 233,
242 (2001).
[37] People v. Del Rosario, 398 Phil. 292, 301 (2000).
[38] Rollo, p. 38.
[39] People v. Fernandez, 426 Phil. 169, 173
(2002).
[40] People v. Buenviaje, 408 Phil. 342, 354
(2001).
[41] People v. Del Rosario, supra note 37.
[42] People
v. Santiago, 274 Phil. 847, 860 (1991).
[43] Rollo,
p. 15.
[44] People v. Calongui, G.R. No. 170566,
March 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 76, 88.
[45] People v. Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, May
21, 2004, 429 SCRA 9, 28-29.
[46] People v. Macapanas, G.R. No. 187049,
May 4, 2010.