FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- RUEL TAMANO y PASIA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 188855 Present:
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,* ABAD,** and PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: December 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEREZ, J.:
On
appeal is the Decision[1]
dated 19 February 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01439,
affirming with modification the Consolidated Decision[2]
dated 18 March 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, 4th
Judicial Region, Branch 1, in Criminal Case Nos. 12409-12410, finding herein
appellant Ruel Tamano y Pasia guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape, committed against AAA,[3] thus, sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering
him to pay AAA the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The appellate court further directed the appellant
to pay AAA an additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Appellant
Ruel Tamano y Pasia and a certain Danny
Alcanices stand charged with the crime of rape as defined and penalized under
Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in two separate
Informations[4] both
dated 2 July 2002 that read:
Criminal Case No. 12409
That sometime in the month of
February to March 2002 at
Criminal Case No. 12410
That sometime in
the month of February to March 2002 at
On
arraignment, appellant and Danny Alcanices, both assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded NOT GUILTY to the
charges against them. Trial on the
merits ensued thereafter.
The
prosecution presented as witnesses the following: AAA, the private offended
party; BBB, the mother of AAA; CCC, the cousin of AAA; Nimia Hermilla C. De
Guzman (De Guzman), clinical psychologist at the National Center for Mental
Health (NCMH) who examined and evaluated AAA’s mental condition; and Dr.
Larissa Yadao (Dr. Yadao), Medical Officer III at the Department of Obstetrics
and Gynecology of the Batangas Regional Hospital who conducted a physical
examination on AAA.
As
culled from the records and testimonies of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses,
the factual antecedents of this case are as follows:
AAA
was only 17 years old at the time the rape incident happened. She has a Down syndrome, thus, considered a
special child. Unlike other girls of her
age, AAA could not do simple tasks on her own.
She has to be assisted in taking a bath and in eating her food. She also stutters when she speaks. Despite her being a special child, AAA is
attending school as she was enrolled by her mother, BBB, in a school near their
place, which offered a special program for special children.[7]
AAA’s
condition as a special child did not spare her from being a victim of rape. In the fateful morning, sometime in February
to March 2002, AAA was at the house of her uncle DDD, her mother’s brother, which
is merely adjacent to their own house. Both
appellant and Danny Alcanices were also at the house of AAA’s uncle for they
were boarders therein. In the presence
of Danny Alcanices, appellant suddenly kissed AAA and touched her breasts. Appellant likewise removed AAA’s t-shirt and
undergarments. When AAA was already
naked, appellant sucked her breasts.
Then, appellant went on top of AAA and ordered her to hold his penis but
AAA refused. Appellant, thereafter,
inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina.
AAA felt pain. While appellant was
raping AAA, Danny Alcanices was still there watching them. After appellant had satisfied his bestial
desire, Danny Alcanices took his turn in ravishing AAA also in the presence of
appellant.[8] Danny Alcanices tied AAA’s hands and forced
her to lie down. He then kissed AAA on
the lips, parted her legs, went on top of her and inserted his penis into AAA’s
vagina. AAA, once again, felt pain. After Danny Alcanices has fully satisfied his
sexual desire, he gave AAA P100.00 to keep her from reporting the
incident.[9]
AAA
did not immediately tell anyone about her ordeal. Her behavior, however, changed a lot after such
a harrowing experience in the hands of appellant and Danny Alcanices. Such sudden change in AAA’s behavior became
noticeable to her cousin, CCC.[10]
Between February and March 2002, CCC
noticed that AAA began acting strangely.
Prior to these months, AAA was still a very jolly person and would
usually sit down on a bench to wait for CCC as the latter comes home from work. AAA would even go with CCC in attending
church services. But, from February to
March 2002, AAA suddenly became irritable and every time CCC would greet her,
she would constantly respond that she is angry.
AAA would even tell CCC, “Ako
iisip, ako sasakit dibdib.”[11]
Bothered by AAA’s change of behavior,
CCC began confronting AAA about it while they were inside her room, together
with her sister. As CCC was changing her
clothes, AAA began confiding to CCC’s sister regarding her ordeal in the hands
of appellant and Danny Alcanices. CCC
then asked AAA a series of questions. In
the course of their conversation, CCC confirmed that the red markings she saw
on AAA’s wrists in the last week of February 2002 until early part of March
2002 were the result of the tying of AAA’s hands by Danny Alcanices at the time
he was raping AAA. CCC also asked AAA
why she did not shout to which AAA immediately replied that her mouth was
covered. Later on, CCC then told AAA’s
sister everything AAA confessed to them.[12]
Eventually, BBB, AAA’s mother,
learned about the unfortunate incident that happened to AAA. She then remembered that it was in February
or early March 2002 when AAA became sickly.
It was also the time when AAA vomited, experienced stomach pains and had
red markings on her wrists as if she was tied.
There was even an instance when Danny Alcanices greeted AAA but she hid
at the back of her cousin and uttered, “Ipa-pupulis
ko ‘yan. Bibitay ‘yan, hayup ‘yan,
walanghiya ‘yan.”[13]
After BBB was told of her daughter’s
ordeal, she cried in pity for her daughter.
Then, BBB and AAA immediately went to the police station and filed a
Complaint against appellant and Danny Alcanices.[14]
The following day, or on
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: No external physical injury seen at the time of examination.
INTERNAL
EXAMINATION:
PREGNANCY TEST: NEGATIVE[17] [Emphasis
supplied].
For purposes of determining AAA’s
mental age, she was brought to NCMH in
TEST RESULTS AND EVALUATION:
Obtained numerical IQ of 36 classifies [AAA’s] intellectual capacity under the Moderate Level of Mental Retardation with a mental age approximated to be 8 years old.
She has fair ideas of identifying simple things in her environment but understanding the correlation and importance of it towards social demands and activities in her everyday life cannot be discerned.
Thus, the role she is expected to perform at age 17 is not achieved. She is still playful and expects her caregivers and significant others to cater to her needs.
Immature traits prevail so that difficulties in relating with people around her are often encountered.
Needs guidance and supervision as well as a guardian who will safeguard and protect her.[25] [Emphasis supplied].
For its part, the defense presented
the testimonies of appellant, Danny Alcanices, Nelita Lopez, Constancio
Tolentino, Analiza
Appellant admitted that he knew AAA
because she is the niece of the owner of the boarding house he previously rented. As such, AAA frequented the said boarding
house to watch television or to do basic household chores, i.e., sweeping the floor and washing the dishes. In the months of February and March 2002 appellant
was still staying in the said boarding house because his work was still within the
Batangas area. Being in the
sales/marketing department of WWI,[26]
he has no fixed hours of work. Appellant
usually reported for work at
Nonetheless, appellant vehemently
denied having raped AAA. He claimed that
he does not know why he was being implicated in such a grievous offense. There was also no misunderstanding between
him and the mother, as well as the cousin, of AAA. He just surmised that it is because AAA had a
crush on him as she keeps on telling the people in the boarding house that he
is her boyfriend. He came to know that
he was charged with rape when he was apprehended on
Danny Alcanices similarly admitted
that he personally knew AAA because he once stayed in the boarding house owned
by her mother. As such, he cares for
AAA like his younger sister. He left
AAA’s mother’s boarding house because the latter got angry with him when once
he was drunk he told her “I love you.”
He then transferred to a nearby boarding house owned by AAA’s uncle
where appellant was also a boarder. When
he was at the said boarding house, he often saw AAA entering appellant’s
room. He then advised AAA not to go
there as it is improper for a girl to enter a man’s room. AAA, however, did not heed his advice.[29]
Like appellant, Danny Alcanices strongly
denied having raped AAA and avowed that the said accusation against him was not
true. He maintained that he is a good
man who only thinks of his family’s welfare.[30] He does not know any reason why he was
accused of raping AAA other than the fact that AAA’s family was angry with him
because of his rumored affair with the sister-in-law of AAA’s cousin, CCC.[31]
Nelita Lopez’s testimony relates only
to the fact that Danny Alcanices became her boarder starting
Constancio Tolentino, a board mate of
Danny Alcanices at the boarding house owned by AAA’s uncle, testified that whenever
he was at the boarding house, there was never an instance that he saw AAA inside
Danny Alcanices’ room. Besides, the
rooms inside the boarding house have separate doors so the occupants cannot
observe what is happening in each and every room thereat. Also, he did not stay there 24-hours a day,
so he has no idea what was happening therein when he was away.[33]
Analiza
The last witness offered by the
defense is Carina Mercado, co-worker of Danny Alcanices at Alpha Hotel. She is the Personnel Head Assistant of Alpha
Hotel and she keeps the records of the employees’ attendance. She stated that she has a record of Danny
Alcanices’ attendance as employee of Alpha Hotel for the months of January
until March 2002. She admitted, however,
that she cannot monitor him every minute just to see whether he was indeed at
the Alpha Hotel during the hours indicated in his daily time record.[35]
In a Consolidated Decision dated
The trial court nonetheless did not
appreciate conspiracy in the commission of the crime charged. It noted from the testimony of AAA that although
Danny Alcanices was present at the time appellant was raping AAA and vice-versa,
there was no showing whatsoever that the two acted in concert and mutually
aided one another in the fulfillment of the crime charged. Their acts were not connected and cooperative
to indicate a closeness of personal association and concurrence of sentiments.[36] Therefore, their criminal liabilities can
only be considered in the light of their individual participation and they
should be punished separately. In the
testimony of AAA, appellant was the first person who raped her, so appellant
should be held responsible in Criminal Case No. 12409 while Danny Alcanices
should be held responsible in Criminal Case No. 12410. The trial court thus decreed:
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the Court finds the Accused DANNY ALCANICES y Cueto guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 12409[37] and [appellant] RUEL TAMANO y Pasia guilty beyond reasonable, as principal, of the crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 124010[38] defined and penalized under the provisions of Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance appreciated, hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
Further,
[accused DANNY ALCANICES y Cueto] and [appellant RUEL TAMANO y Pasia] are
ordered to pay the offended party the sum [of] FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00)
PESOS, each, as civil indemnity.
x x x x.[39] [Emphasis supplied].
Appellant and Danny Alcanices
appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals via Notice of Appeal. For
failure, however, of Danny Alcanices to file an Appellant’s Brief within the period
provided for by Section 1(e),[40]
Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, his appeal was abandoned and
consequently dismissed per Minute Resolution[41]
dated
In his brief, appellant’s lone
assignment of error was: the trial court
gravely erred in finding [appellant] guilty of the crime charged despite the
failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[42]
In its Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present
appeal is DENIED. The assailed [Consolidated] Decision dated
[18 March 2005], rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Batangas City
in Crim. Case Nos. 12409 and 12410 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that appellant Ruel Tamano is further ordered to pay AAA the amount of P50,000.00
as moral damages, in addition to the amount of P50,000.00 civil
indemnity awarded by the RTC.[43]
Disgruntled, appellant appealed the
aforesaid Decision to this Court asserting that the prosecution miserably
failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. He claims that AAA’s story of defloration was
merely concocted for she was only prodded by her mother and cousin to testify
in court. Thus, the credibility of such
testimony was highly questionable.
In the same way, appellant contends
that even the result of the medico-legal examination of AAA cannot be relied
upon as evidence that she was raped. For
even the medico-legal officer herself who examined AAA revealed that the kind
of hymenal lacerations sustained by AAA could have also been caused by riding a
bicycle or a horse. Appellant, thus, holds
that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
the crime of rape.
Appellant’s contentions fail to
persuade us.
Noticeably, the arguments posited by
the appellant hinged on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses’
testimonies, more especially, of AAA.
In essence, the crime of rape
involves two persons only and it is usually perpetrated in seclusion, thus, the
credibility of the victim is crucial to the determination of the culpability of
the accused.[44]
While it is true that the credibility
of one who is a mental retardate may be difficult to determine, still, it can
be ascertained by deducing from the manner she testifies in court as to the
surrounding facts of the crime committed.
For as long as her testimony is straightforward, candid and unflawed by
inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, and her demeanor is
consistent with one who has been a victim of rape, bolsters her credibility
with the verity born out of human nature and experience,[45] thus,
must be given full faith and credit.
Moreover, mental retardation per se does not affect credibility. A
mentally retarded may be a credible witness.
The acceptance of her testimony depends on the quality of her
perceptions and the manner she can make them known to the court.[46]
Parenthetically, this Court has
repeatedly held that matters concerning the credibility of a witness are best
addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court. Appellate courts will generally not interfere
with the trial court’s assessment in this regard, absent any indication or
showing that the trial court has overlooked some material facts of substance or
value, or gravely abused its discretion.
The matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is
best and most competently performed or carried out by a trial judge who, unlike
appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in light of accused’s behavior,
demeanor, conduct, and attitude at the trial.[47]
In the case at bench, it is beyond
question that AAA is a mental retardate with a mental age of an eight-year-old-child. Such finding was amply supported by the
Psychological Report[48]
dated
Notwithstanding AAA’s mental
condition, this Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the trial court’s
findings that her testimony is, indeed, logical, clear, convincing, credible
and sufficient to hold appellant and Danny Alcanices guilty of the crime
charged.
A perusal of the records reveals that
AAA vividly described how she was ravished by the appellant, as well as by
Danny Alcanices, sometime in February to March 2002. AAA categorically depicted how the appellant
kissed and touched her breasts, removed her t-shirt and undergarments, sucked
her breasts, went on top of her while instructing her to hold his penis which
she refused, and inserted his penis into her vagina that caused her pain. While
appellant was doing these atrocious acts on her, Danny Alcanices was simply watching
them. Thereafter, Danny Alcanices took
his turn in ravishing her also in the presence of appellant.[49] Danny Alcanices similarly kissed her on the
lips, parted her legs, went on top of her and inserted his penis into her
vagina.[50]
This Court noted that the
aforesaid testimony of AAA was given without flourish and innuendo.[51] As aptly observed by the trial court:
x x x despite [AAA’s] mental condition and limited communication skills, she was able to perceive what happened to her and effectively conveyed it in her own unique way. Her description on how she was molested, her telegraphic answer to questions as to how the raped occurred due to her limited vocabulary vividly portrayed that the words came from an innocent girl and point to an undeniable fact that she was not coached.[52] [Emphases supplied].
The records likewise revealed that
AAA was in tears while positively identifying appellant and Danny Alcanices as
her ravisher, as well as in recounting the circumstances surrounding her ordeal.[53] The crying of the victim during her testimony
is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of
human nature and experience.[54] Moreover, the straightforward narration of
AAA on how she was raped coupled by her categorical identification of appellant
and Danny Alcanices as the malefactors sealed the case for the prosecution.[55]
In the same way, the lack of improper
motive on the part of AAA even bolsters her credibility. Where there is no evidence to show any
dubious or improper reason why a prosecution witness should testify falsely
against the accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, her testimony
is worthy of full faith and credit.[56]
Appellant’s claim that the possible
reason why he was implicated in this grievous crime is because AAA had a crush
on him, is simply unacceptable to this Court.
Aside from being self-serving, it also lacks sufficient basis. Similarly, it is highly inconceivable that AAA
in her condition as a mental retardate with a mental age of an eight-year-old-child
would fabricate a charge of defloration, allow an examination of her private
parts, and thereafter submit herself to a public trial or ridicule, if she had
not, in fact, been a victim of rape and deeply motivated by a sincere desire to
have the culprit apprehended and punished.[57] Plainly,
only a woman seeking justice with truth as her weapon could have braved this
calvary.[58]
This Court cannot also sustain
appellant’s allegation that AAA merely concocted the rape charge because she
was prodded by her mother and cousin to testify against appellant. It is unthinkable that a mother would draw
her daughter, a mental retardate at that, into a rape scam with all its
attendant scandal and humiliation if the rape did not really happen. No mother in her right mind would possibly
wish to stamp her child with the stigma that follows a despicable crime of rape.[59]
In his futile attempt to exonerate
himself from the consequences of his bestial act, appellant attacks even the
credibility of the result of AAA’s medico-legal examination by holding that the
medico-legal officer who examined AAA revealed that the kind of hymenal
lacerations found on AAA’s private part could have also been caused by riding a
bicycle or a horse.
In the crime of rape, the testimony
of the victim, and not the findings of the medico-legal officer, is the most
important element to prove that the felony had been committed.[60] A medical examination is not indispensable in
the prosecution of a rape victim.
Insofar as the evidentiary weight of the medical examination is
concerned, we have already ruled that a medical examination of the victim, as
well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is
not an indispensable element for conviction in rape. What
is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is
clear, unequivocal and credible,[61] and this we find here to be the case.
In contrast to the explicit
declaration of AAA that appellant raped her, all that the appellant could
muster is the defense of denial. As
between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare
denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail. A mere denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and constitutes self-serving
negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the
declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[62] As against the positive identification and
credible testimony of AAA, mere denials of appellant cannot prevail to overcome
conviction by the trial court.
With all the foregoing, this Court is
convinced that the trial court and the appellate court correctly convicted the
appellant for the crime of simple rape,[63] which is punishable by reclusion perpetua.[64]
This Court affirms the award of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity given by the lower courts to the victim. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the
nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the
fact of rape.[65]
Moral
damages in rape cases should be awarded without need of showing that the victim
suffered trauma of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings constituting
the basis thereof. These are too obvious
to still require their recital at the trial by the victim, since we even assume
and acknowledge such agony as a gauge of her credibility.[66]
Thus, this Court finds the award of moral damages by the appellate court
in the amount of P50,000.00 proper.
This
Court also finds it proper to award exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00
as a measure to deter other individuals with aberrant sexual tendencies.[67]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 01439 dated P30,000.00
as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO
A. ABAD
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 916 dated
** Per Special Order No.
917 dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justices Celia C.
Librea-Leagogo and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring. Rollo,
pp. 2-13.
[2] Penned
by Presiding Judge Florencio S. Arellano. CA rollo, pp. 83-92.
[3] This is pursuant
to the ruling of this Court in People of
the Philippines v. Cabalquinto, [G.R. No. 167693,
The Supreme Court took note of the legal mandate on the utmost confidentiality of proceedings involving violence against women and children set forth in Sec. 29 of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act; Sec. 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004; and Sec. 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children effective 15 November 2004.
[4] CA
rollo, pp. 13-14.
[5] Records,
Vol. 2, pp. 1-2.
[6] Records,
Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.
[7] Testimony
of AAA’s mother, BBB. TSN,
[8] Testimony
of AAA. TSN,
[9]
[10] Testimony
of CCC. TSN,
[11]
[12]
[13] Testimony
of BBB. TSN,
[14]
[15]
[16] Records,
Vol. I, p. 6.
[17]
[18] Testimony
of Nimia Hermilla De Guzman. TSN,
[19] This
test consists of sets of pictures which is abstract in nature. It is a non-verbal test in which the subject would
just analyze the pictures and point to the correct answers that would fit the same
(
[20] It
is usually a Draw-A-Person-Test which doubles as an I.Q. Test (
[21] It
measures how a person will react towards the environment, the intellectual
capacity, maturity, visual motor coordination, the needs and the conflicts (
[22] It
is an unstructural test and a very sensitive test that would illicit the
conflicts, pre-occupations, needs and also the intellectual capacities of the
subject. It would also indicate that the
subject has a very limited perceptual and conceptual process (
[23]
[24] Records,
Vol. II, pp. 100-101.
[25]
[26] Nothing
was mentioned in the Records/Rollo as
to what “WWI” stands for.
[27] Testimony
of appellant. TSN,
[28]
[29] Testimony of Danny Alcanices. TSN,
[30]
[31]
[32] Testimony of Nelita Lopez. TSN,
[33] Testimony of Constancio Tolentino. TSN,
[34] Testimony of Analiza
[35] Testimony of Carina Mercado. TSN,
[36] CA rollo, pp. 90-91. See
also People v. Cortes, G.R. No. 120920,
[37] The
prosecution failed to prove conspiracy, thus, the RTC separately convicted the
appellant and Danny Alcanices. In the
body of the RTC Decision dated 18 March 2005, it was Ruel Tamano y Pasia who was held guilty for rape in
Criminal Case No. 12409 since he was the first person who raped AAA while Danny
Alcanices was held guilty for rape in Criminal Case No. 12410 for having raped
AAA just right after the appellant raped her.
[38] CA
rollo, p. 91.
[39]
[40] SECTION
1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. – An
appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that
of the appellee, on the following grounds:
x x x x
(e)
Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies
of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules.
[41] CA
rollo, p. 133.
[42]
[43] Rollo, p. 13.
[44] People v. Macapal, Jr., 501 Phil. 675, 684 (2005).
[45]
[46]
[47] People v. Sabiyon, 437 Phil. 594,
615-616 (2002).
[48] Records,
Vol. I, pp. 100-101.
[49] Testimony
of AAA. TSN,
[50] Testimony
of CCC. TSN,
[51] People v. Tormis, G.R. No. 183456,
[52] CA rollo, p. 89.
[53] Testimony of AAA. TSN,
[54] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 141599,
[55] People v. Macapal, Jr., supra note 44 at
686.
[56] People v. Ponsaran, 426 Phil. 836, 849 (2002).
[57] People
v. Ligotan, G.R. No. 119219,
[58] People v. Ayungon, 411 Phil. 415, 427-428 (2001).
[59] People v. Cula, 385 Phil. 742, 754 (2000).
[60] People v. Logmao, 414 Phil. 378, 387 (2001).
[61] People
v. Arivan, G.R. No. 176065,
[62] People v. Alvero, 386 Phil. 181, 200 (2000).
[63] ART. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed.-Rape is committed:
1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation. (Revised Penal Code).
[64] ART. 266-B. Penalties.-Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceeding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. (Revised Penal Code).
[65] People
v. Gragasin, G.R. No. 186496,
[66] People v. Docena, 379 Phil. 903, 917-918 (2000).
[67] People v. Cadap, G.R. No. 190633,