Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
G.R. No. 183577 |
|
Appellee, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
HILARIO ESCOTON, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Appellant. |
|
February 1, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
In
rape cases, the credibility of the victim is always the single most important
issue.[1] In passing upon this matter, the highest
degree of respect must be accorded to the findings of the trial court.[2]
The Charge
Impugned in this appeal is the
February 5, 2008 Decision[3] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC
No. 00520 affirming with modification the Decision[4] of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Carigara,
That on or about the 12th day of May, 2001, in x x x, Province of Leyte,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with deliberate intent and with lewd designs, taking advantage of the
minority, as well as relationship of the accused with the victim, and by use of
force and intimidation being armed with a sickle (garab) did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge for five (5) times
in the same evening of May 12, 2001, with one “AAA”, a 10-year-old, a niece of
the accused, against her will to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law
with the qualifying circumstance that the victim is under 18 years and the
offender is a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree of the
victim.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged during his arraignment.
After the termination of the pre-trial conference, trial ensued.
The Version of
the Prosecution
The
evidence presented by the prosecution established that “AAA” was born on
Upon arrival, the appellant
undressed himself and removed the lower garments of “AAA”. He made her lie down on the bamboo floor then
inserted his penis into her vagina despite her pleas to discontinue his hideous
act. “AAA” felt pain as the appellant
had sex with her. The appellant raped “AAA”
for five times during the night while her brother lay silently beside her.
When daylight came, the appellant ordered
“AAA” and her brother to fetch drinking water.
However, instead of heeding appellant’s order, they went home to their
grandmother to whom “AAA” tearfully narrated her ordeal. Upon advice of a relative, they reported the
incident to the police and “AAA” submitted herself to a physical examination in
a hospital. Although the doctors who
performed the medical examination on “AAA” the day after she was raped could no
longer be located during the trial, the Records Officer affirmed the
authenticity of the document containing the results of said examination and the
signatures of doctors appearing thereon.
The record of the medical examination on “AAA” indicated that her
genitalia was normal with incomplete healed lacerations of the hymen at 3, 8,
and
The Version of
the Defense
The appellant presented a totally
different version of the incident. He
testified that on
When the appellant returned to his
mother’s house, his mother and his aunt Clarita were enraged and hurled
invectives at him. He cursed them in
return. His mother warned that he would
be sent to prison for repeatedly beating up “AAA”. He replied that the meager amount paid to him
by his aunt Clarita and her husband whenever they hired him to work in their
farm was demeaning to his person.
Thereafter, he proceeded to the house of his uncle and slept on the
balcony where he awoke at
The appellant asserted that his aunt
Clarita initiated this case after he challenged her and her husband to a
fight. He also claimed that “AAA” concocted
false accusation against him because he used to beat her with a whip and push
her head to the ground as punishment for her stubbornness.
The Decision
of the Regional Trial Court
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to Art. 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code as amended, and further amended by R.A. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of
1997) and the amendatory provision of R.A. No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law),
without any mitigating circumstance, the Court found accused HILARION ESCOTON,
GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MULTIPLE RAPE charged under the
information and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH and ordered to
pay civil indemnity to “AAA” in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00)
Pesos; for moral damages in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00)
Pesos; and for exemplary damages in the amount of Twenty Five Thousand (P25,000.00)
Pesos; and
Pay the Cost.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The Verdict of the Court of
Appeals
Q. You
said that when you reached thereat you were undressed, by the way, what were
you wearing that time when undressed?
A. I was
wearing then a short and a sando.
Q. Now,
what was taken off from you first, was it the sando or shorts?
A. My
shorts.
Q. Now, do
you have a panty that time?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now,
after the shorts were taken was it one after the other with your panty or
simultaneous?
A. It was
taken off simultaneously, the shorts and the panty.
Q. After
your shorts and your panty was [sic] taken off from your body, what did the
accused do relative to your upper apparel?
x x
x x
A.
He did not take off my sando.
PROS. MERIN:
Q. After
your shorts and panty was [sic] successfully taken off from your body, what
next did the accused do upon your person?
A. He
inserted his penis [into] my vagina.
Q. Was the
accused wearing something when he inserted his penis [into] your vagina?
A. He was
not wearing anything.
Q. When
did he [undress] himself after you were undressed or before you were undressed?
x x
x x
A.
He took off first his apparel before taking off my shorts and panty.
PROS. MERIN:
Q. You
mean, he undressed himself after your arrival at the house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What
was your relative position when your uncle Hilario Escoton inserted his penis [into]
your vagina?
A. I was
then lying.
Q. Lying
where?
A. I was
then lying on the center of the room.
Q. Now is
there any floor to that?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And what
is it made of?
A. Made of
bamboo sheets.
Q. Now,
after you [were] made to lie on that bamboo splits and his penis was inserted [into]
your vagina, what did you feel?
A. I felt
the warmth.
Q. What
did [sic] Hilario doing with his penis [into] your vagina?
A. He kept
on inserting.
Q. You
mean he made a push and pull movement?
x x
x x
A. Yes, sir.
PROS. MERIN
Q. Was he
successful in inserting his penis [into] your vagina?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. For how
long was the accused doing the push and pull movement of his penis [into] your
vagina?
A. I
cannot exactly remember because he kept on repeating it.
Q. Now,
how [sic] did you feel while the accused was doing the push and pull movement
of his penis [into] your vagina?
A. Pain,
sir.
Q. Pain
coming from where?
A. In my
vagina, sir.
Q. Now,
was the accused able to reach his ejaculation?
A. The
warm.
Q. Warm
what?
A. Warm
liquid.
Q. And
where was that liquid coming out?
A. From
his penis.
Q. Now,
after he was able to ejaculate, what did the accused do?
A. He lie [sic]
for a while.
Q. How
about you what did you do after he was able to ejaculate while lying?
A. I wore
my panty.
Q. What
did you tell your uncle while he was raping you.
A. I said,
don’t do that kuya.
Q. What do
you mean kuya, to whom are you addressing the word kuya?
A. To
Hilario.
Q. Is that
what you address him, your uncle?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. How
many times by the way after he rested for a while and you already put your
panty, what next happened tell this Court?
x x
x x
A. He repeated again.
PROS. MERIN:
Q. What do
you mean he repeated again?
A. He
raped me again.
Q. You
mean he inserted again his penis [into] your vagina?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now,
you said a while ago that you wore already a panty did I hear you correctly?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And
what did he do with your panty?
A. He
slept for a while.
Q. And
when did he wake up?
A. I do
not know because he kept on repeating.
Q. You
mean, he had repeatedly raped you on that evening?
x x
x x
A.
Yes, sir.
PROS. MERIN
Q. How
many times were you raped that evening?
x x
x x
A.
Five times, sir.[14]
We
stress that in rape cases the accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony
of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[15] In this regard, the trial court is in the
best position to assess the credibility of the victim, having personally heard
her and observed her deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. In the absence of any showing that the trial
court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some factor or circumstances of weight
that would affect the result of the case, or that the judge acted arbitrarily,
the trial court’s assessment of credibility deserves the appellate court’s
highest respect.[16] Here, the appellant fails to persuade us to
depart from this principle and to apply the exception.
The
testimony of rape victims are given full weight and credence, considering that
no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration,
allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by
being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the
desire to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[17] It is highly improbable that a girl of tender
years who is not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man
a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is false.[18] Considering that the victim in this case
underwent a harrowing experience and exposed herself to the rigors of public
trial, it is unlikely that she would concoct false accusations against the appellant,
who is her uncle.
It
should be noted that “AAA” immediately informed her grandmother of the
incident. Upon the advise of a relative
they proceeded to the police station to file a complaint against the appellant. Thereafter, they proceeded to the hospital
for a medical examination. “AAA’s” act
of immediately reporting the commission of the rape strengthens her
credibility.[19]
Her spontaneous revelation of the
assault on her and her unrelenting determination to have the appellant arrested
and prosecuted of rape lend credence to her claim that she was indeed raped.[20]
Appellant
likewise contends that the court a quo grievously erred in relying on
the medico-legal report considering that the examining physician who issued the
same was not presented for its identification.
However, medical examination or medical report is not indispensable to
prove the commission of rape, for it is merely corroborative evidence.[21] An accused can still be convicted of rape on
the sole basis of the testimony of the victim.[22] Here, even if we disregard the medico-legal
report, the result would still be the same – the prosecution, through the
testimony of “AAA”, has successfully proved the case of rape against the
appellant.
Appellant
vehemently denies raping “AAA” and claims that he was already drunk and had
fallen asleep in the house of his uncle during the alleged commission of the
crime. However, he failed to present any
witness to corroborate his testimony. Denial
and alibi are inherently weak defenses and constitute self-serving negative
evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive
declaration of a credible witness.
Between the positive assertions of the victim and the negative averments
of the appellant, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are
entitled to greater evidentiary weight.[23]
Much
less convincing is the proposition of the appellant that “AAA” filed the
complaint against him because she and her other relatives were harboring ill
feelings and evil motives against him.
Ill motives become inconsequential where there are affirmative or
categorical declarations establishing the accountability of the appellant for
the felony, as in this case.[24] Moreover, we have observed that persons
convicted of rape sometimes attribute the charges against them to family feuds,
resentment or revenge.[25] However, as borne out by numerous cases,
family resentment, revenge or feuds have never swayed us from giving full
credence to the testimony of a complainant for rape, especially a minor who
remained steadfast and unyielding throughout the trial that she was sexually
violated.[26]
Appellant
also argues that the testimony of “AAA” is unworthy of credence since it is
replete with inconsistencies. He contends
that if “AAA’s” grandmother was with her at the time he fetched her, then “AAA”
could have easily refused since her grandmother did not allow her to go with
him. He further contends that if he
really intended to rape “AAA”, he would not have allowed her younger brother to
tag along as an eyewitness.
The
factual question raised by the appellant fails to impress. It is an inconsequential matter that 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 appellant for
the crime charged.[27] As the inconsistencies alleged by the
appellant had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape, they cannot
be used as ground for his acquittal.[28]
Further,
victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the
manner in which they were sexually violated.
Thus, an errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be
expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an
experience as humiliating and painful as rape.
Furthermore, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be
expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a
situation.[29]
In
this case, minor inconsistencies are expected because (1) “AAA” was a child
witness, (2) she was made to testify on a painful and humiliating incident, (3)
she was sexually assaulted several times, and (4) she was made to recount
details and events that happened two years before she testified.[30]
The Penalty
Thus,
given the foregoing circumstances, we find no cogent reason to reverse the
findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant.
The trial court correctly meted the penalty of death since the rape
committed against a child under 12 years of age by an offender who is a
relative by consanguinity within the
third civil degree merits no less than the imposition of capital punishment
under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.[31] It is clear from the birth certificate of “AAA”
that she was only ten years old when she was ravished by the appellant, her
uncle, being the brother of her mother.
However,
with the passage of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled “An Act Prohibiting The
Imposition Of The Death Penalty In The Philippines,” the penalty, as correctly
imposed by the Court of Appeals, should be reclusion
perpetua.[32] Pursuant to the same law, the
accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[33]
While
the appellant was meted the proper penalty for committing one count of rape, we
must not overlook the fact that the prosecution established beyond reasonable
doubt that the appellant is guilty of five counts of rape. “AAA” related in detail to the trial court
in a simple and straightforward manner how she was repeatedly ravished by the
appellant, thereby leaving no doubt about its credibility and truthfulness. She testified that the appellant inserted his
penis inside her vagina and after consummating this act, she was raped again
for four times under the same circumstances throughout the night. Thus, appellant must be held guilty of five
counts of rape and suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility of parole
for each count.
The Damages
The five counts of rape committed by
the appellant also require a modification of the award of damages by the trial
court, as sustained by the Court of Appeals.
For each of the five counts of rape, “AAA” is entitled to an award of P75,000.00
as civil indemnity, another P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00
as exemplary damages, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[34]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 00520, which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Carigara,
(1)
For each of the
five counts of rape committed, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
of parole; and
(2)
For each of the
five counts of rape committed, he is ordered to pay complainant civil indemnity
in the amount of P75,000.00 and moral damages in the sum of P75,000.00,
and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO
C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate
Justice |
JOSE P. PEREZ
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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, it is hereby certified 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
*
In lieu of Associate Justice Roberto
A. Abad who is on leave per Special Order No. 812 dated
[1] People v. Ceballos, Jr., G. R.
No. 169642,
[2] People v. Balonzo, G.R. No.
176153,
[3] CA
rollo, 122-146.
[4] CA rollo,
pp. 14-25; penned by Judge Crisostomo L. Garrido.
[5] Pursuant to Section 44 of Republic Act
(RA) No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004, and Section 63, Rule XI of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing RA 9262, the real name of the child-victim is withheld to protect
his/her privacy. Fictitious initials are
used instead to represent him/her.
Likewise, the personal circumstances or any other information tending to
establish or compromise his/her identity, as well as those of his/her immediate
family or household members shall not be disclosed.
[6] Records, p. 1.
[7] Folder of Exhibits, Exh. “B”.
[8]
[9]
[10] CA rollo, pp. 24-25.
[11] Rollo,
pp. 5-24. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by
Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Francisco P. Acosta.
[12]
[13] ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. – Rape is
committed –
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge
of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a)
Through force, threat or intimidation;
b)
When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
c)
By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority;
d)
When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age
or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present;
x x x x
[14] TSN,
[15] People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301,
318 (2004).
[16]
[17] People v. Villafuerte, G.R. No.
154917,
[18] People v. Andales, 466 Phil. 873,
887 (2004).
[19] People v. Balbarona, G.R. No.
146854,
[20] People v. Torres, 464 Phil. 971,
986 (2004).
[21] People
v. Ugang, 431 Phil. 552, 565 (2002).
[22] People v. Cabalse, 480 Phil 317, 326
(2004).
[23] People v. Bang-ayan, G.R. No.
172870,
[24] People v. Guambor, 465 Phil. 671,
679-680 (2004).
[25] People v. Cariñaga, 456 Phil. 944,
968 (2003).
[26] People v. Glodo, G.R. No. 136085,
[27] People v. Masapol, 463 Phil. 25,
33 (2003).
[28] Supra
note 25 at 669.
[29] People v. Bejic, G.R. No. 174060,
[30] People v. Montinola, G.R. No.
178061,
[31] ART. 266-B. Penalties. – x x x.
The death penalty shall also be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim
is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree,
or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
x x x x.
[32] SEC 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the
following shall be imposed:
(a) The penalty of
reclusion perpetua, when the law
violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal
Code.
(b) The penalty of
life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature
of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
[33] People v.
[34] Peope v. Araojo, G.R. No. 185203,