PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184812
Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - VELASCO, JR.,*
NACHURA,
PERALTA, and
ABAD, JJ.
ERMILITO ALEGRE y
LAMOSTE,
Appellant. Promulgated:
July 6, 2010
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case shows a stark contrast in
credibility between the testimony of the complainant who was raped and left for
dead and that of the accused who offered only an uncorroborated alibi.
The Facts and the Case
The City Prosecutor of Manila charged
accused Ermelito L. Alegre (Alegre) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of that
city with frustrated murder in Criminal Case 03-213343 and with qualified rape
in Criminal Case 03-213344.[1]
The evidence for the prosecution
shows that VON[2] and the
accused Alegre were acquaintances.[3] Alegre owned the house where his family and VON’s
relatives lived. On the evening of
September 14, 2002 VON went to Alegre’s house to visit her relatives. In the
course of that visit, Alegre asked her to join him for drinks inside a
jeep. After finishing a small bottle of
gin pomelo, VON returned to her relatives’ quarters and told her cousin that
she was going home. But, as VON stepped
out, Alegre invited her to meet his girl friends.[4] She could not say whether he was under the
influence of drugs at that time.[5]
Alegre and VON walked along a nearby
street until they reached a fenced house. Alegre climbed the fence and told VON
to do likewise as his girl friends were in the house. But when she entered the
house, it was empty. She hastily went
out when Alegre did not respond to her query about his girl friends who were
supposed to be there. She tried to go
over the fence to get to the street but Alegre warned her that the barangay tanods might see her. When VON did not heed Alegre’s warning, he
punched her on the back and repeatedly stabbed her with an ice pick until she
fell to the ground on her back.[6]
Alegre tore VON’s polo and sando and
then stripped her of shorts and underwear. She fought back and succeeded in grabbing the
ice pick but he choked her, forcing her to drop the weapon. He picked it up and proceeded to sexually
ravish her. She felt pain. Afterwards, he
stabbed her again on her chest and arms. She had become so weak at this point that she
ceased to fight back. Alegre stopped
assaulting her when she turned over, facing the ground. VON did not move for
some time but, as she coughed, Alegre returned and stabbed her thrice on the
back. She suppressed her cough so he
would not return.[7]
When VON felt that Alegre had left, she
tried to stand but could not because of muscle cramps in her left leg. She shouted for help but nobody responded. She watched vehicles pass by the street.
Finally, in the early morning of the following day, September 15, 2002, she
spotted two barangay tanods and they heard
her shouts for help.[8]
Romeo dela Cruz, a barangay kagawad, testified that at about 2:00 in the morning of September
15, 2002, he got a call, informing him that shouts for help had been heard from
an abandoned house. Dela Cruz hastily went to the site. He found VON lying naked on the ground,
covered with mud and blood. He called
the police and, with his nephew’s help, got VON into a police car. They brought VON to the
Dr. Edwin Paul Lagapa, the doctor who
attended to VON at the PGH, found 18 stab wounds all over her body, four of
which pierced her heart, caused by a very small, fine pointed instrument. Her forehead suffered injury from a fall. Dr. Lagapa said that she could have died had
she not been treated on time. Indeed, he
had to perform several life-saving operations on VON.[11]
On the same day, upon an
inter-departmental referral, Dr. Claire Aguirre conducted a gynecological
examination of VON. Dr. Aguirre found
several abrasions and hymenal lacerations. She found no sperm. Although she could not identify the age of the
lacerations, she explained it would take at least seven days for them to heal.[12]
For his defense, Alegre claimed that
he was at Abad Santos, Bacood, Sta. Mesa, on September 14, 2002 with the owner
of a jeepney he was repairing. After
taking a bath, he rode with his brother in a jeepney that the latter was
driving. They went home together at
about 10:30 in the evening. After eating, Alegre went to her sister’s house, just
next to his brother’s house, and watched television there. Contrary to VON’s story, it was she who
invited Alegre to a drink. Consistent
with VON’s testimony, he said that they pooled their money to buy a bottle of
gin pomelo, which they drank in front of his sister’s house. He went home afterwards
to sleep. VON did not return to his
sister’s or brother’s house.[13]
Alegre claims that at 4:30 in the
morning of September 15, 2002 (about three hours after he left VON), he went with
his brother to
On September 25, 2006 the RTC found
Alegre guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated murder and sentenced him to
suffer a minimum indeterminate penalty of 9 years and 4 months of prision mayor in its medium period to 17
years and 4 months of reclusion temporal in
its medium period as maximum. The RTC
also ordered him to indemnify VON in the amount of P25,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
The RTC also found Alegre guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the rape of VON and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay VON P50,000.00 in civil indemnity and P50,000.00 in moral
damages.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02583, the latter court rendered judgment on April 28,
2008, affirming in toto the decision
of the RTC.[15] This prompted Alegre to appeal to this Court.[16]
The Issue Presented
The sole issue presented in this case
is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that there is sufficient
evidence to show that Alegre raped and nearly murdered VON as she claimed.
The Ruling of the Court
The cornerstone of Alegre’s appeal is
the lack of credibility of VON, given the contradictions in her testimony.[17] But the settled rule based on reason and
experience is that the trial court’s findings respecting the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies deserve the highest respect. Since the trial judge saw and heard the
witnesses and observed how they testified under intense questioning, he was in a
better position to weigh what they said.[18] Here, the trial court, concurred in by the CA,
found VON’s testimony credible. It was,
according to the trial court, “clear, direct, honest and could only inspire
belief.”[19] Dr. Lagapa and Dr. Aguirre also bolstered her testimony.
On the other hand, the RTC found
Alegre’s testimony too weak and insufficient to overcome that of VON. His alibi and his claim that VON filed the
charges in retaliation for a past offense he committed against a relative
remained uncorroborated or supported by some other evidence. There is also no showing that the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances which would
affect the outcome of the case.
The conflict in VON’s testimony that
Alegre refers to concerns the position of her body when she fell on the ground and
the order that the rape and the stabbing followed.[20] Alegre points out that, on direct examination,
VON said that she fell to the ground on her back and that Alegre stabbed her on
the chest after raping her but, on cross-examination, she said that she fell to
the ground on her stomach and Alegre stabbed her on the chest only after he
stripped her of clothing.
But Alegre improperly appreciated
VON’s testimony. Actually, she maintained
that he raped her before stabbing her on the chest. In any case, any error in the sequence in
which the rape victim narrated these two successive turn of events cannot erode
the value of her testimony. For the most
part, VON remained consistent under repeated questioning regarding these details.
One must understand that rape is not
just an assault upon a woman’s body; it is also a derogation of her dignity. If there were inconsistencies in minute
details, they may be attributed to the emotions brought to the surface by the
need for her to repeatedly narrate in detail the brutality inflicted on her.
The Court’s impression is that VON
never once faltered in her declaration that Alegre sexually molested her. Dr. Aguirre corroborated her claim with her
testimony regarding VON’s hymenal lacerations. Dr. Lagapa testified on her multiple stab
wounds. Inevitably, when the rape victim’s
straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical evidence of the
injuries she received, sufficient basis exists for concluding that she has told
the truth.[21]
Notably, Alegre did not present any
evidence, other than his testimony denying the grave charges against him. But to be believed, his denial needed to be
buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability or by the essential weakness
of the complainant’s allegations.[22] These do not exist here.
Regarding the penalty, both the CA
and the RTC failed to take into account Alegre’s use of a deadly weapon in the
rape case, a fact specifically averred in the information and proved during the
trial. This qualifies the rape he committed. Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides
that the penalty for rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon should be reclusion perpetua to death. But in view
of the enactment of Republic Act 9346 which prohibits the imposition of the
death penalty, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole as provided by Act 4103 should
instead be imposed.
With
regard to the damages, in line with recent jurisprudence the civil indemnity
must be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 and the moral
damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00.[23]
WHEREFORE, the
Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02583 dated April 28, 2008, which upheld the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Criminal Cases 03-213343 and 03-213344,
with the MODIFICATIONS a) that the
penalty of reclusion perpetua be without
eligibility for parole and b) that the award of P50,000.00 in civil
indemnity and P50,000.00 in moral damages in relation to the case of
qualified rape be both increased to P75,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
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
CERTIFICATION
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
* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, per raffle dated June 16, 2010.
[1] Records, p. 2.
[2] Pursuant to People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real name and address of the victim and her relatives have been replaced with fictitious initials.
[3] TSN, October 15, 2003, p. 3; TSN, February 3, 2004, p. 19.
[4]
[5] TSN, February 3, 2004, p. 25.
[6] TSN, October 15, 2003, pp. 5-8.
[7]
[8]
[9] TSN, May 24, 2004, pp. 3-4; TSN, October 15, 2003, p. 13; TSN, February 3, 2004, p. 9.
[10] TSN, October 15, 2003, p. 13; TSN, February 3, 2004, pp. 9-10.
[11] TSN, February 3, 2004, pp. 8-13.
[12] TSN, November 4, 2004, pp. 3-7.
[13] TSN, March 28, 2005, pp. 2-4.
[14]
[15] Rollo, pp. 12-13. Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag.
[16]
[17] CA rollo, p. 41.
[18] People
of the
[19] CA rollo, p. 52.
[20]
[21] People of the Philippines v. Ofemiano, supra note 18, citing People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 173471, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 655, 668-669; People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 168101, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 435, 448; People v. Bañares, G.R. No. 127491, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 81, 92-93.
[22] People
of the
[23] People v. Araojo, G.R. No. 185203, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 295, 309.