Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - ROMMEL BELO y DE Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 187075 Present: VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: July
5, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the October 31, 2008 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00388 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rommel Belo y De Leon which affirmed,
with modifications, an earlier decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, Branch 24, in Criminal Case No.
11114-B, finding herein accused-appellant Rommel Belo y De Leon guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape[3]
committed against AAA,[4]
and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay the amount of fifty
thousand pesos (PhP 50,000) as moral damages.
Accused-appellant was charged
in an information dated
That on or about November 12, 1999, in the Municipality of Sta. Rosa, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Rommel Belo y De Leon, with lewd design, through violence, force and intimidation with the use of deadly bladed weapon, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA] against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.[5]
At his arraignment on
During the trial, the prosecution offered the oral testimonies
of AAA, the victim, and Dr. Soledad Cunanan, the municipal health officer of
Sta. Rosa, Laguna. On the other hand, the defense presented as its witnesses the
accused-appellant himself, Rommel Belo, PO3 Tanny Gangano and Reggie Vergara
(“Vergara”).
Version of the Prosecution
A summary of the facts according to the prosecution is
as follows:
On
Upon medical examination, Dr. Soledad Cunanan found
the following:
FINDINGS:
Conscious, not in cardio-respiratory distress
Breasts full, with brownish nipple and areola
Heart and lungs unremarkable
Abdomen flat, no masses palpated
No gross deformities of extremities, moderate amount of thick axillary hair
External Genitalia Examination:
There’s moderate to abundant amount of pubic hair, black and
curly, and distributed on the mons pubis and vulvar area. The labia majora is
convex, hyperpigmented, and not well-coaptated. The labia minora is noted to be
also hyperpigmented and in-between the labia majora. On separating the same
showed a fleshy-type, elastic hymen with deep healing laceration at
CONCLUSION: The patient is in non-virgin state physically. (Exh. “B”)[10]
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant’s version of the incident, on the
other hand, is as follows:
Admitting that he was at AAA’s house on November 12,
1999 at around four o’clock in the afternoon, accused-appellant, however,
claims that what actually transpired was consensual sex and not rape. He
further claims that AAA was his girlfriend even if she has a live-in partner.[11]
He even asserts that this was not the first time that they had sexual
intercourse as he made love to her in October 1999 in her very own bedroom.[12]
He also maintains that they kept their relationship secret upon AAA’s request
since the latter was allegedly afraid that her live-in partner might not pursue
his intention to marry her if he finds out about their relationship.[13]
According to accused-appellant, on
Ruling of the Trial Court
Between the two conflicting versions of the incident,
the trial court gave credence to the version of the prosecution and rendered
its Decision[17]
dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the accused ROMMEL BELO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with the use of force and intimidation and armed with a deadly weapon, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Death. Accused is also directed to pay the private complainant the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for and as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[18]
Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,[19]
modifying the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the Regional Trial Court to
this Court in cases in which the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, and the Resolution dated September 19, 1995
in “Internal Rules of the Supreme Court”, the case was transferred, for
appropriate action and disposition, to the Court of Appeals, where it was
docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00388.
On June 19, 2006, accused-appellant filed his
Appellant’s Brief[20],
while the People of the
Ruling of the Appellate Court
As stated above, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision[22]
dated
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laguna (Biñan, Branch 24) is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that (i) instead of the penalty of death, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and (ii) he is ordered to pay to AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto.
SO ORDERED.[23]
On
In Our Resolution dated
Accused-appellant
contends in his Brief[28]
that:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHEN HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE
DEFENSE EVIDENCE WHICH, IF PROPERLY APPRECIATED, COULD HAVE LED TO THE
ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.[29]
We sustain accused-appellant’s
conviction.
After a careful examination of the records of
this case, we are satisfied that the prosecution’s evidence established the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In deciding this appeal, the Court once again reiterates the legal
aphorism that factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the
trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such
findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[30] Unfortunately,
however, accused-appellant failed to show any of these as to warrant a review
of the findings of fact of the lower courts.
Pertinently, the trial court found the collective testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution to be credible, while those of the accused-appellant,
incredible and barren of probative weight. It is also an oft-stated doctrine
that factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of
the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight is given high
respect if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued,
misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance,
which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case.[31] In
this regard, a meticulous review of the records gives us no reason to deviate
from the factual findings of the trial court.
In his Brief,
accused-appellant faults the trial court for giving credence to AAA’s testimony.
First, in assailing AAA’s credibility, he asserts that based on the testimony
of PO3 Tanny Galang, the incident entered in the police blotter was merely
attempted and not consummated as AAA initially reported that there was only an
attempt to molest and rape her. However, AAA later on claimed that the alleged
rape was consummated.[32]
Concerning this, it should be noted that entries in a police blotter,
though regularly done in the course of the performance of official duty, are
not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries for they are often incomplete
and inaccurate. They, therefore, should not be given undue significance or
probative value as to the facts stated therein. Blotter entries are merely
prima facie proof of the facts stated therein.[33] Furthermore,
the heading in the police blotter in the case at bar states that the incident
was “Alleged Rape”. This shows that the crime sought to be entered in the police
blotter was consummated rape and not merely attempted.[34]
At any rate, the prosecution has sufficiently
established that accused-appellant was able to consummate his carnal desire. As
testified by AAA:
Q What happened next after that?
A Then he kissed my lips, sir. And when I
was about to avoid him, he mushed my breast and he told me to hold on his penis
with my left hand ‘pinatitigas niya iyong ari niya.’
Q What happened then, if any?
A I was then trembling, sir and pitied
him.
Q What happened next, if any?
A Then when his penies (sic) was already
‘tumigas’ then he inserted his penies (sic) to my private part, sir.[35]
Second, accused-appellant claims that it is
highly suspicious for AAA to leave the door of her house unlocked considering
that she was alone and was about to take a bath. This supposedly shows the
intention of AAA to allow accused-appellant to conveniently enter her house.
We do not agree. As convincingly argued by the
prosecution, such act cannot be taken as an invitation for accused-appellant to
enter AAA’s house as it could be plainly attributed to oversight or to the fact
that it was still early in the afternoon and she was expecting her live-in
partner to arrive at any moment.[36]
Further, the defense of consensual sex must be
established by strong evidence in order to be worthy of judicial acceptance. As
held in People v. Corpuz:[37]
Appellant’s “sweetheart” theory, being an affirmative defense, must be established by convincing evidence — some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like. Other than appellant’s testimony, however, no convincing evidence was presented to substantiate his theory.[38]
Notably, apart from accused-appellant’s
allegation that he and AAA were sweethearts, no love letter, memento or picture
was presented by him to prove that such romantic relationship existed. While
Vergara testified on his knowledge of the supposed relationship, he admitted
that his basis was merely the information previously given by accused-appellant
and that he really had no personal knowledge concerning the same. As testified
to by Vergara:
Q Why do you know that they are
sweethearts?
A Because Rommel told me, sir.
Q Told you what?
A He told me that he is having a
relationship with (AAA)
x x x x
Q Besides that information told you by
Rommel Belo that he had relationship with (AAA), what else, if any, to prove
that they are sweethearts?
A There was a time that Rommel told me
that (AAA) and him went out on a date so I believe that they have a
relationship, sir.[39]
x x x x
Q So, the personal relationship of Rommel
and (AAA) was based only by you on the information given to you by Rommel. Am I
right?
A He told me that (AAA) and him go out on
a date, sir. That they go to a motel,
and, of course, I believe him, sir.[40]
And as correctly observed by the Court of
Appeals, even supposing that the sweetheart theory is true, a love affair does
not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will
for love is not a license for lust.[41]
Third, in belying the charge of rape by the
prosecution, accused-appellant claims that the absence of bruises and
contusions on AAA’s body, based on the medico-legal report, negates the crime
of rape.[42]
This contention deserves scant consideration.
The absence of bruises and contusions does not
negate the commission of rape. As held in People v. Dado:[43]
The absence of finger grips, contusions, bruises or scratches
on; the different parts of
Thus, for rape to be committed, it is not necessary that there be marks
of physical violence present on the victim’s body. Corollarily, accused-appellant’s
contention, that the fact that he did not possess any bread knife when he was
apprehended a few moments after the commission of the alleged crime supposedly
negates the existence of force and intimidation, also does not hold water. The
non-presentation of the weapon used in the commission of rape is not essential
to the conviction of the accused-appellant. As held in People v. Degamo:[44]
It is settled that the non-presentation of the weapon used in the commission of rape is not essential to the conviction of the accused. The testimony of the rape victim that appellant was armed with a deadly weapon when he committed the crime is sufficient to establish that fact for so long as the victim is credible. It must be stressed that in rape, it is usually only the victim who can attest to its occurrence and that is why courts subject the testimony of the alleged victims to strict scrutiny before relying on it for the conviction of the accused. In the present case, complainant positively described how appellant, armed with a knife, threatened and raped her. Appellant failed to show any compelling reason for us to brush aside the probative weight given by the trial court to the testimony of herein complainant. Absent any showing that certain facts of substance and significance have been plainly overlooked or that the trial court’s findings are clearly arbitrary, the conclusions reached by the trial court must be respected and the judgment rendered should be affirmed. (Emphasis supplied.)
The award of civil indemnity of PhP 50,000 in simple rape cases without
need of pleading or proof is correct. In addition, moral
damages of PhP 50,000 were also properly awarded. These
are automatically granted in rape cases without need of proof other than the
commission of the crime in accordance with prevailing
jurisprudence.[45] We, however, additionally grant exemplary damages
in the amount of PhP 30,000, in line with current jurisprudence,[46]
for the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended
the commission of the rape.[47]
WHEREFORE, the
appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, 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. 2-11. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Normandie B. Pizarro.
[4] The
real name of the victim is withheld to protect her identity and privacy
pursuant to Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 and Section 40 of A.M. No.
04-10-11-SC. See our ruling in People
v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[31]
[33] People
v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 142416,