SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ARSENIO CABANILLA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 185839 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: November 17, 2010 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the October
11, 2007 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01430, which
affirmed with modification[2] the August 17, 2000 Decision[3] of
the Regional Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 72 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 463-N,
finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape
committed against AAA.[4]
Accused Arsenio Cabanilla (Cabanilla) was charged with the crime of Rape in an Information[5]
dated
That on or about the 6th day of
March, 1979, in the Municipality of Narvacan, province of Ilocos Sur,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused Arsenio Cabanilla, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one, AAA, by means of force and violence
and against the latter’s will and consent.
Contrary to law.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented private complainant AAA,[6]
Dr. Virgilio Bañez (Dr. Bañez),[7]
Barangay Captain Florentino Sagun (BC Sagun),[8]
Patrolman Rolando Callejo (Pat. Callejo),[9]
and BBB, the victim’s husband.[10]
As culled from their testimonies,
it appears that on
home. She reached Barangay San Jose, Narvacan, at
While they were walking
through the rice fields, Cabanilla suddenly placed his arm around AAA’s
shoulder. She shook his arm away and said, ”Why son, what is happening to you?”
He then embraced her. Afraid that she was about to be molested, she told him, “Why
my son, what are you doing to me[?] [Y]ou should be ashamed, I am even your
mother[.]” But he replied, “Do not talk.” He persisted but she resisted his
advances. To overcome her resistance, he
punched her left jaw twice. The blows were so hard that one of her earrings
flew away. When he loosened his grip on her, she managed to free herself from
his grasp and ran away only to stumble and fall. When he caught up with her, he
squeezed her neck and told her, “If you don’t like, I will kill you.” She
continued to struggle but he just forced himself to be on top of her.
Eventually, AAA lost her
strength in fighting him. Cabanilla then removed her panties and forced open
her legs. He thrust his penis inside her vagina and made push-and-pull
movements. After satisfying his lust, he stood up, pulled up his briefs and
pants and then told her to stand up so they could go home together. He threatened
to shoot her and her husband and burn their house if she would tell anyone. AAA
assured him that she would not report the incident because she was afraid of
him. She believed that he could make
good his threats because she knew that he owned a gun.
When she was about forty
meters away from her house, they separated ways. She then ran towards her house and called her
husband, BBB, who was then unloading
BBB, his nephew, Calderon,
and BC Sagun accompanied AAA to the
From the hospital, the
group went to the Integrated National Police of Narvacan to report the rape
incident. Since AAA could not narrate the incident clearly and in an orderly
manner because of her then state of mind, she was advised to give her statement
the following day. The group returned the next day and her statements and that
of BC Sagun were taken. The report on the rape incident was reflected in the
police blotter as Entry No. 145, page 43, dated
Eventually, AAA was
confined at the P3,215.65
for hospital expenses.
Version of the Defense
Cabanilla claimed that the
sexual intercourse between him and AAA on
Accused further related that
he knew AAA would be coming from Santa, Ilocos Sur on
AAA broke away from
him when they were only a few meters from her house. She proceeded to their
house while he hid behind tobacco plants. From there, he saw BBB punch and kick
her until she fell on the ground.
BBB repeatedly hit her jaw. The beating lasted for ten minutes. He was about 12
meters away from them. He became frightened when he heard AAA shout that he had
raped her.
His father, Maximiano
Cabanilla, arrived after she called for him, but his father kept his distance
from the couple when he learned that she was being beaten by her husband. Cabanilla
immediately left upon hearing that a complaint would be filed against him the
next day. The following morning, policemen came to his house looking for
him. He hid himself for two nights. He
surrendered to the Chief of Police of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, when a formal
complaint was filed against him.
Accused Cabanilla
insisted that their sexual congress on
To corroborate the
sweetheart theory espoused by the accused, the defense placed on the witness
stand Gregorio Bilag (Bilag), Gerry Velasco (Velasco) and
Herminia Cabebe (Herminia).
Bilag narrated that on
March 6, 1979, between 6:00 o’clock and 7:00 o’clock in the evening, he was in
his house in San Jose, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, with his wife, Concepcion
Cabanilla, and their children, when accused Cabanilla and AAA passed by. The two appeared to be happy as they were
touching each other. He then tailed the two to find out their secret so he would
know what to tell their respective families. He saw
the two stop in the middle of the fields and copulated with each other.
Thereafter, they went on their way walking side by side and laughing. It was
actually the second time that he witnessed them making love to each other
although he could no longer remember the date of the first time. He did not tell her husband or Cabanilla’s
relatives of what he knew about them.
Bilag further recalled
that he gave a written statement before a police investigator of Narvacan
during the investigation of the incident. He explained that he did not mention
in his sworn statement that he saw Cabanilla and AAA make love on
Velasco testified
that at around
Herminia, sister of Arsenio
Cabanilla, informed the trial court that on
saw AAA arrive at her house in Barangay Rivadavia. Then, she overheard BBB
confront her, “Why did you arrive only now, prostitute? You must be going
somewhere and doing something, prostitute, and you are having sex with others.”
AAA answered, “Okinnam, loko.” At that very moment, BBB slapped her on
the cheeks several times until she fell to the ground. Even before that day, Herminia
would see the couple quarreling and shouting at each other because he was
jealous of somebody. She already suspected that Cabanilla and AAA were having an
affair. She saw the two walking together in the fields, with her arms around
his waist and his around her shoulder. Once she spotted Cabanilla kissing her.[14]
On
WHEREFORE, PREMISES
CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
The accused is also
ordered to pay AAA P3,215.00 spent for hospitalization.
The accused shall
also pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[17]
The records of the case
were originally transmitted to this Court on appeal. On
On
WHEREFORE, the DECISION DATED P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto and P50,000.00
as moral damages.
Costs of suit to be paid by the accused.
SO ORDERED.[19]
Undaunted, Cabanilla filed
a Notice of Appeal[20]
dated
On
The Issue
The issues boil down to whether or not the sweetheart
defense is credible so as to overcome the prosecution’s evidence that the
intercourse was not consensual.
Accused Cabanilla faults the trial court for relying
heavily on the testimony of AAA that she was forced to have sexual intercourse
with him, and for its refusal to give credence to his sweetheart theory. He
admits having carnal knowledge with her, but he vehemently insists that the
sexual congress on the night of
On the other hand, the OSG insists on the correctness of his
conviction on the basis of the totality of the prosecution’s evidence centered
on the credible testimony of AAA. Not a scintilla of credible evidence was
adduced by Cabanilla to prove his sweetheart defense.
THE COURT’S RULING
After an assiduous
assessment of the records, the Court holds that Cabanilla indeed committed rape
against AAA. There is no cogent reason to reverse the findings and conclusion
of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
A rape charge is a serious matter
with pernicious consequences both for the accused and the complainant, so that utmost
care must be taken in the review of a decision involving conviction of rape.[22] Thus, the Court has
consistently adhered to the following guiding principles, to wit: (1) an
accusation for rape can be made with facility, while the accusation is
difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, albeit innocent,
to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things, only two persons
are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme care; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution
must succeed or fail on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to derive
strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[23] Corollary to the above principle is the rule
that the credibility of the victim is always the single most important issue in
the prosecution of a rape case.[24]
The issue
of credibility of the witnesses has, time and again, been settled by this Court
as a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of
having observed the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while testifying. The reviewing court is generally bound by the trial
court’s findings and conclusions, particularly when no significant facts and
circumstances were shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when
considered would have affected the outcome of the case.[25]
The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are
sustained by the CA.[26]
The Court agrees with the
RTC that Cabanilla had employed force and intimidation in order to consummate
his libidinous desire. Excerpts from her testimony are reproduced below:
Atty. Porfirio Rapanut
(On Direct
Examination)
Q: While
you were on your way home with Arsenio Cabanilla, what happened then after
that?
A: While
we were on the ricefield of
Q: And
what did you do when Arsenio Cabanilla placed his arm on your shoulder?
Court (Interrupting):
Q: Where
is the accused?
Atty. Casabar
A: He
is there, your Honor.
Witness
A: I
shook away his arm and said, “Why, son, what is happening to you?
Q: And
after you said to him those words, what did he do or say if any?
A: He
immediately embraced me, sir.
Q: And
what did you do when he embraced you?
A: Because
I did not want something to be done against me I begged him that he will not do anything bad
against me.
Q: What
did you say when, will you kindly quote the exact words which you said to him at that time?
A: “Why
my son, what are you doing to me, you should be ashamed, I am even your
mother.”
Q: And
what did he do after you have said those words to him?
A: He
said, “Do not talk.”
Q: Then
what transpired after that?
A: He
did not heed to my begging that he will not do anything bad against me and since I did not want something
to be done against me I struggled against him.
Q: And
what happened while you were struggling?
A: During
our struggle, he boxed me twice on my left jaw.
Q: Will
you kindly indicate on your person what part of your jaw did he box?
A: Here, sir (the witness pointing to her left
jaw), and that even my earring was lost when he was boxing my jaw.
Q: After
Arsenio Cabanilla had boxed twice on your left jaw as you have just indicated,
what happened to you?
A: During
our struggle, sir, when he loosened his hold on my, I shook him away and took
the chance to run.
Q: Were
you able to run away?
A: Yes,
sir. I was able to run but after a short while I stumbled.
Q: And
when you stumbled, what happened?
A: At
that time when I stumbled, he was able to immediately squeeze my neck.
Q: While
he was squeezing your neck, what did he do?
A: He
said, “If you don’t like, I will kill you.”
Q: What
did you do when he said those words to you?
A: I
continued struggling against him since I did not want that something bad be
done to me.
Q: And
were you able to get away from him while struggling?
A: No
sir, because he went on top of me.
Q: What
was your position when you said …. when Arsenio Cabanilla was on top of you?
A: I
was lying down, sir.
Q: And
what happened while you were lying down?
A: Since
I did not want something bad to be done against me, I continued struggling but
then I lost my strength he forced open my legs.
Q: After
the accused had forced open your legs, what happened next?
A: After
he had placed his body on top of me and then ….. and I then lost my strength,
he brought down my panty.
Q: Was
the accused able to bring down your panty?
A: Yes,
sir, he was able to bring down my panty.
Q: After
that what happened?
A: He
inserted his penis inside my vagina.
Q: Was
he able to insert his penis to your vagina?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
did he do then after that?
A: When
Arsenio Cabanilla had inserted his penis inside my vagina, he then made a push
and pull motion successively.
X x x x.
The transcripts reveal that
AAA’s testimony bears the hallmarks of truth. She described in detail the
hideous experience she had suffered at the hands of Cabanilla on that fateful
night of
resist his advances, pulled down her panties, and forcibly inserted his penis
into her vagina only after fatigue had weakened her tenacity to resist the sexual
assault. She remained steadfast throughout her
testimony despite being subjected to intense and grueling cross-examination. She was not shown to
possess the shrewdness and callousness to concoct a story of rape. Her straightforward narration of what transpired coupled with her unwavering
and categorical identification of Cabanilla as her defiler, sealed the case for
the prosecution.
AAA’s testimony is
buttressed by the medico-legal findings of Dr. Bañez, who examined her on
The gravamen of the crime
of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent.[27]
Both carnal knowledge and the use of force and intimidation, indicating absence
of consent, were convincingly established in this case. The fact that Cabanilla hit her left jaw when
she resisted sufficiently indicated force. Intimidation was exerted on her when
he squeezed her neck while threatening her with death should she refuse to
submit herself to his beastly desires. By intimidation, a man keeps a woman in
a state of fear and humiliation.
Cabanilla insists on his
sweetheart defense arguing that the sexual intercourse on the night of
The sweetheart defense is a
much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court. Being an
affirmative defense, the invocation of a love affair must be supported by
convincing proof.[28]
In this case, apart from his self-serving assertions, Cabanilla offered no sufficient
and convincing evidence to substantiate his claim that they were lovers.[29]
To prop up his
defense of an illicit affair, Cabanilla relied on the testimonies of Velasco, Bilag and
Herminia.
The Court finds the story of his
witnesses not worthy of credence.
First, the fact alone that two people
were seen conversing and walking side by side cannot give rise to the inference
that they were lovers. Intimacies such as loving caresses, cuddling, tender
smiles, sweet murmurs or any other affectionate gesture that one bestows upon
his or her lover would have indicated the existence of a relationship. Cabanilla’s
witness, Velasco, however, did not even testify on any intimacy but only
on the normal acts of two people “talking nicely”[30] and
walking together.
Second, no romantic relationship can be
deduced from the fact that the two opted to walk from Barangay San Jose to
Barangay Rivadavia, where both resided. As explained by AAA, they couldn’t get
a ride home and so she agreed to walk home with him.[31]
Neither was there anything unusual, much less romantic, when she asked him to
accompany her as they knew each other, Cabanilla being a nephew of her husband
and their neighbor.[32] The Court finds it easier to believe that
they walked home together because she trusted Cabanilla as a relative who would
protect her from the dangers of the road at nighttime and not for any intimate reason.
Third, the
improbability of Bilag's testimony betrayed the contrived nature of his story. He claimed
that the reason why he did not divulge to the police investigator that he saw
the two making love to each other was that he could not understand the English
language.[33] The explanation is flimsy.
His lack of knowledge of English is not an excuse for he could have easily
relayed such important piece of information in Ilocano. Further, the Court notes that in his statement
given on
The Court considers it strange
that Bilag maintained his silence and did not tell anyone for many years about
what he claimed to have known all along. A timely revelation could have cleared the doubt
for all persons concerned. Instead, he
waited until he was called to the witness stand on
In the light of the
foregoing observations, the Court is inclined to believe that Bilag’s knowledge
of the incident is but limited to what he had
declared in his statement dated
Fourth, the corroborative
testimony of his sister, Herminia, that he and AAA were sweethearts cannot be given any credence
precisely because they are siblings. It is well settled that testimonies of
close relatives and friends are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the
unequivocal declaration of a complaining witness.[35] Herminia suspected that
her brother and her aunt, AAA, were having an affair because she saw the two
walking in the fields with their arms around each other and, at one instance, he
kissed her. That Herminia merely ignored
what she saw and did not stop the two from continuing with their immoral and
illicit affair is simply inconsistent with human nature. Her choice to keep
quiet and not to confront either of them about her suspicions only rendered her
testimony unreliable.
Fifth, if his defense were true – that AAA
willingly submitted to his embraces and voluntarily copulated with him – the
Court finds it difficult to understand why she, without much ado, rushed to her
husband telling him as well as Cabanilla’s parents of the disgusting treatment
she received from Cabanilla; reported the ugly incident to the barangay
officials and the local police; submitted herself to physical examination at
the hospital and endured the humiliation of having someone examine her private
parts; immediately filed a complaint for rape against Cabanilla; and then allowed herself to be
subjected to the rigors, trouble, inconvenience, ridicule, and scandal of a
public trial. Such conduct is diametrically inconsistent with the sweetheart
defense of Cabanilla. The most natural reaction of a woman, much more a married
one, who voluntarily submitted herself to an intimate relationship with a man,
would have been to conceal it as this would bring disgrace, dishonor and shame to her family. Her swift revelation
of the outrage committed against her person bares her firm resolve to
immediately vindicate her lost honor and pride and to have the sex molester
punished.
Sixth, Cabanilla failed to
ascribe, much less prove, any ill motive on the part of AAA that could have
compelled her to falsely accuse him of committing the crime. Where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or
improper motive why a prosecution witness would falsely testify against an
accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of
full faith and credit.[36] Such
failure strengthens her credibility and the validity of the charge.
Seventh, granting that they were lovers,
this fact alone could not have ruled out rape as it did not necessarily mean
there was consent. A love affair does not justify rape[37]
for a man does not have an unbridled license to subject his beloved to his
carnal desires against her will.[38]
Cabanilla’s sweetheart defense indeed suffers
from lack of convincing and credible corroboration and fails to destroy the
truthfulness and credibility of AAA’s testimony. Such theory is a worn out defense. It is akin to a wolf dressed in sheep’s
clothing but when shorn of its accoutrements
reveals nothing but plain lust. Taken in this light, such defense is merely a desperate
attempt to extricate himself from the bind brought about by his insatiable desires.
Accordingly, the Court sustains the CA in awarding the
amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the victim. Civil indemnity,
which is in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the
finding of the fact of rape.[39] Likewise, the Court finds the award of moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 proper. Moral damages in rape cases
should be awarded without need of showing that the victim sustained mental,
physical, and psychological trauma. These
are too obvious. To still require their recital at the trial would only prolong
their agony.
WHEREFORE,
the October 11, 2007
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01430 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
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, 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] CA rollo, p. 209. Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now Associate Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Portia Aliño Hormachuelos and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring.
[2]
The Court of Appeals ordered accused to also pay the victim indemnity ex
delicto of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00.
[3] Penned by Judge Arturo B. Buenavista; records, pp. 360-386.
[4] Per this Court’s resolution dated September 19, 2006 in A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC, as well as our ruling in People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419), pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 or the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the victims and their immediate family members other than the accused are to be withheld and fictitious initials are to be used instead. Likewise, the exact addresses of the victims are to be deleted.
[5] Records, p. 41.
[6]
TSN.
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] Supra note 3.
[16] Records, p. 384.
[17]
[18] G.R.
Nos. 147678-87,
[19] CA rollo, pp. 226-227.
[20] Rollo, p. 236.
[21] Records, p. 240.
[22] People v. Armando
San Antonio, Jr., G.R. No. 176633,
[23] People v. Bidoc, G.R. No. 169430,
[24] People v. Ceballos, Jr., G.R.No.169642,
[25] People v. Glabo, 423 Phil. 45, 49-50 (2001).
[26] People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
[27] People v. Docena, 379 Phil. 903, 913, (2000).
[28] People v. Ramon Arivan y Formillo, G.R.
No. 176065,
[29] People v. Alex Manallo, 448 Phil. 149, 165 (2003) .
[30] TSN,
[31] TSN,
[32]
[33] TSN,
[34] Records, p. 3.
[35] People v. Opeliña, 458 Phil. 1001, 1014 (2003).
[36] People vs. Ferrer, 356 Phil. 497, 508 (1998).
[37] People vs. Jimenez, 362 Phil. 222, 234 (1999).
[38] People vs. Lozano, 357 Phil. 397, 407 (1998).
[39] People v. Callos, 424 Phil. 506, 516 (2002).