FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus- JERWIN
QUINTAL y BEO, VICENTE BONGAT y TARIMAN, FELIPE QUINTAL y ABARQUEZ and LARRY
PANTI y JIMENEZ, Accused. x - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x VICENTE
BONGAT y TARIMAN, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 184170
Present: Chairperson VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ.
Promulgated: February 2, 2011 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ,
J.:
On appeal is the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated 31 January 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02610
affirming the Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 42, Virac,
Catanduanes in Criminal Case Nos. 3097, 3098, 3099 and 3100 finding appellant
Vicente Bongat y Tariman (Vicente) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape.
On
That on or about August
29, 2002, at around 9:30 o’clock in the evening, in barangay [XXX],[3]
municipality of Virac, province of Catanduanes, Philippines, jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another for a common purpose, with force and intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously lie and succeeded in
having carnal knowledge of [AAA],[4]
a minor 16 years of age, against her will and without her consent.
That the crime of rape was committed
with an aggravating circumstance of minority, the fact that [AAA] is a minor 16
years of age when she was raped by the herein-named four (4) accused.[5]
Appellant Vicente,
Jerwin and Felipe were arrested while Larry remained at large. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not
guilty. Trial then proceeded.
The alleged rape
victim, AAA, her mother, BBB,[6]
the medico-legal officer, Dr. Elmer Tatad (Dr. Tatad), Barangay Kagawad Fernando Tajan (Fernando) and Barangay Tanod Eddie Tajan (Eddie) testified for the prosecution.
AAA narrated that on
Two days later, AAA
told BBB about the incident only after the latter noticed and asked her why she
could not walk properly. They went to Fernando,
who is a Barangay Kagawad and later
to Eddie, a Barangay Tanod to report
the incident. Fernando summoned the
accused and they were made to sign a document containing their statement
regarding the incident.[10]
Eddie testified that on
BBB fetched Fernando and
brought him to the house of Eddie to talk about a marriage proposal by
Jerwin. BBB asked Fernando to put into
writing all the conversations that transpired inside the house. He did so while BBB was dictating to him what
to write. He stated that the accused admitted
the crime.[12]
AAA and BBB then
proceeded to the police station to report the incident. On
Abrasion
Labia Minora
Round
the Clock.[13]
For its part, the
defense presented the testimonies of Jerwin, Felipe, appellant Vicente, Maria
Talan (Maria), Ricardo Rin (Ricardo), and Federico Rey (Federico) to prove that
there was no crime committed.
Jerwin, Felipe and Maria
attended the wake of Federico’s nephew in Barangay
YYY on
Jerwin claimed that AAA
was his girlfriend; that they had been together since
On
Ricardo, who lives just
a few meters away from the nipa hut
where the alleged rape was committed, stated that he did not notice any
untoward incident that transpired in the nipa
hut. He however admitted that he went to
sleep at around
Jerwin and Felipe went
to the house of Eddie on
Appellant Vicente came
to know AAA when she was introduced to him by Jerwin as his girlfriend sometime
in January 2002. On
The defense also
presented the entries in the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) logbook,
certified by Jail Officer Bernardo Azansa to show that AAA visited Jerwin six
(6) times in jail.[24]
On
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds VICENTE T. BONGAT, JERWIN B. QUINTAL AND FELIPE A. QUINTAL
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE in Criminal Case Nos. 3097,
3098, 3099, 3100 and hereby sentences them as follows:
1)
Vicente
T. Bongat is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each crime.
2)
Appreciating
the mitigating circumstance of minority, Jerwin B. Quintal is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of 12 years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each crime.
3)
Appreciating
the mitigating circumstance of minority, Felipe A. Quintal is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of 12 years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each crime.
Vicente
T. Bongat, Jerwin B. Quintal and Felipe A. Quintal are ordered to individually
pay the private complainant [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each crime.
Pursuant
to R.A. No. 9344, the judgment of conviction against Jerwin Quintal and Felipe
Quintal is suspended. The parents or
guardians of Jerwin Quintal and Felipe Quintal; the Social Worker of this
Court, Nonita Manlangit; the Municipal Social Welfare Officer of Virac,
Catanduanes Josefina T. Ramirez, the Provincial Social Welfare Officer of
Catanduanes Priscilla T. Navar, the Director of Region V of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or his duly authorized representative;
and the Head of the Social Services and Counseling Division of DSWD or his duly
authorized representative are enjoined to attend the disposition conference on
November 28, 2006 at 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon.[25]
Jerwin and Felipe were
both confined at the Home for Boys in
The
RTC found AAA’s testimony as credible and rejected the “sweetheart theory” and alibi of the defense. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
RTC decision.
Appellant
filed a notice of appeal. On
On
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing and upon the recommendation of the DSWD, the cases
against JICL Jerwin B. Quintal and JICL Felipe A. Quintal, whose sentence have
been suspended, are hereby DISMISSED.
Finding that the objective of the
disposition measures has been fulfilled, the Court orders the final discharge
of the said JICL. Let a copy of this
Order be furnished the Regional Office of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development, Baraguis, Legaspi City and Office of the Regional Director of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development, Home for Boys, Naga City, for
them to cause the discharge of JICL Jerwin B. Quintal and JICL Felipe A.
Quintal and their return to their respective families.
The Municipal Social Welfare Officer
of Virac, Catanduanes is ordered to submit a periodic report on both JICL
within one (1) year after their discharge.[28]
In
the main, appellant assails the credibility of AAA’s testimony. He insists that it was impossible for AAA to
have clearly and positively identified him as one of the perpetrators considering
that AAA claimed that it was very dark inside the nipa hut where she was supposedly raped. Appellant assails the
testimony of AAA that she went with Jerwin to a place unknown to her, despite
not personally knowing him. Appellant
claims this incredibility in her testimony created serious doubt as to the
reliability of her allegations.
Appellant argues that contrary to AAA’s allegations, there was no clear
intent on her part to resist the alleged sexual acts. AAA failed to shout for help. Neither did she present any proof of body
injuries to clearly prove that she resisted the alleged rape. Moreover, AAA told her mother about the
incident only because the latter noticed her to have been walking in an unusual
manner. Appellant asserts that he should
have been convicted only of simple seduction as conspiracy was not proven among
the accused.[29]
The
OSG maintains that AAA positively identified appellant as one of the four
rapists. It counters that the visibility
inside the nipa hut was not that poor
as to render AAA incapable of seeing her rapists’ faces. AAA had a good view of appellant’s face
because the moonlight illuminated the surroundings. It contends that there is
nothing unusual when AAA voluntarily went with Jerwin and Felipe before she was
raped. According to the OSG, AAA had a
false sense of security because the two accused were minors like her and were
even accompanied by another girl. The
OSG avers that force and intimidation were employed against AAA because her
hands and feet were tied to the nipa
hut’s posts during her ordeal. There is
likewise no basis for the claim that AAA did not immediately report the
incident. When AAA saw her mother, she
informed her at the earliest possible opportunity. Finally, the OSG asserts
that there is conspiracy among the accused in committing rape considering their
actions before, during and after raping AAA.
The gravamen of the
offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without
her consent.[30] Hence, the elements necessary to sustain a conviction
in the crime of rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal
knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the
use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is
demented.[31]
The prosecution, with whom
the burden of proof rests, seeks to establish these elements through the
testimonies of its witnesses, particularly that of the victim’s.
There is a plethora of
cases which tend to disfavor the accused in a rape case by holding that when a
woman declares that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape has been committed and where her testimony passes
the test of credibility the accused can be convicted on the basis thereof.[32] A dangerous precedent as it may seem, there
is however a guideline provided also by jurisprudence in scrutinizing the
testimony of the victim, namely: (a) while an accusation for rape can be made
with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove;
(b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the
evidence of the defense.[33]
Guided by these
principles and upon a careful scrutiny of the records of this case, this Court
is not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that appellant, as well as the other
accused, committed the crime of rape against AAA.
The credibility of the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the inconclusive medical
finding, tends to create doubt if AAA was indeed raped. The RTC and the Court of Appeals relied largely
on the testimony of AAA that she was raped. This Court is well aware of the rule that
findings of trial court relative to the credibility of the rape victim are
normally respected and not disturbed on appeal, more so, if they are affirmed
by the appellate court. It is only in
exceptional circumstances that this rule is brushed aside, such as when the
court’s evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight and
substance which could affect the result of the case.[34] And one of these exceptions obtains in this
case.
This Court cannot disregard
this nagging doubt with respect to the credibility of AAA’s testimony, the
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the barangay
tanod and barangay kagawad, the
purported confession put into writing and signed by all the accused; and the
subsequent incidents relating to the case.
First, AAA testified that she does not
personally know Jerwin and Felipe.
However, when the two allegedly invited her to go with them to a party,
she readily accepted the invitation and in fact, went with them. Moreover, AAA was seen playing cards with
Jerwin and his group in the wake, as testified by Maria, Felipe, Jerwin and
Federico.
Second,
AAA recounted that the nipa hut where
she was brought by the accused was very dark.
And yet, AAA readily identified Vicente and Larry inside the hut, as two
of those who raped her. Incidentally, it
was unclear how AAA was able to identify Vicente and Larry because she was
never asked, not by the prosecution nor the defense, on how she came to know
the two accused.
Third, the medical certificate only
contained one finding, that there was a “round-the-clock abrasion in the labia minora.” This is not at all conclusive nor
corroborative to support the charge of rape. At most, this indicates that AAA had sexual
intercourse. We find the medical finding
lacking in relation to the testimony of AAA on how she was ravished by four
men. Although a medical examination is
not an indispensable element in a prosecution of rape, it could have
corroborated an otherwise vague and dubious testimony of the victim. In fact, Dr. Tatad admitted that he only
examined AAA’s private parts based on her statement that she was raped, thus:
Q: Do you remember Doctor, the date when the
examination was conducted?
A:
Q: That was on
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, when the
person of [AAA] came to you, what did you do?
A: She consulted
me and told me that she was raped, sir.
Q: And after
informing that she was raped, what did you do?
A: I told her to lie down as if she was to deliver
a child and I examined the vagina. There
was abrasion in the labia minora round the clock, sir.
Q: How about
laceration?
A: There was an
abrasion, sir.
Q: What might
have caused that abrasion round the clock?
A: It could be
that something was inserted, sir.
Q: What kind of
object might have been inserted?
A: According to
the patient, penis was inserted in her vagina.
Q: Did she tell
you as to the number of penis which were inserted in her vagina?
A: According to the patient the penis inserted
to her was pushed and pulled, sir.[35]
Furthermore, in her
sworn statement before the police, AAA related that her mouth was injured.[36] She also testified in court that her hands
and feet were tied to a post by a nylon string.[37] Naturally, AAA would have sustained injuries
in her hands and feet. But all these
injuries were never examined by the medico-legal officer nor did AAA allege the
existence of those injuries.
Fourth, AAA’s belated reporting of the
rape incident has relevance in this case, especially when it appears that she
really had no intention at all to inform her mother, not until the latter
actually asked her why she was walking in an unusual manner. AAA stated:
Q:
You said a while ago that your mother discovered your unusual movement in the
morning of the following day of
A:
It was after two days when my mother
noticed my unusual movement during the birthday of my brother, sir.
Q:
Did you not go out of the house of your grandmother on
A: No, sir.
Q: When your
mother noticed your movement, what did she do?
A: She asked me,
sir.
Q: After she
asked you, what did she do?
A:
She asked me why I was walking that way and I told her that I was raped, sir.[38]
Fifth, BBB allegedly went to the Barangay Kagawad and the Tanod, who happens to be her cousin, to
report the rape incidents. However, when
Fernando and Eddie testified, they claimed that they were initially informed by
BBB about a marriage proposal by Jerwin’s parents. It was only during the meeting that they
learned about the alleged rape.
Sixth, to fuel further suspicion as to
whether a rape incident actually transpired, BBB never bothered to ask AAA
about the whole incident.[39] She accepted AAA’s testimony hook, line and
sinker. In the same breadth, it can be
recalled that Eddie, the Barangay Tanod,
testified that BBB dictated to him what was written in the yellow paper which
contained the supposed admissions of rape by the accused. Eddie did not appear to have asked or interrogated
the accused about the incident.
Likewise, Dr. Tatad merely examined AAA’s private parts on the basis of
her claim that she was raped.
Seventh,
in an unusual twist, records show that AAA was seen visiting Jerwin in jail for
at least six (6) times. These incidents
are documented in a logbook presented in court by the defense and which was not
refuted by the prosecution.
The
combination of all these circumstances are more than sufficient to create a reasonable
doubt as to whether first, rape was actually committed and second, whether the
accused were the perpetrators.
It
is thus unnecessary to belabor the issues raised by the defense for it must be
reiterated that conviction always rests on the strength of the prosecution’s
evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.
For the reasons cited
above, we are constrained to entertain reasonable doubt. Hence, we acquit.
WHEREFORE,
appellant Vicente Bongat y TARIMAN is ACQUITTED
based on reasonable doubt. He is ordered
RELEASED unless he is being detained
for some other lawful cause.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
MARIANO C.
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
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal with Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-21.
[2] Presided by Judge Genie G. Gapas-Agbada. CA rollo, pp. 19-33.
[3]
The place of commission is
withheld to preserve confidentiality of the identity of the victim. See People
v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[4] Likewise, the victim’s real name, as well as her members of her immediate family is withheld to protect her privacy, also pursuant to People v. Cabalquinto.
[5] Records, p. 7.
[6] Supra note 4.
[7] Supra note 3.
[8]
[9]
TSN,
[10]
TSN,
[11]
TSN,
[12]
[13] Records, p. 4.
[14]
TSN,
[15]
TSN,
[16]
TSN,
[17]
TSN,
[18]
[19]
TSN,
[20]
TSN,
[21]
TSN,
[22]
TSN,
[23]
[24] Records, p. 135.
[25] CA rollo, pp. 76-77.
[26]
Rollo, pp. 34-35.
[27]
[28]
[29] CA rollo, pp. 51-61.
[30] People
v. Coja, G.R. No. 179277,
[31]
People
v. Baldo, G.R. No. 175238,
[32]
People v. Paculba, G.R. No.
183453,
[33] People
v. Bidoc, G.R. No. 169430,
[34]
People v. Layco, Sr., G.R. No. 182191,
[35]
TSN,
[36] Records, p. 2.
[37]
TSN,
[38]
[39]
TSN,