SECOND
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus- MARCELO
PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 191265
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, and SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated: September 14, 2011 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ,
J.:
The subject of this
appeal is the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated 8 July 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02978 affirming
the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 8, Legazpi City in
Criminal Case No. 8182 finding appellant Marcelo Perez guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape.
Appellant was charged
in an Information for Rape allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 30th day
of June, 1998, at more or less 4:00 oclock in the morning, at [XXX],[3]
Municipality of [XXX], Province of Albay, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design
and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA],[4]
16 years of age, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.[5]
On arraignment,
appellant pleaded not guilty. During the
preliminary conference, appellant admitted that AAA is the sister of his wife.[6] Trial ensued.
AAA, her mother, BBB[7]
and the medico-legal officer, Dr. Tirzo de los Reyes, Jr. (Dr. de los Reyes)
testified for the prosecution.
AAA recounted that on
BBB testified that she was
in
Dr. de los Reyes
conducted a physical examination on AAA two (2) days after the alleged rape
incident, and issued a medico-legal certification containing the following
findings:
Vaginal
Examination: A lubricated right glove was used and the vaginal canal admits 2
fingers. No abnormalities were noted in
the labia majora and minora. No hymen
was seen.
A
lubricated medium sized vaginal speculum was inserted which revealed: normal looking vaginal canal and external os
of the cervix. No lacerations noted.
A
specimen of the vaginal discharge was obtained and was sent for laboratory
identification of micro-organisms.[12]
The appellant never
testified inspite of numerous resettings of the trial. The defense rested their case without
presenting any documentary or any other testimonial evidence.
On
WHEREFORE,
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused
beyond a shadow of doubt, MARCELO O. PEREZ is hereby found guilty of rape
committed against his sister-in-law, [AAA], and is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Conformably
with existing jurisprudence, accused is hereby ordered to pay the private
offended party the amounts of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity and [P]50,000.00
as moral damages.[13]
The RTC held that the
testimony of the rape victim had clearly established the elements of rape. The RTC dismissed as minor the inconsistency regarding
BBBs presence at the house during the commission of the crime, which as such,
does not affect the credibility of AAA. The
trial court categorically stated that the absence of laceration and
abnormalities on the victims body did not negate the commission of rape. The trial court considered appellants flight
from the crime scene as an indication of guilt.
Appellant
filed a notice of appeal. On
IN
LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The decision dated
Hence, the instant
appeal.
On
Appellant
attacks the credibility of the victim by pointing out alleged incredulities and
inconsistencies in her testimony. First,
AAA testified that her parents, as well as her sister CCC, were all sleeping
inside the small house. Appellant notes as
incredible that nobody noticed that AAA was being dragged from the small house
into the bathroom situated outside the house.
Second, AAA did not try to get any of her housemates attention nor did
she try to shout for help. Third, appellant
could not have easily undressed himself, and then the victim, while holding a
knife. Fourth, the claim of AAA that her
mother was inside the house when the rape was allegedly committed ran counter
to her statement that her mother was in fact in Manila at that time. Finally, appellant also invites our attention
to the findings contained in the medico-legal report. The absence of fresh laceration or any sign
of trauma does not jive with AAAs claim that she was raped through the use of
force and intimidation.
On the other hand, the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) insists that the failure of the victim to
shout for help does not negate rape. The
OSG explains that AAA was cowed into silence and submission when appellant
threatened to kill her should she resist.
The OSG also dismissed the inconsistencies in AAAs testimony as
inconsequential. Finally, the OSG belittles
the medical findings on the absence of laceration or trauma on the victims
body as the same is not indispensable to prove the crime of rape. All told, the OSG is satisfied that the
prosecution was able to prove appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements necessary
to sustain a conviction for 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.[17]
The prosecution sought
to establish the presence of these elements through the testimony of the victim
herself. The testimony, here found
credible, paves way for the affirmance of the conviction of the accused. In a prosecution for rape, the victims
credibility becomes the single most important issue. For when a woman says she was raped, she says
in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[18]
We affirm the finding
of guilt as we once more say that the trial court is in a better position to
decide the question as it heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during trial.[19]
After a thorough
examination of the records, we agree with the factual findings of the RTC, as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, on the credibility of AAAs testimony. AAA did not waver in pointing to appellant as
her assailant. She was straightforward and unequivocal in narrating how she was
raped by appellant, thus:
Q:
You have stated a while [a]go that
you were in your house on
A: I was sleeping then.
Q: What time did you wake up?
A: At
Q:
Why is it that you were able to
wake up in the early morning at
A:
At
ATTY. ALMAYDA
x x x
A:
I was awakened that early morning
at
Q:
You have stated that a certain
person dragged you at the bathroom, who is that person you are referring to?
A: Marcelo Perez.
Q:
If that Marcelo Perez is inside the
courtroom, can you point to him?
A:
(Witness pointed to a person, who
upon being asked of his name answered that he is Marcelo Perez.)
Q:
You have stated that Marcelo Perez
did something bad to you, what is that something bad you are referring to?
A: He raped me.
Q: How did he rape you?
A:
He undressed himself, including his
brief, and while we were inside the comfort room Marcelo Perez took off his
brief, placed it inside my mouth and covered my mouth with a piece of cloth.
Q: After that, what did he do next?
A: He took off my short pants.
Q: How about your panty?
A: Including my panty.
Q: After he removed your shorts and panty,
what did he do?
A: He laid me on the ground and he inserted
his penis into my vagina.
Q: What did you feel when he inserted his
penis into your vagina?
A: I did not feel anything because he
slashed my wrist with a knife.[20]
All
elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code[21]
were sufficiently proved through the statement of AAA alone. The offender is a man who had carnal
knowledge of AAA when he forced himself upon the latter. Appellant accomplished his purpose through the
use of threat, i.e. threatening to
kill AAA. In fact, it is under these
same threats that AAA was not able to resist nor summon for help, thus:
Q:
While you were being dragged by the
accused, did you observe your other companions madam witness? Were you able to
observe them?
A: I did not have time to look at them
anymore.
Q: But during the time that you were dragged
you were so afraid?
A: Yes, sir.
Q:
You were so afraid because there
might be something bad that might happen to you, is that right madam witness?
Q: Yes, sir, because he was already
threatening me.
A:
Before being dragged by the
accused, did I get it right that he threatened you not to shout or else the
accused might kill you?
A: He also threatened me with death.
Q: He also threatened you with death in
order for you not to shout?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In fact you were so threatened that you
did not shout?
A: Yes, sir.
Q:
And when the accused dragged you
outside the bedroom, you did not shout madam witness?
A:
I did not have the courage to shout
because he was already holding a knife in the hand.[22]
The
inconsistency of AAAs statement pertaining to the presence of BBB at the crime
scene can be easily dismissed, as it was dismissed by the appellate court in
this wise:
Clearly,
the question of whether the victims mother was in their house at the time of
the rape or not is immaterial in proving the guilt or innocence of the
accused-appellant. Hence, such minor
inconsistency in the witness-victims testimony cannot be a ground to destroy
her credibility or more so, serve as basis for accused-appellants acquittal.[23]
Indeed,
the presence of BBB at the locus criminis
is of no moment. It is not an essential
element to establish the crime of rape. The
inconsistent statements of AAA pertaining to BBB may be attributed to the fact
that she was very confused at that time and she is not expected to remember
each and every detail of the events that transpired that day, especially
matters which are trivial and inconsequential.
The appellate court is
likewise correct in downplaying the medico-legal findings which it ruled as
merely corroborative in character and is not an element of rape.[24] The prime consideration in the prosecution of
rape is the victim's testimony, not necessarily the medical findings; a medical
examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. The
victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[25]
Under
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, rape under paragraph 1 of Article
266-A is punishable by reclusion perpetua. The trial court therefore correctly imposed
the penalty. We likewise affirm the
award of civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P50,000.00. Civil indemnity is mandatory when rape is
found to have been committed while moral damages are awarded to rape victims
without need of proof other than the fact of rape on the assumption that the
victim suffered moral injuries from the experience she underwent.[26] An additional award of P30,000.00 as
exemplary damages should likewise be given, as well as interest of six percent
(6%) per annum on all damages awarded
from the finality of judgment until fully paid.[27]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 8 July 2009 affirming in
toto the Decision of the RTC dated 24 August 2007 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is
imposed in addition to the civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00
and moral damages also in the amount of P50,000.00. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed on all the
damages awarded in this case from date of finality of this judgment until fully
paid.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D.
BRION MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
*
Per Special Order No. 1077
dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-13.
[2] Presided by Judge Cezar A. Bordeos. CA rollo, pp. 7-23.
[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] The victims real name, as well as
the members of her immediate family is withheld to protect her privacy pursuant
to People v. Cabalquinto.
[5] Records, p. 1.
[6] Id.
at 51.
[7] Supra note 4.
[8]
TSN,
[9]
[10]
Supra note 4.
[11]
TSN, 1 March 2006, pp. 4-5 and 11.
[12]
Records, p. 2.
[13] CA rollo, p. 23.
[14]
Rollo, p. 12.
[15]
[16]
Id. at 22-23 and 26.
[17] People
v. Quintal, G.R. No. 184170,
[18]
People v. Paculba, G.R. No. 183453, 9 March 2010, 614 SCRA 755, 763-764 citing People v. Mingming, G.R. No. 174195, 10
December 2008, 573 SCRA 509, 532; People
v. Capareda, 473 Phil. 301, 330 (2004); People
v. Galido, G.R. Nos. 148689-92, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 502, 516.
[19]
People
v. Malana, G.R. No. 185716,
[20]
TSN,
[21] Article
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:
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; and
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.
[22]
TSN,
[23]
Rollo, p. 10.
[24]
Id. at 9.
[25]
People v. Otos, G.R. No. 189821, 23 March 2011 citing People v. Cadap, G.R. No. 190633, 5 July 2010, 623 SCRA 655, 663; People v. Llanas, Jr., G.R. No. 190616, 29
June 2010, 622 SCRA 602, 613; People v.
Barberos, G.R. No. 187494, 23 December 2009, 609 SCRA 381, 399; People v. Araojo, G.R. No. 185203, 17 September
2009, 600 SCRA 295, 308-309.
[26]
People v. Masagca, Jr., G.R.
No. 184922,
[27]
Peope v. Lucero, G.R. No.
188705,