Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - JULIUS TAGUILID y Accused-Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 181544 Present: CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: April 11, 2012 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
For resolution is the final appeal of
Julius Taguilid y Bacolod from his
conviction for rape by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 106, in Quezon
City on April 21, 2006,[1] which the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed through its decision promulgated on August 16, 2007.[2]
Antecedents
Taguilid was charged in the RTC with
rape in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (Special
Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
under the following information, to wit:
That on or about the 29th day of May, 2002, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force and intimidation suddenly entered the bedroom of private complainant,[3] a minor, 12 yrs of age, located at xxx Brgy. Talayan, this City, and once inside, pushed said complainant to lie down, forcibly inserted his finger to her private part, removed her panty and thereafter had sexual intercourse with said offended party, all against her will, and without her consent, which acts further debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of said private complainant as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
The evidence of the Prosecution shows
that at about 4:00 pm on May 29, 2002 Taguilid
suddenly entered AAAs room while she was resting; that the room was in the
third floor of the house owned by her parents and located in Barangay Talayan,
Quezon City; that he was a cousin of her mother who had been living with her
family in that house since 2000; that upon entering her room, he pushed her down
on her back, then inserted his finger in her vagina and later on inserted his
penis in her vagina; that she cried and pushed him away, but to no avail; that
he next turned her over and penetrated her anus with his penis while in that
position; and that she did not shout for help because he threatened to kill her
if she did.[5]
At the time of the rape, AAA was 12
years and ten months old, having been born on
The Prosecution further established that BBB, AAAs father,
was at the time tending to the family store at the ground floor when he decided
to go up to the third floor to look for and talk to AAA; that upon reaching her
room, he found Taguilid standing by her bed in the act of raising the zipper of
his pants, and AAA was on her bed, crying and uttering inaudible words; that BBB
saw that her skirt was raised up to her waist, and her panties, though still on
her, were disheveled (wala sa ayos); and
that it seemed to BBB that his sudden appearance in the room had taken Taguilid
by surprise, causing the latter to hurriedly leave the room even before BBB could
say anything to him.
BBB
later on brought his daughter to the United Doctors Medical Center (UDMC) in
The RTC summarized the medico-legal findings on AAA thuswise:
Dr. Jerico Angelito Q. Cordero, 28
years old, physician and a medico-legal officer assigned as Deputy Chief of
Taguilid denied
the accusation. He testified that AAAs mother was his third cousin; that he
lived with AAAs family because his means of livelihood was playing their drums
at birthday parties and fiestas; that on May 28, 2002, he and AAA had an
argument after she refused to follow his instruction to wash the dishes; that he
whipped her with two sticks of walis
tingting, but she retaliated by stabbing his shorts, causing his shorts to
fall off; that it was while he was pulling up his shorts and zipping them when BBB
suddently appeared and found him inside her room in that pose; and that he immediately
rushed down the stairs, with BBB saying to him: Hintayin mo ako sa ibaba. Pinakain na, pinatulog pa, ahas sa bahay na
ito.[8]
Ruling of the RTC
As stated, the RTC pronounced Taguilid guilty of rape, holding:
The Court finds that AAA was actually violated in her own room. The act was already consummated when her father entered her room, looking for her. The accused was putting and zipping up his pant inside the room of the victim who was crying on her bed, hair and dress disheveled, shaken and visibly afraid of the accused. Her panty was on, but wala sa ayos, as explained by her father who was shocked to see his daughter on bed with the accused in the act of zipping up his pants. Whipping up a young girl with two sticks of walis tingting would perhaps make her cry but would not certainly make her lie on bed, shaking in fear and uttering words inaudibly. This condition of AAA is a manifestation that she was threatened and forced sexually. Her testimony was firm she was abused and raped. The accused even used his finger on her vagina before he slipped his penis inside her vagina. The accused also pinataob her and did anal sex (TSN, Feb. 7, 2003, pp. 4-7). When asked how many times the accused raped her, she said outrightly, Ten (10) times (Ibid).
The
testimony of AAA was honest, straightforward and clear. She answered all questions of her ordeal in
clearcut language. She mentioned the word pinataob
to describe the next position the accused assumed to penetrate her anus. Young
as she is, her purpose was to unearth the truth that she was raped by the
accused not only on that fateful day of
xxx
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, accused JULIUS TAGUILID Y BACOLOD is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
The accused is further ordered to pay
the private complainant the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000) as
civil indemnity in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence (People
v. Obejaso, 299 SCRA 549; People v.
Ibay, 233 SCRA 15); the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000) as
moral damages; and the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000) as
exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed Taguilids conviction, decreeing:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
decision dated
SO ORDERED.[10]
The
CA explained its affirmance in the following manner, viz:
In the instant case, we agree with the trial court that the testimony of private complainant should be accorded full faith and credit as it amply supports a finding of guilt on the part of accused-appellant for the commission of the said offense. Indeed, the narration of her ordeal was honest, straightforward and clear and all through her entire testimony she remained firm and steadfast in identifying accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the offense.
On the other hand, accused-appellant can only set up the defense of denial. Denial, although a legitimate defense, is an inherently weak defense that crumbles in the face of positive and categorical identification of the private complainant. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evident, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. As between the positive declaration of the prosecution witness and the negative statement of the accused, the former deserves more credence.
Incidentally, we cannot also help but observe that the weakness of accused-appellants defense becomes all the more apparent in this appeal considering as to how he is now trying to change his theory as to what had transpired on May 29, 2002. For instance, during the trial of the case, accused-appellant contended that there was no rape but a serious case of misunderstanding between him and the father of the private complainant as his shorts fell as a result of private complainants retaliation for beating her with walis tingting. On appeal however, a reading of the arguments of the accused-appellant shows that while he still maintains that there was no rape, he avers that the sexual congress was consensual as there was absence of physical struggle or resistance on the part of the private complainant.
Lastly, the absence of fresh lacerations on private complainants genitalia is not a factor that is conclusively relied upon to establish the non-existence of rape. Indeed, the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not cancel out the commission of rape, since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime. In fact, even the absence of fresh lacerations does not preclude the finding of rape.
This holds true in the instant case considering that coupled with the testimony of private complainant on the rape and her identification of the accused-appellant as the culprit therein, the medico-legal report and the medico-legal, Dr. Cordero testified that private complainant is in a non-virgin state. To repeat, proof of injuries is not essential to the crime itself.
Significantly, let it also be emphasized that the gravamen of the offense is [sexual intercourse without consent].
That
having been said, we find no reversible error committed by the trial court in
convicting accused-appellant of the offense of rape. The records of the case show that the
prosecution had satisfactorily proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that he had carnal knowledge of the
private complainant against her will through the use of force and intimidation.
Such being the case, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for absent any
circumstance that would qualify the rape under the instances enumerated under
Sec. 11 of R.A. 7659, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.[11]
Issues
Taguilid reiterates his assignment of errors in
the CA, namely:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE HIGHLY INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DEFENSE.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III.
THE
FINDINGS/PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AS CONTAINED IN THE MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT DOES NOT
SHOW AND/OR IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFENSE OF RAPE.[12]
Taguilid argues that AAAs testimony on how
the rape had happened and how easily he had undressed her indicated that he did
not use force and intimidation against her; that her fear of him had been only
the product of her imagination; and that her silence during the entire event,
and her failure to escape from him or to report his allegedly previous sexual
assaults had revealed her having voluntarily consented to the sexual act.[13]
Taguilid submits that the State did not prove
that he had any moral ascendancy over AAA; that the age gap between them did not
suffice to establish his moral ascendancy over her;[14] and that the medico-legal findings of
the hymenal lacerations found on her on the same date of the rape being already
healed, not fresh, were inconsistent with rape.[15]
Ruling
The Court affirms the conviction.
First of all, it is basic that
findings of the CA affirming those of the RTC as the trial court are generally
conclusive on the Court which is not a trier of facts.[16] Such conclusiveness derives from the
trial courts having the first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor and
manner of the victim when she testified at the trial.[17] It also looks to the Court that both
the RTC and the CA carefully sifted and considered all the attendant
circumstances. With Taguilid not showing that the RTC and the CA overlooked any
fact or material of consequence that could have altered the outcome if they had
taken it into due consideration, the Court must fully accept the findings of
the CA.
Secondly, the medico-legal finding made
on May 29, 2002 showing AAAs hymenal laceration as deep-healed and as having
healed 5 to 10 days from the time of (infliction of) the injury did not detract
from the commission of the rape on May 29, 2002. For one, hymenal injury has
never been an element of rape, for a female might still be raped without such
injury resulting. The essence of rape is carnal knowledge of a female either against her will (through force or
intimidation) or without her consent (where
the female is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or is under 12 years
of age, or is demented).[18] It is relevant to know that carnal
knowledge is simply the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a
woman.[19] Thus, although AAA testified on her
sexual penetration by Taguilid, the fact that her hymenal injury was not fresh
but already deep-healed was not incompatible with the evidence of rape by him.
In this regard, her claim that he had previously subjected her to similar
sexual assaults several times before
Thirdly, AAAs failure to shout for
help although she knew that her father was tending to the family store just
downstairs was not a factor to discredit her or to diminish the credibility of
her evidence on the rape. She explained her failure by stating that Taguilid
had threatened to harm her should she shout. She thereby commanded credence,
considering that she was not expected to easily overcome her fear of him due to
her being then a minor just under 13 years of age at the time of the rape. Nor would it be reasonable to impose on her
any standard form of reaction when faced with a shocking and horrifying
experience like her rape at the hands of Taguilid. The Court has recognized
that different people react differently to a given situation involving a
startling occurrence.[20] Indeed, the workings of the human
mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and people react differently
- some may shout, others may faint, and still
others may be shocked into insensibility even if there may be a few who may
openly welcome the intrusion.[21]
There can be no question that the
testimony of a child who has been a victim in rape is normally given full
weight and credence. Judicial experience has enabled the courts to accept the
verity that when a minor says that she was raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape was committed against her.[22] The credibility of such a rape victim
is surely augmented where there is absolutely no evidence that suggests the
possibility of her being actuated by ill-motive to falsely testify against the
accused.[23] Truly, a rape victims testimony that
is unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or
contradictions in its material points is entitled to full faith and credit.[24]
And, fourthly, Taguilids defense at
the trial was plain denial of the positive assertions made against him. He then
declared that the charge of rape against him resulted from BBBs
misunderstanding of what had really occurred in AAAs bedroom just before BBB
had appeared unannounced. Yet, such denial was devoid of persuasion due to its being
easily and conveniently resorted to, and due to denial being generally weaker
than and not prevailing over the positive assertions of both AAA and BBB. Also,
Taguilids explanation of why he was then zipping his pants when BBB found him
in AAAs bedroom, that AAAs stabbing had caused his pants to fall off, was
implausible without him demonstrating how the pants had been unzipped from
AAAs stabbing of him as to cause the pants to fall off. Besides, Taguilids
act of quickly leaving the room of AAA without at least attempting to tell BBB the
reason for his presence in her room and near the bed of the sobbing AAA if he had
been as innocent as he claimed exposed the shamness and insincerity of his
denial.
In this connection, the Court is not
surprised that Taguilid changed his defense theory on appeal, from one of denial
based on the charge having resulted from a misunderstanding of the situation in
AAAs bedroom on the part of BBB to one admitting the sexual congress with AAA but
insisting that it was consensual between them. Such shift, which the CA
unfailingly noted, revealed the unreliability of his denial, if not also its inanity.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS
the decision promulgated on
The appellant shall pay the costs of
suit.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] CA Rollo, pp. 8-11.
[2] Rollo pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico (retired), Associate Justice Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok (retired) and Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag (retired) concurring.
[3] The real names of the victim and the
members of her immediate family are withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610
(Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and Republic Act No. 9262
(Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004). Instead, fictitious names shall be used to designate
them. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R.
No. 167693,
[4] Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[5] CA Rollo, p. 9.
[6] CA Rollo, p. 9.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Rollo, p. 13.
[11]
[12] CA Rollo, p. 22.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Miranda v. Besa, G.R. No. 146513, July
30, 2004, 435 SCRA 532, 541.
[17] People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534,
[18] People v. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011; see also People v. Masalihit, G.R. No. 124329, December 14, 1998, 300 SCRA 147, 155; People v. Flores, Jr., G.R. No.128823-24, December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 325, 333.
[19] Blacks Law Dictionary 193 (5th ed., 1979).
[20] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 141599,
[21] People v. San Antonio, Jr., G.R. No. 176633, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 411, 428; citing People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 157269, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 619, 626.
[22] People v. Lagarde, G.R. No. 182549,
[23] People v. Llagas, G.R. No. 178873,
[24] People v. Rapisora, G.R. No. 147855, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 237, 256.