Republic of the
Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - IRENEO GANZAN, Accused-Appellant. |
G. R. No. 193509 Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: April 11, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O
N
SERENO, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal from the 24 March 2010 Decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA),[1] which affirmed the 5 October 2007
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),[2]
Branch 24, Cebu City, which had convicted appellant Ireneo Ganzan (Ganzan) of the
crime of rape.
Ganzan was charged in an Information[3]
dated 30 March 2001, as follows:
That on 26th day of February, 2001 at 1:30 in the morning at APOCEMCO, Barangay Tinaan, Municipality of Naga, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA],[4] against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment, appellant Ganzan entered a plea of not guilty.[5]
Trial on the merits ensued, and the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape in a Decision dated 5 October 2007, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having successfully discharged the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds him guilty of rape punished under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He shall likewise suffer the accessory penalty inherent in the law.
Accused is further ordered to pay the victim a civil indemnity of PhP50,000.00, by reason of the crime and PhP50,000.00, as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Ganzan
appealed to the Court of Appeals.[7]
After a review of the records by the appellate court, the finding of guilt by
the trial court was affirmed by the former in a Decision dated 24 March 2010.[8]
Ganzan then filed this instant appeal
before this Court.[9]
The Facts
The main witness for the prosecution was the victim herself. She narrated
that, sometime before midnight on 25 February 2011, she was on her way home
from a disco with her friend, Eleonor Sarda.[10]
As they approached a small basketball court, they were accosted by a man with a
gun, later identified as appellant Ganzan.[11]
He was wearing a bonnet, but it did not cover his entire face, as it covered
only his head and forehead.[12]
He pointed a gun at them, identified himself as a member of the New Peoples
Army from Bohol, and asked them the names of their parents and if they had
identification cards.[13]
He told them, Dont be afraid of me because Im not a bad guy. You just go
there to the dark side.[14]
Trembling, they obeyed his order.[15]
Upon reaching the dark side, Eleonor and AAA were ordered by Ganzan at
gunpoint to remove their clothes. They complied until they were only in their
undergarments. Ganzan trained a flashlight all over their bodies.[16]
Thereafter, he sent Eleonor to the disco place to buy banana cue and
cigarettes.[17]
After Eleonor left, Ganzan aimed his flashlight all over AAAs body while
he kept looking around.[18]
He then dragged her towards the vicinity of the Apo Cement Corporation
(APOCEMCO).[19]
When they reached a grassy area, he commanded her to lie down.[20]
She refused, but Ganzan threatened her with the gun, forced her to lie down,
and removed her panties.[21]
AAA instantly covered her genitals with her hands.[22]
After repeatedly ordering her to remove her hands, to no avail, Ganzan struck her
hands, and uncovered her genitals. Afterwards, he covered AAAs face with her
blouse and held both her hands.[23]
When AAAs face was already covered, appellant Ganzan inserted his finger
inside her vagina, causing her to cry, Ma! Afterwards, he inserted his penis into
her vagina, causing her to shout loudly. He then ordered her to keep quiet and
poked a knife at her neck.[24]
Because of her constant resistance, the blouse covering her face came off during
the assault.[25] Ganzan then inserted his finger into her
vagina for about three times, and then inserted his penis again.[26]
AAA could not do anything, because she was no longer feeling well due to the
intense pain.[27]
When Ganzan was finished, he ordered AAA to get up and put on her
clothes.[28]
After she got dressed, he pointed the gun at her and said, Dont ever reveal
these things because I will kill you and your family.[29]
He then told her, You can go home now but dont tell anybody about this. Dont
turn around to face me.[30]
Defiantly, AAA turned around to take a good look at her rapist. Ganzan then
remarked, I told you not to turn your back, while still pointing the gun at
her.[31]
AAA kept on walking until she reached home.[32] She slept on the sofa and did not
inform anyone in her family about what happened, because she was afraid.[33]
Marie Cris Canicon and Reynante Cabigas narrated in their Joint Affidavit[34]
that, shortly after the incident, at around 1:45 a.m., they saw appellant Ganzan
coming from the area where the rape incident happened, still fixing his short pants.
He was walking hurriedly while repeatedly looking from side to side. When
appellant saw Marie Cris and Reynante, he asked them what they were doing in
the area. He asked to see their identification cards, and when they replied
that they did not have any, he asked them where they lived. He kept on pointing
his flashlight at Marie Cris, until Reynante covered her eyes and told Ganzan
not to do that. Marie Cris then stared at appellant for almost one minute,
causing him to get angry. Afterwards, he left and told them not to go to the
place he pointed to.[35]
Meanwhile, instead of following appellants order to buy banana cue and
cigarettes, Eleonor reported the incident to her cousin and to the barangay tanods. They went to the scene
of the crime, but found nobody there.[36]
AAA woke up to the sound of her elder brother and cousin knocking very
hard and kicking at their door. Apparently having heard about the incident, her
brother asked her what happened.[37]
She told him that somebody forcibly raped her. Her brother asked her if she
knew her assailant, and she replied that she would recognize the person if she would
see him again.[38]
Her brother and cousin then went out looking for the man who raped her.[39]
In the morning, AAA went to the Don Vicente Sotto Memorial Hospital of
Cebu City for a medical examination.[40]
The examining physician, Dr. Carlos Ray B. Sanchez, concluded that, consistent
with a finding of possible sexual abuse, there were fresh lacerations in her
hymen. He also confirmed the presence of sperm.[41]
The following day, during a police lineup, both AAA and Eleonor Sarda identified
Ganzan as the man who had waylaid them and later raped AAA.[42]
Appellant Ganzan interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He stated that
he did not have a firearm,[43] and that he was a mountaineer at APOCEMCO.[44]
On 25 February 2001, he was on duty from 7:00 a.m. up to 3:00 p.m.[45]
At about 11:00 p.m., he rested and slept at the bunkhouse[46]
together with Rolando Pelandas.[47]
APOCEMCO Security Guard Michael Quirol confirmed that Ganzan proceeded to the
bunkhouse a little past 10:00 p.m.[48] while Rolando Pelandas stated that
he saw appellant sleeping in one of the rooms of the bunkhouse at about the
same time.[49] From the time Ganzan arrived at the
APOCEMCO compound that night, he alleged that he never left the premises until
he woke up the following morning.[50]
On 27 February 2001, Ganzan was
surprised to find out that he was a suspect in a rape incident and was being
invited to go to the police station.[51]
At the police station, he was then identified by AAA as the one responsible for
the rape.[52]
The Courts Ruling
We rule that the prosecution has
fulfilled its burden of establishing appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The crime of rape is defined in the
Revised Penal Code as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997,[53]
as follows:
Art. 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 circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation; x x x.
Pursuant to this provision, the essential elements that the prosecution
must prove are, first, that a man succeeded in having carnal knowledge of a
woman; and, second, that the act was accomplished through force, threat or
intimidation.
In this case, AAA positively testified to the presence of both elements. In her testimony, she recounted in detail her harrowing experience at the hands of Ganzan how she and her friend, while on their way home from a disco, were intercepted by the appellant;[54] how they were made to undress at gunpoint;[55] how her friend was sent away so that the appellant would be left alone with her to fulfill his lewd designs;[56] and how he actually succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her against her will while poking a knife against her neck.[57]
These accusations were further buttressed by the findings of Dr. Carlos
Ray Sanchez, who concluded that there was a possibility of sexual abuse after
he found fresh lacerations in her hymen and confirmed the presence of sperm in
her vagina.[58]
For his part, appellant Ganzan
vehemently denied the allegations of the prosecution and interposed alibi as a
defense.
We have ruled that alibi is a weak defense
and is viewed with disfavor by the courts, because it is easy to concoct and
difficult to disprove. Unless
substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative,
self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law. In order for alibi to prosper,
appellant must prove that, first, he was
somewhere else during the commission of the crime, and, second, that it was impossible
for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.[59]
The defense fell short of meeting this burden.
Appellant Ganzan alleged that he was sleeping in the APOCEMCO bunkhouse
when the crime of rape occurred.[60]
Michael Quirol confirmed that appellant had indeed proceeded to that place a
little past 10:00 p.m.,[61]
while Rolando Pelandas stated that he saw Ganzan sleeping in one of the rooms
of the bunkhouse at about the same time.[62]
However, the rape incident occurred at about 1:30 a.m. of the following day, at
which time Ganzans presence was unaccounted for, aside from his bare and
self-serving assertion.
Moreover, even if Ganzan was in the APOCEMCO compound at or near the time
when the crime was committed, it was not impossible for him to be near the
crime scene when the rape occurred. He himself testified that the crime scene could
be reached from the bunkhouse by walking.[63]
We quote with favor the ruling of the trial court in disposing of
appellants defense of alibi:
x x x. During the ocular inspection, the distance
from the place of the incident and the bunkhouse was proven to be easily
accessible (five minutes by horse riding, passing through the quarry within the
Compound of the APOCEMCO and about 300 meters passing the footpath through the
barbed wire fence in shortcut to the highway). Thus, while it could be true
that accused Ireneo Ganzan was sleeping at the bunk house of the Apocemco
between 11:00 in the evening of February 25, 2001 until the morning of the next
day, it could not be ruled out that he could have been at the place of the
incident sometime in between or at about midnight or 1:30 dawn, when people are
in deep slumber, to commit the bestial act against the victim herein.[64]
x x x.
Furthermore, we have ruled that alibi cannot prevail over positive
identification that is categorical, consistent and without any showing of ill motive
on the part of the witness.[65]
In
this case, AAA positively identified appellant Ganzan in open court as the
perpetrator of the rape committed against her:
Q: Now, when you saw that person pointed by you, that was the face of the person who raped you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: That was the face of the person who inserted his penis to your vagina?
A: Yes.
x x x x x x x x x
Q: Now, if that person is here in the chamber, can you point him out?
A: Yes, that one.
Court Interpreter: Witness points to the person seated inside the chamber who when asked answered his name to be Ireneo Ganzan.[66]
We
have ruled that owing to the nature of the offense, rape is usually a crime
bereft of witnesses, and, in many cases, the only evidence is the testimony of
the offended party herself.[67]
As long as her testimony passes the test of credibility, she says all that is
necessary to show that the offense has been committed, and the court may
convict the accused on that basis.[68]
Appellant argues that the victim failed to clearly and positively
identify her assailant, because she could not have seen his face as the place where
the incident occurred was very dark.[69]
The victims clear and categorical statements belie the submission of the
defense. On cross-examination, AAA testified that the place where they were
waylaid was not very dark, as there was a lamppost about 20 meters away.[70]
Moreover, she expressly stated that she saw the face of appellant two times:
first, when he was sexually abusing her, as the blouse covering her face came
off;[71]
and, second, when she defiantly turned around to look at her assailant despite
being ordered not to look back.[72]
During the clarificatory examination conducted by the Municipal Trial
Court of Naga, AAA firmly asserted that she saw the face of appellant as
follows:
Court: At the time when you were sexually violated, did you see the face of the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
Court: Are you sure?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x x x x x x
Court: And if the person who violated you sexually is present in the courtroom now, can you recognize him?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x x x x x x
Court: Can you point him out?
A: Yes, sir. (Witness pointing to the person who answers by the name of Ireneo Ganzan).
Court: Are you sure he is the person who violated you?
A: Yes, sir.
Court: Why are you so sure?
A: When he lighted my face, I saw, I really saw his face.
Court: This Court have (sic) no more questions to ask do you have anything more to say?
A: I really saw his face.[73]
AAAs testimony is consistent with human experience. We have ruled that the
natural reaction of victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the
appearance of their assailants.[74]
Furthermore, victims to a crime are generally capable of remembering the
identity of the criminal with a high degree of reliability because of the bestial
acts that happen before their eyes.[75]
This especially finds application in the case at bar, where the victim was in
possession of her faculties at the time of the incident and was not shown to be
under the influence of alcohol or similar substances.
In
addition to AAAs testimony, Chief Inspector Renato Malazarte testified that,
during the police line-up, Ganzan was likewise positively identified by Eleanor
Sarda as the man who stopped them on their way home from the disco, thus:
COURT
Q: The other witness who was with the complainant the night of the incident [Eleanor Sarda], was he (sic) also around when the two security guards were brought to your office?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And then was she requested to identify?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And what was the identification of the other witness?
A: It was the same. The witness, the victim herself identified the suspect that it was indeed the suspect who raped her.
Q: You mean to say, there are two now who positively identified the suspect?
A: Yes, Your Honor.[76]
Finally, two more individuals, namely
Marie Cris Canicon and Reynante Cabigas, confirmed that they saw appellant
Ganzan coming from the place of the incident after the crime was committed.[77]
Taking all these facts into consideration, and in light of the bare,
self-serving and uncorroborated claims of the defense, we refuse to give
credence to appellants alibi, and rule that the prosecution successfully
established through clear, positive and convincing evidence that the crime of
rape was committed and that appellant Ganzan is guilty thereof beyond
reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR.H.C. No. 00848 dated 24
March 2010 finding appellant Ireneo Ganzan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES
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 Courts Division.
Chairperson, Second Division
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
[1] CA Decision dated 24 March 2010, penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio and concurred in by Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Socorro B. Inting; rollo, pp. 2-18.
[2] RTC Decision dated 5 October 2007, penned by Presiding Judge Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr., Records, pp. 159-174.
[3] Information dated 30 March 2001; Records, p. 1.
[4] The victims real name is withheld pursuant to Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
[5] Order dated 18 June 2001; Records, p. 37.
[6] RTC Decision dated 5 October 2007, p. 14; Records, p. 174.
[7] Notice of Appeal dated 7 November 2007; Records, p. 175.
[8] Supra note 1.
[9] Notice of Appeal dated 16 April 2010; CA rollo, p. 116.
[10] TSN, 22 January 2002, pp. 4-7.
[11] Id. at 7.
[12] TSN, 3 June 2002, p. 11.
[13] TSN, 22 January 2002, p. 8.
[14] Id.
[15] Id. at 9.
[16] Id. at 9-12.
[17] Id. at 12.
[18] Id. at 13.
[19] Id. at 14.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at 14-15.
[22] Id. at 15.
[23] Id. at 15-16.
[24] Id. at 17.
[25] Id. at 18.
[26] TSN, 22 April 2002, pp. 5-6.
[27] Id. at 7.
[28] Id.
[29] Id. at 9.
[30] Id. at 9-10.
[31] Id. at 10-11.
[32] Id. at 11.
[33] Id. at 12-13.
[34] Joint Affidavit of Marie Cris Canicon and Reynante Cabigas dated 18 February 2001, Records, p. 7.
[35] Id.
[36] Affidavit of Eleonor Sarda, Records, p. 11.
[37] TSN, 22 April 2002, p. 14.
[38] Id. at 15.
[39] Id. at 16.
[40] Id. at 25.
[41] Examination Notes of Dr. Carlos Ray B. Sanchez, M.D., Records, pp. 9-10.
[42] TSN, 23 March 2004, p. 12.
[43] Counter-Affidavit of Ireneo Ganzan, Records, p. 16.
[44] TSN, 17 October 2005, p. 2.
[45] Id. at 4.
[46] Id. at 5.
[47] Id. at 9.
[48] Affidavit of Michael Quirol dated 14 March 2001, Records, p. 20.
[49] Affidavit of Rolando Pelandas dated 14 March 2001, Records, p. 21.
[50] TSN, 17 October 2005, p. 9.
[51] TSN, 23 June 2005, p. 2.
[52] Supra note 43.
[53] Republic Act No. 8353, 22 October 1997.
[54] TSN, 22 January 2002, p.7.
[55] Id. at 9-12.
[56] Id. at 12.
[57] Id. at 17-18.
[58] Supra note 41.
[59] People v. Jimenez, G.R. No. 170235, 24 April 2009, 586 SCRA 580, citing People v. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756, 3 March 2008, 547 SCRA 511.
[60] Counter-Affidavit of Ireneo Ganzan dated 14 March 2001, Records, pp. 16-17.
[61] Supra note 48.
[62] Supra note 49.
[63] TSN, 17 October 2005, p. 6.
[64] RTC Decision dated 5 October 2007, p. 14; Records, p. 174.
[65] People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 186232, 27 September 2010, 631 SCRA 332.
[66] TSN, 22 January 2002, pp. 19-20.
[67] People v. Deri, G.R. No. 166566, 23 November 2010, 635 SCRA 733.
[68] People v. Orilla, 467 Phil. 253 (2004).
[69] Brief for the Accused-Appellant, pp. 6-7; CA rollo, pp. 35-36.
[70] TSN, 22 October 2002, p. 9.
[71] TSN, 22 January 2002, p. 18.
[72] TSN, 22 April 2002, p. 10.
[73] Transcript of the 21 March 2001 Clarificatory Examination, Records, pp. 29-30.
[74] People v. Teehankee, 319 Phil. 128 (1995), citing People v. Apawan, G.R. No. 85329, 16 August 1994, 235 SCRA 355.
[75] Id., citing People v. Campa, G.R. No. 105391, 28 February 1994, 230 SCRA 431.
[76] TSN, 23 March 2004, pp. 11-12.
[77] Joint Affidavit of Marie Cris Canicon and Reynante Cabigas, Records, p. 7.