SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus- EDUARDO
NAVARETTE, JR. y NATO, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 191365 Present: CARPIO,J., Chairperson, VILLARAMA, JR.,* PEREZ, SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: February 22, 2012 |
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
On appeal is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated 29 January 2010 in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 03344
affirming with modification the Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, Branch 21, in Criminal Cases
No. 10680-03 and No. 10681-03 finding appellant Eduardo Navarette, Jr. y Nato guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On
Criminal Case No. 10680-03
That sometime in 1994 in Imus, Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the first cousin of the offended party [AAA][3], then eight (8) years old, with lewd designs and by means of threat, force and intimidation did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and had sexual intercourse with private complainant [AAA], against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of said minor.[4]
Criminal Case No. 10681-03
That sometime in 1996 in Imus, Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the first cousin of the offended party [AAA], then ten (10) years old, with lewd designs and by means of threat, force and intimidation did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and had sexual intercourse with private complainant [AAA], against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of said minor.[5]
Appellant pleaded not guilty on
arraignment. Trial then proceeded.
As a backgrounder, AAA is the first
cousin of appellant. AAAs father,
Dominador Navarette (Dominador) is the brother of appellants father Eduardo
Navarette, Sr. (Eduardo, Sr.)
The prosecution presented the testimonies
of the victim, AAA, her mother, BBB,[6] and
the medico-legal officer, Dr. Ida C. De Perio-Daniel (Dr. Perio-Daniel).
AAA related that she was raped by
appellant twice the first time, when she was 8 years old in 1994, and the
second time, when she was 10 years old in 1996.
On both occasions, AAA claimed that she went to the house of appellant
to play with appellants brother Emerson.
Appellant apparently suggested that AAA look for Emerson upstairs. AAA heeded and proceeded to the second
floor. Appellant followed AAA and pulled
her towards a room. Thereat, appellant
forced her to the floor and undressed her. In 1994, appellant tried inserting his penis
in AAA, but it merely touched her vagina.
In 1996, however, appellant was able to insert his penis on AAAs vagina
and there was complete penetration. It
took AAA three (3) years before she reported the incident to BBB because
appellant allegedly threatened that he would kill AAAs parents and sister. AAA was however forced to tell her parents
about the rape incident because her sister was being harassed sexually by
appellant.[7]
During the cross-examination, it was
revealed that on
BBB recalled that in 1999, AAA told
her that she was raped by appellant in the years 1994 and 1996. BBB did not immediately tell her husband out
of fear and shame. When appellant allegedly attempted to sexually abuse AAA in
2002, BBB was impelled to inform her husband.[9]
Dr. Perio-Daniel, a medico-legal
officer of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), conducted an examination
on AAA, which findings were contained in Living Case No. MG-02-17, as follow:
GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
x x x x
GENITAL EXAMINATION
Pubic hairs, fully
grown, moderate. Labia majora and
minora, coaptated. Fourchette, lax. Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen,
fimbriated, tall, thick with healed laceration, complete at
CONCLUSION:
1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries were noted on the body of the subject at the time of the examination.
2. Healed hymenal
laceration, present.[10]
Dr.
Perio-Daniel could not exactly tell whether AAA was raped because of the lapse
of time between the date of the alleged commission of the crime and the date of
the physical examination.[11]
For
the defense, appellant claimed that AAA falsely charged him of rape because
AAAs father killed his brother Eleazar.
Dominador wanted to have the case for murder filed against him dismissed
in exchange for the dismissal of the rape case.[12] Appellants testimony was corroborated by his
aunt, Lualhati Navarette (Lualhati), who happens to be the sister of Dominador
and Eduardo, Sr.. Lualhati testified
that Dominador planned to file a case against appellant as leverage to the case
filed against the former for killing Eleazar.[13]
Dominador passed away sometime in 2002.[14]
On
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of the crime of RAPE as charged in the two informations, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the two cases.
Said
accused is ordered to pay private complainant the amount of P75,000.00
for civil indemnity, another P75,000.00 for moral damages and P25,000.00
as exemplary damages for each conviction of rape.
The
period of detention while the cases were pending before the Court shall be
deducted from the sentence to be served by the accused.[15]
The
trial court lent credence to the testimony of AAA that she was raped. The trial court found her testimony
categorical, straightforward and candid.
Moreover, in upholding the credibility of AAA, the trial court relied
heavily on established doctrines in rape cases.
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of appellant but modified
the award of exemplary damages by increasing it from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00.
In
his Brief, appellant casts doubt on the testimony of AAA. He insists that AAA should have at least
remembered the month when she was raped considering the traumatic experience
she had undergone. Appellant also questions
why AAA still went to the house of appellant despite the fact that she was
raped the first time. The belated
reporting of the incident by AAA to BBB may have been justified but the fact
that it took BBB another 3 years before she filed a case only confirmed the
defense that the charges were fabricated and filed so that Dominador would have
a leverage against the murder case lodged against him for allegedly killing
appellants brother.
On the other hand, the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that the victims ability to remember the
exact months when the rapes were committed are not necessary to prove
appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The OSG vouches for the credibility of AAAs testimony and adds that
AAAs failure to recall has no bearing on her credibility. Moreover, the OSG avers that AAAs act of
returning to appellants house, by itself, cannot be taken against her nor cast
doubt on her credibility because the victim had undergone a traumatic
experience which affected her mental disposition. The OSG maintains that the threats made by
appellant on the victim are sufficient to dissuade her from reporting the
abuses she suffered. The OSG refutes the
leverage theory of the defense by stating that these allegations are unsubstantiated
and were categorically denied by AAA.
The primary issue in this case
pertains to whether appellants guilt has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Appellants main defense is that
the rape charges were concocted to serve as leverage for the murder case filed
by appellants family against AAAs father.
For the charge of statutory rape to
prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge
of the woman; and, (2) that such woman is under twelve (12) years of age.[16]
In cases of rape, only two (2)
persons are normally privy to its occurrence, the complainant and the accused. Generally, the nature of the offense is such
that the only evidence that can prove the guilt of the accused is the testimony
of the complainant herself. Thus, the
prosecution of rape cases is anchored mainly on the credibility of the complaining
witness.[17]
The
general rule is that findings of trial court relative to the credibility of the
rape victim are normally respected and not disturbed on appeal, more so, if affirmed
by the appellate court. This rule may
be brushed aside in exceptional circumstances, such as when the courts
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.[18]
After an exhaustive review of the
records, we find that there is no sufficient justification to apply the
exception.
In
recounting her ordeal, AAA narrated that she was raped twice, first in 1994, to
wit:
Q: As far as you can recollect AAA, how did
the first rape happened [sic]? What time was it?
A: I
cannot recall anymore sir.
Q: Was
it in the afternoon or in the morning?
A: In
the afternoon.
Q: Where
did it happen?
A: In
their house.
Q: Why
were you there?
A: Because I was playing there among his
siblings because he is my childhood [friend].
Q: You
went [to] there [sic] house looking for his youngest sibling?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: What
was the name of his sibling?
A: Emerson.
Q: He
is a boy?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: And
how old is Emerson?
A: 7
years old.
Q: And
you were 8 years old?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: You
went to the place of Eduardo Navarette looking for Emerson. Did
you
find Emerson?
A: No
sir.
Q: Who
was there in the house of Eduardo Navarette?
A: Only
Eduardo.
Q: What
did Eduardo Navarette, Jr. tell you?
A: According
to him Emerson is upstair[s].
Q: Did
you find [him] there?
A: No
sir.
Q: What
happened?
A: Eduardo
also went upstair[s].
Q: And
then?
A: He
pulled me towards the room.
Q: [Who
else was there] at that time?
A: Nobody
else.
Q: What
happened once you where [sic] inside the room?
A: He
laid me on the floor.
Q: And
then?
A: And
then he undress[ed] me.
Q: What
particular clothes did he undress you [sic]?
A: Short[s].
Q: What
about the upper clothes?
A: No
sir.
Q: What
about your panty?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: Did
he remove his brief?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: What
did he do?
A: He
was trying to insert his penis.
Q: Did
his penis touch your genitalia?
A: Yes
sir.
Q: Where
in particular or what part of your genitalia?
A: In
the middle.
Q: Did
he completely able to penetrate?
A: No
sir.
Q: Why?
A: Because
it did not fit.
Q: While
he was doing that to you, what did you react?
A: I
was just crying sir.
Q: And
after that what happen[ed] next?
A: He
told me not to tell anybody.
Q: And
then?
A: He
threatened me.
Q: How
did he threaten you?
A: He
told me that he would kill my parents.
Q: How
did you feel when he threatened you?
A: I
was scared and I cried I could not do anything.
Q: And
he let you go?
A: Yes
sir.[19]
and in 1996, viz:
Q: When was the next time that he raped you?
A: It was in 1996.
Q: Where?
A: Also in their house.
Q: In 1996 could you remember the month?
A: No sir.
Q: How did the second rape happened?
A: I was also looking for my playmate his
sibling.
Q: You are referring to Emerson?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: At the time you went to the house of
Eduardo Navarette, who was inside the house?
A: Nobody was inside the house.
Q: Where was Eduardo Navarette?
A: He was downstair[s].
Q: So you were looking [for] Emerson?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Did you find Emerson there?
A: No sir, he was not there.
Q: So what happen[ed]?
A: The same thing happened sir, I went
upstair[s] because that is the place where we play.
Q: So when you went upstair[s] at the house
of Eduardo Navarette, what happened to you there?
A: He followed me.
Q: What did he if any do to you?
A: He [a]gain pulled me inside the room.
Q: Only the 2 of you were upstairs?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened inside the room?
A: He covered my mouth.
Q: At that time how old were you?
A: 10 years old.
Q: So, when he covered your mouth what else
did he do to you?
A: He laid me on the floor.
Q: And once you were already lying on the
floor, what other things did Eduardo do to you?
A: He removed my shorts, panty and he raised
my clothes.
Q: What were you wearing on top, the upper
part of your body?
A: T-shirt.
Q: Once he did that to you, what next did he
do to you?
A: He undressed [me].
Q: What clothes did he remove from his body?
A: Short[s] and brief?
Q: And then he mounted you?
A: Yes.
Q: While he was on top of you, what did you
do?
A: He was trying to insert his private part.
Q: Was his penis able to touch your
genitalia?
A: Yes sir.
Q: In what particular portion of your
genitalia?
A: In the middle sir.
Q: At that time was he able to penetrate?
A: Yes sir.
Q: How did you feel?
A: It was painful sir. [20]
AAA is consistent and categorical in
stating that she was raped and that appellant is the perpetrator. On two occasions, appellant forced her to lie
down, removed her underwear, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. Appellants penis merely touched AAAs vagina
in 1994 while there was complete penetration in 1996. AAA did not waver despite the rigorous
cross-examination of the defense counsel.
Incidentally, AAAs testimony before the court corresponds to her sworn
statement[21]
previously executed on
According to appellant, AAAs
testimony is fraught with some improbabilities, such as her failure remember
the dates of the alleged rape; her return to the house of appellant despite her
claims that she was already raped; and the delay in reporting the case.
The Court of Appeals opined that
errorless testimony cannot be expected of a rape victim for she may not be
able to remember or recount every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and
appalling outrage she went through, especially so since she might in fact be
trying not to recall the same, as they are too painful to remember. Indeed, it is doctrinal that date or time of
the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because
the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and
intimidation. The precise time when the
rape took place has no substantial bearing on its commission.[22] In statutory rape, time is not an essential
element. What is important is that the
information alleges that the victim was a minor under twelve years of age and
that the accused had carnal knowledge of her, even if the accused did not use
force or intimidation on her or deprived her of reason.[23]
In this case, the courts a quo found
the Informations stating only the years of the commission of rape as
sufficient. The more pertinent statement
relating to the elements of rape, such as carnal knowledge and the age of the
victim were adequately proved by the prosecution. We further consider that at the time of the
occurrence of the first incident of rape, AAA was only 8 years old. She could not be expected to remember with
detailed accuracy the exact date of the rape.
In attempting to discredit AAA,
appellant harps on the supposed return of AAA to the house of appellant despite
her claims of rape. The Court of Appeals
countered that there is no such thing as normal human behavior when a person
is faced with an extraordinary circumstance.
Thus, the victims having returned to the place where the sexual harassment
took place, while seemingly opposed to the manner that most would consider
normal, should not be readily taken as proof that she is lying. In People
v. Marcos,[24] we
expounded:
x x x Rape victims, especially child victims,
should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in
such a situation. It is not proper to
judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the
norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances. The range of emotions shown by rape victims is
yet to be captured even by calculus. It
is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. Certainly the Court has not laid down any rule
on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been violated. This experience is relative and may be dealt
with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her
credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed, different people act differently to a
given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of
behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or
frightful experience.[25]
Regarding the delay in reporting the
incident, the Court of Appeals stated that it is well entrenched that delay in
reporting rape cases does not by itself undermine the charge, where the delay
is grounded in threats from the accused.[26] Delay in revealing the commission of a crime
such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may choose to keep
quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny.
Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the
complainant.[27]
In the instant case, it bears noting that
on those two occasions that the appellant raped AAA, he threatened to kill her
and her family if ever she would tell anyone about what happened. AAA was only
8 years old when she was first ravished by appellant. Obviously, such threat could easily, as it
did, in fact, intimidate her. Thus, the delay in reporting is justified in this
case.
The main thrust of the defense is
that the rape charges were concocted to serve as leverage for the murder case
filed by appellants family against AAAs father.
Motives such as feuds, resentment,
hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the
testimony of a rape victim. Also, ill
motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible
declaration from the rape victim which clearly established the liability of the
accused.[28] In the present case, AAA categorically identified
appellant as the one who ravished her. Her account of the rape incidents, as
found by the lower courts, was credible.
We agree with the Court of Appeals when
it ruled:
In this case, the defense would want us to believe that the complaining witness had brazenly resorted to prevarication and lies only to pressure the family of the accused to drop the murder charge they filed against the father of the supposed rape victim. Apart from their naked and self-serving say so, however, the defense witnesses failed to tender any specie of evidence that would substantiate this claim to the satisfaction of this Court. As pointed out by the trial court, no documentary and testimonial evidence were shown to establish that the father of the complainant really murdered the brother of the accused. In fact, even if we are to indulge the version of the accused, it would seem to benefit still the case of the prosecution since, according to the version of the defense, the father of the complainant murdered Eleazar precisely out of rage because he was informed that his daughter was raped by Eleazar and Eduardo Navarette.[29] [Emphasis supplied]
Assuming arguendo that the instant rape case was only filed as a leverage to
the dismissal of Dominadors case, there exists no more reason on the part of
AAA to pursue the charges against appellant because Dominadors case had
already been long dismissed due to the latters passing.
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE
CATRAL
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 Decision 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 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
** Per Raffle dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-8.
[2] Penned by Executive Judge Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr. Records, pp. 166-175.
[3] Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262,
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004 and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with
that of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials
instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy. People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[4] Records, p. 4.
[5]
[6] See note 3.
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] Records, p. 24.
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] Records, pp. 170-171 citing testimony of herein accused-appellant, TSN, 19 September 2007, pp. 1-8 and testimony of Lualhati Navarette, TSN, 31 October 2007, pp. 1-7.
[15] CA rollo, p. 28.
[16] People v. Garbida, G.R. No. 188569, 13 July 2010, 625 SCRA 98, 105 citing People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 179714, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 517, 527.
[17] People v. Coja, G.R. No. 179277, 18 June 2008, 555 SCRA 176, 186 citing People v. Buenviaje, 408 Phil. 342, 351 (2001); People v. Bares, 407 Phil. 747, 759 (2001).
[18] People
v. Bongat, G.R. No. 184170,
[19] TSN,
[20]
[21] Records, p. 21.
[22] People v. Lolos, G.R. No. 189092, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 509, 518 citing People v. Ching, G.R. No. 177150, 22 November 2007, 538 SCRA 117, 129.
[23] People v. Dion, G.R. No. 181035, 4 July 2011 citing People v. Escultor, 473 Phil. 717, 727 (2004).
[24] G.R. No. 185380,
[25] People v. Remoto, 314 Phil. 432, 450 (1995); People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 326-327 (2004).
[26] Rollo, p. 6.
[27] People v. Ariola, G.R. Nos. 142602-05, 3 October 2001, 418 SCRA 809, 821 citing People v. Baway, 402 Phil. 872, 892 (2001).
[28] People v. Aure, G.R. No. 180451, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 836, 864 citing People v. Audine, G.R. No. 168649, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 531, 549 and People v. Santos, G.R. No. 172322, 8 September 2006, 501 SCRA 325, 343.
[29] Rollo, pp. 6-7.