Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ERLAND SABADLAB y BAYQUEL, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 175924 Present: CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and
*PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: March 14, 2012 |
|
|
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I
O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
On October 28, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (
Antecedents
Both the
At around 3:00 oclock pm, Sabadlab and his
cohorts returned a blindfolded AAA by car back to Dapitan Street, but let her
go only after sternly warning that they would surely kill her if she told
anyone about the rapes. Once they left,
she proceeded to MA Montessori to fetch her ward. She waited there until 5:30
pm.
Upon her arrival at the house, AAAs
employer noticed the kiss marks on her neck. AAA at first lied about the kiss
marks, but she ultimately disclosed the rapes because her irritated employer
slapped and boxed her on the stomach to force her to disclose.
On March 13, 2002, her employer brought
PHYSICAL INJURIES:
1. Ecchymosis, right mandibular
region, measuring 2.5 x 2.5 cm, 8 cms from the anterior midline.
2. Ecchymosis, neck, measuring 3 x
2.5 cms, 6 cms right of the anterior midline.
3. Ecchymosis, neck, measuring 3 x
2.5 cms, 4.5 cms left of the anterior midline.
4. Ecchymosis, nape, measuring 3.5 x
2.5 cms, 4 cms right of the posterior midline.
5. Ecchymosis, nape, measuring 4.5 x
3 cms, 4 cms left of the posterior midline.
6. Ecchymosis, right breast,
measuring 4 x 3.5 cms. 10 cms from the anterior midline.
7. Ecchymosis, sternal region,
measuring 9 x 3 cms, bissecting the anterior midline.
8. Ecchymosis, left breast,
measuring 3.5 x 2.5 cms, 9 cms from the anterior midline.
9. Ecchymosis, left breast,
measuring 3.5 x 3 cms, 11 cms from the
anterior midline.
10.
Abrasion, left scapular region, measuring 3.5 x 0.5 cms. 14 cms from the
posterior midline
GENITAL:
PUBIC HAIR: Moderate
LABIA MAJORA: Full, convex and slightly gaping.
LABIA MINORA: Pinkish brown slightly hypertrophied labia
minora in between.
HYMEN: Presence of shallow fresh lacerations at 7
oclock position and deep fresh lacerations at 6 and 9 oclock position.
Congested.
POSTERIOIR FOURCHETTE: Abraded/Congested
EXTERNAL VAGINAL ORIFICE: Offers
strong resistance upon introduction of the examiners index finger.
VAGINAL CANAL: Narrow with prominent rugosities.
CERVIX: Soft and close
PERIURETHRAL AND VAGINAL SMEARS:
Negative for spermatozoa and negative for gram (-) diploxocci.
CONCLUSION: Findings are compatible with recent loss of
virginity. Barring unforeseen
complications, it is estimated that the above injuries will heal within 3-5
days.[4]
Afterwards, AAA and the policemen went
to the vicinity where she had usually bought pandesal to look for the suspects. She spotted Sabadlab in one of
the nearby restaurants and pointed to him. The policemen apprehended Sabadlab and
brought him to the station, where he gave his name as Erland Sabadlab y Bayquel. That was her first time to
know the name of Sabadlab.
These antecedents impelled the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati to immediately charge Sabadlab and two
John Does with forcible abduction with rape via
the information dated March 13, 2002, alleging:
That on or
about the 12th day of March of 2002, in the City of Makati,
Philippines a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused together with two (2) John Does whose names and whereabouts
are still unknown, with lewd designs and by means of force, violence and intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away AAA,
16 years of age, against her will from Dapitan St., Barangay Guadalupe, Makati
City and brought her to an undisclosed place, where accused by means of force,
violence and intimidation had carnal knowledge of complainant against her will.
CONTRARY TO
LAW.[5]
In his defense, Sabadlab denied the
charge and asserted alibi, claiming
that on March 12, 2002, he was at Billiard M where he worked as a spotter; that
he stayed there until noon, leaving the place only to have lunch; and that he returned
to Billiard M at 12:30 pm and stayed there until he was arrested at 7:00 pm of March
12, 2002. Frederick Dionisio and
Nathaniel Salvacion corroborated Sabadlabs alibi.
As stated, the RTC convicted Sabadlab for forcible
abduction with rape as charged based on AAAs positive identification of him as
one of the rapists, observing that her physical injuries and fresh hymenal
lacerations were consistent with her account of the rapes, decreeing:
WHEREFORE, finding
accused ERLAND SABADLAB y BAYQUEL GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as principal of the crime of forcible abduction
with rape charged in this case, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA and to
pay the costs.
On the civil aspect, the accused is ordered
to pay AAA the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) as MORAL DAMAGES.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On appeal in the CA, Sabadlab assigned the
following errors,[7] to wit:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT A QUO GRAVELY
ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE HIGHLY INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT
TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Nonetheless, the CA sustained his
conviction and the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, holding that the supposed inconsistencies referred to trivial matters
or innocent lapses that did not affect the credibility of AAA as a witness but
were instead badges of veracity or manifestations of truthfulness of the
material points of her testimony. The CA
thus disposed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the RTC dated October 28,
2003 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows:
1. The award of moral damages is REDUCED to P50,000.00;
2. The award of exemplary damages
is DELETED;
3. Appellant is ordered to pay
the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Pursuant to Section
13 (C), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, appellant may
appeal this case to the Supreme Court via a Notice of Appeal filed
before this Court.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Upon the denial of his motion for
reconsideration on August 2, 2006, Sabadlab is now
before the Court to seek the final review.
In addition to the arguments and
submissions made in his appellants brief in the CA, Sabadlab indicates
in his supplemental brief[9] that
Ruling
We affirm the conviction.
First of all, Sabadlab continues
to assail the credibility of AAAs recollections. We understand why he does so,
because the credibility of the victims
testimony is a
primordial consideration in rape.[11] Yet, because both the
Our review reveals, however, that
Sabadlab has not
tendered any clear and persuasive reasons that may warrant the reversal or
modification of the findings of both lower courts on the credibility of AAA and
his criminal liability. The supposed inconsistencies dwelled on minor details
or collateral matters that the CA precisely held to be badges of veracity and manifestations
of truthfulness due to their tendency of demonstrating that the testimony had
not been rehearsed or concocted. It is also basic that inconsistencies bearing on minor
details or collateral matters should not adversely affect the substance of the
witness declaration, veracity, or weight of testimony.[12] The only inconsistencies that might
have discredited the victims credible testimony were those that affected or
related to the elements of the crime. Alas, that was not true herein.
The supposed inconsistencies were inconsequential to the
issue of guilt. For one, the matter of who of the three rapists had blindfolded
and undressed AAA was trifling, because her confusion did not alter the fact
that she had been really blindfolded and rendered naked. Nor did the failure to
produce any torn apparel of AAA disprove the crime charged, it being without dispute that
the tearing of the victims apparel was not necessary in the commission of the
crime charged. In fact, she did not even state that her clothes had been torn when
Sabadlab had forcibly
undressed her. Verily,
details and matters that did not detract from the commission of the crime did not diminish her credibility.
We hardly need to remind that the task of assigning values to the
testimonies of witnesses and of weighing their credibility is best left to the
trial judge by virtue of the first-hand impressions he derives while the
witnesses testify before him.[13] The demeanor on the witness
chair of persons sworn to tell the truth in judicial proceedings is a
significant element of judicial adjudication because it can draw the line
between fact and fancy. Their forthright answers or hesitant pauses, their
quivering voices or angry tones, their flustered looks or sincere gazes, their
modest blushes or guilty blanches - all these can reveal if the witnesses are
telling the truth or lying in their teeth.[14] As the final appellate reviewer in
this case, then, we bow to the age-old norm to accord the utmost respect to the
findings and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses reached by the trial judge
on account of his unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses
and on account of his personal access to the various indicia
available but not reflected in the record.[15]
Secondly, AAAs recollection of the principal
occurrence and her positive identification of the rapists, particularly Sabadlab,
were firm. It is reassuring, too, that her trustworthiness in identifying
Sabadlab
as one of the rapists rested on her recognition of him as the man who had frequently flirted with
her at the store where she had usually bought pandesal for her employers table. As such, the identification of
him as one of the rapists became impervious to doubt.
Thirdly, AAAs failure to shout for
help and her failure to escape were not factors that should diminish
credibility due to their being plausibly explained, the first by the fact that
her mouth had been stuffed by Sabadlab with
crumpled newspaper, preventing her from making any outcry, and the second by the
fact that the culprits had blindfolded her and had also tied her hands behind
her back.
And, lastly, Sabadlabs
allegation that AAA did not sustain any bodily injuries was actually contrary
to the medical certification showing her several physical injuries and the penetration
of her female organ.[16] This should
debunk without difficulty his submission that she did not offer any resistance
to the sexual assaults she suffered. Her resistance to Sabadlabs order for her
to go with him was immediately stifled by his poking of the gun at her throat
and by appearance of his two cohorts. At any rate, it is notable that among the
amendments of the law on rape introduced under Republic Act No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Act of 1997) is Section
266-D, which adverts to the degree of resistance that the victim may put up
against the rapist, viz:
Article
266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance
against the act of rape in any degree
from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render
her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the
prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A.
We next deal with the characterization
of the crime as forcible abduction with rape. The principal objective of Sabadlab and his two
cohorts in abducting AAA from Dapitan Street and in bringing her to another
place was to rape and ravish her. This objective became evident from the
successive acts of Sabadlab immediately after she had alighted
from the car in completely undressing her as to expose her whole body (except
the eyes due to the blindfold), in kissing her body from the neck down, and in
having carnal knowledge of her (in
that order). Although forcible abduction was
seemingly committed,[17] we cannot
hold him guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape when the objective
of the abduction was to commit the rape. Under the circumstances, the rape
absorbed the forcible
abduction.[18]
The penalty
of reclusion perpetua was correctly
prescribed. Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353,[19] respectively
define and punish simple rape as follows:
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 circumstances:
a) Through
force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When
the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By
means of fraudulent machinations 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.
Article 266-B. Penalties.
Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
xxx
Although the CA deleted the RTCs award of exemplary damages because of
the absence of aggravating circumstance (sic),[20] we reinstate the award in view of the attendance of
the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the
crime. The Civil
Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed in a criminal case as
part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances.[21] The
Civil Code allows such damages to be
awarded by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to
the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.[22]
Present here was the need for exemplarity. Thus, the CA should have recognized the entitlement to
exemplary damages of AAA
on account of the attendance of use of a deadly weapon.
It was of no moment that the use of a deadly weapon was not specifically alleged in the
information. As fittingly explained in People v. Catubig:[23]
The term aggravating circumstances used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified
otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense has a
two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the
other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which
is addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for the
accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The increase of
the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense
by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying,
in its commission. Unlike the criminal
liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is
likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers
thereby. It would make little sense for
an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the
aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying.
Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a
distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to
the civil, liability of the offender. In
fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance,
whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award
of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.
Accordingly, the Court grants the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and
the moral damages of P50,000.00 the CA awarded to AAA. Sabadlab is further liable for interest of 6% per annum on all the civil damages.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on April 26, 2006,
with the MODIFICATION that ERLAND
SABADLAB y BAYQUEL is: (a) DECLARED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of SIMPLE RAPE as defined under Article 266-A and as penalized
with reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353;
and (b) ORDERED TO PAY to the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages,
plus interest of 6% per annum on each
of the amounts reckoned from the finality of this decision.
The accused 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 MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ESTELA
M. PERLAS-BERNABE
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
* Vice Associate Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo, who is on sick leave, per Special Order No. 1203 dated
February 17, 2012.
[1]
The real name of the victim is
being 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). See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[2]
Records, pp, 108-114.
[3]
CA rollo, pp. 93-100; penned
by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justice Godardo A.
Jacinto (retired) and Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring.
[4]
Records, p. 59.
[5] Records, p. 1.
[6] Records,
pp. 113-114.
[7] CA
rollo, pp. 37-47.
[8] CA rollo, pp. 99-100.
[9] Rollo, pp. 14-20.
[10] Id., p. 19.
[11] People v. Quiachon, G.R. No. 170236, 31 August 2006, 500 SCRA 704, 714.
[12] People v. Castro, G.R. No. 172370, October 06, 2008, 567 SCRA
586.
[13]
People
v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 625.
[14]
Id.
[15] People
v. Sanchez, G.R. Nos.
121039-45, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 21.
[16] People
v. Bation, G.R. No. 123160, March 25, 1999, 305 SCRA 253, 269.
[17]
Article 342, Revised Penal
Code, provides:
Article
342. Forcible abduction. The
abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be punished
by reclusion temporal.
The
same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under
twelve years of age.
[18] Garces
v. People, G.R. No.
173858, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 827; People v. Muros, G.R. No. 142511,
February 16, 2004, 423 SCRA 69; People v.
Egan, G.R. No. 139338, May 28, 2002, 382 SCRA 326; People v. Mejorada, G.R. No. 102705, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 837,
852; People v. Godines, G.R. No. 93410, May 7, 1991, 196 SCRA 765, 773.
[19]
Effective
October 22, 1997.
[20]
CA rollo, p. 99. The
use of a deadly weapon is a qualifying circumstance in rape pursuant to the
second paragraph of Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code.
[21]
Article 2230, Civil Code, states:
Article 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
[22] Article 2229, Civil Code.
[23] G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621, 635.