476 Phil. 42
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The undersigned complainant, Marilou Arcangel, assisted by her mother, Amelita Arcangel, underoath (sic) accuses Charlie Espinosa of the crime of rape, penalized under the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed as follows:During arraignment, the appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Trial of the case ensued.
That in (sic) or about the month of August 1996, in the municipality of Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a fan knife and with the use of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the said Marilou Arcangel, 14 years of age, against her will.
Contrary to law.[2]
GENITAL:
PUBIC HAIR: Absence of pubic hair
LABIA MAJORA: Full, convex and coaptated
LABIA MINORA: Light brown and slightly hypertrophied
HYMEN: Presence of deep healed lacerations at 6 and 11 o’clock and shallow, healed laceration at 1 o’clock position.
EXTERNAL VAGINAL ORIFICE: Offers strong resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger.
VAGINAL CANAL: Narrow with prominent vaginal folds.
CERVIX: Normal in size and consistency with menstrual blood oozing from its os.
PERI-URETHRAL AND VAGINAL SMEARS: Negative for the presence of spematozoa.
REMARKS: Subject is in non-virgin state physically. [5]
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused CHARLIE ESPINOSA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay the amount of P50,000.00 to private complainant Marilou Arcangel and the costs of the suit.Hence this automatic review.
SO ORDERED.[6]
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION FAILED TO STATE WITH PARTICULARITY THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED DEED.II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DEATH ON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION FAILED TO ALLEGE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.III
THE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE TIMID AND PASSIVE CONDUCT AND ACTUATION OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT DURING AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SUPPOSED SEXUAL ASSAULT CAST SERIOUS DOUBT ON HER CREDIBILITY.[7]
The Court does not agree with the accused-appellant. It bears stressing that the precise date of the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not render the Information defective. The reason for this is that the gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of the private complainant under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Significantly, accused-appellant did not even bother to file a motion for a bill of particulars under Rule 116, Section 9 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure before he was arraigned. Indeed, accused-appellant was duly arraigned under the Information and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge without any plaint on the sufficiency of the Information. Accused-appellant even adduced his evidence after the prosecution had rested its case. It was only on appeal to this Court that accused-appellant questioned for the first time the sufficiency of the Information filed against him. It is now too late in the day for him to do so. Moreover, in People v. Salalima, this Court held that:Indeed, in the case at bar, the criminal complaint states that the rape was committed “on or about the month of August 1996.” Such an allegation in the criminal complaint as to the time the offense was committed is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Besides, if the appellant was of the belief that the criminal complaint was defective, he should have filed a motion for a bill of particulars with the trial court before his arraignment.[10] The appellant failed to do so. It was only when the case was brought to this Court on automatic review that he raised the question of the supposed insufficiency of the criminal complaint, which is now too late by any reckoning.
“Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The precise date or time when the victim was raped is not an element of the offense. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed an information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that allegations that rapes were committed ‘before and until October 15, 1994,’ ‘sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,’ ‘sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto’ and ‘on or about and sometime in the year 1988’ constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. …”[9]
Appellant then harps on the lack of any overt form of resistance to the sexual assault on the part of the victim. He argues that she should have at least touched or reached for her mother to awaken the latter. In fact, the girl did not even bother to shout despite the fact that her mouth was left uncovered.The appellant, likewise, points out that it took several months before the complainant filed the case of rape against him. The rape took place sometime in August 1996, while the victim reported the same only on February 11, 1997, or about five (5) months after the incident. According to the appellant, such delay in the filing of the case tainted the victim’s credibility.
We do not subscribe to appellant’s suppositions. Never has this Court prescribed a uniform manner of behavior during or after a rape incident. We have been categorical in declaring that “[t]he workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently—some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into sensibility while others may openly welcome the intrusion.” Yet, it can never be argued that the ones who apparently welcome it are sexual victims any less than the others.[12]
… Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender’s making good on his threats. This is understandable, considering the inbred modesty of Filipinas and their aversion to the public disclosure of matters affecting their honor. It is inconceivable that MARLYN would admit and make public the ignominy she had undergone if it were not true. Then, too, it should not be forgotten that MARLYN was threatened by APOLINARIO. The threat on the life of a 13-year-old girl cannot be easily ignored. In People v. Matrimonio, we held that intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that the intimidation produces a fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment, or even thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she should report the incident. MARLYN, the young lass that she was, actually believed that APOLINARIO would kill her even if he was not around, considering his moral ascendancy over her and the fear that he had successfully implanted in her pubescent mind at the time he ravished her.[14]In the case at bar, the complainant was only 14 years old when the rape took place. At her age, it could easily be conceived that she feared the appellant and believed his threats, that he would kill her and her family if she reported the incident to anyone. The appellant’s threats were so engrained in her mind that she did not tell anyone of the incident, although the appellant was no longer around and had gone back to his residence in Salinas, Cavite. This Court is mindful that intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of rape, and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that it produces fear – fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident.[15] The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[16]
A young girl’s revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and her willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out details of an assault on her dignity, cannot easily be dismissed as mere concoction. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth.[20] When the complainant wept as she narrated what transpired before and during the time she was raped, it served to further bolster her credibility. The crying of the victim during her testimony is added hallmark of the credibility of the rape charge.[21]
Q How did Charlie Espinosa raped (sic) you, Madam Witness? A He entered into (sic) the window, Sir. Q By the way, is this Charlie Espinosa a resident of your house? A Yes, Sir, he was taking temporary vacation. Q And according to you, he used the window to enter the house? A Yes, Sir. Q And after that, what did he do? A I was awakened that he was already lying on top of me, Sir. Q How did you come to know that he used the window in entering your house when, according to you, were sleeping at that time?A Because I heard the window opened (sic). Q In other words, when you heard something, you were already awakened (sic) at that time? A Yes, Sir. Q What happened next? A He raped me, Sir. Q How did he rape you? A He hold (sic) my two hands, then he lied (sic) on top of me. Q By the way, where were you sleeping at that time? A At (sic) the floor, Sir.
Q Inside the room or at the sala? A At the sala, Sir. Q What about your other brothers and sisters, where were they sleeping at that time? A In the sala, Sir. Q How far were you away from them? A “Kaunti lamang po ang pagitan namin.” Q Were you using mosquito net at the time? A Yes, Sir. Q When for the first time did you notice or see Charlie Espinosa? A When he was lying on top of me, Sir. Q And what was he doing when he lied (sic) on top of you? A He undressed me, Sir. Q What did he remove from you? A My dress and shorts, Sir. May we make of record that the witness started from (sic) crying as the question was propounded to her. COURT: Make it of record. Q Did you try to resist or struggle while Charlie Espinosa was removing your dress? A I resisted but I was not able to do anything because he is (sic) strong. Q What was being uttered by Charlie Espinosa while he was removing your dress, if any? A Not to report, Sir. Q Aside from that, what else did he utter? A That once I report the incident, he will kill all of us. Q While Charlie Espinosa was on top of you, how did he hold you? A He was holding my two wrists, Sir. Q Was he able to remove your clothing, your shortpant (sic) and panty? A Yes, Sir. Q And after removing your shortpant (sic) and panty, what else did he do? A He lied (sic) on top of me, Sir. Q And what did he do? A He removed his clothing, Sir. Q What did he remove? A His shorts, Sir. Q What else? A And his brief, Sir. Q What about his upper apparel? A He also removed it, Sir. Q After removing his clothing, what did he do? A He forcibly inserted his penis to my vagina. Q How do you know, Madam Witness? A I was lying with my thighs apart and he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q You said that Charlie Espinosa inserted his penis to your private part, what did you feel? A “Nasaktan po ako.” Q For how long did he insert his penis to your private part? A For a long time, Sir. “Medyo matagal din po.” Q How would you describe the movement of the body of Charlie Espinosa while he was lying on top of you? A He was lying on top of me while holding my two wrists. Q What is the body movement? A When he inserted his penis to my vagina, his body is as if he is “nag-u-unday.” Q How would you demonstrate that “nag-u-unday”? A (Witness demonstrating a push and pull movement). Q At that time when Charlie Espinosa was inserting his penis with (sic) your private part, did you not try to resist or struggle?A I tried to but I was not able to do anything. Q Why were you not able to do anything despite of your struggle? A Because he was strong. Q For how long did he rape you? A For a long time, Sir. Q For 5 minutes? A I do not know, Sir, but he raped me. Q After he was through raping you, what else did he do? A He told me not to report the incident to anyone. Q What else? A That once I report the incident, he will kill all of us. Q What did he do after he threatened you? A He left, Sir. Q What about you, what did you do? A None, Sir, I just cried.[19]
The appellant said nothing more about his first visit to Sta. Barbara, Baliuag, Bulacan. As always, the Court has uniformly held that denial and alibi are among the weakest, if not the weakest, defenses in criminal prosecution.[23] It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.[24] Denial cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the complainant, and as between the positive declaration of the complainant and the negative statement of the appellant, the former deserves more credence.[25]
Q A while ago, you stated you are a resident of Cavite? A Yes, Sir. Q How many years had (sic) you stayed in Cavite? A Up to the time I became a bachelor. Q Do you know the place Sta. Barbara, Baliuag, Bulacan? A My wife is from there. Q Had (sic) you been there? A Only once. Q Can you tell us when was that time when you visited Sta. Barbara? A In 1996, together with my wife. Q Can you tell what particular month of the year 1996? A I can no longer remember. Q Who were with you then? A My wife. Q Do you remember the time that you arrived in the place? A 7:00 o’clock. Q Did you stay in that place the whole evening? A No, we immediately went home. Q What time was that when you went home? A 11:00 P.M. Q What was your purpose in going to Sta. Barbara, Baliuag at that time? A We visited my mother-in-law.[22]
Proof of age is critical, considering the private complainant was alleged to have been only three (3) years less than eighteen (18) at the time of the rape. When the alleged age of the victim at the time of the sexual assault is between 13 and 18 years, neither her bare testimony nor that of her mother would suffice to prove her age and consequently qualify the crime to justify the imposition of the death penalty.While the complainant’s age may have been admitted by the appellant, the same is not sufficient to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death. There is, likewise, nary any evidence to show that the appellant is the complainant’s uncle. Even such an admission of the appellant would not be sufficient to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. Even if the complainant’s minority and filiation to the appellant were never refuted nor contested by the defense, proof thereof is critical, considering the penalty of death imposed for qualified rape. Hence, the prosecution’s failure to sufficiently establish the complainant’s minority and her relationship with the appellant bars the imposition of the supreme penalty of death.[32]
In this era of modernism and rapid growth, the victim’s mere physical appearance is not enough to gauge her exact age. For the extreme penalty of death to be upheld, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be substantiated. The minority of the victim should not be only alleged but, likewise, proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Be it remembered that proof of the age of private complainant in the present case spells the difference between life and death.
It is, therefore, evident that the prosecution did not discharge the burden of proving with certainty the fact that she was under 18 years of age when the rape was committed. Since there is no acceptable proof as to her exact age, the penalty of death cannot be meted out on appellant. He must be held guilty only of simple, not qualified, rape.[31]