458 Phil. 304
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
That on or about the 6th day of May, 1990, in the afternoon at Bgy. (sic) Azucena, Municipality of Sipocot, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, taking advantage of their superior strength with force, intimidation and with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there wilfully (sic), feloniously and unlawfully have carnal knowledge one after the other with AAA (sic), 7 years old, minor, against her will and the offended party suffered damages.The second Information docketed as Criminal Case No. L-1680 reads:
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
That on or about the 10th day of June, 1990, in the afternoon at Bgy. (sic) Azucena, Municipality of Sipocot, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, taking advantage of their superior strength with force, intimidation and with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge one after the other with AAA, 7 years old, minor, against her will and the offended party suffered damages.On arraignment, the accused entered their plea of not guilty. A consolidated trial of the two criminal cases then ensued.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
FINDINGS:On June 16, 1994, Lourney and AAA arrived in the Criminal Investigation Field Office in Naga City where they gave their respective sworn statements to PO3 Elmer V. Caceres.[6]
GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female child. Breasts are conical with pale brown areola and nipples from which no secretions could be pressed out. Abdomen is flat and soft.
GENITAL:
There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with the pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same disclosed an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with deep healed lacerations at 3, 7 and 9 o'clock. External vaginal orifice offers strong resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger.[5]
In connection with the letter received by this office requesting for a record of a certain Joel Cortezano, whether or not he was hospitalized in this hospital way back 1989, please be informed that as per hospital records, a certain Joel Cortezano consulted on an outpatient basis sometime on August 16, 1989, November 2, 1989 and April 6, 1990.[8]After trial, the court rendered a decision convicting the appellants of four counts of rape, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:...
In reply to your letter dated August 15, 1995 re: JOEL CORTEZANO, may I inform you that he was never confined in this hospital anytime in 1990. He only consulted on April 6, 1990 on an outpatient basis.[9]
WHEREFORE, in view of the aforecited considerations, this Court finds the accused, JOEL CORTEZANO and BERNARDO CORTEZANO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the two crimes of Rape as defined and punished under Article 335, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. They are sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR RECLUSION PERPETUA each, in both criminal cases, considering that they acted in conspiracy in the commission of the act, and to indemnify the offended party Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each, as moral damages in each criminal case, and another Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) each in each case, as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs of this suit. The period of their respective preventive detention is considered in the service of their sentence.Hence, this appeal.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts. The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, could weigh such testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate the truth against falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstance of significance.[13]In this case, the trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the testimony of the victim, in tandem with those of the other witnesses of the prosecution:
Whatever inconsistencies or lapses there were, the same relate to trivial matters and do not in any manner affect her credibility and the veracity of her statements. Furthermore, such "minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting details of humiliating experience which are painful to recall." (Pp. V. Olivar, 215 SCRA 759) In fact, though how lengthy and rigid the cross-examination was, AAA's declarations remained consistent, firm and undisturbed. AAA's categorical, spontaneous, emphatic, and straightforward answers during the cross-examination strengthened and explained whatever missing facts there were on direct examination. The medico-legal findings, moreover, corroborated AAA's testimony that she was indeed raped. Although there are no fresh hymenal lacerations, the incident having happened three (3) years before the examination, yet there are healed lacerations evidencing the sexual attack. "A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape." (Pp. V. Cura, GR 112529, January 18, 1995)[14]This Court ruled in People v. Dy[16] that the victim's act of crying during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience....
The bestial defloration was mirrored in AAA's being, as she cringed and trembled whenever she sees the accused. During the trial, the Interpreter had to shield AAA's line of vision upon advice of the Presiding Judge, as she was uncontrollably shaking and crying, when the accused would come within her view. Her tears and statements were not contrived but borne out of a genuine feeling of bitterness. She sobbed bitterly as she narrated her nauseating experience in the hands of her uncles and even eloquently declared in a loud voice:"hindi ko kailangan ang pera, ang
kailangan ko ay katarungan!"
(p. 9, TSN dated January 27, 1995)[15]
AAA was brought by her mother to Sipocot to spend her vacation with her grandparents, only to be waylaid and enslaved by the appellants, her own uncles. Well-settled is the rule that the testimonies of young victims deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere fabrication.[21] As emphasized by this Court in People v. Quezada:[22]
Q: On May 6, 1990 to June 10, 1990, do you know any unusual incident that took place involving that person?A: Yes, Sir.Q: Tell the Honorable Court, what is that all about?A: That occur[r]ence was done to me by my two Titos.Q: What specific occur[r]ence?A: The raped (sic) that they did to me, Sir. ("Pagsasamantala")Q: They, to whom are you referring to?A: My two uncles, Sir, Joel and Bernardo.Q: What is the surname?A: Cortezano, Sir.Q: Can you possibly tell the Honorable Court, how this raping incident was done to you?A: Yes, Sir.Q: Feel free to tell the Court.A: (Witness crying) That vacation mama left us at Sipocot, because she was to go back to work in Manila. She told me, that she is to leave on May 5, 1990. The next day, after lunch, Joel and Bernardo did something bad to me. After lunch, he told me to go inside the room, when I refused, he held the broom attempting to whip me. Because of fear, I went inside the room, while complaining to them "why ask me to sleep in that room, when it is too hot in that room." He told me to obey otherwise, he will whip me. I slept, and when I woke up I noticed that they were doing something bad to me. The first thing I saw was Tito Joel was (sic) doing to me. I was crying the (sic), I was strangling (sic), my two hands were being held and my legs pinned down. I could not move because they (sic) were two of them, one was watching outside. They told me that if I shout it will be useless because no one will hear me because the house was really far from neighbors. Our house is situated in a secluded place. Then, after that my grandmother arrive (sic), and she asked if there was something bad happened. I told her there was none. I was about to relay to her the incident, but I just could not because the two of them were watching me. They stopped doing this to me when my mother arrive[d] on June 10, 1990.
When we were about to leave, they were planning to do something bad to me. They said, "let's do it in the grass land." They kicked me from where I was standing, and I was thrown with my bottoms (sic) hitting the mud first, I told them I don't like it anymore, and I run (sic) and when they overtook me, they stripped off my panties. They placed saliva in my vagina and inserted their penis in my vagina. When my mama asked me, what was the abrasions in my arms all about, I told her that my arms was (sic) strucked (sic) by wire. (The witness showed the scratches that were already healed) When we reached Manila my father asked me about what happened and we told him, that they were whipping us.
(The witness cried.)[17]
...Q: Ms. Witness, as far as you can recall when was (sic) this incident happened?A: On May 6, 1990 until June 10, 1990.Q: How many times were you forced to lie with the accused in this case from that period?A: Thirty six times.Q: What time did this incident on May 6, 1990 took place?A: After lunchtime.Q: Tell the Honorable Court what was the participation of the accused Joel and Bernardo Cortezano in this incident of May 6, 1990?A: I was ordered to get inside the room together with my brother and sister, and I was ordered to get inside the room of my "lola."Q: On the basis of that instruction, what did you do, if any?A: I obeyed even if the room was hot.Q: What was the answer of Joel in relation to your complain[t] that the room was hot?A: I better obey, otherwise he will whip me with the broom (walis-tingting).Q: And so what happened next?A: I slept and when I woke up they were doing something bad on (sic) me already.Q: When you said they, to whom are you referring to?A: Joel Cortezano and Bernardo Cortezano.Q: What is that bad you are referring to when you say that the accused's (sic) in this case were doing bad things to you when you woke up?A: I was being raped, they undress me.Q: There are two accused in this case, who was the first one to rape you?A: Joel Cortezano.Q: When you say rape, just what do you mean, can you possibly explain further to the Honorable Court how was it done?A: When I woke up they were already undressing me, they held my hand and my legs and I could not move and Tito Joey[18] inserted his penis to my vagina and Tito Butchoy[19] was standing by the window and watching.
(Witness is crying).Q: And so, what did you feel, if any?A: I felt something slippery was left inside my vagina.Q: And so, after the accused Joel Cortezano did this to you, what happened next?A: They left the house and were at the sampaloc tree.Q: How old are (sic) you then during that incident as related on May 6, 1990?A: I was seven years old.Q: What else happened, if any, with regards to Bernardo Cortezano besides his watching in the window as you say?A: After Tito Joel did that to me, Bernardo Cortezano also did it to me and after that, Boyet, a cousin of mine when inside the room and ask what they were doing and Tito Joel answered, you also have to do what we are doing, otherwise we will hurt you, so Boyet did the same thing to me.Q: You testify (sic) that one of the accused's (sic), Bernardo Cortezano, after Joel Cortezano did the same thing to (sic), tell the Honorable Court what is this thing that Bernardo Cortezano did to you, if any?A: Tito Joel went beside the window and watch while Bernardo Cortezano also inserted his penis to my vagina.Q: When Bernardo Cortezano inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you feel, if any?A: I feel that there was something slippery again was left inside my vagina.Q: And so, after Bernardo Cortezano did this to you, what happened next, if any?A: Boyet went inside the room followed by Tito Joel who went inside again and told Boyet to do what they were doing otherwise he will hurt Boyet and since Boyet was frightened, he also did the same thing to me.Q: What is that same thing Boyet did to you, if any?A: He also held my arms and inserted his penis into my vagina.Q: And so after that, what happened next?A: They laughed at me and then they called by brother and sister and told them to peep at me and they saw me naked.Q: At the time when these accused Joel and Bernardo Cortezano started making advances, did you not resist their advances?A: I fought back but they were too strong for me, one held my arms and the other was on top of me while he inserted his penis, I want to shout but Joel told me not to because nobody can hear me.Q: Now we come to the incident of June 10, 1990, as far as you can recall, where were you on June 10, 1990.A: I was at the house of my "lola."Q: While you were at the house of your "Lola," what incident took place, if any?A: On June 10, 1990 it was the last time they did it to me.Q: What time was that already?A: It was after lunchtime, they warned me not to tell anybody otherwise they will kill me and my family.Q: When you say they, to whom are you referring to?A: Joel and Bernardo Cortezano.Q: If they are inside the courtroom, will you please point to them?A: (Witness pointing to a man wearing stripe[d] polo who identify (sic) himself as Bernardo Cortezano and the man wearing a gray polo who identify (sic) himself as Joel Cortezano).Q: Please tell the Honorable Court what is that same thing you are referring to which was done to you by the accused's in this case on June 10, 1990?A: They remove (sic) my panty and they place saliva in my vagina and then they held my arms and pinned my legs and then kiss me on the lips.Q: Who kissed you on the lips?A: Joel Cortezano.Q: And after kissing you on the lips, what happened next, if any?A: They left the room and went to the sampaloc tree and they laughed at me, then I went out of the room and wash my lips.[20]
No woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter permit herself to be subjected to a public trial, unless she is motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. Considering that the young victim had not been exposed to the ways of the world, it is most improbable that she would impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, if the charge were not true.[23]In People v. De Guzman,[24] we held:
Well-established is the rule that testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit. It bears emphasis that the victim was barely seven years old when she was raped. In a litany of cases, we have applied the well settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor particularly in cases of incestuous rape, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished.[25]The barefaced fact that the public prosecutor opted to charge the appellants with only four counts of rape on May 6 and June 10, 1990, but AAA, in her sworn statement to the police authorities, stated that she had been raped by the appellants on a daily basis and testified thereon, does not render her testimony implausible. Even the municipal trial court which conducted the preliminary investigation of the cases found probable cause against the appellants for thirty-six counts of rape:
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations, it is respectfully recommended that THIRTY-SIX (36) complaints for rape should be filed in the Regional Trial Court against accused JOEL CORTEZANO and BERNARDO CORTEZANO.The provincial prosecutor may have opted to file only four counts of rape instead of thirty-six counts of rape for reasons other than the implausibility of AAA's testimony. Neither is AAA's testimony enfeebled by her siblings' failure to report to their parents or grandparents that they saw her naked on May 6, 1990. At the time, Leah Lou was barely three, while Lionel was only a year old. The children were too young to realize the importance of reporting such an incident to their parents or grandparents.
Forward this case and its entire records to the Honorable Senen C. Lirag, the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur, Camarines Sur Hall of Justice, Naga City, for appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.[26]
[A]libi is the weakest of all defenses. It is a settled rule that for an alibi to prevail, the defense must establish by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely the accused was somewhere else.[27]For alibi to prosper, the following must be established with clear and convincing evidence: (a) the presence of the appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and, (b) physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.[28] Alibi cannot prevail over the positive, straightforward and spontaneous testimony of the victim identifying the appellants as the malefactors and how they consummated the crimes charged.
Indeed, it is accused-appellant's claim that the rape charge against him was merely fabricated by complainant's mother in order to get back at him, which we find to be implausible. As the trial court well-observed, it would be contrary to human nature for a mother like Lucita to expose her daughter of six years to the rigors of a trial of rape which may leave her stigmatized for life, and, in addition, involve another daughter as corroborative witness, just so she could exact her pound of flesh against accused-appellant. In several rape cases, this Court has uniformly rejected similar defenses on the ground that it is unbelievable.[31]This Court also held in People v. De Guzman[32] that:
All told, the proffered alibi of accused-appellant cannot stand against the positive identification by the complainant that he is the defiler of her womanhood. Indeed, the revelation of an innocent girl not even into her teens whose chastity has been abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint. In short, it is most improbable for an innocent and guileless girl of seven years as herein-offended party, to brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, let alone her uncle, if it were not true.[33]The Court notes that the appellants were still minors when they committed the offense. At the time, Joel was 13 years and 6 months old, while Bernardo was 12 years and 4 months old. Nevertheless, they are not exempt from criminal liability.
Article 12. Circumstances, which exempt from liability.—The following are exempt from criminal liability:A minor who is over nine years old and under fifteen years old at the time of the commission of the crimes is exempt from criminal liability only when the said minor acted without discernment. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove that a minor acted with discernment when he committed the crime charged. In determining if such a minor acted with discernment, the Court's pronouncement in Valentin v. Duqueña[34] is instructive:
...
- A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.In this case, the evidence on record shows beyond cavil that the appellants acted with discernment when they raped the victim, thus: (a) they wetted the victim's vagina before they raped her; (b) one of them acted as a lookout while the other was raping the victim; (c) they threatened to kill the victim if she divulged to her parents what they did to her; (d) they forced Boyet to rape the victim; (e) they laughed as Boyet was raping the victim; (f) they ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to look at their sister naked after the appellants had raped her.
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age.—When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:Two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua to death is prision mayor, which has a range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. The maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the proper period of the said penalty, depending upon the presence or absence of modifying circumstances. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full range of the penalty, one degree lower than prision mayor, prision correccional, which has a range of 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
- Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The clause "Which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act" contemplates a situation where the means employed or the circumstances tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating or to put the offended party to shame. ...Ignominy was attendant when the appellants forced Boyet Orcine to rape the victim, and laughed as the latter was being raped by Boyet, and when they ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to look at their naked sister after the appellants had raped her. However, the aforementioned modifying circumstances cannot aggravate the crimes and the penalties therefor because the same were not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although the crimes were committed before the effectivity of the said Rule, it shall be applied retroactively because it is favorable to the appellants.[39]