377 Phil. 119
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"That on or about the 20th day of March, 1988, in the Municipality of Tobias Fornier, Province of Antique, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, through intimidation, violence and force and with the use of a deadly weapon, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with Teodora Wacay without and against the consent of the offended party."With the assistance of Atty. Esdras F. Tayco, appellant entered a plea of not guilty when arraigned on June 9, 1988.[4] Trial proceeded in due course. Thereafter, the trial court promulgated its assailed Decision, the decretal portion of which reads:[5]
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the above facts, law and jurisprudence, after the prosecution has presented thorough and convincing evidence, the Court finds accused EGMEDIO LAMPAZA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the period of Twelve (12) Years and one (1) Day to Fourteen (14) Years and Eight (8) Months as minimum to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years as maximum and to indemnify Teodora Wacay [in] the amount of P30,000.00 as damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs."On June 1, 1994, appellant, through Counsel Cezar C. Tajanlangit, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).[6] After the defense and the prosecution filed their respective Briefs, the appellate court[7] rendered a Decision affirming the conviction of appellant, but modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:[8]
"WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant EGMEDIO LAMPAZA is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay complainant Teodora Wacay the amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages."In the light of Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court,[9] the CA "recalled" the entry of the above judgment, certified the case to this Court and elevated the records.[10]
"The first witness presented was a college student who is the nephew of the private offended party, who went to the house of the latter on March 20, 1988, without finding her there. Witness looked for Teodora, proceeding to the place where farm animals are grazed, which was two hills away. (pp. 2-4 TSN, September 27, 1989)
"Witness saw [his] aunt running out [of] one of the nipa huts in the farm. When [his] aunt reached him, she was sobbing and very pale. She immediately asked him to accompany her back to her house. His aunt explained to him that she ha[d] to leave that place immediately because she was afraid of somebody and therefore could not stay in Sitio Namontonan, Brgy. Camandagan, Tobias Fornier, Antique. (pp. 5-7, TSN, Ibid.)
"During cross examination, defense counsel verified the details regarding the testimony under direct-examination of this witness, as to the reason witness was in that sitio (p. 8, TSN, id.), the distance between the house and the grazing area of the farm animals, the location of the nipa hut and other details. (p. 9, TSN, id.)
"Witness repeated to the Court that [his] aunt was very afraid when he met her running out of the nipa hut although she did not tell him yet what happened. That [his] aunt was trembling, very pale and looking very weak. (p. 10, TSN, id.)
"The private offended party herself testified, and positively identified accused in open court. (p. 18, TSN, id.) That in the morning of March 20, 1988 she was in her farm lot in Sitio Namontonan, Barangay Camandagan, Tobias Fornier, Antique. When she was about to graze their animals, all of a sudden accused came from behind her and twisted both her arms. Then accused lifted her and brought her to a nipa hut which was uninhabited. Victim struggled to set herself free, to no avail despite kicking, shouting and struggling to be free from the hold of the accused. (pp. 18-23, TSN, id.)
"Accused dropped [the] victim to the floor of the nipa hut; pinned both her legs including her right hand with [his] knees [and took] off his pants. The accused ha[d] his bolo beside him with which he threatened the victim. Victim testified that accused raped her then, explaining in detail the commission of the said act. (pp. 23-29, TSN, id.)
"Witness informed her husband and her mother about the rape that evening. (pp. 31-32, TSN, id.)
"During cross-examination, defense counsel tried to impeach the testimony of the witness by eliciting the information that accused and victim were close neighbors; that during the incident private offended party passed by accused who was cutting bamboo poles, on her way to the grazing area of the farm lot. (pp. 3-4, TSN, November 7, 1989). She described again the force and intimidation emanating from the accused in committing the act complained of. Private offended party informed the Court of the great fear she felt that she was trembling and almost speechless when the incident happened. (pp. 5-7; 11-22, TSN, Ibid.)
"Witness was never attracted to the accused as she testified on cross[-]examination. (p. 19, TSN, id.)
"When queried by the Court as to the length of the sexual intercourse she stated that it lasted only three minutes, although the acts of force, intimidation and the struggle lasted for more than ten minutes. (pp. 22-23, TSN, id.)
"During the hearing of January 4, 1990, prosecution presented another witness in the person of the husband of the offended party (p. 32), who testified that the latter informed him about her being raped by the accused; that [he] wanted to kill the accused but he was prevailed upon by his wife and decided to file a case in Court, hence the criminal complaint (p. 34). Witness was in another town during the incident: that he returned to his house in the afternoon of the following day, when his wife informed him of the incident. (p. 32-34)
"They went to the police authorities the following day and filed their formal complaint, contained in a sworn statement. (pp. 34-38, TSN, id.)"
"The defense's version of the case is as follows: Accused Egmedio Lampaza and complainant Teodora Wacay are neighbors. They have known each other since childhood. Accused courted complainant who later became his girlfriend. However, they married different persons, but that notwithstanding, they have had intimate relations.
"In the morning of 20 March 1988, accused heard a signal from complainant. The latter informed him that her husband was in another town, and when he asked her "what now because your husband is not there," complainant just laughed. Complainant told accused that she was going to fetch her carabao, so he followed her. When he reached the place where she was, he put his arms around her, but she brushed them aside, apprehensive that they might be seen. Complainant went up the nipa hut, the same place where they had had sexual intercourse, and made love again, with complainant taking off her clothes first, followed by accused taking off his pants and shirt. They made love consensually. He did not threaten complainant; neither did he use force [or] violence in consummating the sexual act because the same was with the consent of complainant (t.s.n., August 6, 1991.)
"Filomena Lampaza, the lawfully-wedded wife of the accused, testified that complainant is the mistress of her husband, the accused. Because of her husband's extra-marital relationship, they were always quarreling. To avoid further trouble she went to Iloilo to work as a housemaid for Judge Amelia K. Del Rosario (pp. 49-50, t.s.n., Sept. 24, 1991). The latter testified that Filomena had worked for her family as a housemaid, and during the course of her employment she had confided to her employer that her (Filomena's) husband was maltreating her and ha[d] a `querida' (t.s.n., Jan. 30, 1992)."
"Our assessment and appraisal of the facts of the case show that there was force committed on the victim when her arms were twisted and she was bodily lifted from the farm lot to the nipa hut. She was intimidated or there was a threat to intimidate her, when the bolo was placed beside her during the rape.Affirming appellant's conviction, the Court of Appeals modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increased the moral damages to P50,000.
"This court finds that the incident complained of which occurred on March 20, 1988 was x x x done without the consent [or] approval of the victim.
"We do not see any reason why Teodora Wacay related the incident to her husband the following evening, if indeed the rape was not committed because the husband was out of town then. Much more, that she went to court. In People vs. Estolano, 193 SCRA 383, the Supreme Court held that complainant would not have made the offense subject and endured the ordeal of testifying to all its gory detail if she had not in fact been raped."
In resolving this appeal, we shall address seriatim the three grounds raised by appellant."I
x x x [I]n holding that accused-appellant used force and intimidation on complainant in order to consummate the sexual act"II
x x x [I]n holding that the sexual intercourse herein complained of "was done without the consent [or] approval of the victim""III
x x x [I]n finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape based on the inconsistencies, contradictions, and incredibilities palpably apparent in complainant's testimony and in [the testimonies] of her witnesses"
Appellant further argues that "if there was any resistance [by the victim], it was couched in general terms."[21] The argument is bereft of merit. We must stress that the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[22] Indeed, physical resistance need not be established when the culprit employed intimidation,[23] which, insofar as it was directed at the mind of the victim, must be viewed in the light of the latter's perception and judgment at the time.[24] In the present case, the victim was terrified because the threat of the appellant to kill her was substantiated by the bolo he placed beside her. Furthermore, she could not have successfully resisted because, according to her, he was husky and strong.
"Q. Now, while you were untying the rope of your carabao, do you recall of any unusual incident that happened? A Yes, Sir. Q. What was that incident? A All of a sudden, a person came from behind me and twisted both my hands. (Witness demonstrated with her right hand twisted towards the left side of her body while the left hand was also twisted towards the right side of her body, both hands in front). x x x x x x x x x Q. Now, after the accused Egmedio Lampaza twisted your arms, what else happened? A He lifted me. Q. Will you please demonstrate to this Honorable Court how you were lifted by Egmedio Lampaza? A (With Julie Magbanua acting in place of the victim and the witness in place of the accused, the accused stands behind the victim and place[s] both arms around the victim while the arms of the victim are twisted with the right arms towards the left and the left arms towards the right side of her body and from that position the accused lifts the victim upward, raising the victim about three inches from the ground.) Q. Now, Madam Witness, while you were being lifted by the accused in the position you have just mentioned, what else did he do? A Egmedio Lampaza told me, `Come, let's have sexual intercourse'. Q. While saying that and while lifting you, what else did Egmedio Lampaza do, if any? A He brought me to the nipa hut, Sir. Q. How far is that nipa hut from where you were at that time? A About five arms stretch away, Sir. Q. Was that hut inhabited? A No one lives there. x x x x x x x x x Q. While you were being lifted by the accused and being carried to the nipa hut, what did you do if you did anything? A I struggled to set myself free. Q. Will you please demonstrate to this Honorable Court how you struggled? A (At this juncture, Julie Magbanua takes the place of the accused while the witness takes the place of the victim and from the position previously described, with the xxx arms [of the accused] around the victim, the victim struggle[s] to set herself free by moving her body towards the left and right and trie[s] to push her head downward away from the arms of the accused [who is] embracing her. The witness further states that since her feet were off the ground, it [was] hard to set herself free). Q. Now, aside from struggling hard to free yourself from the clutches of the accused, what else did you do if any? A I kicked both my legs. (Witness demonstrates a movement as if she were pedalling an unseen bicycle). Q. Did you make any statement while you were trying to struggle from the hold of the accused? A I did not say anything. I only struggled. Q. Why did you not say anything? x x x x x x x x x A Because I was afraid, Sir. PROSECUTOR CASALAN: Q. Was the accused able to reach the nipa hut with you? A Yes, Sir. Q. While you were already at the nipa hut, what did the accused do, if any? A He dumped me on the floor of the nipa hut. x x x x x x x x x Q. After the accused dumped you on the floor of the nipa hut, what happened to you? A The accused pinned both my legs as well as my right hand, Sir, with both of his knees. x x x x x x x x x PROSECUTOR CASALAN: Q. Now, Madam Witness, while in this position, what next did the accused do? A The accused took off his pants. Q. While the accused was doing that, was the accused saying anything? A Yes, Sir. Q. What did he say? A `If you do not allow me to have sexual intercourse with you, I am going to kill you.' Q. Did you notice if there was any weapon carried by the accused with him? A Yes, Sir. Q. What was he carrying? A He was carrying a bolo, Sir. Q. Where was the bolo of the accused at that time? A It was beside me, Sir."