542 Phil. 295
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
On or about December 16, 2002, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, armed with a knife, and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the complainant, AAA, against her will and consent.[4]Upon arraignment on 6 February 2003, appellant entered a plea of not guilty[5] and shortly thereafter, trial ensued.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Judy Salidaga y Quintano Guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Rape, as charged in the Information, and there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and pay AAA P50,000.00, as civil indemnity and P50,000.00, as moral damages, plus the costs of suit.[10]In adjudging appellant guilty, the trial court declared that –
(a)fter a thorough examination and full evaluation of the evidence on record, the Court finds that the following relevant facts have been adequately established:A Notice of Appeal[12] was seasonably filed by appellant and the trial court ordered the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Subsequently, we ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with our decision in the case of People v. Mateo.[13]The crime of rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat or intimidation and is punishable by Reclusion Perpetua (Articles 266-A and 266-B, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997).
- On December 16, 2002, at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon at Bolante II, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City, while private complainant AAA was alone and asleep in their house, accused (appellant herein) Judy Salidaga entered the house.
- Accused went on top of AAA, poked a knife at her neck, removed her shorts and inserted his penis inside her vagina.
- AAA was gripped with fear. She could not fight and resist the sexual assault because of the knife poked at her neck and she was afraid accused would kill her.
- Accused immediately left and disappeared after satisfying his bestial lust.
Considering the established relevant facts and the law applicable, the Court is convinced that the accused committed the crime of Rape as charged in the Information.
Accused’s defense of denial and alibi cannot outweigh or overcome the positive and unequivocal narration of AAA on how she was ravished by the accused. The record is bereft of any proof that AAA is actuated by ill-motive in charging accused of a very serious crime. Accused’s asseveration that he and AAA were live-in partners from June to November, 2002, even if true, cannot weaken the clear, candid and categorical statement of AAA that accused sexually abused her on December 16, 2002.[11]
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the decision appealed from must be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the accused-appellant.[14]Appellant is again before us asserting his innocence and impugning the finding of the Court of Appeals on the sole ground that –
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[15]We find merit in the petition.
DIRECT EXAM.As admitted by AAA, she immediately lost consciousness after appellant went on top of her. Yet, in the next breath, she was able to vividly recall the events that occurred while in a state of unconsciousness. To our mind, this inconsistency in AAA’s testimony is simply too glaring to be brushed aside for it goes into the integrity and viability of the criminal complaint she initiated against appellant. If it were true, as she claimed in the witness stand, that she immediately fainted, how could she then remember, in detail, how appellant was able to rape her. Her testimony on this material point is simply unconvincing. As we reiterated in the case of People v. Mole,[19] a woman raped in a state of unconsciousness would not be able to narrate her defloration during that state, and her violation may be proved indirectly by other evidence.
BY FISCAL PAZ:
q AAA, do you recall where were you on December 16, 2002 at 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon?
a Yes, sir.
q Where were you?
a In the house.
q Where were your house located then?
a Bolante, Pasig City, sir.
q What were you doing in your house on said date and time?
a I was sleeping.
q At the time, did you have companions in the house?
a None.
q While you were sleeping on said date and time in your house, do you recall if there was something that happened?
a Yes.
q What was that?
a He went on top me and poked a knife at my neck, sir.
q You said “he,” who was that person you are referring to?
a Judy.
q If he is inside the court room, please went (sic) down and tap his shoulder.
a I cannot do it.
q Will you point to him?
COURT:
Witness pointing to a person who when asked gave his name as Judy Salidaga.
PROSEC. PAZ;
After the accused went on top of you and poked a knife at your neck, what happened next?
a I was not conscious when it happened.
q Why were you not conscious?
a I was scared.
q Scared of what?
a Because of the knife poked at my neck and I am afraid he might kill me.
q What did the accused do when he went on top of you?
a He put his sex organ inside.
q Where did he put his sex organ.
a Mine.
q In your sex organ?
a Yes.
q What did you do when he did that?
a None.
q Why did you not do anything?
a Because I was afraid.
q Why were you afraid?
a Because of the knife poked at my neck and he might kill me.
q About how long was his sex organ inside yours?
a I cannot recall.
q After the accused inserted his penis inside your vagina, what happened next?
a He stood up.
q Where did he go?
a He went out. (Emphasis supplied.)[18]
(i)t is but to be expected that if the sexual assault was committed against the victim while the latter was in a state of unconsciousness, she would not be able to testify on the actual act of sexual intercourse. It is precisely when the sexual intercourse is performed when the victim is unconscious that the act constitutes the statutory offense of rape especially when, as in the instant case, the loss of consciousness was the result of appellant’s act of violence. x x x.[22]In the subsequent case of People v. San Pedro,[23] our pronouncement was that –
x x x Of course, an unconscious woman will not know who is raping her. If the defense theory were to be adopted, then it would be impossible to convict any person who rapes an unconscious woman, except only where a third person witnesses the crime. Henceforth, the clever rapist would simply knock his potential victim out of her senses before actually raping her, to be later immunized from conviction for insufficient identification.However, there have also been instances when this Court did not hesitate to set aside convictions in rape cases where, after weighing the evidence lodged by the prosecution, we arrived at the inevitable conclusion that the accused must be set free.In a situation like this, the identity of the rapist is determined by the events preceding or following the victim’s loss of consciousness. x x x.[24]
(s)econd. Although the prosecution has proven that Lazel was sexually abused, the evidence proferred is inadequate to prove she was raped. Evidence of carnal knowledge is necessary in rape. Lazel entertained the belief that she was raped because when she regained consciousness, she felt pain all over her body and her private part. The trial court found that Lazel was sexually abused because of her belief. It then equated sexual abuse with rape x x x.Similarly, in the case of People v. Daganta,[27] the accused was charged with the rape of a minor. According to the prosecution, the accused invited the supposed victim to his room and once inside, the accused started kissing her on the cheek and then on her lips. He then sprayed an insect repellant to her face as a result of which she lost consciousness. When she woke up, she found the accused sitting outside his room. The lower portion of her umbilicus was painful and when she urinated, she felt pain in her private parts. The physical examination of the alleged victim revealed that there was hymenal laceration at five o’clock indicative of the entry of a hard object into her private part. Despite these, this Court reversed the decision of the trial court based on reasonable doubt, thus:
x x x x
Removal of underwear, a reddening of hymen, an aching private part and blood on the underwear do not prove carnal knowledge. The removal of the victim’s underwear is at most a preparation to engage in sexual intercourse. The reddening hymen could have been caused by a male sex organ but that is just a possibility. In the case at bar, considering the age of the victim and the condition of her hymen, there should be laceration if there was penetration by an adult male sex organ. The aching private part could well be part of the over-all effect of her beating. The blood on the panty discovered by Lazel after she woke up could have come from the wound inflicted on her leg. It is easy to speculate that Lazel was raped. But in criminal cases, speculation and probabilities cannot take the place of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, no matter how strong, must not sway judgement.[26]
All in all, the prosecution’s evidence is hazy and contradictory sorely lacking as it is in material details. Admittedly, a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. In the present case, however, the chain of circumstances does not show a coherent and consistent story that would give rise to a certitude sufficient to convince this Court to impose on appellant the very grave penalty of reclusion perpetua. His own defense is admittedly weak. But conviction is never founded on the weakness of the defense. Rather, it always rests on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)[28]It is inherent in the crime of rape that the conviction of an accused invariably depends upon the credibility of the victim as she is oftentimes the sole witness to the dastardly act. Thus, the rule is that when a woman claims that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and that if her testimony meets the crucible test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[29] However, the courts are not bound to treat the testimony of the victim as gospel truth. Judges are duty-bound to subject her testimony to the most rigid and careful scrutiny lest vital details which could affect the outcome of the case be overlooked or cast aside.