547 Phil. 476
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The undersigned accuses SIMEON J. SUYAT of the crime of RAPE, committed as follows:Accused-appellant, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.[5]
That on or about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of May 7, 2003 at Brgy. Baro, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, with the use of a knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA,[3] against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY to Art. 266-A, par. 1, in rel. to Art. 266-B, 1st par., as amended by R.A. 8353.[4]
On May 7, 2003, twenty-eight (28) year old AAA, widow with two children, was alone in her house at Barangay Baro, Asingan, Pangasinan, preparing to go to bed for the night. Her children were with her mother who settled in a house close by. Because AAA's house had no electrical facilities, she made use of a kerosene lamp for illumination. At about 7:00 that evening, while lying on her bamboo bed, appellant, Simeon Suyat, entered the house and turned out the lamp. In an instant, appellant poked a knife on the victim's side, clamped shut her mouth with the palm of his left hand, and then threatened her not to speak.On the other hand, accused-appellant's defense depended on the following testimonies:
AAA immediately recognized sixty (60) year old appellant who is her mother's live-in partner. Withdrawing his hand from her mouth, appellant reached down, raised the victim's skirt, grabbed and pulled her under garment all the way down her legs, then got on top of her. Appellant parted her legs with his own. He loosened his short pants and guided his penis to the victim's organ. AAA felt appellant's penis penetrate her vagina. Appellant made push and pull movements. After a while, the knife eased off from her side.
Finding an opportunity to escape, AAA courageously shoved appellant off on top of her, ran outside, and shouted for help. Her mother, BBB, chanced upon her outside the house and asked what happened. AAA, distressed, told her mother the harrowing incident she experienced at the hands of the appellant. Her mother - anxious of embarrassment - told her to keep the "scandalous" matter a secret between themselves. Committed to obtain justice though, AAA reported the incident to the police authorities the morning after.
SPO4 Fausto Casilang Marza initially attended to the victim who was advised to settle the matter with the Baranggay. Not finding the Baranggay captain at his house, AAA went back to the police the afternoon of that same day and told the policeman that she decided to file a rape case against the appellant. SPO4 Marzan took her statements under oath. On her way home, she heard appellant screaming "Vulva (sic) of your mother. Where is that AAA. Maybe she reported to the police station again." The victim ran back to the police and requested that they escort her home. SPO2 Rodrigo Estacio, SPO4 Marzan, and a certain SPO3 Ponseca accompanied AAA back to her home. At her house, the policemen arrested the appellant when they saw (him) screaming (Urayno agipulong ka dita police, saanac nga mabuteng, kayat mo ta ulyenca manen.)[6]
On May 9, 2003, the victim went to the Asingan Medicare Community Hospital to have herself examined, but was told that they did not have the necessary equipment to handle her case. Per advise of the physician in charge of the community hospital, the victim went the next day to Region I, Medical Center in Dagupan City, where she was examined by Dr. May Gwendolyn Luna. Dr. Luna noted some reddish discoloration at the "posterolateral area of the labia minora which is secondary to scratch or friction(;) xxx healed and old superficial lacerations at 4:00 and 9:00 o'clock at the vaginal canal and healed deep lacerations at 5:00 o'clock and 7:00 o'clock also at the vaginal canal (;) xxx (and that the same) admitted 2 fingers with ease which is but natural as AAA had already given birth.[7]
WHEREFORE, finding the accused, SIMEON SUYAT, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, he is hereby sentence to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to pay the victim, AAA, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs.[21]Accused-appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal.[22]
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant appeal is perforce dismissed. Accordingly, the assailed decision dated 17 November 2004 is hereby affirmed in toto.[23]On 6 June 2006, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeals.[24] In our Resolution of 6 September 2006, we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire.[25] Both the Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney's Office manifested that they were no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs.[26]
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE.[27]In resolving rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[28]
x x x the culpability of the offender almost invariably hinges on the story of the complainant. In the light of the presumption of innocence that the accused enjoys, the complainant's testimony must perforce be carefully scrutinized and examined to satisfy the judicial conscience that the accused did in fact commit the crime. Her testimony should not be received with precipitate credulity, especially when the conviction depends at any vital point upon her uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from suspicion. Such testimony must be impeccable and ring true throughout, or credible and positive. Clearly, therefore, as in other criminal cases, the evidence for the prosecution in rape cases must stand or fall on its own merits; it cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[36]We have scrutinized the records of this case and found nothing that could convince us to overturn accused-appellant's conviction. On the contrary, we agree in the trial court's observation that AAA's retelling of her harrowing experience in the hands of accused-appellant was "positive, straightforward, spontaneous, and unadorned"[37] thus:
ATTY. IGNACIO: DIRECT EXAMINATION:Similarly unavailing is accused-appellant's argument that it was physically impossible for him to have raped AAA in the manner that she described in her direct testimony. It must be pointed out that AAA's testimony did not end with her direct testimony. When she underwent cross-examination by accused-appellant's counsel, she was able to narrate in an even more detailed manner how she was raped -
Q. Madam witness, do you know Simeon Suyat?
WITNESS:
A. Yes sir.
Q. Why do you know him?
A. Because he is the live-in partner of my mother, sir.
Q. What is the name of your mother?
A. BBB sir.
Q. What else, why do you know Simeon Suyat?
A. Because he raped me sir.
Q. If Simeon Suyat is in court, will you please point to him?
A. Witness pointing to a person sitted inside the courtroom, and when asked his name, answered, Simeon Suyat.
Q. You said that Simeon Suyat raped you, when?
A. May 7, 2003 sir.
Q. Where did he rape you?
A. In our house sir.
Q. Where is that house where Simeon Suyat raped you?
A. At Brgy. Baro, Asingan, Pangasinan, sir.
Q. How did it happen why Simeon Suyat rape you?
A. He forced me sir.
Q. Before he forced you, where did this Simeon Suyat come from?
A. He came from their yard, sir.
Q. Whose yard was that where Simeon Suyat came from?
A. Simeon Suyat sir.
Q. Where did he rape you specifically?
A. In our yard sir.
Q. Not inside your house?
A. Inside my house sir.
Q. How did Simeon Suyat enter your house?
A. When he entered the house, I told him "why are you coming," and then he poked the knife to my leftside and closed my mouth with his palm, and told me not to talk, sir.
Q. Will you please describe to the Honorable Court your house look like, is it two (2) storey house or single house?
A. My house has only one room, sir.
Q. Where did Simeon Suyat enter your house?
A In our door sir.
Q. How come he was able to enter your door?
A. The door was opened because my two (2) children went to the other house to view television, sir.
Q. How far is that house where your children viewed television?
A. Little bit far, sir.
Q. Can you point a distance?
A. From here to the gate is about 70 to 80 meters, sir.
ATTY. VELASCO:
About 40 to 50 meters.
COURT INTERPRETER:
That was already measured, 70 to 80 meters, your Honor.
ATTY. IGNACIO:
Q. Going back where Simeon Suyat enter press on your side a knife, what happened next?
WITNESS:
A. When he poked the knife on my side and closed my mouth with his palm, then raise my shirt and then lowered my panty, sir.
Q. The forcing in lowering your panty, what happened next?
A. He went on top of me and then he press my two legs, sir.
Q. What happened next?
A. And then he removed his shortpant and he removed his brief, sir.
Q. After removing those shortpant and brief, what happened next?
A. He placed his organ to my vagina, sir.
Q. What about the knife?
A. The knife was still poked on my side, sir.
Q. Was his penis able to penetrate your vagina?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What did you do when he was able to penetrate?
A. I pushed him sir.
Q. What did you feel?
A. Painful sir.
Q. Then what did you do when he executed a push and pull?
A. When I felt that the knife was loosen, then I pushed him away, sir.
Q. Were you able to push him away?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What did you do after pushing him away?
A. After pushing him, I went out from the house, sir.
Q. By the way, does your house with electricity?
A. None sir.
Q. What are you then using as lighting facility?
A. Kerosene sir.
Q. At that night, you have kerosene?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Was that kerosene lighted when he was raping you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. After getting out from your house, what did you do?
A. I called for help sir.
Q. Did somebody come to help you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Who came and helped you if any?
A. My mother sir.
Q. You mean to say the living partner himself?
A. Yes sir.
Q. BBB is your mother?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What did BBB do when she came out to response for help?
A. She asked what happened and I told her, Simeon Suyat raped me, and my mother told me not to talk, we will settle the matter.[38]
ATTY. VELASCO:It is clear from the foregoing that despite the determined cross-examination by the opposing counsel, AAA remained steadfast in her assertion that accused-appellant was able to have sexual intercourse with her against her will. Accused-appellant's abridged reading of AAA's testimony fails to overcome her positive and forthright candid recollection of the unfortunate incident that night. The rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its vital points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[40]
Q. The three (3) simultaneous acts that you have just demonstrated was before the actual penetration. Then you stated in your sworn statement as well as you claimed in the direct examination conducted on you that while Simeon Suyat doing all these three (3) acts simultaneously you stated that he raised your skirt and then removed your panty. Dou you remember that?
WITNESS:
A. Yes sir.
Q. Now, I will ask again and demonstrate before the Honorable Court how Simeon Suyat do (sic) this considering the fact that the right hand already holding the knife poking on your side and the other hand covering your mouth and your two (2) legs were pressed by the two (2) legs of the accused, according to you. Will you please demonstrate now how he removed your skirt and removed your panty?
A. When he removed the hand that closed my mouth that was the time and used in raising my skirt and lowering my panty, sir.
Q. It was only hand that used to cover your mouth that used in raising your skirt and removing your panty?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did he encounter difficulty in removing your panty?
A. He did sir, because what I'm wearing at that time was a duster.
Q. When he was able to remove and lower your panty, what did he do next?
A. He inserted his penis to my vagina, sir.
Q. Before he inserted his organ to your vagina, did he not place again his hand to cover your mouth?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And when you said that thereafter lowering your panty, he inserted his sexual organ to your vagina. Did he use his hand in inserting his organ to your organ?
A. Yes sir. Witness demonstrating that the accused holding his penis.
Q. Will you please demonstrate what hands in holding his penis in inserting to your organ?
A. It is the right hand holding the knife while the left hand guiding in inserting the penis to my vagina, sir.
Q. To your recollection, did you help in anyway in the inserting of the penis to your vagina?
A. No sir.
Q. But did he encounter again difficulty in inserting his organ to your organ?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Are you telling the Honorable Court that you exerted some effort in order that his penis could not enter to your reproduction organ?
A. I pushed him sir.
Q. When did you push him?
A. When the organ had already penetrated my vagina and he was about to ejaculate, I pushed him, sir.
Q. When you said the accused was able to penetrate, you mean his penis was already in your vagina?
A. Yes sir, his organ was able to penetrate my vagina.
Q. And when you said that he was about to ejaculate, what about you, did you produce any orgasm?
A. I felt pain in my vagina, sir.
Q. And so when he was on top of you and he was about to ejaculate, that was the time when you pushed him?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And you already shouted for help right after you pushed him?
A. Yes sir.[39]
With regard to his civil liability, however, the trial court's award of damages should be modified. Under the present law, an award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. This is exclusive of the award of moral damages of P50,000.00, without need of further proof. The victim's injury is now recognized as inherently concomitant with and necessarily proceeds from the appalling crime of rape which per se warrants an award of moral damages.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 24 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00997, affirming, in toto, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 46 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.