583 Phil. 299
QUISUMBING, J.:
x x x xWhen arraigned, Baligod pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued thereafter.
That on or about August 16, 2001, in the Municipality of [xxx], Province of [xxx], and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, JESUS BALIGOD Y PINEDA, with lewd design and by the use of force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the offended party, [AAA],[6] against her will.
Contrary to law.
Baligod denied the charges against him and testified that on August 16, 2001, he was at xxx until 5:00 p.m., plying his usual route as a tricycle driver. After driving the whole day, he brought three bottles of gin at the house of Mario Castillo and had a drink with the latter. After their drinking spree, Castillo took him home. On their way to his house, they passed by and joined a group who was drinking liquor in one corner. Suddenly, AAA arrived and approached him to bring her to xxx, but he refused and instead told her to go home because it was already dark. AAA did not heed his advice and continued to walk towards the direction of xxx. His companions told him that AAA has a history of attempting to commit suicide whenever she does not get what she wants. On his way home later that night, he saw AAA still walking. Afraid that she would commit suicide, he followed her and advised her to go home. AAA still refused so he boxed her. AAA then went home.[10]
- Contusion, about 2x2.0 cm. mandibular area.
- Periorbital contusion-hematoma, right with subconjunctival hemorrhage.
- Perioral contusion-hematoma.
- (+) Positive erythema, anterior neck.
- Cyanotic tongue.
- (+) Positive edematous gingivae, lower.
- (+) Positive severe tenderness anterior chest.
- (+) Positive superficial abrasions irregular knee, bilateral.
- I.E. - Edematous clitoral area with severe tenderness.
HYMEN - very old healed lacerations at 2, 6, 10 o'clock area.
Vagina admits 2 fingers snuggly with tenderness.[9]
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby finds that the guilt of the accused Jesus Baligod Y Pineda alias Kisut for the crime of rape defined and penalized under [A]rt. 266-a:1(a) in relation to Art. 266-b both of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 8353 has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences the said accused JESUS BALIGOD Y PINEDA to suffer imprisonment of twenty five (25) years of Reclusion Perpetua. He is further sentenced to pay the private complainant [AAA] the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity plus the further amount of P25,000.00 as moral damages.On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling but modified the award of moral damages. It regarded AAA as a credible witness and accorded full credence to AAA's testimony because it was categorical, straightforward and consistent. It also ruled that appellant's acts of grabbing AAA, holding her neck, boxing her several times on the chest and mouth and threatening to kill her are strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation sufficient to bring her to submission.[12] The decretal portion of the decision reads:
SO ORDERED.[11]
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision in Criminal Case 971-T is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Jesus Baligod y Pineda is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to indemnify the private complainant the sums of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.The case is now before us for final disposition. In his brief, appellant faults the trial court in
SO ORDERED.[13]
...CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF RAPE WHEN THE LATTER'S GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[14]Essentially, the issue for our resolution is whether appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In open court, AAA had subjected herself to the glare of public prosecution for rape, positively identified appellant as her rapist and candidly revealed the ugly details of the deplorable violation of her person. Notably, both the trial and appellate courts gave credence to her testimony and they both regarded her as a credible witness. Absent any showing that the lower courts had overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered might affect the result of the case, we find no basis to doubt or dispute, much less overturn, the findings of credibility by both courts. As we have held in People v. Malejana,[19]
FISCAL: x x x x Q What was that? A I was holding a wick lamp going to the house of my relatives to ask for a tricycle available. Q What happened while you were on your way? A He suddenly grabbed me by the neck from behind then I fell to the ground and the lamp I was holding also fell to the ground. Q Who grabbed you? A Jesus Baligod. Q If this person will be shown to you, will you be able to identify him? A Yes, sir. Q If he is around the courtroom will you please point at him. A There, sir. (Witness pointed to a person and who was asked his name and he answered that he is Jesus Baligod). COURT: Q Where did Jesus Baligod come from before he grabbed you? A From behind. x x x x Q You said that the accused grabbed you and you fell to the ground, what did he do after that? A He boxed me, held my neck and he even boxed my chest. Q How many times did he box you? A I can't remember anymore, sir. COURT: Q Did he stay on top of you? A Yes, sir. FISCAL: Q Then what did he do next? A He removed my short pant[s] and panty. Q How about him when he removed your shorts and panty, what did he do? A He inserted his penis. Q Where? A In my vagina. Q How do you know that his penis was inserted into your vagina? A I felt his penis entering my vagina. x x x x COURT: Q Did he perform a sexual motion into your vagina? I mean the pushing in and out motions? A [Y]es, sir. Q And what did you feel or notice? A I felt pain. FISCAL: x x x x Q After the sexual assault by the accused, what did he do next? A He ran Q How about you what did you do? A I just stayed sitting on the road and then a help came.[18] x x x x
Having the opportunity to observe [the witnesses in open court], the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court.Juxtaposed against the prosecution evidence, appellant's defense of denial is inherently weak. As often stressed, a mere denial constitutes negative evidence and warrants the least credibility or none at all absent any strong evidence of non-culpability. It cannot prevail over the positive and credible declarations of the victim and her witnesses testifying on affirmative matters.[21]
The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer [or] the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these on the basis of his observations arrive[d] at an informed and reasoned verdict.[20]
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:[4] Art. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
x x x x