583 Phil. 692
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
In Criminal Case No. 127753-HThe prosecution presented the testimonies of Dr. Joseph C. Palmero and complainant AAA.
On or about March 15, 2004, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused by means of force, threat or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], against her will and consent, which is aggravated by the circumstances of abuse of superior strength, nighttime and dwelling, to the damage and prejudice of the said victim.[4]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ABDELKARIM AHMAD-ALKODHA:Accused-appeallant appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 19 March 2007, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision affirming the Decision of the trial court, thus:
- GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 127752-H and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
- GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 127753-H and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and
- Further, he is ordered to pay the victim, [AAA] Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) as civil indemnity; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) as moral damages; and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000) as exemplary damages, in each case.[9]
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the judgment appealed from AFFIRMED in toto. Costs shall be taxed against the accused-appellant.[10]Accused-appellant elevated his conviction to this Court, assigning the following errors:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S HIGHLY INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY.Accused-appellant claims there were inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA, to wit:II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR.[11]
We have held that inconsistencies which refer to minor, trivial, or inconsequential circumstances only serve to strengthen the credibility of said witnesses, as they erase doubts that such testimonies have been coached or rehearsed.[12] The presence of the maid at one point during the afternoon of 14 March 2004, and who between AAA and accused-appellant woke up first on the morning of 15 March 2004 are clearly trivial matters which have no bearing at all on the commission of the crime of rape.
- AAA testified that she and the accused-appellant's son, Ahmad, were the only two persons in the house; however, in her sworn statement, she said that at around 5:00 p.m. of 14 March 2004, the accused-appellant called the housemaid to tell AAA to dress up and go to the cell phone store.
- When asked, "Who woke up first, you or the accused?" AAA answered that she woke up first. Later, when she was asked again, she said that it was accused-appellant who woke up first.
- On direct examination, AAA testified that she was raped by the accused on 15 March 2004 by inserting his penis into her vagina. However, on cross-examination, she said that she fainted at that time.
Q Would you remember, what time when Kim pulled you to his room?We do not see an inconsistency here. At most, this only proves that the part of AAA's testimony on direct examination in which AAA said accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina did not come from personal knowledge, but from an inference from her bleeding when she woke up. This, however, is not sufficient reason for us to overturn the appealed Decision. We have ruled that carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused may be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence that rape has been committed and that the accused is the perpetrator thereof.[17] The actuations of accused-appellant before AAA fainted, the bleeding of AAA's private part afterwards, and the corroboration by physical evidence on the part of Dr. Palmero, when taken together, convincingly prove the carnal knowledge of AAA by accused-appellant.
A No, sir.
Q Did you have any sexual intercourse then?
A I do not know what happened next because I fainted, sir.
Q When was your last time of recollection, Madam witness?
A He was already through with me, sir.
Q How did you know he was through with you?
A I was already bleeding, sir.[16]
In this case, there was a strong manifestation of improper motive on the part of the private complainant to testify falsely against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of the crime charged.Accused-appellant then proceeds to argue that the application of the presumption that a young Filipina will not charge a person with rape if it is not true goes against the constitutional presumption of innocence.[19] Accused-appellant cites People v. Godoy,[20] wherein we held:
First, the private complainant was asking for a One Thousand Five Hundred (Php1,500.00) Pesos advance from the accused and the latter did not give her the said amount since she was still new in the job. Second, she was scolded by the accused when she answered the telephone which was the cause of her disappearance from the latter's store.
While it may be debated that the above reasons are too flimsy to accuse a person of a serious crime as rape, still, the private complainant was motivated by hatred and in order to get even with the accused, she filed the instant cases.[18]
The trial court, in holding for conviction, relied on the presumptio hominis that a young Filipina will not charge a person with rape if it is not true. In the process, however, it totally disregarded the more paramount constitutional presumption that an accused is deemed innocent until proven otherwise.Accused-appellant was correct in anticipating that we would see the flimsiness of the alleged ill motives he imputed to AAA. He, thus, claims that his actuations of not giving AAA a cash advance and scolding her for answering the phone were enough to create such a deep-seated hatred as to charge him with a very grave crime of rape. Almost needless to state, accused-appellant's arguments remain flimsy.
It frequently happens that in a particular case two or more presumptions are involved. Sometimes the presumptions conflict, one tending to demonstrate the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence. In such case, it is necessary to examine the basis for each presumption and determine what logical or social basis exists for each presumption, and then determine which should be regarded as the more important and entitled to prevail over the other. It must, however, be remembered that the existence of a presumption indicating guilt does not in itself destroy the presumption against innocence unless the inculpating presumption, together with all of the evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence by proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt until the defendant's guilt is shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence continues.
Accused Ahmad Alkodha, however, disputes [AAA]'s version claiming that it is not credible due to some improbabilities in her testimony. Firstly, he contends that he cannot possibly commit the crime attributed against him due to physical impossibility. That on March 14, 2004, at or about 8:30 in the evening until 12:00 midnight he was in the house of SPO2 Bautista, whom he had just got acquainted with. They were not even close or intimate with each other. SPO2 Bautista testified that at or about 8:30 of the said date, accused Ahmad-Alkodha left his house to close his store and went back at 9:00 in the evening. However, accused Ahmad-Alkodha told this Court that he left the house of SPO2 Bautista at 8:00 in the evening to close his store. Thereafter, he dropped his wife and [AAA] in their house at Casa Enrica, Mercedes Avenue, San Miguel, Pasig City and returned to the baptismal party at 8:30 in the evening. While it may be true that accused Ahmad-Alkodha stayed in the house of SPO2 Bautista the same cannot be given probative value, being self-serving, for the defense failed to present the other witnesses who were also there as guests of SPO2 Bautista and who could have seen the accused to clarify the inconsistent testimonies of the accused and SPO2 Bautista to this effect.Finally, accused-appellant argues that if he was indeed guilty, he would not have sought the help of police officers in locating AAA as evidenced by the blotter that was presented.[24] We are not swayed by this argument. The police blotter presented by accused-appellant clearly shows that his seeking the help of police officers was in reaction to the complaint filed by AAA against him:
Secondly, the accused contends that on March 15, 2004, at or about 12:00 midnight he left the house of SPO2 Bautista and went to Alabang, Muntinlupa City to his cousins Abraham and Ali to follow up his son's passport. Yet, he opted not to present his cousins to prove that he really went to the said place.
Thirdly, accused claims that on March 15, 2004 he could not have raped [AAA] because he was then sleeping with Fajardo in their room. While Ahmad, his "yaya" and [AAA] were in the other room. It is not really impossible to commit rape under such a situation. In our judicial experience, we observed that lust is not respecter of time and place (People vs. Pepito, G.R. Nos. 147650-52, 2003). The Court has consistently held that for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act (People vs. Aspuria, G.R. Nos. 139240-43, 11-12-02). Again, the accused did not present the "yaya" who allegedly was with [AAA] in the room of Ahmad, who had testified that no unusual happened on March 14 and 15, 2004.
x x x x
This Court rejects the accused's defense of alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish with clear and convincing evidence not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed physically but also that it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Aside from his testimony, the accused never presented any other evidence to prove that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time the rape took place. He did not present any other witness, whom he claimed was with him during the time he attended the baptismal party until the time he allegedly went to Alabang, Muntinlupa City. Obviously, it was not physically impossible for him to perpetrate the crime for the alleged baptismal party happened at Caniogan, Pasig City and the rape took place at San Miguel, Pasig City, a few minutes drive to his house, the scene of the crime, in Pasig City. Weak as it is, alibi becomes all the more ineffectual when the accused fails to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time it was committed.[23]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01632 dated 19 March 2007 affirming in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig in Criminal Cases No. 127752-53-H, which found accused-appellant Abdelkarim Ahmad Alkodha guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
PAGE NO. :0417 ENTRY NO. :1845 DATE :16 March 2004 TIME :6:30 pm
Reportee one Abdel Karim Ahmad Alkodha, 46 yrs. Old, married, businessman and a resident of Unit 11 Casa Enrica, Mercedez Ave., Brgy. Caniogan, Pasig City came/appeared to this office and reported that one [AAA], of legal age, a resident of XXX allegedly asked advance payment to the reportee to give to her family in the province. Said subject was allegedly employed for two days only as Sales Lady. According to the reportee, said subject allegedly fabricated a complaint against complainant without basis and he requested that this particular incident be recorded on the police blotter for future reference as shown his signature below.Signed
Abdelkarim Ahmad Alkodha[25]