444 Phil. 654
PANGANIBAN, J.:
“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds the accused JOVITO MANALO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE in Criminal Case No. 2745(10877) and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify MELODINA NUYNAY y ALIMANSA the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.In two separate Complaints,[3] both dated January 20, 1992, appellant was accused of raping private complainant allegedly as follows:
“The same accused JOVITO MANALO is also found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE in Criminal Case No. 2746(10878) and is likewise sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify MELODINA NUYNAY y ALIMANSA the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the cost.” [2]
During his arraignment on October 2, 1998,[6] appellant, assisted by his counsel de oficio,[7] pleaded not guilty to both charges. After trial in due course, he was found guilty of two counts of rape.In Criminal Case No. 2745(10877):
“That sometime in the month of November 1991, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the undersigned against her will.”[4]
In Criminal Case No: 2746(10878)
“That sometime in the month of September, 1991, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the undersigned against her will.”[5]
“Private complainant Melodina Nuynay (‘Melodina’) was a housemaid working for Poncieto Oracoy (‘Poncieto’), a member of the Philippine National Police and his wife, Marilou, a vendor who sold blankets and clothes at the market.
“Sometime in the month of September, 1991, at a time when both her employers were away at their respective work stations, Melodina was left alone at their rented room at the PC Compound in Zamboanga City to tend the four-year-old child of her employers.
“At this time, Melodina’s age could only be estimated to be around 11 years considering that her birth certificate could not be produced. Her school records indicate her date of birth as June 4, 1980 (During her testimony in open court on January 15, 1999, however, Melodina stated that she was 24 years old).
“Having lulled the child to sleep at a makeshift hammock, (‘duyan’), Melodina sat on the edge of the bed.
“Without any warning, however, appellant [being the son of the owner of the house who lived just right next door] suddenly barged inside the room, holding a knife with his right hand. Appellant pointed the knife at Melodina’s abdomen and threatened to kill her. Melodina could only [sit], frozen in fear.
“Appellant’s next movement was apt and swift. With the same hand that held the knife, he stripped Melodina of her undergarments and commanded her to lie down.
“Thereafter, appellant inserted his penis into Melodina’s vagina. The onslaught of pain surged Melodina’s being. ‘Iya akong iyut’ (He had sex with me). At this time, Melodina had known the forceful act of sexual congress.
“Once satiated, appellant left the room and repeatedly warned Melodina not to report the incident to anyone lest he [kills] her.
“By noontime, when her female employer arrived, Melodina could only stifle the pain in her vagina, as she continually performed her tasks and ran errands for her employer.
“On succeeding days, however, appellant would follow the same pattern of sexual assaults. He would wait until Melodina’s employers leave the room and, then, enter it unannounced armed with a knife, and force himself upon Melodina. Melodina remembered at least ten (10) sexual episodes.
“On November 7, 1991, however, around 4:00 p.m., Melodina was using the communal toilet when she came out running to her female employer, Marilou. She sobbed that appellant forcefully opened the door of the toilet and wanted to have sex with her. Instinctively, she dashed to the safety of her employer’s room but, in the process, was punched at the back by appellant. Melodina’s employer, Poncieto, heard the outcry.
“After having been apprised of what happened, Poncieto proceeded to confront appellant with the incident but the latter avoided Poncieto and ran away. Instead, Poncieto received a reprimand from appellant’s mother who berated him thus, ‘Nong, I told you already to sen(d) Melodina home to her relatives in San Roque but you did not obey. It is your fault.’
“Poncieto and Marilou thereafter assisted Melodina to the Zamboanga City Central Police Station to report the incident. Notably, only a complaint for attempted rape was reported and blottered at the police station.
“Two (2) days later or on November 9, 1991, Poncieto and his family, together with Melodina, transferred to another rented room within the vicinity of the PC Compound to avoid trouble. It was only during this time that Melodina revealed that she had been sexually defiled by appellant.
“Melodina was thereafter brought to Dr. Rodolfo Valmoria for physical examination. The findings were written as follows:‘FINDINGS:‘CONCLUSION:
‘No visible injuries noted on the body surface.
Scanty growth of pubic hair. Labia majora, full, convex and coaptated. Labia minora light brown in color with a fleshy type hymen presenting in between. Shallow healed laceration evident at 3, 6 and 9 o’clock positions.
‘Vaginal canal is narrow and moderately admits examining index finger, cervix hard and firm. Vaginal rugosities slightly shallowed. Abdomen flat and tight with no pain o[r] palp[it]ation.
‘Breasts hemispherical in shape with brown areola and nipples, no secretions noted.
‘Vaginal smears negative for gram negative diplococci and sperm cells.
‘The subject is of non-virgin state physically.’
“A preliminary investigation for rape was thereafter initiated against appellant. At this instance, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Zamboanga City found prima facie evidence to hold appellant for trial for two (2) counts of rape.”[8] (Citations omitted)
”Appellant declared that on November 7, 1991, at about 4:30 p.m., he had to go to the toilet to urinate. As he tried to open the door of the toilet, Melodina who was inside shouted and ran towards her employer, Poncieto Oracoy, and thereafter reported that appellant wanted to abuse her. The following day, November 8, 1991, two (2) policemen and Poncieto Oracoy came to their house and invited him to the police station. He went with them and was later informed at the police station that he was being accused of attempted rape. He was then allowed to go home after about an hour without any investigation conducted. He was never subpoenaed or called by any person from the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) for investigation nor did he know of x x x any complaint for rape filed by Melodina against him until after he was arrested in September 16, 1998.”[9]
“I. The trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the complainant despite the existence of several circumstances which amply demonstrate that there was no rape committed.
“II. The trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.”[13]
“x x x. For a discrepancy to serve as basis for acquittal, such must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused. An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime, cannot be a ground to reverse a conviction. Moreover, even the most candid witnesses oftentimes make mistakes or variations in their declarations, considering the treachery of human memory. x x x”[16]Appellant avers that the victim herself testified that she had not put up any resistance when the sexual transgression was being committed against her. She can hardly be faulted for behaving as she did, because the reaction to such intimidation varies from one person to another.
“x x x [T]hough a man lays no hand on a woman, yet if by an array of physical forces, he so overpowers her mind that she does not resist, or she ceases resistance through fear of greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act is recognized in jurisprudence as rape. Physical resistance need not be established in rape, when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist’s embrace because of fear for life and personal safety.”[23]It would be unreasonable, therefore, to expect the victim to act with equanimity and to have the courage and the intelligence to disregard the threat made by the accused.[24] When a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act coherently. Her failure to immediately take advantage of an opportunity to escape does not automatically vitiate the credibility of her account.[25]
The Second Rape Incident
“Q Now, in the month of September 1991, do you remember whether there was any untoward incident that happened involving you? A I could remember, sir. Q That incident when it happened in the morning or in the afternoon? A It was in the morning. Q Where were you when that incident happened? A I was in the house[.] I was in the room of the house. Q Whose house? A In the house of Pilar Manalo. Q The house where you and your employer were staying? A Yes, because they are renting that house. Q Now, what were you doing inside that room? A I was making the child x x x sleep. Q And where were your employer[s]? Mr. and Mrs. Oracoy at that time when you were making the child sleep inside the room. A My employer Poncieto Oracoy was in his office and Marilou was selling blankets and clothes at the market. Q While inside that room, what happened? A When I made the child sleep, we were inside the room. Q Who went there inside the room? A Jovito Manalo. Q Now, when Jovito Manalo went inside the room, what did he do? A He told me that if I will report the incident to my employer, he is going to kill me. Q With what is he going to kill you? A With a knife. Q Where was the knife? A It was pointed on my stomach. Q Who was holding the knife, if any? A Jovito Manalo, sir. Q Then when he pointed the knife at your stomach, and told you that if you are going to tell your employer x x x he will kill you, what did he tell you after that? A He told me not to report the incident because he is going to kill me. Q Then what did he do with you inside that room? A Then he undressed me and removed my panty and told me to lie down. Q Did you comply? [T]o lie down. A Yes, sir. Q Why? A Because he told me to lie down with his knife pointing at me. Q Where was the knife pointed at you? In what part of your body? A Here, sir. Interpreter: Witness pointing to the left abdomen. Q Now, was he able to remove your panty? A Yes, sir. Q Then, after he removed your panty, what did he do? A He abused me. Q How did he abuse you? A He abused me and if I will report, he is going to kill me. Q When you said abused, what do you mean? A He had sex with me. Q How did he have sex with you? Can you describe? A He made me lie down x x x to remove my panty. Q And then? COURT (to the witness): You tell the truth, considering that this is a serious case. So you have to speak the truth. (In Visayan dialect, considering that witness is quite shy to testify.) Witness: A He took out my panty. ACP ELUMBA: Q What did you feel when he abused you? A It was painful. Q Where? Where was the pain? A Here, sir. Interpreter: Witness pointing to her stomach. COURT: Q Where is the pain? You talk. In the stomach or in the vagina or in the anus? Where? A In my vagina, your Honor. ACP ELUMBA: Q Why was it painful? Why was it painful in your vagina? A He had sex with me. ‘[I]ya akong iyut.’ Q You mentioned the word ‘iyut’ or sex. Do you know what this word ‘iyut’ means? COURT: Q What was inserted in the vagina? A His penis, Your Honor. ACP ELUMBA: Q Was that the reason why you felt pain in the vagina? A Yes, sir. Q Was he able to insert his penis? A Yes, sir. Q About how many times on that morning he inserted his penis on your vagina? A Only once, sir. Q Then after that, what did he do? A He requested me not to report and if I will report to my employer, he will kill me. Q After that, after he inserted his penis, what did he do? A Not to report because he is going to kill me. Q And then after telling that to you, what did you do? A Then he went out; he left the room.”[32]
To be sure, each count in a series of rape incidents is a distinct crime, which should separately be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The rather generalized statement of the victim that she was raped repeatedly after the first incident in September 1991 is clearly inadequate and insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused as far as these other rape charges are concerned.[34] Such statement was a mere conclusion, not a narration of constitutive facts.
“Q After that incident, was there any other incident that happened, similar incident? A There was, sir. Q How many times? A Ten times in September 1991. Q When was the last time then you were abused by Jovito Manalo? A It was November 4 (four). Q From September to November, you said the abuses were repeated for ten times. Where were you abused or where was the [abuse] committed? A It is inside the room x x x [every time] my employer is not there because he used to watch if my employer goes out and then he brings with him a knife when he goes there to me. Q And when you said you were repeatedly abused, you mean to say what he did the first time was the same thing he did subsequently for ten times? A Yes, sir. Q Now, in all those times up to November 4, did you tell anybody else about what Jovito Manalo did to you? A I did not yet report because I was afraid he might kill me. Q In all those times you said you were abused, did you like what Jovito Manalo [did] to you? A I did not like.”[33]
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
- By using force or intimidation;
- When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
- When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.