662 Phil. 738
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
CRIM. CASE NO. 5429
That on or about the 10th day of April 1995 at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening, in barangay xxx, municipality of xxx, province of xxx, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, motivated by lewd and unchaste design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and have carnal knowledge with one [AAA], a 14- year-old girl, against her will and without her comment.
The first witness, the prosecution presented was the complainant, [AAA]. She testified that she is 14 years old, single, student, and presently residing at x x x.
She personally knows the accused Ronaldo Saludo who is a long time neighbor, living just a few meters away from their hut at x x x. There were several houses clustered in between their respective houses.
[AAA] declared that her parents have been separated for a long time. Her father left them for Manila bringing with him her two sisters. From that time on her mother, three years old sister [BBB], and herself, live in a small hut. The siding of their hut is made of nipa shingles and anyone could easily have access inside the hut.
That last April 10, 1995 at around 9:00 p.m., she and [BBB] were left in their hut. Her mother was in a nearby chapel having a "pabasa", as it was a Holy Monday. She slept in one side of their hut while [BBB] slept on the other side. She was awakened when she felt someone entered their hut. It was accused Ronaldo Saludo at a distance of around five meters away from where she was. Immediately after seeing the accused already standing inside their hut, she also stood up, and shouted "Putang ina mo, anong ginagawa mo sa aming bahay." Accused approached her and closed her mouth with his hand. Complainant pushed the accused but the latter poke a "balisong" knife at her.
There and then, Ronaldo Saludo took off her shorts and panty. Then accused placed himself on top of her, tried hard to insert her (sic) organs to hers. Ultimately, accused succeeded in raping her.
Ronaldo Saludo threatened her that she and her mother would be killed, if she would tell to anybody what have transpired. After he uttered his threat to her, Ronaldo Saludo left the place.
On the very same evening her mother returned home from the chapel. She did not tell her what had happened because of the threat that she and her mother would be killed.
[AAA] underwent sexual experiences against her will with the use of force and intimidation, not once but three more times.
The exact sequence of the startling events happened again on April 26, May 19 and June 21, 1995, in the hands of Ronaldo Saludo everytime her mother is in Manila transporting bananas. Despite those horrifying sexual experiences, complainant continued to attend her classes at the x x x National High School. She did not inform anybody what had happened to her. Neither, did she tell her teachers nor close friends and classmates that she was sexually abused by the accused. She was so much afraid that accused would make good his threat to kill her and her family.
On July 7, 1995 there is a good reason for her mother to be suspicious as her abdomen is becoming bigger and bigger. And so, [AAA] confronted her mother and told her - "Inay, kung ako ay magsasabi sa iyo, huwag mo akong bugbugin sapagkat ako ay buntis at ang nakabuntis sa akin ay si Ronaldo Saludo." She also informed her mother regarding the threat of the accused to kill them if she would divulge what had happened to them.
The following day, July 8, 1995 they finally decided to transfer their residence from x x x in order to escape from the accused as he might make good his threat. With such decision, [AAA] had to quit schooling.
On July 9, 1995, [AAA] and her mother [CCC] went to the municipal (sic) police station of x x x, and thereat executed their respective sworn statement relative to the incident in question
And, on July 16, 1995 [AAA] voluntarily subjected herself to the medical examination.
Dr. Jose G. Palomaria, in his medico-legal report made the following finding:
P.E. (Physical Examination) ABDOMEN: With palpable mass occupying the lower half of the abdomen, globular with the smooth surface probably the uterus, fundic height is one finger below the umbilicus. I.E. (Internal Examination) Normal external genital except for old hymenal laceration at 1, 3, 5 and 9 o'clock position with whitish vaginal discharge in minimal amount.
- With (laceration) violaceous, soft cervic compatible to a pregnancy.
Suggesting: Dopper examination, Preg. Test. DX: P.U. 17-18 weeks, Gravida one.[10]
For his defense, accused maintains his innocence. He knows [AAA] from childhood and her mother [CCC], since he reaches the age of reason. In fact they are neighbors living just 20 meters away from his house at x x x. There are several houses clustered in between their houses. One of them is the house of [DDD], a cousin of [CCC], which is just behind [CCC's] house. Other houses therein are owned by the mother and a brother of [CCC] not far away from the house of the latter.
Accused did not deny his presence in the neighborhood. He declares that in the evening of April 10, 1995, he was in his house with Mayor Jimmy de Castro and other political leaders. There was a political meeting to promote the candidacy of de Castro who was then a mayoralty candidate. After the meeting, which ended at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, they proceeded to a "pabasa" in a nearby chapel. Accused brought with him a lamp (Aladdin), and even saw [CCC] (mother of complainant) serving snacks to the participants of the "pabasa". At around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, the mayor and his group went home, leaving behind accused who preferred to stay until 3:00 o'clock in the morning. He reasoned out that it would be impossible for him to commit the act implicated upon him as he was at the above stated place, at time and date in question.
Mayor Jimmy de Castro confirmed that his political leaders, Ronaldo Saludo and a certain Eddie Red, were all the time present during the political rally. He even requested the accused to entertain the participants. He likewise confirmed that after the meeting they proceeded to a "pabasa" in a nearby chapel and stayed there until 1:00 in the morning but could not ascertain the accused's whereabouts when they were already at the chapel.
Moreover, accused vehemently denied the accusation levelled (sic) against him regarding that incident on April 26, May 19 and June 21, 1995. He claims that these charges against him are all baseless, untrue and fabricated.
He explained that sometime in April or May 1995, [AAA] and a certain Jerry Manongsong eloped. They planned to get married and so Jerry, together with his uncles, aunts and grandmother went to the house of [AAA] to ask for her hand in marriage (pamanhikan). Unfortunately [CCC], the mother of [AAA] outrightly rejected the marriage proposal, because Jerry was jobless.
[CCC] even made a remark - "Bubuntisan lang ng bubuntisan lang si [AAA] ay wala namang trabaho". With a feeling of rejection, the Manongsong family approached Councilman Naling to intercede for them, but the latter was hesitant to take steps as they were already rejected. Without recourse, Jimmy [Jerry] approached Brgy. Capt. Wenceslao Saludo (father of the accused) instead and confined (sic) his predicament. By chance, was Ronaldo Saludo and two (2) other councilman having a drinking spree. Ronaldo Saludo jokingly made a remark - "Mabuti pang ako ang nakabuntis, yon pala'y magpapabuntis din lamang, mabuti pa na ako na nang may ganansiya pa".
Accused vividly remembers that everytime [AAA] would be in the store, fronting their house, he would jokingly greet her - "Ako na lang ang magiging tatay niyan" [AAA] would just laugh. However, it was a different thing to [CCC], She resented it and took it seriously. She confronted and scolded Ronaldo Saludo for making such undisciplined remarks.
Accused recalls that the only reason, the complainant and her mother would charged him of rape is because of his uncalled for remarks. However, he explains that it was merely a practical joke he played. He had no intention whatsoever to malign or cause damage neither to the complainant nor to her mother.[12]
ACCORDINGLY, the court finds accused RONALDO SALUDO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of RAPE (4 counts) defined and penalized in Art. 335 of the RPC, and hereby sentences him to suffer FOUR (4) RECLUSION PERPETUA, together with the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the cost.
Accused is likewise ordered to indemnity the victim AAA the amount of P50,000.00 in each count of rape, without subsidiary imprisonment.
The accused shall be entitled to the full term of his preventive imprisonment, if he has any to his credit, provided that he shall agreed to abide with the disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise he shall be entitled to only four-fifths of the preventive imprisonment.
The bail bond posted by the accused for his provisional liberty is hereby ordered cancelled and forthwith a warrant of arrest be issued.[14]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 22, 1999 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch XLII, in Criminal Cases Nos. P-5428, P-5429, P-5430 and P-5431, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape on four (4) counts to suffer the penalty of four (4) reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim the amount of P50,000.00 in each count of rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is further ordered to pay private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 for each count of rape as moral damages.[19]
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THE HIGHLY PREPOSTEROUS, IF NOT OBVIOUSLY REHEARSED TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IN CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 5428, 5429, 5430 AND 5431.II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY CONSIDERING THAT SHE DID NOT OFFER ANY TENACIOUS RESISTANCE AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN REPORTING THE ALLEGED RAPES TO THE AUTHORITIES.III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHICH WAS AMPLY CORROBORATED ON MATERIAL POINTS BY DISINTERESTED WITNESSES.IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF FOUR (4) COUNTS OF RAPE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
When the credibility of the witnesses is at issue, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court, the latter being in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial unless certain facts of substance and value had been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the results of the case. The underlying reason for this principle has been explained as follows:Having the opportunity to observe them, 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.
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 of 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 at an informed and reasoned verdict.
ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
(1) By using force or intimidation;
(2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
(3) When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
FISCAL BALLOCANAG: Q After you pushed Ronaldo Saludo and uttering these words what did Ronaldo Saludo do if any? A He poked a balisong knife on me. Q What happened after that? A He removed my shorts including my panty, sir. Q After that what transpired next? A He lie down on top of me and tried hard to insert his penis into my vagina. (witness is weeping) Q When Ronaldo Saludo undressed you and went on top of you will you inform this court how Ronaldo undressed himself? A He is already naked, sir. Q After Ronaldo Saludo went on top of you what did you do if any? A I tried to push him away, sir. Q What happened next? A He raped me, sir. Q What happened next? A He told me not to tell anybody what happened because if I will do so he will kill me as well as my mother with that I became angry and afraid. Q After that incident on April 10, 1995 which you have just narrated was there any other incident that transpired between you and Ronaldo Saludo? A Yes, sir. x x x x Q What happened on April 26, 1995 pm? A Again Ronaldo Saludo raped me, sir. Q How did Ronaldo Saludo raped you? A He threatened my life, sir. Q So it appears from your testimony that Ronaldo Saludo raped you on April 10 and another on April 26, 1995, is that correct? A Yes, sir. x x x x Q After that incident on April 26, 1995 was there any other incident that happened between you and Ronaldo Saludo? A Yes, sir. Q When was that? A May 19, 1995, sir. Q What transpired on May 19, 1995? A Again Ronaldo Saludo entered my residence, sir. Q What happened? A He again threatened my life. Q What else did he do aside from threatening your life? A He again raped me, sir. x x x x Q After that incident on May 19, was there any incident that transpired between you and Ronaldo? A Yes, sir. Q When was that? A June 21, 1995, sir. Q Was it in the afternoon? A In the evening, sir. x x x x Q The same is true on that night which happened on June 21, 1995? A Yes, sir. [28] (Emphases ours.)
It is true that it was nighttime when appellant perpetrated the dastardly acts. However, the darkness was not such as to absolutely preclude anyone from seeing anything as shown by AAA's declarations.
AAA categorically testified that it was appellant who entered their hut and, thereafter, raped her on April 10 and 26, 1995, May 19, 1995 and June 21, 1995, AAA could not have mistaken appellant for somebody else since appellant was her long time neighbor and their houses were only thirty (30) meters away from each other. In fact, being neighbors, AAA was already familiar with appellant's physical feature.
Thus, it has been held that identification of a person is best established through familiarity with his physical feature.
Assuming that AAA's hut was in total darkness when the rapes happened, the same did not prevent AAA from recognizing her attacker because of their geographical propinquity during the violation.[31]
[I]t must be emphasized that force as an element of rape need not be irresistible; it need but be present, and so long as it brings about the desired result, all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. So must it likewise be for intimidation which is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule; it is therefore enough that it produces fear -- fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation includes the moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol. And when such intimidation exists and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering resistance futile, it would be extremely unreasonable, to say the least, to expect the victim to resist with all her might and strength. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of continuing intimidation, then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault so as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary.[35]
The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[37]
Private complainant, in open court, positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant in these four (4) rape incidents. Such a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law. Fundamental is the rule in evidence that alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. For it to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed; they must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.
In this case, accused-appellant completely failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time the rape incidents happened. Moreover, accused-appellant's allegation that these cases were filed as a result of his jokes is apparently unconvincing. Such is a very flimsy reason for a woman, especially a minor, to file a rape case. The humiliation brought about by going to open court and submitting oneself to medical examination is too much a burden for a woman, such as private complainant, which cannot be merely surpassed by jokes allegedly uttered by the accused-appellant.[43]
ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.