547 Phil. 708
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
That on or about the 22nd day of May, 1995, at about 12:00 o'clock high noon more or less at the house of the accused at x x x and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused by means of trick was able to convince AAA to enter a room in his house, and while AAA was inside the room alone, and was the only person in the house of the accused and by means of force and intimidation AAA become unconscious did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously did lie and succeed in having carnal knowledge with said AAA without her consent and against her will.When arraigned, appellant pleaded "not guilty." Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
Contrary to law.[3]
At 9:45 A.M. on May 22, 1995, AAA was inside her house at Barangay 6, x x x which she shared with her mother-in-law and a thirteen (13) year old nephew. The private complainant's husband was a seaman working abroad at that time; while her mother-in-law was not at the house and her nephew was tending their sari-sari-store.The defense presented the appellant as its lone witness. He denied having raped AAA on May 22, 1995. He claimed that he and AAA were lovers since February 1995 and they had been secretly meeting while the latter's husband worked abroad.[5]
Appellant, a brother-in-law of the victim, then entered the house and asked the private complainant's help to treat his (appellant) sick common-law-wife (BBB) at their home at Barangay 10. The private complainant, a pharmacist by training, grabbed a blood pressure monitoring instrument and followed appellant to the latter's home. Upon entering their house, the private complainant inquired where BBB was; appellant directed her to a room where his common-law-wife was purportedly in bed. As she entered the room, appellant followed her, locked the door behind him and blocked said entrance.
Finding that BBB was not around, the private complainant told appellant to open the door as she was going out; but appellant did not do so. The private complainant became afraid, especially when she saw a bolo hanging at a corner of the room's wall. The victim began feeling chest pains, laid down on the bed on appellant's instruction and then sat down on the floor of her own volition. She then asked for water; but appellant did not give her any. The accused told her something bad would happen to her; that he would kill her. They then discussed appellant's family problems which prompted him to plan and to sexually abuse private complainant. The private complainant then fainted.
When the private complainant regained consciousness, she was lying on the floor, her shorts and panty gone, and appellant, naked from the waist down, on top of her and copulating with her. After he had finished, appellant stood up and put on his brief and shorts. The private complainant likewise stood up, put on her panty and shorts, left the appellant's house and went home.
That same afternoon, the private complainant, accompanied by her sister, went to see [their Barangay Chairman] and reported the incident perpetrated by appellant. Since the private complainant was trembling, could not yet speak well and felt bad, [the Barangay] Chairman CCC scheduled a confrontation between the parties the following day.
During the confrontation, appellant admitted raping the private complainant ("I raped her and that is true; that I raped her") and complied with Chairman CCC's directive to execute a handwritten note to that effect. Appellant also admitted having written another note in the possession of the private complainant, wherein he asked forgiveness for the wrong he had done and requested the private complainant to desist from filing a complaint against him.
After the confrontation, Chairman CCC accompanied the private complainant to DDD Hospital, thence to Giparlos and Quinapondan, in search of a doctor to conduct a medical examination upon her. They were, however, unable to find a doctor who could conduct the physical examination. The private complainant was eventually able to have herself medically examined in EEE City on May 26, 1995. One Dr. FFF noted the physical injuries she had sustained on her person by reason of the rape, while one Dr. GGG examined her genital parts. Both doctors jointly issued a medical certificate dated May 29, 1995 recording their findings.
The private complainant also reported the incident to the police authorities, executing a sworn statement for the purpose. She had also executed a complaint or denuncia dated May 25, 1995, which initiated a preliminary investigation for rape against appellant with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
When the information for rape was filed before the Regional Trial Court, appellant was ordered arrested and was placed under detention on January 14, 1996.[4] (Citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby SENTENCES accused Raymundo Dadulla, alias Mundo to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA. He is likewise ordered to pay the complainant, AAA the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as moral damages and the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages. The accused is likewise ordered to pay the costs of the suit.On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court finding appellant guilty of rape but reduced the amount of moral damages from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00.[9]
IT IS SO ORDERED.[8]
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT [AAA] MORE CREDIBLE THAN THAT OF THE ACCUSED RAYMUNDO DADULLA.At the outset, we note that appellant assails the credibility of AAA's testimony; that it is allegedly full of inconsistencies and highly incredible. He cites as example AAA's testimony that she was initially hesitant to go to appellant's house because of his previous criminal record of having killed somebody in Manila and having threatened to kill her husband, but at the same time she testified that upon reaching appellant's house, she went directly inside without knocking. According to appellant, AAA's act of proceeding directly inside the house showed her desire to avoid other people from seeing her entering the house. Moreover, appellant claims that AAA's testimony that she did not persist in pushing appellant away or shout for help out of fear for her life is incredible considering that appellant was not carrying any weapon which could have endangered her life. Appellant further states that he did not employ force or intimidation which cowed AAA into submission. On the contrary, AAA willingly followed his instructions for her to lie on the bed and thereafter they both voluntarily engaged in the sexual act.
II. LIKEWISE, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The issue in this case being only credibility and as the testimony of the offended party is more credible than that of the accused, this Court arrived at a considered opinion that the prosecution indeed successfully proved that the complainant had been sexually attacked by the accused, resulting in the consummation of the sexual act by the accused on the complainant. The guilt of the accused for the commission of Rape as charged in this case had been therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt.[12]Moreover, the findings of the trial court on AAA's credibility was affirmed by the appellate court, to wit:
We are not persuaded by this contention of the accused-appellant. Although private complainant admitted she was hesitant to go to appellant's house due to the latter's criminally violent reputation, this circumstance is still consistent with her act of immediately entering appellant's house because she had intended to help what she thought was the sick common- law-wife of the appellant who was in need of immediate medical attention and treatment, as misrepresented by appellant.AAA's failure to shout for help does not negate the commission of rape. Although there was a basketball court located outside of the appellant's house, AAA testified that she did not notice if there were people at the basketball court at the time of rape.[14] She also said that the nearest neighboring house was 25 meters away[15] and the sight of a bolo hanging on the wall and the continuing intimidation by appellant sufficiently cowed her into submission. Indeed, the failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal act of the offender.[16] Physical resistance need not be proved in rape when intimidation, as in this case, is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. It suffices that the intimidation produces fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not submit to the bestial demands of the accused, something worse would befall her at the time she was being molested.[17]
Although private complainant did not persist in pushing appellant away after he had blocked her way inside [the] house, and she did not shout for help out of fear, such conduct remains natural even if appellant had no deadly weapon on his person at the time.
Private complainant's behavior must be viewed in the light of her perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard and fast rule. She had already been trapped in the room by her brother-in-law, whom she knew had once killed a man in Manila and had also threatened to kill her own husband. She was frightened by the sight of a bolo which was hanging on the wall of the room.
The workings of the human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently. Some may shout, others, as in this case, may faint and be shocked into insensibility. But such conduct does not impair the credibility of a rape victim.
More importantly, the victim's subsequent act of promptly disclosing and complaining about the incident to the authorities and taking immediate steps to subject herself to medical examination as the availability of medical personnel permitted, done at a time when her seaman husband was abroad and was in no position to immediately discover the sexual assault perpetrated by his brother upon his wife, represent conduct consistent with her straightforward, logical and probable testimony that she was in fact raped by appellant on May 22, 1995. They represent strong and compelling factors that enhance complainant's credibility as a witness.[13]
"To AAA,As regards the amount of damages, this Court has consistently held that civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory upon a finding of rape. We note that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to award civil indemnity. Hence, appellant should be made to pay P50,000.00 in civil indemnity. On the other hand, moral damages is awarded upon such finding of rape without need of further proof because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling the victim to such award.[26] Hence, the appellate court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim consistent with existing jurisprudence on the matter.[27]
AAA, I admit that I have committed a wrong against your person, I deliberate regret for what I have done against you, so its all up to you, because if you submit to the municipal office, I would directly be incarcerated and I greatly pity my mother, because if I will be imprisoned and be transfered to the Guiuan Jail, so AAA try to decide yourself not file a complaint at the Municipal office. AAA, I cried so hard while I am writing this letter of apology.
Your younger brother
pleading for mercy,
(Sgd.) Raymundo Dadulla"[25]