448 Phil. 149
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
*Physical findings:According to Dr. Loria-Florece, the contusion and hematoma sustained by the victim in the right cheek and right thigh could have been caused by fist blow or slapping of the victim. The fresh bleeding and multiple lacerations of the hymen could have been caused by sexual intercourse or the entry of a hard object. AAA was still a virgin when the doctor examined her but lost her virginity about an hour from her examination on the victim, since fresh hymenal bleeding usually stops in about one or two hours from laceration.-CONTUSSION – right cheek
-HEMATOMA – Distal 3rd, anterior aspect right thigh
I E findings:
-Hymen with fresh bleeding, lacerations at 3:00 o’clock, 5:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock, 8:00 o’clock positions.
-Cervix smooth, small and firm
-Adnexa (-)
-W/bloody & whitish stick mucous per examining
Finger
*Spec. exam: - cervix – pinkish w/whitish secretion at post fornix.
*Vaginal smear – With motile sperm cells.
That on the 30th day of March 1992, at more or less 11:00 o’clock A.M. at Barangay Salugan, Camilig, Albay, the accused with lewd design, armed with a knife, by means of violence and intimidation, poked the victim AAA with said knife and when the victim resisted, slapped her rendering her unconscious, and while in that stae (sic) accused have carnal knowledge with AAA, to the latter’s damage and prejudice.No bail was recommended for the provisional liberty of Alex. He filed, on May 8, 1992, a motion for bail with no specific date and time for the hearing thereof.[12] Upon the filing of said motion, the Executive Judge issued an order granting the motion and fixing his bail bond at
CONTRARY TO LAW.[11]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused Alex Manallo is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by using force and intimidation as defined and penalized under Art. 335 (1) of the Revised Penal Code and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua, to pay complainantAggrieved by the decision, Alex appealed to this Court contending that:P75,000.00 as indemnity,P50,000.00 as moral damages and the costs.
SO ORDERED.[19]
“THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE BUT RATHER ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE”[20]Appellant concedes, even as he assails his conviction, that his defense is inherently weak. He argues that the decision of the trial court dwelt mainly on the rationalization discrediting the evidence for the defense and that not much was said why it gave credence to the testimony of the private complainant. He claims that even assuming that his testimony is unbelievable, as the trial court put it, that alone could not sustain a verdict of conviction. He asserts that the prosecution must rest on the strength of its own evidence and not relieved of the onus of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt by the weakness of the defense.[21]
After a careful scrutiny of the evidence adduced, the court finds that the accused did rape the complainant AAA on March 30, 1992. The court finds the testimony of complainant AAA credible, natural, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things. The conduct of AAA and the subsequent events that transpired immediately after the alleged sexual assault credibly established the truth of her charge.The trial court considered appellant’s flight from the scene of the crime, his having jumped bail and for eluding arrest for six long years as evidence of his guilt for the crime charged:
After the accused left her, she came home running and shouting for help because she was raped. Upon arrival at her house she spontaneously told her mother, she was raped by the accused. They immediately reported to the barangay authorities, then to the police.
The findings of Dr. Florece clearly supports complainant’s story. She examined the complainant at 12:15 p.m. of March 30, 1992, which was about one hour after the rape. The external physical examination showed a contusion on her right cheek and a hematoma on her right thigh near the knee. These injuries is compatible with the complainant’s testimony that she was slapped in her face and boxed in her thigh by the accused as a result of which she lost consciousness.
The internal examination showed fresh bleeding hymenal lacerations at 3:00, 5:00, 6:00 and 8:00 o’clock positions, meaning these lacerations were sustained about one or two hours before the examination because hymenal laceration stops bleeding after one or two hours says Dr. Florece. There were lacerations because complainant was still a virgin according to Dr. Florece. The motile sperm cells were moving and alive as found by Dr. Florece. These circumstances clearly show that the rape was committed on March 30, 1992 and that there was no such sexual intercourse on March 27, 2003. These lacerations also indicate that the penis was forcibly inserted into the vagina. (People vs. Peñero, 276 SCRA 564)
Dr. Florece, found a contusion on the right cheek of complainant, a reddish coloration of the skin, slightly elevated or inflamed, a hematoma on the right thigh near the knee, there was accumulation of clotted blood. The contusion on the right cheek and the hematoma on the right thigh could have been caused by a fistic blow or by slapping. The hymenal fresh bleeding lacerations could have been caused by a penis in a sexual intercourse about an hour and a half before her examination because hymenal laceration stops in one to two hours. There were lacerations because the complainant was a virgin. The motile sperm cells found in the cervix were alive indicating a recent sexual intercourse. All the foregoing facts and circumstances clearly and indubitably prove that complainant AAA was raped by the accused Alex Manallo on March 30, 1992 at about 11:00 a.m.[22]
…Besides, the flight of the accused in jumping bail and going into hiding for (6) years is evidence of his guilt. He would not have fled if his story is true. The court noted that during the years that the accused was in hiding, the complainant was relentless in her efforts to locate the accused so that he may be arrested. Complainant’s demeanor in court showed insincerity.[23]AAA described how appellant waylaid her, forcibly dragged her to the grassy area, pinned her to the ground and when she resisted, he hit her with his fist, rendering her unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she discovered that she had been deflowered by the appellant, thus:
Despite the threats of appellant to kill her and her family, AAA spontaneously reported to her mother the bestial assault on her by appellant. As disclosed by the records, AAA constantly cried during her testimony. Her tears add poignancy and credibility to the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[25]
PROS. DE MESA: Q Ms. Witness, are you the same AAA, the private complainant in this case? A Yes, sir. Q Where were you on March 30, 1992 particularly in the morning of 11:00 o’clock more or less? A I was on my way home coming from the water reservoir of our place where I washed our clothes, when suddenly a man who came from nowhere poked a knife on me. Q You said there suddenly appeared someone from nowhere who poked a knife on you, who is this somebody that you mentioned? A Alex Manallo, sir. Q Is this Manallo that you mentioned is the same Alex Manallo, the accused in this case? A Yes, sir. Q This Alex Manallo that you mentioned who according to you is the same Alex Manallo who is the accused in this case, is he present in this court? A Yes, sir, he is here. Q Can you point to him? A That man, sir (witness pointing to a certain person inside the court room who upon being asked of his name, stood up and identified himself as Alex Manallo). Q Now, after the accused Manallo the accused in this case poked a knife on you, what happened next? A When this Alex Manallo poked a knife from behind me I looked back and considering that I was then carrying a basin on my right hand and a paile (sic) on my left hand I tried to free myself from his hold, however he was so strong that I could not free myself. Q While you were striving yourself to be free from the hold of the accused what happened to the basin with the laundry clothes and the pail, what happened A It fell down. Q And then what did you do? A He told me that I should carry again the basin and the pail which was then I was carrying, after that he dragged me into the grassy portion. Q Did you carry the basin and the pail? A Yes, because I was afraid. Q And while carrying the basin and the pail you were being dragged? A Yes, sir. Q Now, what happened after you were dragged into the grassy portion, what happened next? A The accused pushed me and delivered fistic blows to my thigh and then I became weak. Q Now, after you were slapped and boxed by the accused which caused you to fall down and become weak, what happened next? A He delivered fistic blows on the stomach and at that time I became unconscious. Q And did you ever regain your consciousness? A Yes, sir. Q And after that what happened next? A He was still near my head. Q What was he doing? A He was dressing himself. Q And what happened to you, what did you notice, if any? A I was already naked. Q And what did you do after you found yourself already naked? A I just cried because I was very afraid because he might kill me. Q And what did the accused do after you have regain your consciousness? A He told me that I should not report the incident to my parents including my brothers and sisters. He said, “I am going to kill you all because I have a 45. Q And then, after he said that what did you do next? A I dressed up myself. Q And....? A I proceeded home and he was left behind somewhere. Q And then where did you go? A To my house. Q And you were walking or running? A I was running. Q When you reached home what did you do? A I shouted for help to my mother, “Mama tabangan mo ako ta pigrape na ako”, or if translated in english, “Mother help me because I was raped.” [24]
In a case of similar factual backdrop, the Court considered a plea of an accused for forgiveness and for a settlement of the case as an implied admission of guilt:
ATTY. MUÑOS : Q And so when your mother-in-law came back from the municipal jail telling you that you’ll be the one to go there because she cannot stand her son being beaten by the policeman, what did you do?A I went to the municipal jail of Camalig, sir.Q And what was the time that you went to the municipal jail of Camalig?A About 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, sir.Q And when you arrived at the place, who were those person you saw in the municipal hall, if any?A I proceeded first to Alex Manallo at the municipal jail of Camalig, sir.Q And did you ask Alex Manallo anything why he was arrested?A Yes, sir.Q And what did he tell you?A Alex Manallo informed me that he already admitted the act, and instructed me to ask forgiveness from the mother for me, or if not to settle the matter, sir.Q Is that all you asked of him?A Yes, sir.Q Did you ask him something more?A No more, sir. I already went out of the jail.COURT to witness: Wait. Q When you said he admitted doing the act, to whom?A He did not name, sir.Q All right, when your husband told you that you ask forgiveness from the mother for me, who is that mother, who is that person referred to as the mother that you are supposed to ask forgiveness for your husband?A The mother of the complainant, sir.Q And who is the complainant?A AAA, sir. [37]
Moreover, any scintilla of doubt both as to the identification of the accused and as to his guilt was dissolved by the overtures of his parents, wife, children and sister-in-law on pleading for forgiveness from Gilda. The accused did not disown their acts, which were testified to by his kumadre, Resurreccion Talub Quiocho, and Gilda herself. He chose not to deny their testimony. Finally, despite the unequivocal pronouncement by the trial court that his guilt was "strongly established by the acts of his parents, wife and relatives, who had gone to the house of the victim to ask her forgiveness and to seek a compromise," the accused dared not assign that finding and conclusion as an error and his Appellant's Brief is conspicuously silent thereon. Indubitably then, the accused was a party to the decision to seek for forgiveness, or had prior knowledge of the plan to seek for it and consented to pursue it, or confirmed and ratified the act of his parents, wife, children and sister-in-law. A plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offense (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. No one would ask for forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong, for to forgive means to absolve, to pardon, to cease to feel resentment against on account of wrong committed; give up claim to requital from or retribution upon (an offender). In People vs. Calimquim, we stated:This Court agrees with the trial court that the appellant is guilty of rape under Article 335 of Revised Penal Code as amended. The use by the appellant of a knife to consummate the crime is a special aggravating circumstance which warrants the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. However, considering that the prosecution failed to prove any other aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
The fact that appellant's mother sought forgiveness for her son from Corazon's father is an indication of guilt. (See People vs. Olmedillo, L-42660, August 30, 1982, 116 SCRA 193). [38]
SEC. 5. Burden of proof in Bail application. – At the hearing of an application for admission to bail filed by any person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearings shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify. (7a)[43]The trial court as mandated, in resolving a motion or petition for bail, to do the following:
In this case, the appellant filed his motion for bail on May 8, 1992. There was no specific date and time for the hearing of said motion. And yet, on the same day that the motion was filed, the trial court granted the said motion and fixed the bail bond for the provisional liberty of the appellant in the amount of
- In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as amended);
- Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)
- Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
- If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond (Section 19, supra). Otherwise, the petition should be denied.[44]
A bail application does not only involve the right of the accused to temporary liberty, but likewise the right of the State to protect the people and the peace of the community from dangerous elements. These two rights must be balanced by a magistrate in the scale of justice, hence, the necessity for hearing to guide his exercise of jurisdiction.[46]The presiding judge of the trial court thus exposed his gross ignorance of the law. As a consequence, the appellant jumped bail and managed to elude arrest for six years, to the prejudice of the administration of justice.