351 Phil. 610
REGALADO, J.:
Accused-appellant
Leonides Ranido seeks the reversal of the March 27, 1994 joint decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 24, in Criminal Cases Nos.
93-470 and 93-2127, finding him guilty of two counts of rape. In the challenged decision, he was sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, with
the maximum period of service of sentence not to exceed 40 years pursuant to
Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, and to pay private complainant P50,000.00
as damages in the two cases, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.[1]
The information
in Criminal Case No. 93-470 alleges:
That on or about October 7, 1992 at more or less 10:30 o’clock in the morning, at Barangay Mambayaan, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, abuse and threats upon Marianita A. Gallogo 14 years (sic) old young woman, accused drag (sic) her to a room and with use of a knife, towel and cloth pinned her down and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent.[2]
The information
in Criminal Case No. 93-2127 reads as follows:
That on or about (the) 7th day of January, 1993 at more or less 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Mambayaan, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, (the above-named accused) did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag the victim to the hut, pointed (sic) a knife at her and have sexual intercourse with her Marianita A. Gallogo, a woman of 14 years old (sic), against her will and consent.[3] (Words in parentheses added)
Upon
arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and the cases were
tried jointly. The prosecution presented
complainant, Marianita A. Gallogo; her father, Renato Gallogo;[4] and the physician who conducted a
medical examination on complainant, Dr. Angelita A. Enopia. On the other hand, the defense presented
appellant Leonides Ranido, and his common-law wife, Belencita Abejuela.[5]
The evidence of
the prosecution established that in the morning of October 7, 1992,
complainant, then a 14-year old barrio lass who was working as a housekeeper
for one Ernesto Morit,[6] was sweeping the surroundings of
the house of her employer in Mambayaan, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental when
appellant, who lived approximately 10 meters away,[7] suddenly appeared and pulled her
towards the house of Morit. Appellant
grabbed complainant’s duster from the clothesline and, once inside the house,
he used it to tie her hands behind her back.[8] He then led her to a bedroom
upstairs, poked a knife at her and threatened to kill her.[9] Appellant made the victim lie on
the bed and pulled off her short pants and underwear. He then removed his pants and underwear, lay on top of her,
sucked her breasts and forced his penis into her vagina.[10]
There were no
other persons in the house at that time and complainant was terrified and
unable to resist appellant. After
satisfying his lust, appellant untied complainant’s hands and left her in the
room.[11]
Several days
later, complainant and her brother were tending cows behind their family’s hut
when appellant approached and warned her that if she should tell her father
about what occurred on October 7, 1992, he would kill them both.[12]
It was revealed
during the testimony of complainant in court that on four other occasions
subsequent to said occurrence, and likewise in the house of Morit, appellant
forced himself upon complainant and sexually abused her.[13] In each instance, complainant and
appellant were alone in the house[14] and appellant no longer bound her
hands. Neither was it necessary for him
to threaten her with a knife as her fear and the intimidation to which she was
subjected were sufficient to restrain her from offering resistance against
appellant.
In the afternoon
of January 7, 1993, complainant went to a nearby river to wash clothes. On her way home at around 5:00 P.M., she was
walking by the hut of appellant when he unexpectedly pulled her inside and took
her into a room. There, he raised her
duster and pulled down her underwear, after which he removed his own pants and
underwear, lay on top of her, and once again defiled her.[15] Appellant threatened to kill her if
she resisted him[16] and, as in the previous instances,
the victim yielded to his lechery because of fear.
At this
juncture, Abejuela, appellant’s common-law wife of 26 years,[17] arrived and caught him in the act
of violating complainant. Abejuela
became hysterical and charged at complainant, pulled her hair, and would have
struck her with a bottle had appellant not parried the same. Complainant took the opportunity to free
herself from appellant and flee from the hut. She proceeded to her neighbor’s house and did not go home that night
because she was afraid that her father would beat her.[18]
Renato Gallogo,
the father of complainant, testified that he was at home at around 6:00 o’clock
that same evening when Abejuela, who was with a companion, arrived and told him
that his daughter and appellant were having sexual intercourse. Gallogo retorted that Abejuela should
clarify her statement, otherwise, he would hack her. Abejuela hurriedly left and Gallogo went to look for his
daughter. It was only the following
morning that he was able to find her at the house of his niece, half a
kilometer away from his house.[19]
When Gallogo
questioned complainant about the report of Abejuela, she admitted that it was
true and that it was not the first time that she was raped by appellant. Gallogo’s initial impulse was to take his
daughter to a physician for medical examination.[20] However, he first brought her to
the barangay station commander where they reported the incidents and
complainant executed an affidavit.[21] They then proceeded to the Medicare
clinic in Balingasag where complainant was examined by its resident physician,
Dr. Angelita A. Enopia.
The medical
certificate issued by said physician indicated the following findings:
-No fresh vaginal lacerations noted
-Multiple old laceration(s) of the hymen
-Vaginal orifice admitted two fingers easily
-With fresh scanty bloody discharges[22]
The physician testified that although no spermatozoa was detected,
complainant was menstruating at the time of the examination and the flow
thereof could have washed away whatever spermatozoa may have been discharged
into her vagina.[23]
Appellant denied
the charges. He contended that he and
complainant were neighbors and that she would frequently ask him for vegetables
(“malunggay”) and money. Complainant would often tease him and would sometimes show him her leg
and run away, but he was never tempted by these flirtations because he was
already in his fifties and no longer capable of sexual intercourse, although he
occasionally made love to his common-law wife.[24] Besides, appellant claimed that he
was always tired.[25]
He further
asserted that on October 7, 1992, the date when the first incident of rape
allegedly took place in the house of Morit, he was at home when complainant
arrived and asked him for vegetables. She
supposedly left as soon as he gave her vegetables and even returned the
following day to ask for money.[26]
With respect to
the incident of January 7, 1993, appellant said that he was in a hut in the
banana plantation of one Raul Cagatawan, about 300 meters away from the house
of complainant, since he was the overseer of the property and the trees
thereon. He, however, vehemently denied
that he raped complainant there, and insisted that she came to him to ask for money
and to consult him about her problems with her boyfriend who had allegedly
victimized her. He averred that he was
merely talking to complainant and giving her friendly advice when Abejuela
arrived and went on a jealous rampage.[27] Appellant concluded that Abejuela
got jealous and had a fit because he and complainant were seated together and
complainant was holding his hand.[28]
Abejuela
corroborated the testimony of appellant and maintained that on January 7, 1993,
she went to the plantation to bring supper to appellant when she found him
talking to complainant in the hut therein. She said that although the two were only chatting, she became extremely
jealous and scolded complainant who immediately left the place. She then confronted and quarreled with
appellant because she resented his conversing with complainant who was reputed
to have several boyfriends.[29] From there, she proceeded to the
house of complainant and told her father, Renato Gallogo, to watch her.[30]
It is indubitable that appellant was with complainant on October 7, 1992 and
January 7, 1993, the dates when the subject acts of rape allegedly took
place. Appellant did not disclaim that
he was with complainant on several other dates on which, so the prosecution
claims, he likewise raped her. He
nonetheless forcefully denied that he raped complainant or made sexual advances
at her.
The trial court
convicted appellant of two counts of rape committed on October 7, 1992 and
January 7, 1993, hence this appeal where he raises a lone assignment of error
that the trial court erred in convicting him of the offenses charged. Appellant, in his brief, contends that the
inconsistencies in his defense and the weakness thereof do not warrant his
conviction as the evidence of the prosecution is unconvincing and fails to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court, after
exhaustive review and objective analysis of the records of this case, is in
agreement with the findings of the lower court and consequently affirms the
conviction of appellant.
When Abejuela
informed Gallogo on January 7, 1993 that appellant was having sexual
intercourse with his daughter, Abejuela was purportedly with a companion[31] but the prosecution did not present
that alleged companion as a witness during the trial. Appellant maintains that such failure to present the witness
belies the allegation that Abejuela actually informed Gallogo of the rape
incident. This contention has to be
rejected.
The testimony of
the companion of Abejuela was dispensable and the absence thereof does not
weaken the stand of the prosecution. The crime of rape is essentially one committed in secrecy, hence it is
usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of forced
coitus.[32] As a result, conviction may be
based solely on the plausible testimony of the private complainant.
In the case at
bar, the conviction of appellant was premised on the testimonies of
complainant, her father, and the physician who conducted a medical examination
on her, as well as a medical certificate and other evidence presented by the
prosecution which the trial court found sufficient. The judgment of conviction cannot, therefore, be regarded as
unfounded or baseless.
Furthermore,
appellant was positively identified by complainant, and his alibi that he could
not have raped her in the house of Morit on October 7, 1992 since he was at
home at the time is bereft of merit because it is uncontroverted that he lived
only 10 meters away from the house of Morit.[33] Evidently, it was not
physically impossible for him to have
committed the crime as charged. His
alibi is self-serving and his bare denial is a negative declaration which
deserves no consideration and cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony of
complainant which was corroborated by further evidence.[34]
Appellant
moreover asserts that the reaction of complainant’s father, upon learning that
she had been raped, was unnatural. As
earlier recounted, Renato Gallogo’s impulse, upon confronting complainant and
confirming the report that appellant had assaulted her, was to take her to a
physician for medical examination. Appellant argues in his brief that such response was extraordinary and
abnormal because if appellant had really raped complainant, Gallogo should have
immediately confronted him as human nature dictates. He allegedly should have taken revenge for his daughter’s honor
and taken the law into his own hands, instead of merely having her subjected to
medical examination.
It has been
repeatedly ruled by the Court that the workings of a human mind are
unpredictable; people react differently under emotional stress and there is no
standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident.[35] Accordingly, while Gallogo’s
initial response to the news of the rape may be atypical, it cannot be deemed
so unsual as to undermine the cause of the prosecution. Gallogo was a poor farmer of low educational
attainment but, to his credit, this by itself did not make him incapable of
behaving rationally and with composure, as shown by his comportment when he
spontaneously brought his daughter to the authorities for legal and medical
examination.
Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by inter alia, using
force or intimidation. It is not
necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such
character as could not be resisted because all that is required is that it be
sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.[36] The ambient circumstances must,
therefore, be viewed from the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of
the rape.
Although
complainant was 15 years old at the time of the trial, the court below found
that she only had the mental capacity of a fifth grade student and did not
possess the necessary discernment when appellant had carnal knowledge of her.[37] Appellant evidently, took advantage
of her mental weakness and vulnerability. More detestably, he bound her hands and intimidated her with a knife
when he raped her on October 7, 1992. He also threatened to kill her and her father if she reported the
incident. Complainant was hopelessly daunted
each time she was assaulted. The force and intimidation employed by appellant
were sufficient to terrorize her and reduce her to a defenseless sex object.
Complainant was
a wisp of a girl when the acts of rape took place. It is instinctive for a young, unmarried woman like her to
protect her honor and it is thus difficult to believe that she would fabricate
a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, reveal her
shame to the small town where she grew up, and permit herself to be the subject
of a public trial if she had not really been ravished.[38] Besides, the records are devoid of
any improper motive which would have moved complainant to charge appellant with
rape. Therefore, the logical conclusion
is that no such unseemly motive exists and her testimony is worthy of credit.[39]
We hold that
appellant’s guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. While it is clear to the Court that there
were six acts of rape committed, as indicated by the testimony of complainant,
the two indictments filed in the lower court charged appellant with only two
acts of rape committed on October 7, 1992 and January 7, 1993. Accordingly, consistent with the
constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the accusation against
him,[40] appellant cannot be held liable for
more than what he was charged with. There can only be a conviction for two counts of rape because each of
the two informations charges only one offense of rape, even if the evidence
shows that six separate acts of forcible sexual intercourse took place.[41]
At this
juncture, we note that when these offenses were committed the governing law was
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111, under
which the use of a deadly weapon in committing the offense of rape was, as it
still is, punished by reclusion perpetua to death.[42] No aggravating circumstance having
been alleged or proved in these cases, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for each conviction was correctly imposed by the court a quo.[43] Finally, the indemnity to be paid
by appellant to private complainant should be modified to P50,000.00[44] for each count of rape, or a total
of P100,000.00. Complainant
should be indemnified for each felony of rape as these serious offenses were
committed on two separate occasions several months apart.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 24, in Criminal Cases Nos. 93-470
and 93-2127 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered
to indemnify the offended party, Marianita A. Gallogo, in the total amount of
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as damages. Costs against accused-appellant Leonides
Ranido in all instances.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Rollo,
7-14.
[2] Original
Record, Criminal Case No. 93-470, 2.
[3] Ibid.,
Criminal Case No. 93-2127, 2-3.
[4] His name
is also spelled “Gallugo” in the stenographic transcripts.
[5]
Witness is referred to as Virgincita Abejuela Ranido in the stenographic transcripts.
[6] His name
is also spelled “Murit” in the stenographic transcripts.
[7] TSN,
October 19, 1993, 93
[8] Ibid., id.,
34.
[9] Ibid.,
id., 18.
[10] Ibid.,
id., 18 and 39-40.
[11] Ibid.,
id., 19-20 and 39-40.
[12] Ibid.,
id., 22-23.
[13] Ibid.,
id., 43-45.
[14] Ibid.,
id., 52-53.
[15] Ibid.,
id., 23-25 and 48.
[16] Ibid.,
id., 25.
[17] Ibid.,
January 17, 1994, 4.
[18] Ibid.,
October 19, 1993, 26.
[19] Ibid., id.,
6-13.
[20] Ibid.,
id., 13 and 15.
[21] Ibid.,
id., 28-31 and 49; Original Record, Criminal Case No. 93-470, 6-7 and
Criminal Case No. 93-2127, 10-11.
[22] Original
Record, Criminal Case No. 93-470, 9.
[23] TSN,
November 16, 1993, 8.
[24] Ibid.,
February 10, 1994, 5-6.
[25] Ibid.,
id., 14.
[26] Ibid.,
id., 5-7.
[27] Ibid.,
id., 8-10.
[28] Ibid.,
id., 16.
[29] Ibid., January 17, 1994, 6 and 12.
[30] Ibid., id., 7.
[31] TSN,
October 19, 1993, 11.
[32] People vs.
De Guzman, G.R. No. 117217, December 2, 1996, 265 SCRA 228; People vs.
Domingo, et al., G.R. No. 97921, September 8, 1993, 226 SCRA 156.
[33] TSN,
October 19, 1993, 33.33
[34]
People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 97920, January 20, 1997, 266 SCRA 335; People vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 114058, July
10, 1996, 258 SCRA 558; People vs. Melivo, G.R. No. 113029, February 8,
1996, 253 SCRA 347.
[35] People vs.
Gecomo, G.R. Nos. 115035-36, February 23, 1996, 254 SCRA 82.
[36] People vs.
Cañada, G.R. No. 112176, February 6, 1996, 253 SCRA 277.
[37] Rollo,
14.
[38] People vs.
Junio, G.R. No. 110990, October 28, 1994, 237 SCRA 826; People vs. Lagrosa,
Jr., G.R. Nos. 105956-57, February 23, 1994, 230 SCRA 298; People vs.
Domingo, et al., supra, fn. 32.
[39] People vs.
Tabao, G.R. No. 111290, January 30, 1995, 240 SCRA 758.
[40] Section
14, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
[41] See People vs. De Guzman, supra, fn. 32; People vs. Esguerra, G.R. No. 117482, May 8, 1996, 256 SCRA 657; People vs. Galimba, G.R.
Nos. 111563-64, February 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 722; People vs. Joya, et
al., G.R. No. 79090, October 1, 1993, 227 SCRA 9.
[42] Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code was amended by Republic Act No. 4111 on June 20, 1964
and, subsequently, by Republic Act No. 7659 effective December 31, 1993.
[43] Article
63, Revised Penal Code.
[44]
People vs. Gementiza, G.R. No. 123151, January 29,
1998; People vs. Caballes, et al., G.R. Nos. 102723-24, June 19,
1997.