108 OG No. 5, 511 (January 30, 2012)
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 190341, March 16, 2011 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROMY FALLONES Y LABANA, APPELLANT.
DECISION
This case involves the admissibility of the
deceased rape victim's spontaneous utterances during the time she was
being sexually abused and immediately afterwards.
The Facts and the Case
The public prosecutor charged the accused Romy Fallones y Labana with rape[1] in an amended information dated September 14, 2004 before a Regional Trial Court (RTC).[2]
The complainant in this case, Alice,[3] was a retardate. She died while trial was ongoing, hence, was unable to testify.[4] To prove its case, the prosecution presented Allan (Alice's father), Amalia[5]
(her sister), PO3 Lilibeth S. Aguilar (a police investigator), BSDO
Eduardo P. Marcelo and BSDO Arturo M. Reyes (the apprehending officers),
Dr. Paul Ed D. Ortiz (a medico-legal officer), and Eden H. Terol (a
psychologist). The accused testified in his defense.[6]
Amalia
testified that at about 9:45 a.m. on June 29, 2004, her mother told her
older sister, Alice, to look for their brother Andoy.[7]
Since Andoy arrived without Alice, her mother asked Amalia to look for
her. Amalia looked in places where Andoy often played and this led her
near accused Fallones' house. As she approached the house, Amalia heard
someone crying out from within, "Tama na, tama na!" Recognizing
Alice's voice, Amalia repeatedly knocked on the door until Fallones
opened it. Amalia saw her sister standing behind him. As Amalia went
in to take her sister out, Alice held out a sanitary napkin and, crying,
said that Fallones had given her the napkin. Alice's shorts were wet
and blood-stained. Frightened and troubled, the two girls went home.[8]
On
their way home, Alice recounted to her sister that Fallones brought her
to his bathroom, pulled down her shorts, and ravished her. She said
that Fallones wet her shorts to make it appear that she tripped and had
her monthly period.[9] Along the way, they met an uncle and told him what happened. On their arrival, their father brought Alice to the barangay
while Amalia returned to Fallones' house where she saw her uncle, some
relatives, and neighbors accosting and beating Fallones. Shortly after,
some barangay officials arrived and intervened.[10]
Accused
Fallones testified that, at about the time and date of the alleged
rape, he was at home with his wife, cleaning their house. After his
wife left and while he was having his lunch, two men arrived, arrested
him at gunpoint, and brought him to the barangay hall. They accused him of raping Alice but he denied the charge. The barangay officials brought him to the police station where he was detained and further interrogated.[11] Again, he denied the accusations.
On
July 10, 2007 the RTC rendered a Decision, finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape. The RTC sentenced him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as damages. The accused
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) but the latter court rendered
judgment on June 30, 2009, affirming the RTC Decision. Accused Fallones
moved for reconsideration but the CA denied his motion, hence, the
present appeal to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The
core issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the
RTC's finding that accused Fallones raped Alice, a mental retardate.
The Court's Ruling
Although
Alice died before she could testify, the evidence shows that she
positively identified Fallones as her abuser before the barangay
officials and the police. Amalia, her sister, testified of her own
personal knowledge that she had been out looking for Alice that
midmorning; that she heard the latter's voice from within Fallones'
house imploring her attacker to stop what he was doing to her; that upon
repeatedly knocking at Fallones' door, he opened it, revealing the
presence of her sister, her shorts bloodied.
The prosecution
presented the psychologist who gave Alice a series of psychological
tests. She confirmed that Alice had been sexually abused and suffered
post-traumatic stress disorder. She found Alice to have moderate mental
retardation with a mental age of a five-year-old person, although she
was 18 at the time of the incident. On cross-examination, the
psychologist testified that while Alice may be vulnerable to
suggestions, she had no ability to recall or act out things that may
have been taught to her. Neither can anyone manipulate her emotions if
indeed she was influenced by others.[12]
Accused
Fallones tried to discredit Amalia's testimony as hearsay, doubtful,
and unreliable. But, although what Alice told Amalia may have been
hearsay, the rest of the latter's testimony, which established both
concomitant (Alice's voice from within Fallones' house, pleading that
she was hurting) and subsequent circumstance (Alice coming from behind
Fallones as the latter opened the door, her shorts bloodied), are
admissible in evidence having been given from personal knowledge.
Further, the Court considers a res gestae Amalia's recital of what she heard Alice utter when she came and rescued her. Res gestae
refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the
spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its
commission. These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance
inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any opportunity for
the declarant to fabricate a false statement. An important
consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and
the statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus
restore the mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity
for deliberation.[13] For spontaneous statements to be admitted in evidence, the following must concur: 1) the principal act, the res gestae,
is a startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the
declarant had time to contrive or devise; and 3) the statements
concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.[14]
Here,
Fallones' act of forcing himself into Alice is a startling event. And
Amalia happened to be just outside his house when she heard Alice cry
out "tama na, tama na!" When Fallones opened the door upon Amalia's incessant knocking, Alice came out from behind him, uttering "Amalia, may napkin na binigay si Romy o."
The admissibility of Alice's spontaneous statements rests on the valid
assumption that they were spoken under circumstances where there had
been no chance to contrive.[15] It is difficult to lie in an excited state and the impulsiveness of the expression is a guaranty of trustworthiness.[16]
For
his defense, Fallones claimed that the members of Alice's family
pressured her into pointing to him as her abuser. But he has been
unable to establish any possible ill-motive that could prompt Alice's
family into charging him falsely. Indeed, Fallones admitted at the
trial that there had been no animosity between Alice's family and him.[17]
Fallones argues that Alice's actuations after the incident negate rape, invoking the Court's ruling in People v. Dela Cruz.[18] But the circumstances of the latter case are far too different from those existing in the present case. In Dela Cruz,
although the victim was seven years old when the supposed rape took
place, she was not mentally retarded. Further, she was already 19 years
old when she reported the incident 12 years after it happened.
Besides, the medical findings revealed that her hymen remained intact.
Thus, the Court did not believe that she had been raped when she was
seven.
In sum, the testimony of the witnesses, the physical
evidence, the medico-legal finding, and the psychologist's report all
establish that Fallones raped Alice. The defense offered no witness or
evidence of Fallones' innocence other than his bare denial. Again, the
Court will not disturb the RTC's findings and conclusion being the
first-hand observer of the witnesses' attitude and behavior during
trial. The defense counsel was unsuccessful in impeaching Amalia during
cross-examination. In fine, the guilt of the accused has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
Alice is dead but, as Shakespeare wrote in his Sonnets--The Winter's Tale, "the silence often of pure innocence persuades when speaking fails."[19]
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03182 dated June 30, 2009.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,* Peralta, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
*
Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura, per Special Order 933 dated January 24, 2011.
[1] Records, p. 1, Crim. Case Q-04-127845.
[2] Id. at 25.
[3]
Pursuant to Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing
rules; The real name of the victim, together with the real names of her
immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead
are used to represent her to protect her privacy and that of her family.
(People v. Cabalquinto, GR. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419).
[4] CA rollo, p. 24.
[5] Id.
[6] Id. at 23, RTC Decision dated July 10, 2007.
[7] Supra note 3.
[8] TSN, March 6, 2006, pp. 341-368.
[9] Id. at 349, 365.
[10] Id. at 351-353.
[11] TSN, March 14, 2007, pp. 370-386.
[12] TSN, December 12, 2005, pp. 323-337.
[13] Marturillas v. People, G.R. No. 163217, April 18, 2006, 487 SCRA 273, 308-309.
[14] Id. at 309.
[15] Id.
[16] Capila v. People, G.R. No. 146161, July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 276, 281-282.
[17] TSN, February 14, 2007, pp. 383-384.
[18] 388 Phil. 678 (2000).
[19] "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations" by John Bartlett, p. 222, par. 22.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library
This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)