ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 123951 January 10, 2000 - ROMEO RANOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1360 January 18, 2000 - ELISEO SOREÑO v. RHODERICK MAXINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114683 January 18, 2000 - JESUS C. OCAMPO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118441-42 January 18, 2000 - ARMANDO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119594 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENZON ONG

  • G.R. No. 125994 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ANDALES

  • G.R. No. 127135 January 18, 2000 - EASTERN ASSURANCE AND SURETY CORP. (EASCO) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129846 January 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130944 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALIB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131675 January 18, 2000 - PEDRO C. LAMEYRA v. GEORGE S. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 132378 January 18, 2000 - ROGELIO JUAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132767 January 18, 2000 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134854 January 18, 2000 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO F. FIGUERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245 January 19, 2000 - ANTONIO YU-ASENSI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1129 January 19, 2000 - FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. FELINO BANGALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513 January 19, 2000 - ALFREDO B. ENOJAS v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT

  • G.R. No. 107320 January 19, 2000 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113666-68 January 19, 2000 - GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114761 January 19, 2000 - ALEMAR’S SIBAL & SONS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119217 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL S. LUCBAN

  • G.R. No. 122104 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ORBITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122297-98 January 19, 2000 - CRESCENTE Y. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122739 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. PANTORILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123655 January 19, 2000 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123183 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN SISON

  • G.R. No. 126516 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHIRLEY ALAO

  • G.R. No. 127572 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR VILLAR

  • G.R. No. 129072 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ABUBU

  • G.R. No. 130957 January 19, 2000 - VH MANUFACTURING v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132152 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132248 January 19, 2000 - ERLINDA C. PEFIANCO v. MARIA LUISA C. MORAL

  • G.R. No. 132657 January 19, 2000 - WILLIAM DIU, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132779-82 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 134003 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT NAGUM

  • G.R. No. 134329 January 19, 2000 - VERONA PADA-KILARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134535 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MAGNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137560 January 19, 2000 - MARIA G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4749 January 20, 2000 - SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-00-1241 January 20, 2000 - NAPOLEON S. VALENZUELA v. REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1242 January 20, 2000 - DANIEL DUMO, ET AL. v. ROMEO V. PEREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. POLICARPIO S. CAMANO

  • G.R. No. 76371 January 20, 2000 - MARIANO TURQUESA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VALERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87134 January 20, 2000 - PHIL. REGISTERED ELECTRICAL PRACTITIONERS, ET AL. v. JULIO FRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100718-19 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106282 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINCIANO RENDOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108067 January 20, 2000 - CYANAMID PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109376 January 20, 2000 - PANFILO O. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110807 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALD T. NARVASA

  • G.R. No. 110929 January 20, 2000 - ABELARDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119652 & A.M. No. P-00-1358 January 20, 2000 - VENTURA O. DUCAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123860 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN NAAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125451 January 20, 2000 - MARCIANA MUÑOZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126151 January 20, 2000 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. SERGIO D. MABUNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. EDGARDO AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 130713 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL FLORES

  • G.R. No. 130986 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR PAILANCO

  • G.R. No. 131512 January 20, 2000 - LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE [LTO] v. CITY OF BUTUAN

  • G.R. No. 132368 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITO GARCES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 133775 January 20, 2000 - FIDEL DABUCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131894-98 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS DOCENA

  • G.R. No. 134167 January 20, 2000 - NASSER IMMAM v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125965 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO GOZANO

  • G.R. No. 133477 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAFALES

  • G.R. No. 135904 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN TAN

  • G.R. Nos. 89591-96 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 100518 January 24, 2000 - ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), ET AL. v. OSCAR N. ABELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101932 January 24, 2000 - FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111285 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VALLA

  • G.R. No. 116066 January 24, 2000 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124715 January 24, 2000 - RUFINA LUY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125031 January 24, 2000 - PERMEX INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129693 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY CORTES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1525 January 25, 2000 - MARTIN D. PANTALEON v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80129 January 25, 2000 - GERARDO RUPA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 102706 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON LUMILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107427 January 25, 2000 - JAMES R. BRACEWELL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113518 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ARLEE

  • G.R. No. 113684 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GALLARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116332 January 25, 2000 - BAYNE ADJUSTERS AND SURVEYORS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119595 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO BARONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120267 January 25, 2000 - CLARA ESPIRITU BORLONGAN, ET AL. v. CONSUELO MADRIDEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121439 January 25, 2000 - AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129246 January 25, 2000 - GREENFIELD REALTY CORP., ET AL. v. LORETO CARDAMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131633-34 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO ENOLVA

  • G.R. No. 133132 January 25, 2000 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135874 January 25, 2000 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-12-192-MTC January 26, 2000 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY ACTING JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1524 January 26, 2000 - LUCIA F. LAYOLA v. BASILIO R. GABO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 107395 January 26, 2000 - TOURIST DUTY FREE SHOPS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126115 January 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BALGOS

  • G.R. No. 131374 January 26, 2000 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES PHIL. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133842 January 26, 2000 - FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133969 January 26, 2000 - NEMESIO GARCIA v. NICOLAS JOMOUAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102961-62, 107625 & 108759 January 27, 2000 - JESUS P. LIAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117040 January 27, 2000 - RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130843 January 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOILO BORROMEO

  • Adm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000 - CRISTINO G. CALUB v. ABRAHAM SULLER

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1246 January 28, 2000 - HEIRS OF JUAN and NATIVIDAD GERMINANDA v. RICARDO SALVANERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211 January 28, 2000 - ZENAIDA S. BESO v. JUAN DAGUMAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-985 January 28, 2000 - MARTA BUCATCAT v. EDGAR BUCATCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112177 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO ZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112329 January 28, 2000 - VIRGINIA A. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115824 January 28, 2000 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125279 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TANAIL

  • G.R. No. 124129 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO

  • G.R. Nos. 124384-86 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMENCIANO "OMENG" RICAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125671 January 28, 2000 - CONDO SUITE CLUB TRAVEL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000 - JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 126802 January 28, 2000 - ROBERTO G. ALARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127568 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BACULE

  • G.R. Nos. 129756-58 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN DEEN ESCAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131520 January 28, 2000 - ESTELITA AGUIRRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131778 January 28, 2000 - HERMAN TIU LAUREL v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132138 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO LLAMO

  • G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 133987 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 136805 January 28, 2000 - DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137537 January 28, 2000 - SMI DEVT. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137718 January 28, 2000 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139545 January 28, 2000 - MAIMONA H. N. M. S. DIANGKA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226 January 31, 2000 - GLORIA LUCAS v. AMELIA A. FABROS

  • G.R. Nos. 88521-22 & 89366-67 January 31, 2000 - HEIRS OF EULALIO RAGUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105827 January 31, 2000 - J.L. BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112139 January 31, 2000 - LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115045 January 31, 2000 - UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116729 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON LERIO

  • G.R. No. 120706 January 31, 2000 - RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123094 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO PAGLINAWAN

  • G.R. No. 125440 January 31, 2000 - GENERAL BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127797 January 31, 2000 - ALEJANDRO MILLENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128536 January 31, 2000 - ROQUE G. GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128607 January 31, 2000 - ALFREDO MALLARI SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129071 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MILLIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129505 & 133359 January 31, 2000 - OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II v. PACITA DE LOS REYES PHILLIPS

  • G.R. No. 130104 January 31, 2000 - ELIZABETH SUBLAY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130666 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO JOSE

  • G.R. No. 134437 January 31, 2000 - NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139758 January 31, 2000 - LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 129693   January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY CORTES

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 129693. January 24, 2000.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUDY CORTES Y CABALLERO, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    PURISIMA, J.:


    Before the Court for automatic review is the Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Branch 46, in Criminal Case No. 7978, convicting the accused-appellant, Rudy Cortes y Caballero, of the crime of rape committed against Analiza Germina y Banculo, sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death, and disposing thus:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

    "WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Rudy Cortes y Caballero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code with three (3) attendant aggravating circumstances a crime penalized under R.A. No. 2632 and R.A. No. 411, and hereby imposes to the accused the supreme penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the victim, Analiza Germina, the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs.

    SO ORDERED." 2

    Filed on January 16, 1996, the Information charging the accused-appellant with the crime of rape, alleges:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about September 29, 1995, at about 12:00 o’clock midnight, at Sitio Balik-Balik [sic], Barangay Poblacion, Municipality of Baleno, Province of Masbate, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused armed with a knife, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with Analiza Germina y Banculo against her will and consent.

    CONTRARY TO LAW." 3

    The inculpatory facts and circumstances complained of can be culled as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The private Complainant, Analiza Germina y Banculo, seventeen years old (17), was the lone occupant of her parents’ house at Sitio Balik-Balik [sic], Poblacion, Baleno, Masbate, as she was studying in the nearby Baleno High School. Her parents were then staying in another house at Barangay Batuila, Baleno, Masbate. 4

    At around midnight of September 22, 1995, Analiza was suddenly awakened by a heavy weight pressing down upon her. 5 Since the house was lighted, she recognized her attacker, Rudy Cortes y Caballero, who is her brother-in-law. Accused-appellant pointed a knife at her throat and covered her mouth with a handkerchief. 6

    Despite Analiza’s struggle to free herself, the accused-appellant succeeded in removing her underpants. 7 With his one hand poking a knife near her throat, and the other holding her hand, he positioned his legs on top of the legs of Analiza and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina even as the latter felt a strange onslaught of pain. 8 After consummating his crime, Accused-appellant warned Analiza to keep the incident to herself or he would kill her; wielding his knife to signify the threat. 9

    On November 12, 1995, Analiza had gathered enough courage to report the incident to her mother such that on November 17, 1995, she was brought to Dra. Marilou A. Hernandez for medical examination. 10 The pertinent portion of the medical report dated November 11, 1995, stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "hymenal healed laceration at 6:00 o’clock position Vaginal os admits two fingers with ease." 11

    Accused-appellant interposed alibi as a defense. He declared that in the night of September 29, 1995, he was inside his house in Sog-ong, Baleno, Masbate. According to him, the victim had a misunderstanding with her older sister, Elsa Cortes, (his wife) because they advised the victim not to allow her boyfriend to sleep in their parents’ house in Balic-Balic. 12 This version of accused-appellant was corroborated by his wife Elsa Cortes, who testified that from 6:00 o’clock in the evening of September 29, 1995 until the following morning, Accused-appellant was in their house. Elsa likewise confirmed the alleged misunderstanding between her and Analiza. 13

    On April 28, 1997, the trial court came out with the judgment of conviction under automatic review. The defense contends that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I


    THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE.

    II


    THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ORDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE VICTIM IN THE AMOUNT OF P50,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES AND TO PAY THE COSTS. 14

    It is doctrinal that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded with highest respect because the trial court had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while testifying and therefore, competent to determine whether or not the witness is telling the truth. 15 In the case under scrutiny, the trial court gave credence to the testimony of the rape victim, ratiocinating thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The victim in testifying how the crime of rape was committed against her was straightforward and direct on the material facts which has all the earmarks of truthfulness" 16

    Indeed, the victim’s truthfulness can be gleaned unerringly from her testimony, to wit:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    "x       x       x

    Q. While you were sleeping on that date September 29, 1995 at about 12 midnight inside your house, will you tell us if something unusual happened?

    A. I was awakened when somebody was on top of my stomach and he was pointing a knife at my throat and he covered my mouth with a handkerchief . . . and he removed already my shorts and panty.

    Q. What did you do when you realized that somebody was on .... was already removing your shorts?

    A. I struggled.

    Q. How did you struggle?

    A. I tried to wiggle.

    Q. Did you shout for help?

    A. I could not shout because my mouth was covered with a handkerchief.

    Q. Were you able to recognize that person?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. Who is that person?

    A. That one (witness pointed to somebody inside the courtroom)

    Q. You pointed to somebody inside the courtroom, will you tell us the name of that person you have just pointed, if you know?

    A. Rudy Cortes.

    x       x       x


    Q. Alright, going back to the sexual assault against you, what happened next after you said you struggled when you realized that he was sexually molesting you?

    A. I cannot do anything because he was stronger.

    Q. What happened when you failed in your struggle to resist the sexual assault of Rudy Cortes?

    A. His sexual organ penetrated in (sic) my sexual organ.

    Q. How many times?

    A. Only once.

    Q. After Rudy Cortes succeeded in molesting you sexually, what happened next?

    A. He walked away and he told me that if I will tell my parents of what he did to me he will kill me.

    Q. He was still holding that knife?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. What kind of bladed weapon was that?

    A. It was a knife, I don’t know how long is it (sic).

    Q. Did you sustain injury on your throat when a knife was poked at you by Rudy Cortes?

    A. None, sir.

    x       x       x


    Q. What did you feel when the sex organ of Rudy Cortes penetrated your sex organ?

    A. I felt pain.

    Q. Was it the first time that you experienced that?

    A. Yes, sir.

    x       x       x" 17

    Even on cross examination, the probings of the defense failed to disturb the firm and straightforward testimony of the victim:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "x       x       x

    Q. When you woke up you were still in your evening wear or with your clothes on?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. These were not taken away by the alleged assailant?

    A. He was not able to take off my t-shirt.

    Q. How about your shorts?

    A. He took off my shorts.

    Q. Did you try to assist him in taking out your shorts?

    A. No, sir.

    Q. How did he take off your shorts without your assistance?

    A. While he was pointing the knife at me that was the time he took off my shorts.

    Q. Where was the knife pointed at?

    A. At my throat.

    Q. Was your throat lacerated at all?

    A. No, sir.chanrobles.com : law library

    Q. So the knife was not placed so near your throat, it was at a distance?

    A. Very near.

    Q. How about your hands, where were your hands situated all along?

    A. While I was aslept, (sic) my hands were on my chest and when I woke up I pushed him.

    Q. Did you push him hard?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. So because you pushed him hard you were able to stand up?

    A. No, sir.

    Q. Why not?

    A. Because I cannot overcome because he is stronger as a man.

    Q. Because you cannot push him by the use of your hands, what did you do with your hands while he was raping you?

    A. I used my hands by pushing him.

    Q. You continued to push him until after the incident?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. How were you able to know that the sex organ of the assailant entered your sex organ?

    A. Because it was painful.

    Q. It was only painful so you presumed that the sex organ of the assailant entered your sex organ?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. Are you sure it was not the fingers of the assailant which entered your sex organ?

    A. No, sir.

    Q. How could you be so sure?

    A. Because his one hand was pointing a knife at me and I was very sure that his sex organ was the one that penetrated my sex organ.

    Q. What was he doing with his free hand?

    A. He was holding my other hand.

    Q. How did he open your legs when he was preoccupied with his hands?

    A. His two legs were at the top of my legs.

    Q. How many minutes was the assailant on top of you?

    A. One hour.

    Q. From 12 midnight to 1:00 o’clock in the morning?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. You were talking to each other, whispering with each other so that it took you one hour?

    A. No, sir.

    Q. He was lying on top of you for one hour with a knife pointing at your neck?

    A. At first he was on top of me and until one hour that he raped me . . . It took one hour from the time he was on top of me until he was able to rape me.

    Q. So, from the time that he was on top of you it was approximately one hour up to the time he went away?

    A. It was one hour.

    Q. Considering the time that the assailant was on top of you, was he kissing you?

    A. No, sir.

    Q. How about you, did you kiss him?

    A. No, sir.

    x       x       x


    Q. Did he tell you anything?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. What did he tell you?

    A. That if I will tell my father he will kill me.

    Q. I am asking you while he was on top of you?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. What?

    A. That if I will tell my father he will kill me.

    Q. What did you tell him in return?

    A. I did not tell him anything.

    Q. He just laid down . . . He just laid on top of you for approximately one hour he did not do anything else?

    A. There was, he raped me.

    Q. After one hour he just left?

    A. Yes, sir.

    Q. What did you do when he stood up?

    A. I kept on crying.

    x       x       x" 18

    The testimony of the rape victim was reinforced by the findings of Dra. Marilou A. Hernandez, who opined that the healed laceration at 6:00 o’clock position on the victim’s hymen could have been caused by sexual intercourse. 19

    Against the tale of Analiza, Accused-appellant put up alibi as a defense. Time-honored is the rule that alibi is inherently weak and easily contrived. 20 Accused-appellant must therefore prove with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place and approximate time of commission of the felony, 21 which quantum of proof he failed to come forward with.

    The house of accused-appellant is approximately three kilometers from the locus criminis, a distance which could be negotiated in less than an hour hike. 22 It was not then physically impossible for accused-appellant to leave and after raping Analiza, to return to his house without his wife noticing his brief absence.

    What is more, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witness and her clear identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. 23 In the case under scrutiny, since accused-appellant was positively identified by the rape victim, his defense of alibi cannot prevail.

    Accused-appellant theorized that the lower court did not consider infirmities in the testimony of Analiza which should have warranted his acquittal. He argued 24 that it was highly improbable for him (accused-appellant) to have been on top of the victim for one long hour before he was able to consummate the rape.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    The Court discerns no basis for deviating from the settled rule that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature are credible. 25 Inconsistencies in their testimonies on minor details do not affect the substance of their declaration, veracity and weight of their testimony. As aptly held by the trial court, "Although the length of time might be too long, the precise length of time would be of no moment since it could have been only be an error in her approximation of the length of time." 26 Verily, the length of time during which accused-appellant was on top of the victim is only a minor detail which cannot detract from the fact of rape. It could simply mean that due to the resistance of the victim, it took a long time before accused-appellant succeeded in consummating his crime. So also, the mistake in the calculation of time could have been engendered by the natural fickleness of memory which tends to strengthen rather than weaken credibility as it erases any suspicion of rehearsed testimony and does not destroy the substance of her testimony. 27 Besides, it is not unlikely that accused-appellant stayed that long on top of the victim considering the apparent impunity which the surrounding circumstances afforded him. It bears stressing that the victim was all alone in her house, not to mention the fact that her mouth was covered by a handkerchief, and her cries could not have possibly caught the attention of the neighbors who, at twelve midnight, were presumably in deep slumber.

    Accused-appellant argued further that if the rape was consummated only after an hour, "then he runs the risk of being seen in the house in a very compromising situation considering that it was night time and the victim was alone in the house." 28 In a long line of rape cases, the Court has consistently held that lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be and has been committed in even the unlikeliest of places. Venues of rape have been inside a house where there were other occupants, in a room adjacent to where the victim’s family members were sleeping or even in a room which the victim shares with the sister of the offender. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. 29 With more reason therefore that the aforecited ruling should be applied in this case. As stressed upon by the Solicitor General, the situation of the victim is practically an open invitation to the criminally deviant, like the accused-appellant who, being the brother-in-law of the victim, knew her isolation. 30 Contrary to the claim of accused-appellant, the time and place of commission of the crime sued upon actually created a very nil chance for him to be caught because the victim was alone in the house and the people in the neighborhood could not be expected to be all awake and roaming around the streets at midnight.

    Neither does the Court find convincing the claim of delay on the part of the victim in reporting the sexual assault against her. This Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim’s action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness. 31 The case of Analiza appears to be no exception. The threat of accused-appellant on her life generated fear in her mind which for a period of more than a month cowed her into silence.

    No tenability can be fathomed in the supposed ill-motive imputed on the victim by accused-appellant and his wife. It would take more than an advice which allegedly angered the victim for the latter to subject her family to humiliation, and herself to embarrassment and life-long stigma. No woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and thereafter, pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to vindicate her honor. 32

    The trial court correctly found that the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon and consequently, the imposable penalty therefor is reclusion perpetua to death. 33 Reclusion perpetua and death are indivisible penalties. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides the rules for their application, one of which, pertinent to the case under consideration, is that when in the commission of the crime only one aggravating circumstance was present, the graver penalty is to be imposed.

    In the present case, the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, dwelling and relationship were considered by the lower court. But the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be appreciated since the evidence does not convincingly show that nighttime was purposely sought by the accused-appellant to ensure its execution. 34

    So also, the aggravating circumstance of relationship cannot be appreciated in this case because relationship, 35 which is a special aggravating circumstance, must be specifically alleged in the Information. 36 Since the prosecution failed to state in the Information that the accused-appellant is the victim’s brother-in-law (a relative by affinity within the second civil degree), being the husband of the victim’s eldest sister, Elsa Germina, the aggravating circumstance of relationship cannot be considered to aggravate the penalty of Accused-Appellant.

    On the question of whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling attended the commission of the crime, a ruling in the affirmative has not been reached. Consequently, absent any modifying circumstance, the lesser penalty provided by law should be imposed.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

    Under prevailing jurisprudence, the victim is entitled to an indemnity ex delicto in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, in addition to the P50,000.00 moral damages awarded by the trial court.

    WHEREFORE, the judgment of Branch 46 of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate in Criminal Case No. 7987, finding accused-appellant Rudy Cortes y Caballero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is AFFIRMED with the modification that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed.

    Accused-appellant is further sentenced to pay the victim, Analiza Germina y Banculo, the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos, as indemnity ex delicto, apart from moral damages of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos. Costs against Accused-Appellant.

    SO ORDERED.chanrobles.com : virtuallawlibrary

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Panganiban, J., concurs in the result.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Judge Narciso G. Bravo.

    2. Decision, Rollo, p. 17.

    3. Original Record (O.R.), p. 1.

    4. Tsn, September 4, 1996, p. 2.

    5. Ibid.

    6. Ibid., pp. 2-3.

    7. Ibid., p. 2.

    8. Ibid., p. 12.

    9. Ibid., p. 4.

    10. Tsn, Sept. 4, 1996, p. 5.

    11. Exhibit "A-2, O.R. p. 36.

    12. Tsn, March 3, 1997, p. 3.

    13. Tsn, March 4, 1997, p. 2.

    14. Appellant’s Brief; Rollo, pp. 31-32.

    15. People v. Padilla, January 20, 1999, citing: People v. Raptus, 198 SCRA 433 [1991].

    16. Decision, Rollo, p. 15.

    17. Tsn, September 4, 1996, pp. 2-7.

    18. Ibid., pp. 11-13.

    19. Tsn, January 15, 1997, p. 9.

    20. People v. Oliver, February 11, 1999, citing: People v. Pareja, 265 SCRA 429, 440; People v. Balamban, 264 SCRA 619, 631; People v. Layno, 264 SCRA 558, 574; People v. Magana, 259 SCRA 380, 391; People v. Ocsimar, 253 SCRA 689, 695; People v. Danao, 253 SCRA 146, 153; People v. Lapuz, 250 SCRA 250, 255.

    21. Ibid., citing: People v. Villaruel, 261 SCRA 386, 396; People v. Tazo, 260 SCRA 816, 820; People v. Ramos, 260 SCRA 402, 410; People v. Caguioa, Sr., 259 SCRA 403, 408; People v. Bracamonte, 257 SCRA 380, 392; People v. Porras, 255 SCRA 514, 526; People v. Canada, 253 SCRA 277, 286.

    22. Decision, Rollo, p. 16.

    23. People v. Fuertes, September 29, 1998, 296 SCRA 602, 613, citing: People v. Obzunar, Et Al., 265 SCRA 547.

    24. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 35.

    25. People v. Esquila, 245 SCRA 140, p. 145, citing: People v. Guibao, 217 SCRA 64 [1993]; People v. Bruca, 179 SCRA 64 [1989]; People v. San Buenaventura, 164 SCRA 150 [1988]; People v. Remoto, 244 SCRA 506 [1995].

    26. Decision, Rollo, p. 14-15.

    27. People v. Esquila, supra, at p. 146, citing; People v. Cayago, 158 SCRA 586 [1988] and People v. Aragon, 164 SCRA 78 [1988].

    28. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 35.

    29. People v. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441, p. 449 [1996], citing: People v. Codilla, 224 SCRA 104 [1993]; People v. Guibao, 217 SCRA 64 [1993]; People v. Dabon, 216 SCRA 656 [1992]; People v. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707 [1991]; People v. Viray, 164 SCRA 135 [1988].

    30. Brief for the Appellee, Rollo, p. 60.

    31. People v. Melivo, 253 SCRA 347, p. 356 [1996], citing: People v. Ibay, 233 SCRA 15; People v. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316 [1990]; People v. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405 [1987]; People v. Ibal, 143 SCRA 317 [1986]; People v. Sculles, 132 SCRA 653 [1984].

    32. People v. Bernaldez, 294 SCRA 317, 333, citing; People v. Derpo, 168 SCRA 447, 457 [1988]; People v. Magpayo, 266 SCRA 13 [1993].

    33. "Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — . . .

    Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. . . ." (As amended by R.A. No. 7659).

    34. People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, 429.

    35. Art. 335. When and how rape is committed.

    x       x       x


    The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim. . . . (As amended by R.A. No. 7659).

    36. People v. Ambray, G.R. No. 127177, February 25, 1999.

    G.R. No. 129693   January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY CORTES


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED