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
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 136337   October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 136337. October 23, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NELSON CABUNTOG, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    KAPUNAN, J.:


    Nelson Cabuntog was charged for multiple rape in an Information that read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That on or about the 6th day of May, 1995 in the City of Surigao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping with another, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take turns in having carnal knowledge of the undersigned against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the undersigned in such amount as maybe allowed by law.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Contrary to law. 1

    Cabuntog entered a plea of Not Guilty and trial proceeded against him.

    The evidence for the prosecution would show that Edna Durero was the househelper of Vevencia Pareja. 2 Durero was deaf-mute. 3

    Pareja testified that in the evening of 05 May 1995, she was tending her 24-hour sari-sari store and barbeque grill located at Luneta Park, Borromeo St., Surigao City. 4 She was being helped by her granddaughter Gingging Uyan and Durero. 5 At dawn of 06 May 1995, Nelson Cabuntog and his three companions arrived. They proceeded to order some drinks and barbeque. 6 Pareja prepared the "puso" and asked Durero to rekindle the charcoal for the grill. 7 She noticed that Cabuntog went near Durero and brushed his body against hers. 8

    After a while, Pareja decided to check on Durero but the latter could not be found. 9 Cabuntog and one of his companions, known as Bobbit, were also missing. 10 The charcoal was not rekindled at all. 11 Pareja requested Gingging to look for Durero but her granddaughter returned unsuccessful on her errand. 12 Pareja Instructed Gingging to look at the Arnoldus Pastoral Office. 13 Again, Gingging returned without finding Durero or Cabuntog.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    However, she reported that the gate to the pastoral office was open. 14 Pareja again instructed Gingging to return. This time, Gingging reported that she saw Durero, Cabuntog and Bobbit getting out of the pastoral office. 15

    When Durero, Cabuntog and Bobbit returned to the store, Pareja immediately asked her where she went. 16 Through signs, Durero was able to convey that she was pulled by Cabuntog and taken to the pastoral office. 17 There, she was pushed against the wall and molested by Cabuntog. 18

    Durero testified in court using signs. 19 In sum, her "testimony" disclosed that on 06 May 1995, between three and four o’clock in the morning, the accused dragged and pulled her, pushed her against the wall, touched her private parts and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. 20

    Dr. Desiree Chong 21 testified that when she examined Durero, she did not find any signs of abrasion or contusion on Durero’s body. 22 However, the smear of vaginal fluid taken from Durero was tested positive for the presence of spermatozoa. 23

    In defense, Cabuntog testified that on 06 May 1995, at about four o’clock in the morning, be was in his house at Barangay Guadas, Dinagat, Surigao del Norte, preparing the pukot (fish net) he would use for fishing. 24 He even saw their Barangay Captain, Samson Camposano, who was going to the seashore to buy fish. 25 Cabuntog maintained that he went fishing that morning and in fact, during the whole month of May. 26 He stated that he needed money as his wife just gave birth to their child. 27

    Samson Camposano corroborated the testimony of the accused. He declared that at around four o’clock in the morning of 06 May 1995, he saw Cabuntog, first, while the accused was preparing his fishnet, 28 and later, as the accused was about to leave for the sea. 29 Camposano was about five (5) meters away from Cabuntog’s house. 30 He was sure it was the accused because the house was illuminated by a wick lamp. 31

    After trial, Cabuntog was found guilty as charged and judgment was rendered against him in this wise:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, this Court hereby finds the accused, NELSON CABUNTOG, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, as defined and penalized under Section 11, Republic Act No. 7659; without any modifying circumstance for consideration, he is sentenced to suffer an INDETERMINATE PENALTY of Seventeen (17) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Perpetua maximum as maximum (People v. Muñoz, 170 SCRA 107); and to pay victim, Edna B. Durero, moral damage in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) and exemplary damage in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) (People v. Cristobal, supra) but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to suffer the accessory penalties imposed by law; and, to pay the costs.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    His preventive detention on June 6, 1995, up to the present, or a span/period of one (1) year, three (3) months and seven (7) days, shall be deductible, in full, from the penalty imposed herein.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED. 32

    Cabuntog appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals.

    In a decision promulgated on 21 October 1998, the appellate court ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the decision finding appellant guilty of rape is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The amount of P40,000.00 awarded to Edna Durero is hereby increased to P50,000.00. (People v. Bondoy, 222 SCRA 216 [1993]).

    In view of the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on appellant Nelson Cabuntog, the Division Clerk of Court is hereby ORDERED to refrain from entering judgment and to elevate the record to the Supreme Court for review, pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court and in conformity with the ruling in People v. Traya, 89 SCRA 274 (1979). 33

    Appellant now avers before this Court that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAD CARNAL KNOWLEDGE WITH THE COMPLAINANT BY MEANS OF FORCE AND AGAINST THE LATTER’S WILL AND CONSENT.

    THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. 34

    We sustain the conviction of the accused.

    Prefatorily, the capacity of a deaf-mute witness to testify has long been recognized. In People v. Sasota, 35 the Court stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Formerly deaf and dumb persons were considered incompetent witnesses. That theory, however, has been entirely dispelled. Experience and observation have shown conclusively that the mere fact that a person is deaf and dumb is not sufficient to justify the finding that he is incompetent as a witness.

    . . . . When such a witness is produced, the court may ascertain whether he has the requisite intelligence; and the judge will allow the witness to adopt such mode of communicating his ideas, whether by signs or writing, as, under the circumstances, may be deemed most satisfactory. The mode of taking the examination is a matter for the exercise of the sound discretion of the court, which must determine, in the first place, the necessity for an interpreter, and in the next place, the best method of arriving at a knowledge of the witness and of imparting that knowledge to the jury . . . .

    x       x       x


    No doubt it may sometimes be wise to examine into the capacity of such persons; but ordinarily, the only question will be as to the possibility of communicating with them by some certain system of signs . . . . . 36

    In this case, the victim does not seem to be mentally deficient. Her capacity to testify was only diminished by her inability to communicate like a normal person. Although almost unschooled, 37 she could write her name and she knew her age. 38 By using signs and signals, she was able to recount her ordeal before the court. Hence:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ATTY. MOLETA: (propounding questions)

    Q Please tell the Court: Do you know this person seated in the accused’s bench, this one?

    A (Witness is standing [at] the witness stand pointing to the accused and then after pointing to the accused, raising her left hand in open palm and using her right forefinger and push making a sign to her palm in a through and through direction in a hard manner; and then the witness also has shown her fact in an [angry] mood and push her two palms to the witness stand and there was a sound and the witness is sobbing expressing her apparent anger while looking [at] the accused).

    Q Tell the Court what happen(ed) to you on May 6, 1995 early morning between 3:00 to 4:00 o’clock?

    A Witness pointing to her calendar on May 6 and then at the same time pointing to the accused. And witness again indicating her answer by raising her three middle fingers, small finger, ring finger and middle finger, as if they were drinking and pointing to the accused by holding her hand and dragging and then pushing her.

    ATTY. VILLACES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I request, your Honor, that the Official Interpreter will interpret, your Honor.

    OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    She was dragged and pulled and brought towards and pushed to a wall and then she felt dizzy and then her private parts were being touched and then she was undressed and there were two persons. She demonstrated that both her hands were pulled to the left and right; then her breast(s) were touched and her pants were pulled down.

    ATTY. MOLETA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The witness demonstrating that her hands, your Honor, were held and then the two were signalling towards her private part.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q What is that two?

    A The two took turns then pointing her vagina by using her forefinger and pointing to her private part; and then the other one which has a mole below the right eye; and then after abusing her the two laughed. (Witness indicating her answer by opening her mouth and at the same time pointing to the accused).

    ATTY. MOLETA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We would like to request the Interpreter, your Honor, to make into the record the fact that the witness has pointed to the accused, that was not entered into the record, your Honor, especially the name of the accused.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That was indicated already.

    ATTY. MOLETA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    What I mean, your Honor, is the Interpreter will name the person pointed to.

    Q Here is a signature above the typewritten name Edna B. Durero, complainant, found on page 1 of the record, is this signature your signature?

    ATTY. VILLACES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    No basis, your Honor.

    COURT

    Witness may answer.

    A (Witness indicating her answer by nodding her head in a positive way up and down and then signalling as if writing her name).

    ATTY. MOLETA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We pray, your Honor, that this complaint be marked as Exhibit "C" .

    COURT

    Mark it.

    ATTY. MOLETA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    And the signature of the complainant, your Honor, as Exhibit "C-1" .

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Mark it.

    Q In this Medical Certificate already marked Exh. "A", there is a signature above the typewritten name Edna B. Durero, is this signature your signature?

    A Witness indicating her answer that this is her signature and in a positive nod, when she was examined by a Doctor. (Witness indicating again her answer by pointing to the instrument inserted both of her ears that a Doctor examined her and then signalling her private part that there was something taken and placed on the blade or an instrument and writing something or describing the examination conducted on her by the Doctor).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    ATTY. MOLETA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We pray, your Honor, that this signature of the witness as identified by her be marked as Exhibit "A-3" .

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Mark it.

    ATTY. MOLETA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That will be all, your Honor. 39

    The Court noted the difficulties encountered by Durero during the cross-examination but the counsel for the defense was then asking questions that were not easy to interpret, such as, "What is the name of the accused?" "How long have you known the accused?" "What kind of identification or marks to show that the accused was the one who really abused you?" However, Durero could readily answer questions propounded during the cross-examination when these questions could easily be interpreted to her. Thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ATTY. VILLACES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q How many persons who (sic) abused you?

    A (The witness indicating her answer by raising her two fingers and pointing again to her palm in a hard manner).

    Q Can you tell this Honorable Court if these two persons are now present in court?

    A (Witness indicating her answer by pointing again to the accused and indicating a person with a mole and that he is not here in the courtroom by pointing to a distance and the witness again pointing to the accused’s bench), so that the answer, the other one has gone by pointing to a distance outside.

    Q Who brought you to the physician for examination?

    A (Witness indicating her answer by pointing to a woman inside the courtroom when asked her name answered that she is Vivencia Pareja) and witness indicating her signs also by riding in a motorcycle together with Mrs. Pareja).

    ATTY MOLETA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We make of record, your Honor, that Vivencia Pareja was the first witness of the prosecution, your Honor.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    As I said, everything is recorded here. Proceed.

    ATTY. VILLACES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Do you recall whether you were investigated by a police?

    A (Witness indicating her answer by saluting and then with a patch on the left shoulder, and it means "yes"). 40

    x       x       x


    ATTY. VILLACES:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Could you recall what was the attire of the accused when he was (sic) allegedly abused you?

    A (Witness indicating her answer by pointing a green colored shirt and then with a long sleeve and then with a hat and has a short pant colored brown pointing to the Interpreter’s table, dark brown short pant; then she was afraid with a tough looking man and that scared her).

    Q How about the other accused what is (sic) he wearing?

    A Sleeveless then with a white cap. (witness indicating her answer by pointing to the Interpreter’s polo barong).

    Q Did you report what happened to you to your employer?

    A Yes, and she reported and crying in front of her employer while at that time she was still frightened or at (sic) state of shock while her employer was attending to her store giving something. 41

    From the foregoing, the competence of the victim as a witness was clearly established, and after a careful review of the records of this case, we find no reason to digress from the findings of the trial court that she was, indeed, raped by Accused-Appellant.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The testimony of Vevencia Pareja corroborated that of the victim’s. She confirmed that the accused and his three companions went to her store at around 4:00 a.m. of 06 May 1995 and ordered drinks. 42 She confirmed that sometime thereafter, she noticed that the accused, one of his companions and Durero was no longer around. 43 More importantly, she testified that when Durero returned, the latter, through signs, communicated to her that she was abused by Accused-Appellant. 44

    Finally, the fact of the rape was also confirmed by Dr. Chiong who testified, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ATTY. MOLETA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q: In connection with your findings which are entered in this Medical Certificate, "CERVICAL SMEAR: (+) Positive for presence of spermatozoa and for abrasions/contusion." Will you elaborate further your findings, Doctor?

    A: I examined this patient as noted in my certificate and I did not find any signs of abrasion. This is negative for abrasion (or) contusion but when I took a smear on the vaginal fluid and I examined in the laboratory an spermatozoa was seen in the smear and it is positive.

    Q: With your findings that there was indeed presence of spermatozoa, is that conclusive that there was a sexual intercourse?

    A: Yes, it is very conclusive because the sperm cannot enter the vaginal canal without sexual intercourse. 45

    Cabuntog has no other defense than alibi. Unfortunately for him, alibi is inherently weak as it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove. 46 For alibi to prosper, it would not be enough for the accused to prove that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but more importantly, that it would have been physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission. 47 The mere denial of the accused, particularly when it is not properly corroborated and substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the testimony of affirmative witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. 48 Alibi is practically worthless against the positive identification made by prosecution witnesses, especially by the rape victim. 49

    As regards the contention of accused-appellant that no abrasion or contusion was found on Durero’s body, negating her claim that she was dragged by the accused, suffice it to say, that the absence of external injuries does not negate rape. 50 Proof of physical injury is not an essential element of the crime of rape. 51 So also, the absence of abrasion or contusion on the victim does not signify that there was no force or intimidation. The law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. 52 It need not be stressed that if resistance is futile because of intimidation, the fact that none was offered by the victim does not mean she consented to the assault. 53

    Intimidation is subjective and must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the crime. 54 Hence, even if a man lays no hand on a woman, if by an array of physical forces he so overpowers her mind that she fails to resist or ceases resistance because of fear of greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act between them is rape. 55

    The Court of Appeals correctly stated that the imposable penalty should be reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. Furthermore, the appellate court correctly increased the amount of indemnity from P40,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with the ruling of the Court in People v. Bondoy. 56 Also in line with recent jurisprudence and in recognition of the victim’s injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the crime of rape, an additional P50,000.00 should be awarded to the victim as moral damages. 57

    WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 30, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by increasing the penalty imposed upon Nelson Cabuntog to Reclusion Perpetua. Accused-appellant is also ordered to indemnify Edna Durero in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay an additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.

    Costs against Accused-Appellant.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide Jr., CJ., Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Decision of the Court of Appeals, p. 2.

    2. TSN, 26 July 1995, p. 4.

    3. Id., at 5.

    4. Id., at 6.

    5. Id.

    6. Id., at 6-7.

    7. Id., at 7.

    8. Id.

    9. Id., at 6-7.

    10. Id.

    11. Id., at 7.

    12. Id., at 8.

    13. Id.

    14. Id.

    15. Id.

    16. Id., at 8-9.

    17. Id., at 9.

    18. Id.

    19. Her testimony was interpreted by her sister, Lucita Durero-Madlos, TSN, 23 August 1995.

    20. Id., at 12.

    21. Medical Officer 111 at Surigao Provincial Hospital.

    22. Id., at 5.

    23. Id.

    24. TSN, 16 October 1995, p. 12.

    25. Id.

    26. Id., at 14.

    27. Id.

    28. Id., at 5.

    29. Id., at 6.

    30. Id., at 5.

    31. Id., at 8.

    32. CA Rollo, p. 31-32.

    33. CA Decision, pp. 11-12.

    34. Rollo, p. 19.

    35. 52 Phil. 281 (1928).

    36. At 285-286.

    37. She was unable to finish Grade 1, TSN, 23 August 1995, p. 12.

    38. Id., at 11.

    39. Id., at 12-14.

    40. Id., at 21.

    41. Id., at 22-23

    42. TSN, 26 July 1996, pp. 6-7.

    43. Id., at 7-8.

    44. Id., at 9-12.

    45. TSN, 23 August 1995, p. 5, Emphasis supplied.

    46. People v. Penaflorida, 313 SCRA 563 (1999).

    47. People v. Reduca, 301 SCRA 516 (1999).

    48. People v. Acala, 307 SCRA 330 (1999).

    49. People v. Henson, 270 SCRA 634 (1998).

    50. People v. Managaytay, 305 SCRA 316 (1999).

    51. People v. Abella, 315 SCRA 36 (1999).

    52. People v. Alquizala, 305 SCRA 367 (1999); People v. Cantos, Sr., 305 SCRA 786 (1999).

    53. People v. Limon, 305 SCRA 367 (1999).

    54. People v. Sagun, 303 SCRA 382 (1999).

    55. Ibid.

    56. 222 SCRA 216 (1993).

    57. See People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 (1998).

    G.R. No. 136337   October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG


    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