October 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 174859 - People of the Philippines v. Jofer Tablang
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 174859 : October 30, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOFER TABLANG, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
We review in this appeal the July 19, 2006 decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 00428, affirming in toto the April 21, 2004 decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. The RTC decision found appellant Jofer Tablang (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
ANTECEDENT FACTS
The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with the crime of rape under an Information that reads:
x x x
That on or about the 21st day of March 1997 in the evening, at Barangay Matindeg, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused with lewd design armed with a bladed weapon, and with violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [AAA]3 against her will who is a mentally retarded girl.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.5 The prosecution presented the following witnesses in the trial on the merits that followed: Dr. Cristina D. Pe�anueva (Dr. Pe�anueva); Francisco Umipig (Francisco); Dr. Danilo L. Labay (Dr. Labay); and AAA. The appellant himself testified and presented his defense.
Dr. Pe�anueva, an OB/GYN physician at the Paulino J. Garcia Memorial Research and Medical Center, testified that she examined AAA on March 22, 1997,6 and had the following findings:
x x x
INTERNAL EXAMINATION: hymen had healed laceration at 1, 4, 7, 9 and 11 o'clock position with superimposed abrasions superficial at 3 o'clock positions;
Vagina admits one and two fingers with ease; cervix is firm, uterus is small.
Adnexae, negative.
Preg. Test negative7
On cross examination, Dr. Pe�anueva stated that she found no abrasions on AAA's body; and maintained that the healed lacerations could have been caused by a penis.8
Francisco testified that he has been a resident of Barangay Matindeg, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija for 10 years. He recalled that at around 11:00 p.m. of March 21, 1997, he was in bed in his house when his dog started barking. He went out to pacify his dog, as well as to check if someone had entered his hut located 50 meters from his house.9 He approached his hut and called out if anyone was inside. The appellant came out, holding a knife. Francisco asked the appellant if someone else was in the hut and the latter answered in the negative.10 Francisco then told the appellant to go home. Suddenly, AAA emerged from the hut, ran to and crawled under the fence.11
On cross examination, Francisco maintained that the appellant was armed with a knife when he came out of the hut.12 AAA ran away while he and appellant were talking.13 He advised the appellant - after the latter pleaded to him not to report the incident - to go home and to meet him the next day.14 Francisco also confirmed that he executed a sworn statement before the police on March 27, 1997.15
On further cross examination, Francisco admitted that AAA is his relative. He also recalled that AAA was putting on her panty as she came out of the hut.16
Dr. Labay, Medical Officer III at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH), narrated that he conducted a psychological examination on AAA on June 23, 2000 and found that she suffered from moderate level of mental retardation, with a mental age of a person between 9-12 years old.17 Dr. Labay recalled that AAA could identify her rapist, but could not elaborate on the incident.18
On cross examination, Dr. Labay stated that he examined AAA upon the orders of the RTC. He explained that he continued the examination started by the hospital's Chief Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr. Isagani Gonzales (Dr. Gonzales); Dr. Rowena R. Belen (Dr. Belen) likewise conducted a separate psychiatric evaluation on the victim.19 Dr. Labay also recalled that AAA became teary-eyed while being asked about the rape.20
AAA declared on the witness stand that the appellant had raped her. When asked to elaborate, she explained that the appellant removed her clothes and shorts and poked a knife at her. The appellant removed her panty, held her hands, and then inserted his penis into her vagina. She cried but did not shout because she was afraid.21 She maintained that she did not give her consent to the appellant's act of inserting his penis into her private part.22
AAA further stated that she resides in Curpa, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija together with her mother Juanita and three cousins.23 She slipped out of their house in the evening of March 21, 1997 to attend a wake in Barangay Matindeg. She was accompanied by Raymundo Fernando and a girl whose name she could not recall. After attending the wake, they met Francisco's daughter, Gene, at a store in Barangay Matindeg. Gene invited them to go to her father's hut.24 On their way there, they met the appellant whose house was located near the store; the appellant went with them to the hut.25 When they arrived, AAA and the appellant went inside the hut while their companions left. She did not disclose to Francisco what happened when the latter came because she was afraid; instead, she ran away.26
The appellant was the sole defense witness and gave a different version of the events. He narrated that at around 9 p.m. of March 21, 1997, he asked permission from his grandmother to attend the wake of Luis Macabontoc, a barriomate in Barangay Matindeg. He watched a card game while at the wake.27 Afterwards, Mary Jane Umipig (Mary Jane) invited him to her father's hut to eat arrozcaldo. The appellant, Mary Jane, and three others - Jupit Castillo, Junior Castillo, and a certain Ollie - all went to the hut. AAA and Francisco were already there when they arrived.28 As he entered the hut, Francisco - who was holding a bolo - shouted at him and accused him of raping AAA. Mary Jane ran away.29 The appellant maintained that he was just in the hut to eat arrozcaldo, but Francisco cornered him.30 The appellant pleaded with Francisco to allow him to leave; Francisco acceded but ordered him to go to the barangay the next day. The appellant did not go to the barangay because no invitation had been given for his appearance there. He learned after seven days that he had been charged of rape.31
On cross examination, the appellant explained that he was in Barangay Matindeg because he was vacationing in the house of his grandparents. In the evening of March 21, 1997, he was at the wake of Luis Macabontoc when Mary Jane invited him to go to the hut. They went to the hut together with Jupit, Junior, and Ollie. When they entered the hut, Francisco and AAA were already there.32 Francisco ran amuck ("nagwala") and accused him of raping AAA. Francisco told him that he should answer for what he did to AAA.33
The RTC convicted the appellant of the crime of rape in its decision dated April 21, 2004 whose dispositive portion provides:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, this Court hereby sentences him to reclusion perpetua and to pay [AAA]:
1.
P50,000.00 civil indemnity; andcralawlibrary2.
P50,000.00 in moral damages.
SO ORDERED.34
The records of the case were originally transmitted to this Court on appeal. Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,35 we endorsed the case and the records to the CA for appropriate action.
The CA, in its decision of July 19, 2006, affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA held that AAA testified in a spontaneous and categorical manner; her testimony likewise survived the defense's grueling cross examination. The appellate court also found no ill-motive on the part of AAA to testify falsely, and held that it was improbable for a young woman (with a mental age of 9-12 years old) to fabricate a story of rape that would subject her and her family to humiliation had she not truly been subjected to sexual abuse.
The CA added that the inconsistencies in AAA's statements were not unusual because of her mild mental retardation. These inconsistencies, too, referred only to minor or trivial matters whose presence gave AAA's statements added credibility, as it showed that she had not been coached nor had her testimony been rehearsed.
The CA further held that the presence of deep healed (instead of fresh) lacerations does not negate the fact of rape as the slightest penetration of the male organ is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape. It added that the absence of signs of struggle does not also negate rape, and explained that physical resistance does not need to be established when force and intimidation were brought to bear on the victim who submitted herself to the rapist's bestial desire out of fear for her life.???�r?bl?�
