FIRST
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 121627
November 17, 1997
-versus-
ROGER
EVANGELISTA,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Credibility of
the complainant is the linchpin
in a rape case concerning as it generally does only the dramatis
personae
in an atmosphere of isolation and secrecy. The burden of
proof then
rests on her shoulders. Thus, in this case, the main defense of
accused-appellant
is the alleged inability of the eleven-year old victim to identify
him.
The defense makes much of the testimony of the victim on
cross-examination
to bolster his theory that the offended could not possibly point him
because
the crime happened in the late hour of the night and her identification
of him was made only with the prompting of the police investigators.[1]
Analiza Paraat
recounted that on 1 November 1991
a community dance was held at the dance hall of Sitio Dubdub, Libacao,
Negros Occidental. She, her mother Virginia and sister Marriage sold
beer
at their store near the dance hall. The accused, whom she later came to
know as Roger Evangelista, was one of their customers. At midnight, a
fight
took place at the dance hall so Analiza was sent home by her mother.
Their
house was only 40-50 meters from the dance hall. However, she was not
able
to reach home because a man forcibly grabbed her from behind, covered
her
mouth with his hand and dragged her to the sugarcane field along the
road
about 10 meters from where she was accosted. At the point of a knife,
she
was told to undress. She had to remove her clothes including her
underwear.
Then the man kissed her all over and licked her vagina. Afterwards, he
told her to masturbate him. He tried to penetrate her but was unable to
do so as her genitalia was small. He nevertheless insisted on inserting
his finger. He tried to stick his penis into her petite fourchette for
the second time but again failed to consummate the act. This time, she
told him that her parents might already be looking for her but he told
her to wait. She had no choice but to sleep with him, apparently
exhausted.
They woke up at around 5:00 o'clock in the morning. When they went out
of the sugarcane field, the accused told her to take a different route
from his.cralaw:red
On her way home,
she met her mother who asked
her where she came from. She could not answer. She proceeded home
instead
and met her sister Margie and told the latter what happened. As she was
narrating her misfortune, the accused appeared from the sugarcane
field.
When she saw him, she reflexively pointed him to Margie as the man who
raped her. Upon seeing the accused and recognizing him to be Roger
Evangelista,
a co-worker of her husband in Hacienda Garazon, Margie told her husband
to go after Roger but the latter ran back to the canefield. Soon after,
however, the accused was apprehended by the police. She [Analiza] was
accompanied
by her mother to the Himamaylan Hospital for physical examination.cralaw:red
The accused
insists in this appeal that complaining
witness Analiza failed to identify him with sufficiency as to put him
behind
bars. He claims that she testified that she did not know her defiler at
the time she was abused. But extant on record is the meaning of her
answer
to the questions propounded to her. From a reading of her testimony We
can deduce that although she did not know him at the time he molested
her,
she recognized his face so that when asked if she knew his appearance
she
positively pointed to the accused Roger Evangelista.[2]
In fact, she pointed directly to him not only once but twice as the
person
who raped her.[3]
In People vs. Abella[4]
We held:
Charlyn's identification of Abella as her
attacker
was sufficient although she could not tell his name at first. She did
not
have to know his name to be able to point to him as the person who
raped
her that night. She knew him by face. They were neighbors. In
law,
Charlyn was not even required to know her attacker's name. What is
important
is that at the trial, she positively pointed to him as the person who
raped
her.
Even the
circumstance of nighttime could not be a
hindrance to her discernment of the accused as her attacker considering
that they were together almost intimately for several hours until dawn
when there was already enough glow in the sky for Analiza to identify
her
attacker even assuming there was no moon at the moment nor electric
lights
illumine the night. As We observed in People v. De Guia:[5]
The complainant admitted there was no
electric
light which directly illuminated the spot where she was sexually
abused,
but that does not suggest that there was total darkness in the area,
preventing
her from identifying her assailants. Moreover, it would not be
difficult
for the complainant to recognize the accused-appellant because the rape
itself lasted fifteen minutes. Such a relatively long period was
sufficient
time for the complainant to get a good look at her violator. It was
therefore
easy for her to recognize and positively identify the accused-appellant
De Guia during the trial as the one who sexually abused her. Even
earlier,
when she was narrating her sexual abuse to the cigarette vendor, she
immediately
noticed the appellant and instantaneously pointed to him as the
culprit.
The facility by which she identified De Guia as the one who raped her
even
while she was running away from the threat of a second assault and
although
she was half-naked convinces the Court that she indeed recognized the
accused
as the one who raped her.
Analiza's
actuations immediately after she was set
free by the accused were consistent with the theory, as in De Guia,
that
she already knew the face of her ravisher even before he was presented
to her by the police for identification. In fact, what led to his
arrest
was her instinctual recognition of the accused, a totally spontaneous
declaration
upon seeing him; a spur of the moment before her mind could
have any opportunity to conjure a falsehood or be influenced by any
external
factor or consideration. Besides, there is nothing in the record to
lead
us to conclude that she had any improper motive against the accused.
The
witnesses of the accused himself admitted, by way of establishing his
alibi,
that he never went to Sitio Dubdub and was a complete stranger there.[6]
The acts described very vividly by Analiza as having been done to her
by
the accused were beyond even the wildest imagination of an 11-year old
like Analiza. Any doubt as to the veracity of her testimony is swept
away
by the findings of the trial court which are generally accorded the
highest
respect unless the appears in the record and there are none
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been
overlooked
or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.[7]
As to the
alternative plea of the accused that
if he has to be convicted it should only be for acts of lasciviousness
in view of the victim's admission that only the finger of the accused
pierced
her genitalia, we hold that the crime committed by the accused is still
consummated rape. The accused apparently considered as of no moment the
following significant testimony of the complainant:[8]
Q: Was he able to insert his penis in
your
vagina?
A: It did not penetrate because the
hole of
my
vagina is small.
Q: But later, was he able to insert
his
penis
in your vagina?
A: No, sir, he inserted his finger in
my
vagina.
Q: After fingering your vagina, was he
able
to
insert his penis in your vagina?
A: No, sir.
Q: But he tried to insert his penis?
A: Yes, sir.
For rape to be
consummated full penetration is not
necessary.[9]
Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the
briefest of the contract under circumstances of force, intimidation or
unconsciousness, even without rupture of the hymen, is already rape in
our jurisprudence.[10]
Thus, as it should be in pedophiliac cases, the court as the
adjudicative
branch of the State has the incontrovertible mandate under the parens
patriae doctrine[11]
to protect the future that rests in the lives of our children.
WHEREFORE, the
decision of the court a quo finding
accused-appellant Roger Evangelista alias "Dodong" guilty of
rape,
imposing upon him a prison term of reclusion perpetua and ordering him
to indemnify his victim Analiza Paraat the amount of P100,000.00 is
AFFIRMED.
However, the "subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency" is
DELETED;
it should read instead "with the accessory penalties provided by law."
Costs against accused-appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr.,
Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_____________________________
Endnotes
[1]
TSN, 5 March 1992, pp. 15-17.
[2]
TSN, 5 March 1992, pp. 5, 18, 19 and 20.
[3]
Id., pp. 5 and 18.
[4]
G. R. No. 98124, 21 December 1993, 228 SCRA 662.
[5]
No. L-49825, 14 May 1990, 185 SCRA 336.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 47-49.
[7]
People v. Lagrosa, Jr., G. R. Nos. 105956-57, 23 February 1994, 230
SCRA
298.
[8]
TSN, 5 March 1992, pp. 8-9.
[9]
See People v. Budol, No. L-48010, 31 July 1986, 143 SCRA 241; People v.
Castro, G. R. No. 91490, 6 May 1991, 196 SCRA 679; People v. Alegado,
G.
R. Nos. 93030-31, 21 August 1991, 201 SCRA 37; People v. Dabon, G. R.
No.
102004, 16 December 1992, 216 SCRA 656.
[10]
People v. Conchada, Nos. L-39367-69, 28 February 1979, 88 SCRA 683.
[11]
People vs. Casipit, G. R. No. 88229, 31 May 1994, 232 SCRA 638. |