SECOND
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 118852
January 20, 1997
-versus-
EDGARDO
QUITORIANO y BRIONES,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
Accused-Appellant,
Edgardo Quitoriano y Briones,
was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Boac, Marinduque with
the
crime of rape allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 24th day of December
1992,
at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening at Barangay Pakaskasan,
Municipality
of Torrijos, Province of Marinduque, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, armed with a fan
knife,
entered the dwelling of complainant, who was then alone, and by means
of
force, intimidation and threats against her life, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously did lie and succeed in having carnal knowledge of
complainant,
against her will, and to her damage and prejudice.
Accused-appellant
pleaded "not guilty". Hence, trial
ensued. Private complainant Edna P. Pergis testified that in the
evening
of December 24, 1992, she was in the kitchen located at the back of
their
house in Barangay Pakaskasan, Torrijos, Marinduque. The kitchen is
about
three [3] arms length away from the main house. At about 9:00 in the
evening,
accused-appellant entered the kitchen, poked a knife on her neck, and
dragged
her to the bamboo bed ["papag"] about one-half arms length from
the stove. Accused-appellant laid her down and removed her short pants
and underwear. He then took off his pants and had sexual intercourse
with
her. Private complainant trembled because of fear. Thereafter,
accused-appellant
warned her not to tell anybody about the incident, or else, he would
kill
her. Private complainant kept the incident to herself. However, in June
1993, her aunt, Teresa Pergis, discovered that she was pregnant. Thus,
private complainant was forced to tell her aunt and her parents about
the
sexual assault committed against her by accused-appellant on December
24,
1992. On August 2, 1993, private complainant filed a complaint for rape
against accused-appellant.[2]
Private complainant gave birth on October 31, 1993.[3]
Accused-appellant
interposed the defense of alibi.
He testified that from 7:00 until 10:00 in the evening on December 24,
1992, he was at the house of Paulino Rioflorido in Barangay Pakaskasan,
Torrijos, Marinduque. He was then having a drinking session with
Reynaldo
Rioflorido, the son of Paulino. At 10:00, they attended a party at the
house of Jose Ampiloquio which was about 400 meters from the Rioflorido
residence. The party ended at around 1:00 in the morning, after which,
they proceeded to accused-appellant's house.[4]
The trial court
found accused-appellant guilty
and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, thus:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape defined and punished under Art.
325
of the Revised Penal Code, committed with the use of a deadly weapon,
he
should be sentenced to suffer the penalty ranging from reclusion
perpetua
to death.
However, since when the act was committed
the
death penalty cannot be imposed, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty
of reclusion perpetua [Art. 27, RPC]. There being no claim for moral
damages,
no pronouncement of the same is hereby made.
The accused shall be credited with the
full
extent
of his preventive imprisonment under Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code.
The accused is likewise ordered to suffer the accessory penalty for
reclusion
perpetua.
The bond posted by the accused for his
provisional
liberty is hereby cancelled.
The body of the accused is hereby
committed to
the custody of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, National
Penitentiary,
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, thru the Provincial Warden of Marinduque.
Accused-appellant
filed this appeal with its lone
assignment of error:
The trial court erred in convicting the
accused
of rape beyond reasonable doubt.[6]
We affirm the
judgment of conviction.
Private
complainant's testimony is clear and detailed.
Even in the cross-examination, her answers were consistent and
unwavering.
It is settled that in rape cases, the lone testimony of the victim, if
credible, is enough to sustain a conviction.[7]
Accused-appellant's
alibi cannot prevail over
private complainant's testimony.cralaw:red
First, private
complainant positively identified
accused-appellant as the rapist. The kitchen was sufficiently
illuminated
by a gas lamp when accused-appellant entered. Then, he stood in front
of
private complainant and stared at her for a moment before dragging her
to the bamboo bed, thus allowing her to see his face.[8]
Second,
accused-appellant failed to prove that
it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the
time
of its commission. The felony was committed on December 24, 1992,
around
9:00 in the evening, in private complainant's house in Barangay
Pakaskasan,
Torrijos, Marinduque. Accused-appellant testified that on that date,
from
7:00 to 10:00 in the evening, he was having a drinking session with
Reynaldo
Rioflorido in the latter's house. At 10:00, they proceeded to Jose
Ampiloquio's
residence to attend a party. The house of Rioflorido and that of
Ampiloquio
are both located in Barangay Pakaskasan. Rioflorido's house is only 200
meters away from private complainant's house.[9]
Accused-appellant and Reynaldo even passed by private complainant's
house
in going to Ampiloquio's house.[10]
Accused-appellant also admitted that he could walk a distance of 200
meters
in five minutes.[11]
Thus, it was not impossible for accused-appellant to slip from
Rioflorido's
house to go to private complainant's house to carry out his evil deed.cralaw:red
Third,
accused-appellant failed to show any motive
on the part of private complainant to indict him for rape, unless the
charges
were true. He testified:
Q: Do you know of any reason why Edna
Pergis
would accuse you falsely of such serious crime as Rape?
A: None, sir.
Q: You have not courted her at any
time
prior
to December 24, 1992?
A: No, sir.
Q: In all those occasions you
associated
once
in a while as you said with Edna, you did not find any indication that
she loves you?
A: No, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Court to the witness:
Q: Is there any grudge existing
between you
and
Edna's family?
A: None, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx[12]
Private
complainant's delay in reporting the sexual
assault should not be taken against her because accused-appellant
threatened
to kill her if she tells anybody about it. Private complainant heeded
accused-appellant's
threat and kept mum about the incident. Her pregnancy, however, forced
her to disclose to her aunt and later, to her parents, the sexual
attack
committed against her by accused-appellant. Delay in the filing of a
criminal
complaint does not necessarily impair the credibility of the witness if
such delay is satisfactorily explained.[13]
The fact that
private complainant gave birth more
than ten months after the alleged rape does not discredit her
testimony.
Dr. Honesto Marquez, a physician from the Marinduque Provincial
Hospital,
explained that the normal gestation period is 40 weeks or 280 days, but
it can also extend beyond 40 weeks if the woman is having her first
pregnancy.[14]
It is undisputed that the child delivered by private complainant on
October
31, 1993 was her first. Hence, it is not impossible that the child was
conceived in December, 1992, the date of the alleged rape.cralaw:red
The trial court,
therefore, did not err in finding
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
It, however, erred in not awarding moral damages to private
complainant.
Under our existing jurisprudence, victims of rape are entitled to 15
moral
damages of P50,000.00.[15]
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the appealed decision is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION ordering accused-appellant to pay P50,000.00 to
private
complainant as moral damages. Costs against accused-appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Romero,
Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
__________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Original Records, p. 21.
[2]
Exhibit "A"; Original Records, p. 3.
[3]
TSN, May 19, 1994, pp. 5-9.
[4]
TSN, July 26, 1994, pp. 9-13.
[5]
RTC Decision, Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[6]
Appellant's Brief, Rollo, p. 52.
[7]
People vs. Bulaybulay, 248 SCRA 601 [1995].
[8]
TSN, May 19, 1994, p. 14.
[9]
TSN, July 26, 1994, p. 5.
[10]
TSN, July 26, 1994, p. 22; Exhibits "C", "C-2", "C-3", and "C-4".
[11]
TSN, July 26, 1994, p. 17.
[12]
TSN, July 26, 1994, p. 16.
[13]
People vs. Errojo, 229 SCRA 49 [1994].
[14]
TSN, June 30, 1994, p. 5.
[15]
People vs. Laray, G.R. No. 101809, February 20, 1996; People vs.
Sanchez,
250 SCRA 14 [1995]; People vs. Malunes, 247 SCRA 317 [1995]; People vs.
Espinoza, 247 SCRA 66 [1995]. |