SECOND
DIVISION
PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 116292
July 31, 1997
-versus-
JIMMY
PEÑERO y BARRANDA,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
ROMERO, J.:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
At 6:00 o'clock
in the morning of May 9, 1990,
Maria Primavera, seven months pregnant, acting on the request of her
husband,
Egar Primavera, went to Sitio Racracan, Bgy. Burabod, Lagonoy,
Camarines
Sur, together with her mother and brother, to inspect their upland
ricefield.
Upon reaching Sitio Racracan, Maria parted ways with her mother and
brother
who proceeded to inspect their own ricefields on the other side of the
hill. Having completed her inspection, Maria went on to their camote
plantation
and gathered camote and vegetables.
On her way home,
Maria met accused-appellant Jimmy
Peñero y Barranda, her first cousin. The latter was brandishing
an unsheathed bolo and his pants were unzipped. Lasciviously staring at
Maria, accused-appellant said: "Ika an toyo ko."[1]
Maria became afraid and immediately started crying. Accused-appellant
ordered
her to sit down on the ground then started embracing her. Maria vainly
pushed him away but she stumbled as accused-appellant proved stronger.
The latter again embraced her, pushed her to the ground, laid on top of
her, raised her clothes, tore her panty, spread her legs, inserted his
penis into her vagina and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with
her.
During all this time, accused-appellant was holding the unsheathed bolo
in his right hand.cralaw:red
Maria's struggle
to free herself from accused-appellant
proved futile as she was gradually losing whatever strength she had
left.
The pains, particularly in her abdomen, were becoming unbearable. After
sating his lust, accused-appellant warned Maria not to divulge to
anybody
what had happened or he would come back and kill her.cralaw:red
On June 27, 1990,
the following Information for
rape[2]
was filed against accused-appellant:
That on or about the 9th day of May, 1990
at
Sitio Racracan Baliwag, Barangay Burabod, Municipality of Lagonoy,
Province
of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused with lewd design, armed with a bolo, by
means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with said Maria
Primavera
against her will and the offended party suffered damages.
When arraigned,
accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.
During trial, he admitted having sexual intercourse with Maria but
claimed
that said sexual congress was pre-arranged as he and Maria were lovers
even before March 9, 1990. He asserted that Maria merely concocted this
rape charge in order to save herself from embarrassment and
humiliation,
having been seen by two persons doing the act with accused-appellant
and
likewise to escape the wrath of her husband.
The trial court
rejected accused-appellant's version,
convicted him of rape, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and ordered him to pay P40,000.00 as damages.[3]
Accused-appellant
is before this Court assailing
the court a quo's decision for allegedly failing to appreciate
the
evidence adduced in his favor and for convicting him of rape although
his
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.[4]
This Court is not
persuaded. Accused-appellant's
conviction must be affirmed.cralaw:red
First:
Peñero argues that it was
preposterous on the part of Maria Primavera to become frightened upon
seeing
him, he being her first cousin. On the contrary, Maria's actuations are
in accord with human nature. An unsheathed bolo in one hand, his pants
unzipped and his countenance bespeaking his salacious desire,
Peñero
proceeded to force himself on his hapless victim, thus, confirming the
latter's fears. Certainly, such lascivious conduct, cannot help but
incite
fear in any woman, regardless of any relationship with the aggressor.cralaw:red
Second: Accused-appellant
argues that Maria
could have easily summoned help and assistance as her shouts could have
been heard by other people. He then concludes that her failure to shout
for help negates the existence of rape. This Court finds his argument
specious
and hardly credible.
In light of the circumstances prevailing at
the
time of the incident, it would have been foolhardy on the part of Maria
to provoke the anger of accused-appellant, thereby courting further
physical
harm upon herself and her baby. The workings of a human mind placed
under
emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently
some
may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility
while
others may openly welcome the intrusion.[5]
Third:
Accused-appellant asserts that if
it were true that force was present during the sexual congress, then
the
rape should have caused Maria to miscarry, or deliver prematurely and
bleed.
In short, accused-appellant would have Us believe that the intercourse
occurred without any employment of force on his part considering the
absence
of resistance on the part of Maria. This is far from the truth.
That accused-appellant was already
brandishing
an unsheathed bolo, coupled with the fragile condition of Maria are
ample
reasons to immediately cow her into submission, which submission,
however,
should not be equated with consent and voluntariness. Indeed, the law
does
not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.
Physical
resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is
exercised
upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the
rapist's
lust because of fear for life and personal safety.[6]
The medico-legal
examination report[7]
likewise rebuts accused-appellant's submission that there was no force
employed in the sexual congress. The presence of an abrasion, about 0.5
centimeters at the 6 o'clock position of the vaginal entrance indicates
that the victim was not in a proper position or that the penis was
forcefully
inserted into the vagina.[8]
Also, the presence of contusions with a length of 1 x 1 inch, located
at
the medial aspect of the right elbow suggests that force was employed.[9]
The medical findings, coupled with the torn dress and panty,[10]
hardly indicate a consensual sexual union. Accused-appellant's
contention
that force could not have been employed as Maria did not suffer any
miscarriage,
premature delivery or bleeding failed to convince the court a quo.cralaw:red
Fourth: That
accused-appellant and Maria
were sweethearts is a puerile excuse often concocted by desperate
minds.
If true, it would not make sense for them to make love in an unlikely
spot,
such as the muddy trail chosen by accused, open to the prying eyes of
any
passerby. Surely, they would not have risked being sighted by other
people
considering that their supposed affair is illicit and clandestine. They
could have easily stayed inside the hut where they allegedly made love
for the first time.cralaw:red
When she arrived
home, Maria unhesitatingly revealed
to her husband what transpired, after which she then reported the
incident
to the police and submitted herself to medical examination. On the part
of accused-appellant, having failed to specifically identify the two
persons
who supposedly witnessed the sexual encounter, his uncorroborated
testimony
does not merit any credence at all. In People v. Español,[11]
this Court held, thus:
Appellant's claim that Teofila fabricated
the
charge of rape to hide her illicit relationship from her husband is
incredible.
We agree with the trial court that appellant's claim is belied by the
fact
that Teofila reported the crime committed upon her chastity to her
husband
immediately upon her arrival home. If Teofila had consented to have
sexual
intercourse with appellant, her natural reaction would have been to
conceal
it or keep silent as this would bring disgrace to her honor and
reputation
as well as her family.
Fifth:
Findings of fact, as We have reiterated
often enough, are within the competence and province of trial courts.
Absent
any showing that they overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some
facts
or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the
result of the case, we accord highest respect to their factual findings
and to their resolution of the issue of credibility.[12]
In the instant case, there is no compelling reason to disturb these
findings.
The trial court rightly exercised its discretion when it refused to
lend
credence to the incredible version of the defense.
WHEREFORE, the
decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Br. 23 of Naga City in Criminal Case No. T-912 is affirmed with
the modification that the amount of damages is increased from
P40,000.00
to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. Costs against
accused-appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Puno
and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Torres, Jr., J., is on leave.cralaw:red
_____________________________
Endnotes
[1]
"It is you whom I am looking for." T. S. N., April 22, 1991, p. 6.
[2]
Docketed as Crim. Case No. T-912, RTC-Br. 30. Tigaon, Camarines Sur;
Rollo,
p. 5.
[3]
Penned by Judge Juan B. Paano, Jr., RTC-Br. 23, Naga City; Rollo, pp.
17-20.
[4]
Appellant's Brief, Rollo, pp. 65-66.
[5]
People v. Malunes, 247 SCRA 317 [1995].
[6]
People v. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441 [1996].
[7]
Exhibit "A-3," Records, p. 3.
[8]
T. S. N., October 3, 1990, pp. 6-7.
[9]
Supra, p. 7.
[10]
T. S. N., April 22, 1991, pp. 8, 11-12.
[11]
256 SCRA 145 [1996].
[12]
Supra. |