THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
131860
January 16, 2003 -versus-
MARLON MORALDE,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.: .
Before us is an appeal
from the Decision[1]
dated September 3, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Maasin, Southern
Leyte, Branch 25, in Criminal Case No. 1726, convicting herein
appellant,
Marlon Moralde, of the crime of rape, as defined and penalized under
Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The antecedent facts
follow:
On October 7, 1993,
at around 10:30 p.m., complainant Salvacion Hitomo, an unwed mother,
was
sleeping in her house located at Pangi, Libagon, Southern Leyte when
she
was awakened by the voice of appellant, Marlon Moralde, who was calling
her name. The appellant who was completely naked stood in front of her.
She recognized appellant because of the illumination coming from the
lamp
inside her house. She asked appellant what he was doing but the latter
told her not to make any noise. Thereafter, appellant pinned down her
hands,
gagged her mouth with a face towel, pulled her dress upward, removed
her
panty before finally inserting his penis into her vagina. Appellant
threatened
to kill her if she made any nose. He even told her "It is better to
have
sex with (her) before he will (sic) die."[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After consummating his
lust, appellant remained on top of the complainant to rest. While in
that
position, appellant tightly held complainant’s hands while her mouth
remained
gagged with a face towel. Appellant attempted to rape her for a second
time but failed to penetrate her. Later on, complainant heard the
appellant
calling somebody by the name of "Sarge," saying it was the latter’s
turn.
Appellant stayed in the room, holding complainant’s hands above her
head
and his other hand covering the latter’s mouth, while "Sarge" inserted
his finger into her vagina. "Sarge" then told appellant to stay with
the
complainant for a while and volunteered to go outside and serve as look
out. Again, appellant went on top of complainant and ravished her.
Before
leaving, appellant warned Salvacion not to tell anybody about what
happened,
otherwise he would kill her.cralaw:red
The following day, Salvacion
went to her uncle, Pedro Zapanta, and told the latter of her ordeal the
night before. Losing no time, Zapanta accompanied his niece to their
barangay
captain and then proceeded to the Police Station of Libagon, Southern
Leyte
to report the rape incident. That same day, Salvacion underwent a
physical
examination conducted by Dr. Godofredo Espina, Municipal Health Officer
of Libagon, Sorsogon, Southern Leyte. His findings were: (1) linear
abrasion
2.5 cm. in length, nasal bridge; (2) speculum examination revealed the
presence of whitish to yellowish milky discharges along the vaginal
canal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 6, 1994,
an information[3]
was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Maasin, Southern Leyte,
based
on the sworn complaint of Salvacion Hitomo against Moralde, charging
the
latter with the crime of rape, committed as follows: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on the 7th day
of October 1993, at about 10:30 o’clock in the evening, more or less,
in
Barangay Pangi, Municipality of Libagon, Province of Southern Leyte,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused
with lustful intent and lewd designs, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously, by means of force, threats and intimidation, had
carnal
knowledge or sexual intercourse with the offended party, Salvacion Z.
Hitomo,
without the latter’s consent and against her will, to the damage and
prejudice
of the said offended party and of social order. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.cralaw:red
Duly arraigned on April
7, 1994, appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the trial, the
prosecution presented as witness the complainant herself. It also
presented
her uncle Pedro Zapanta, who testified that he knew the appellant for
some
time as the latter used to go to his house. Two weeks before the rape
incident,
appellant Moralde came to his house and told him that he (appellant)
had
good intentions for his niece but the complainant was indifferent.
Zapanta
told appellant that there was no reason for his niece to be interested
in him as he was a married man. Appellant, however, was undeterred and
vowed that one day Salvacion would be his. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Procioso Edillo,
Jr., the new Municipal Health Officer of Libagon, Sorsogon, Southern
Leyte
testified on the contents of the medico-legal examination report of Dr.
Godofredo Espina. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part, appellant
interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that, on October
7, 1993 he was in the Consolacion PNP Detachment between 2:00 and 5:00
p.m., gathering young coconut leaves to be used as wrapper for the
cooked
rice which they were bringing with them during the police operation
called
"Operation Paglilimpyo" that evening. Their mission was to clear the
area
of Barangay Mahayahay and Maac of rebels who were earlier sighted
there.
Appellant claimed that he served as a guide for the three police teams
involved in the operation from the Consolacion, Libagon and Nahulid
police
stations, respectively headed by policemen Antonino Domawal, Dulles and
Danilo Albero.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At around 8:00 p.m.,
the appellant, together with Bani, Oving and Sr. Insp. Rufino Garcia,
the
Chief of Police of Libagon and the Officer-in-Charge of the 353rd
Mobile
Force Company based in Sogod, Southern Leyte, went to Libagon Police
Station
then proceeded to Nahulid Police Station to deliver food to their
companions.
Sr. Insp. Garcia was the over-all leader of "Operation Paglilimpyo."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At around 9:00 in the
evening, appellant and Sr. Insp. Garcia proceeded to Barangay Mahayahay
where the three teams from Libagon, Nahulid and Consolacion converged
before
proceeding to Sitio Banab-on which is 12 kms. from Barangay Mahayahay.
They arrived in Sitio Banab-on in the early morning of October 8, 1993.
From Sitio Banab-on, the teams proceeded to Sitio Maglimatok of
Barangay
Maac, then to Sitio Suwa after which they went down to Sitio Maanghit
of
Barangay Nahaong, arriving thereat at around 5:30 p.m. before finally
going
back to the Consolacion PNP Detachment. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon arrival at the
Consolacion PNP Detachment, an officer informed appellant that Sr.
Insp.
Garcia had sent a radio message, ordering him to proceed to Libagon
Police
Station to answer the charge of rape filed against him. The following
morning,
appellant was interrogated at the Libagon Police Station. Appellant
claimed
that some of his companions tried to intervene for him since he was
allegedly
with them during the combat operation. None of them, however, executed
any affidavit to support appellant’s claims. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On cross-examination,
appellant declared that he came to know the complainant when he and a
friend
had a drinking spree sometime in October 1993 in complainant’s store
which
also served as her house. He found complainant attractive. They bore no
ill-feelings against each other. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PO1 Arthur Arcilla,[6]
SPOI Antonino Dumaoal,[7]
SPO3 Jacinto Felicio[8]
and Sr. Insp. Rufino Garcia[9]
were presented by the defense to corroborate appellant’s testimony that
he was with the group and served as their guide during "Operation
Paglilimpyo"
from 9:00 p.m. of October 7, 1993 (the time of the alleged rape
incident)
up to around 5:30 p.m. the following day. It was thus impossible for
the
appellant to commit the offense charged. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 3, 1997,
the trial court rendered its decision, convicting appellant Marlon
Moralde
of rape, the dispositive portion of which reads: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, judgment
is rendered finding the accused MARLON MORALDE GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged and SENTENCES him to the penalty of
RECLUSION
PERPETUA and its accessories as provided for by law, and to pay the
costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In addition, the accused
is ordered to pay victim Salvacion civil indemnity in the amount of
P30,000.00.cralaw:red
So ordered.cralaw:red
Hence, this appeal,
raising the lone assignment of error: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE VERSION OF THE COMPLAINING VICTIM AND
DISREGARDING
COMPLETELY THE TESTIMONIES OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND HIS WITNESSES
THAT
IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MARLON MORALDE TO HAVE COMMITTED THE OFFENSE
CHARGED
BECAUSE HE WAS THEN ACTING AS TEAM GUIDE OF THE PNP IMPLEMENTING "OPLAN
PAGLILIMPYO" ON THE DATE AND TIME OF THE SUPPOSED RAPE INCIDENT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The pivotal issue in
this case focuses on the credibility of the victim. In this regard, we
reiterate the familiar and well-entrenched rule that the factual
findings
of the trial court should be respected. The judge a quo was in a better
position to pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, having
personally
heard them when they testified and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying. The evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses by the
trial court is accorded the highest respect on appeal because the court
below had the opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and
detect
if they were telling the truth. This assessment is binding upon the
appellate
court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily
or that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance
or
value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[10]
There is nothing in
the records of this case that persuades us to take a different stand.
After
reviewing the victim-complainant’s testimony, we find her to be a
trustworthy
witness. The explicit and unequivocal narration made by the victim was
exhaustive. She also stuck to her story and was uncompromising on
events
and details on cross-examination. The pertinent testimony of
complainant
is hereunder reproduced: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROSECUTION YU:
Q Miss
witness,
where were you on October 7, 1993 at around 10:30 in the evening?
A In my house.
Q While you were
in
your house in the evening of October 7, 1993 what unusual incident
occurred?
A Marlon Moralde
called
my name and when I awakened he was already in front of me that [sic]
was
naked and I asked him what was he doing there.
Q And what did
Marlon
answer when you asked him?
A He said, "Don’t
make
any noise we are ASAP," and immediately he held my two hands (witness
demonstrating
by raising her two hands above her head) then he pulled my duster
upward
and covering my face.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Then, what did
Marlon
do to you?
A "kiyodkiyodran."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What do you mean
by
"kiyodkiyodran?"
A He used me.
Q What did he do
with
his penis to you?
A He let it inserted
[sic] into my vagina.
Q When he inserted
into
your vagina what did Marlon tell you, if any?
A He said: "Don’t
make
any noise because I will kill you if you make any noise. It is better
to
have sex with you before I will (sic) die".
Q What did you
feel
when he was having sexual intercourse with you?
A I could not feel
any. I did not enjoy it because it is against my will.
Q How many times
did
this Marlon Moralde have sex with you?
A Three (3) times.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Was there any
companion
of Marlon Moralde at the time when he was in your house?
A There was because
he said "Sarge" you’re the next.
Q When this Marlon
Moralde
said "Sarge" it’s your turn do you know who was this person whom Marlon
Moralde called?
A I do not know.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And what did
this
man do to you when called by Marlon?
A He inserted his
finger
into my vagina.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What else did he
do
aside from fingering your vagina?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A The man said: "You
just take charge of it because I will go downstairs and watch outside".
Q How about Marlon
Moralde
what did he do when that man said you just take charge of it because I
will go downstairs and watch outside?
A The third time he
had a carnal knowledge with me.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After that what
did
Marlon Moralde do to you?
A He said "Do not
tell
anybody because I will kill you".[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On
cross-examination,
complainant had this to say:
ATTY. CABUCAN:
Q At the time you
saw
him already naked he went nearer to you, right?
A He rushed at me and
placed my face towel to my mouth.
Q Now, prior to
that
very moment when he rushed at you, please tell us what was your
position
then at that time, were you still lying down or sitting?
A I was about to
stand
up then he immediately rushed at me and covering my mouth with my face
towel then he pulled upward my "daster".
Q At that moment
you
saw him naked you have already a chance to shout and ask for help from
your neighbor?
A I was not able to
shout because he immediately covered my mouth with my face towel.
Xxx xxx xxx
Q And you did not
exert
effort to extricate yourself from the hold of Marlon?
A I did not because
he held my two hands above my head and then pulled by "daster" upward
and
covering my mouth with my face towel.
COURT:
Q Which hand he
was
holding to your hands above your head?
A Right hand.
Q And which hands
he
held first upon your mouth?
A At first he put the
face towel to my mouth and immediately after he pulled my "daster"
upward.
Q In effect, with
what
hand he pulled your "daster?"
A The left hand.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q At the time he
pulled
your "daster" upward by his left hand was there an occasion for you to
shout?
A No, Your Honor,
because
the face towel was on my mouth and he pulled my "daster" upward.
Q Which came first
the
putting of the face towel to your mouth or the pulling up of your
"daster?"
A The face towel then
after that the "daster" that covered my face. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q In effect, while
the
face towel was covering to (sic) your mouth and being held on by the
left
hand of the accused, the right hand of Marlon Moralde holding your two
hands above your head there he released his hands that was (sic)
placing
to your mouth with a face towel when he pulled your “daster” up.
A The face towel was
gagged into my mouth when he pulled my "daster" up. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. CABUCAN:
Q And he was able
to
hold your both hands with his right hand?
A Yes. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You mean at that
time
when his left hand was pulling your "daster"?’
A Yes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After that he
had
a carnal knowledge with you?
A Yes, he was
succeeded
in having carnal knowledge with me. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You were wearing
panty
at that time?
A Yes, I have.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And what hand
did
he use in pulling your panty?
A The left hand.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q His left hand
which
was pulling your shirt and gagging your mouth with a face towel and it
was the same hand which he used in pulling your panty?
A Yes, all left hand.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q So, he pulled
your
"daster" upward and at the same time gagging your mouth with a face
towel
and at the same time in pulling your panty, all with his left hand?
A Yes. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:
Q Simultaneously
or
after the other?
A One at a time.
Q Was your panty
drawn
at your legs?
A Yes.
Q Totally?
A My panty was fully
drawn and my legs were fully extricated when I was wiggling.[12]
Likewise, the conduct
of the victim immediately following the assault was of utmost
importance
to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape.[13]
The acts of complainant in immediately reporting her ordeal to the
authorities
and her willingness to submit to the medical examination of her private
parts did not only demonstrate personal courage but a determination to
seek justice for herself.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant casts doubt
on complainant’s ability to identify him considering that she failed to
recognize his alleged companion. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We do not agree. Complainant
positively recognized appellant because of the illumination of the lamp
inside her house and because she knew appellant even before the
incident
took place. As admitted by appellant himself, they met each other when
complainant asked his name when he was having a drinking spree at her
(complainant’s)
store sometime in October 1993. Once a person gains familiarity with
another,
identification becomes an easy task even from a considerable distance.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant also accuses
Judge Loyao of partiality. The latter allegedly commented and ruled on
the questions of the defense counsel during the cross-examination of a
prosecution witness. This the judge allegedly did despite the absence
of
objections by the prosecution. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find no merit in
this contention. The judge need not wait for an objection from the
opposing
counsel to bar immaterial questions. A judge has the duty to see to the
expeditious administration of justice. If the opposing counsel does not
object to such questions, the judge should not stand idly by and allow
the examining counsel to propound endless questions that are clearly
irrelevant,
immaterial, improper or repetitious.[15]
The actuation of the judge in this case, therefore, was proper. In
Ventura
vs. Judge Yatco,[16]
Justice Labrador opined and we quote:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While judges should
as much as possible refrain from showing partiality to one party and
hostility
to another, it does not mean that a trial judge should keep mum
throughout
the trial and allow parties to ask the questions that they desire, on
issues
which they think are the important issues, when the former are improper
and the latter, immaterial. If trials are to be expedited, judges must
take a leading part therein, by directing counsel to submit the
evidence
on the facts in dispute by asking clarifying questions, and by showing
an interest in a fast and fair trial. Judges are not mere referees like
those of a boxing bout, only to watch and decide the results of a game;
they should have as much interest as counsel in the orderly and
expeditious
presentation of evidence, calling attention of counsel to points at
issue
that are overlooked, directing them to ask the question that would
elicit
the facts on the issues involved, clarifying ambiguous remarks by
witnesses,
etc. Unless they take an active part in trials in the above form and
manner,
and allow counsel to ask questions whether pertinent or impertinent,
material
or immaterial, the speedy administration of justice which is the aim of
the Government and of the people cannot be attained. Counsel should,
therefore,
not resent any interest that the judge takes in the conduct of the
trial,
they should be glad that a trial judge takes such interest and help in
the determination of truth. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Having been positively
and unmistakably identified by the complainant as her rapist, the
appellant’s
defense of alibi cannot prosper. Categorical and consistent positive
identification,
absent any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness
testifying
thereon, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi which, if not
substantiated
by clear and convincing proof, constitute self-serving evidence
undeserving
of weight in law.[17]
Alibi, like denial, is inherently weak and easily fabricated. For this
defense to justify an acquittal, the following must be established: the
presence of the appellant in another place at the time of the
commission
of the offense and the physical impossibility for him to be at the
scene
of the crime.[18]
These requisites have not been met. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant tried to demonstrate
that he was far from Barangay Pangi, when the rape occurred on October
7, 1993. The defense even presented four of his long-time friends and
companions
in the detachment who all testified that appellant was with them during
their operation. However, instead of corroborating his testimony, their
statements created serious doubts because of certain inconsistencies
and
lapses. They differed in their declarations on the time they left
Barangay
Mahayahay, the starting point of their combat operation. The four
police
officers also contradicted each other as to their exact location at a
certain
time. At one point, appellant, together with SPO1 Antonino Dumaoal,
asserted
that they arrived early morning of the next day at Sitio Banab-on from
Barangay Mahayahay where they had their breakfast. On the other hand,
PO1
Arthur Arcilla affirmed that it was already 12:00 noon of the following
day when they reached Sitio Banab-on where they ate lunch. These
conflicting
statements impaired the credibility of the defense witnesses. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused failed to show
that it was highly impossible for him to be present at the crime scene
at the time of its commission. As observed by the trial court, the
distance
between Barangay Pangi and Barangay Mahayahay (particularly Sitios
Banab-on,
Maglimatok and Suwa) is negotiable in an hour or two of fast walking.
Thus
appellant, together with "Sarge," had sufficient time to go to Barangay
Pangi to commit the crime and then return to their place of operation
unnoticed.
Hence, we reject the appellant’s defense of alibi.cralaw:red
Regarding the amount
of damages awarded by the trial court, we note that the trial court
awarded
civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000 in favor of the victim but
failed
to award moral damages. Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the civil
indemnity granted by the trial court to the complainant in the amount
of
P30,000 is modified and is hereby increased to P50,000. Furthermore, in
rape cases, moral damages should be awarded without need for pleading
or
proof as to the basis thereof.[19]
WHEREFORE, the judgment
of the Regional Trial Court of Maasin, Southern Leyte, Branch 25, in
Criminal
Case No. 1726 convicting Marlon Moralde of rape and sentencing him to
reclusion
perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the civil
indemnity
is hereby increased to P50,000 and an additional amount of P50,000 as
moral
damages is hereby awarded. Costs against appellant. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:cralaw:red
[1]
Penned by Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr., Rollo, pp. 18-32.
[2]
TSN, September 1, 1994, p. 3.
[3]
Original Records, pp. 20-21.
[4]
Id., p. 23.
[5]
TSN, March 22, 1996, pp. 15-16.
[6]
TSN, March 15, 1995.
[7]
TSN, May 11, 1995.
[8]
TSN, September 1, 1995.
[9]
TSN, October 31, 1995.
[10]
People vs. Bayona, 327 SCRA 192, 197-198 [2000].
[11]
TSN, September 1, 1994, pp. 2-5.
[12]
TSN, September 1, 1994, pp. 15-19.
[13]
People vs. Mariano, 345 SCRA 1, 12 [2000].
[14]
People vs. Reyes, 309 SCRA 622, 634-635 [1999].
[15]
People vs. Zheng Bai Hui, 338 SCRA 420, 464 [2000].
[16]
105 Phil 287, 294 [1959].
[17]
People vs. Villablance, 316 SCRA 13, 21-22 [1999]
[18]
People vs. Baid, 336 SCRA 656, 678 [2000].
[19]
People vs. Reyes, 315 SCRA 563, 578 [1999]. |