THIRD DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
141140
December 10, 2003
-versus-
CRISPIN PAYOPAY,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
From the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, Branch 57
in
Criminal Case No. SCC-3128 finding accused-appellant Crispin Payopay
guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to
reclusion
perpetua, he comes to this Court on appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With the assistance
of counsel, appellant, who is married,[2]
pleaded not guilty to the charge of rape alleged to have been committed
as follows:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or
about the 16th day of August between 1:00 and 2:00 o'clock (sic) in the
afternoon at Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation, San Carlos City,
Pangasinan
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
by means of violence, force and intimidation, and with lewd design, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, has (sic) sexual
intercourse with the offended party Maricel de Guzman, against her will
and consent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the testimony
of Maricel de Guzman (the victim), the following version is culled:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At noontime
of August 16, 1999, as the victim, who was born on September 21, 1982,[3]
stepped out of the San Carlos College in San Carlos City, Pangasinan
where
she was a third year high school student, appellant, who had a gun
tucked
on his waist, grabbed her hands and forcibly dragged her into a tricycle[4]
where two unidentified male companions were waiting. While the victim
yelled
for help, albeit no one responded even if "there were plenty of people
who saw her,"[5]
appellant, holding a "Rambo" type knife, warned her inside the tricycle
not to shout or he would stab her.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The four sped
towards
Virgen Milagrosa University (VMU) and on their way, they saw Joan
Espinosa
(Joan) whom the victim met for the first time.[7]
Appellant at once grabbed Joan too and forcibly boarded her on the
tricycle,
he threatening her and the victim not to shout.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On reaching VMU
after
about an hour, the victim and Joan were forcibly brought to a nipa hut
inside the VMU campus.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While inside the
hut,
on appellant's order, one of his companions bought gin which appellant
drank.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant then
forced
the victim to drink gin which, however, spilled out of her mouth.
Turning
to Joan, appellant poured gin into her mouth which rendered her tipsy
and
unconscious.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's two
companions
in the meantime stepped out of the hut and "stayed at the door."[8]
He then asked the victim to remove her underwear but she refused. The
following
thereupon transpired, as related by the victim, quoted verbatim:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q [of
prosecutor]
After Joan was forced to drink gin what happened to her?
A [of
the victim]
When Joan became dizzy she fell down on her back and [appellant] while
holding a gun threatened me that if I will not remove my drawer he was
going to kill me but when I refused he pushed me to the bed and he
removed
my drawer, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After he
removed
your drawer what did appellant do?
A He
also removed
his drawer and then he abused me, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What did you
feel
when Crispin Payopay sexually abused you?
A I felt
extreme
pain, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After you were
abused
by Crispin Payopay what happened next?
A He threw my
panty
to me and then he tried to abuse Joan next, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q You were
wearing then
a pants is it not?
A I was
wearing a
skirt, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And so you
were ordered
to remove your skirt is it not?
A He told me
to remove
my underwear, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And then
thereafter
you said that Crispin also remove[d] his drawer is it not?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What was
Crispin wearing
during that time, madam witness?
A Long pants
and
T-shirt, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After he
removed his
pants he removed also his brief? Is it not?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When he was
removing
his pants madam witness you did not run or escape?
A No madam
because
the two (2) [companions of appellant] were posted themselves as guard
at
the door.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And
despite
x x x that you just kept quiet inside the nipa hut madam witness?
A I kept on
crying,
madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And when you
were
crying you did not shout madam witness?
A No, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And when you
said
that after you were allegedly raped by Crispin Payopay he throw your
panty
to you is it not?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And thereafter
you
wore your panty is it not?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After appellant
"abused"
or "sexually abused" the victim, he shifted his attention to the
unconscious
Joan but before he could initiate any act on her, the victim grabbed
the
empty bottle of gin with which she hit the back of appellant who fell
down,
enabling her to drag Joan with whom she boarded a tricycle and
proceeded
to report the incident to the police. At the police station, the victim
gave a sworn statement[9]
declaring that appellant "sexually abused" her four times, the first on
August 4, 1999, the second and third on dates she forgot, and the
fourth
on that day, August 16, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Partly corroborating
the victim's testimony, Joan declared that they (Joan and the victim)
were
both forcibly taken to the VMU premises and threatened with a knife.[10]
She further declared that the hut to which they were taken was not
isolated
as it was clustered with other huts-houses;[11]
that the hut belonged to a certain "Alex" whom she had known for almost
a year;[12]
that as she became dizzy, she could not remember what transpired
thereafter;[13]
and that she could remember, however, fleeing with the victim in a
tricycle[14]
and filing a complaint at the police station.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Araceli Callao,
who on the day of the incident examined the more than 16 year old
victim
the result of which examination is reflected in the medico-legal
certificate[16]
she issued reading:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PE: No
signs
of external injuries noted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PERINIUM : No
signs
of external injuries noted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
HYMEN: - With old,
incomplete
lacerations at 7 & 8 o'clock positions;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
- With old complete laceration at 5 o'clock positionchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
- With fresh abrasion at the lateral side near the base of hymen at
around
4 & 8 o'clock positionschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
POSTERIOR
FOURCHETTE:
Roundedchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
VAGINA : Admits 2
fingers
with easechanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IE : Cervix —
close
with dark red bleedingchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
UTERUS : Smallchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
LABORATORY RESULTS:
The 2 slides are both
negative for the presence of sperm cell with menstruation at the time
of
examination (Emphasis and italics supplied.), testified on the cause of
the "fresh abrasion" or gasgas which was noted "at the lateral side
near
the base of the victim's hymen at around 4 and 8 o'clock positions" in
this wise:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And you
said
Madam Witness, that the abrasion could have been caused by a friction?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And you said
Madam
Witness, or rather, that friction could have been caused by a scratch
of
the hand while cleansing the vagina, Madam Witness?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And that could
have
been caused by the use x x x of a very tight underwear, up
to the extent of a vagina, Madam Witness?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And it is
possible
also Madam Witness that that abrasion could have been caused by a penis?
A Yes, because
that
abrasion can be caused by a friction of two objects and it is not
specifically
by a penis or by mere scratching of the hand, madam.[17]
(Emphasis
supplied.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Continuing, the
doctor
declared:
Q And you will
agree
with me Madam Witness that by that fresh abrasion, no such sexual
intercourse
could have happened to the victim, is it not?
A It is possible,
madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon the other hand,
proffering innocence, appellant, admitting having brought the victim
whom
he claimed to be his sweetheart, along with Joan, to the hut of Alex
Guaron
at the VMU campus, declared as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He met the
victim on the first week of July 1999 and they had since become lovers,
in support of which he presented a photograph (Exhibit "1") depicting
him
and the victim "in a jolly and happy moment" together with Alex and a
traffic
aide, and a ring (Exhibit "2"–"2-A") given by the victim on which was
engraved
her name.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The two of them
had
been seeing each other everyday in the month of July 1999. In August
1999,
he brought the victim to the house of Alex Guaron in VMU for about
seven
times.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 16,
1999,
at about 12:00 noon, he fetched the victim at San Carlos College and as
they were on board a tricycle on their way to VMU, they passed by Joan
who later joined them. On arrival at Alex's house, they then proceeded
to VMU where they had a drinking session together with Alex and two
others.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He purposely
brought
the victim and Joan to the hut because he wanted to severe his
relationship
with the two, his wife having discovered his extra-marital affairs with
them. The victim and Joan proffered no objection to his proposal. After
a brief drinking session, he, together with the victim and Joan went to
the plaza where they ate in an eatery before they finally bade each
other
good-bye.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Alex corroborated
appellant's
version.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, appellant denies
that rape ever took place on August 16, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rejecting the sweetheart
theory of appellant, the trial court convicted him as charged by the
decision
on appeal the dispositive portion of which reads:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
in the light of all the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused
Crispin
Payopay guilty beyond reasonable doubt, with the crime of Rape defined
and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. The court hereby sentences him to suffer
the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and indemnify Maricel de Guzman the sum
of
P50,000.00 and to pay her exemplary damages of P25,000.00 and to pay
the
costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his brief, appellant
assigns to the trial court the following errors:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
x
x x IN GIVING DUE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO
THE TESTIMONY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WHICH IS PUNCTURED WITH MATERIAL
INCONSISTENCY,
UNCERTAINTY AND UNRELIABILITY THEREBY CASTING GRAVE DOUBT ON THE
CRIMINAL
CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT; ANDchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
x
x x IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT
USED
FORCE AGAINST PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IN THE PERPETRATION OF THE INCIDENT
IN
QUESTION.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
From the decision of
the trial court, it is gathered that in convicting appellant, it relied
chiefly on the testimony of the victim. Thus the trial court held:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her testimony,
Maricel
recounted how she resisted Crispin. Resistance indicates use of force.
In this case, the credibility of her story was further bolstered by her
actuations subsequent to the commission of the crime when she brought
Joan
with her and they proceeded to the police station where she executed a
sworn statement and underwent a medical examination.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The sweetheart
theory
is a defense that is becoming common in rape cases. This is a defense
which
negates force or intimidation, an essential element in the crime of
rape.
Even if Crispin's averment that they are sweetheart is true, it does
not
necessarily follow that no rape has been committed against one's
sweetheart.
A sweetheart cannot be forced to engage in sexual intercourse against
her
will.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x (Emphasis
supplied.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a long line of rape
cases, this Court upheld the rule that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An accused
may be convicted of rape on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated
testimony
of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive,
convincing
and otherwise consistent with human nature.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The place where the
victim was allegedly taken by force by appellant - in the premises of
the
San Carlos College - is located in a public place which was admittedly
teeming with students. The time was 12:00 o'clock noon of a regular
school
day. It is highly unthinkable that appellant would drag the victim in
the
presence of so many students and no one would heed her shouts for help.
That runs counter to human experience as it mocks at human sensibility.
Just as it is unthinkable how the victim would be overcome by fear to
thereby
prevent her from forcefully resisting or struggling even when what
appellant
merely initially did to her was, by her own account, forcibly grab her
by her hands as she stepped out of school.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
And given the victim's
claim that appellant had priorly raped her on August 4, 1999 and on two
other occasions, it is incomprehensible why she, on August 16, 1999,
did
not flee or cry out in protest or in anger when they reached and passed
through the guarded barrier or boom-equipped gate to the VMU.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What time did
you
arrive at VMU madam witness?
A [of the
victim]:
1:00 o'clock, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When you arrived
at
the VMU madam witness you passed at the gate fronting on apartment,
that
is the entrance of VMU madam witness?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And that the one
you
are talking about is that, the gate where there was a barrier which is
being lifted by the guard when you passed madam witness?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And that you saw
the
guard when he lifted that barrier when the tricycle passed?
A Yes, madam,
and
he even raised his hand to Crispin Payopay.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And in that
event
madam witness you did not shout for help considering that you saw the
security
guard?
A No madam
because
I suspected that that guard might be his cohort.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And that was
just
your thinking is it not madam witness?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And when you
arrived
at VMU on August 16, 1999 at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon you
saw
many student who also inside the premises of VMU is it not madam
witness?
A Few, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q But there were
students
you saw inside the VMU?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And you did not
shout
for help?
A No madam
because
I was afraid that he might pursue in stabbing me with his balisong.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And are you
telling
the Honorable Court that all in all you were five riding in that
tricycle,
is it not?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And that
tricycle
passed at the VMU Compound, is it not?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And when the
tricycle
passed at the VMU campus, you did not shout for help, Madam Witness?
A No, madam.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The victim's lame
excuse
for not shouting for help at the gate and while inside the premises of
the VMU — that appellant "might pursue in stabbing" her — is too
puerile
to merit consideration in light of the presence of the guards manning
such
gate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
But assuming arguendo
that the victim was too gripped by fear to benumb her and render her
mute
as they passed through the VMU gate, she could have shouted for help at
the house of Alex which was clustered with other houses, but she did
not.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You said,
you arrived at a house near the VMU, is it not?
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And that, how
many
persons did you see inside the house near VMU?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A None, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And that house
you
are referring to in VMU, it is situated, with clusters of houses, near
it, is it not?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Upon arrival
thereat,
you were ordered to alight and you did not shout for help?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A No, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And in fact,
both
of you, were ordered by Crispin Payopay, to get inside the house, is it
not?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, madam.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x[21]
(Emphasis
supplied.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That appellant and
the victim may indeed have been sweethearts does not, of course, negate
the commission of rape, or acts of lasciviousness. As reflected above,
however, the victim's testimony does not pass the test of credibility.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fact, even gratuitously
crediting the victim's account that appellant "abused" her, this Court
does not appreciate the commission of rape. Thus, she claimed that she
was "abused" or "sexually abused" as her counsel suggested. "Sexual
abuse"
cannot, however, be equated with rape,[22]
absent any showing, any claim, that appellant's organ entered or
penetrated
the victim's pudendum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At all events, since
"sexual abuse," as defined by inclusion in Section 2 (g) of the Rules
and
Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases,[23]
issued pursuant to Section 32 of Republic
Act 7610, otherwise known as The Special Protection of Children Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,[24]
to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sexual
abuse
includes:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1) the
employment,
use, persuasion, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or
assist
another person to engage in sexual intercourse or lasciviousness
conduct;
orchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2) the molestation;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3) prostitution; orchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4) incest with
children. (Emphasis
supplied.)[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
has the following
elements:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. The
accused
commits the acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The child,
whether
male or female, is below 18 years of age.[26]
(Emphasis
supplied.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
appellant cannot just
the
same be faulted therefor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For while it is not
procedurally incorrect to convict appellant of sexual abuse, a lesser
offense
necessarily included in rape which is the crime charged,[27]
a perusal of the information shows that the victim's age was not duly
alleged.
Appellant's acts can not thus fall under the child abuse law without
violating
appellant's constitutional right to due process and to be informed of
the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution having
failed to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt,
appellant
must be set free.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appealed
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, San Carlos City,
Pangasinan,
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Crispin Payopay is hereby
ACQUITTED
of rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Director of Prisons
is hereby directed to forthwith cause the release of appellant, unless
the latter is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this
Court within Ten days from notice the action taken on this directive.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez
and Corona, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Decision, Records at 72–76.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Order of Pre-Trial of September 1, 1999, Records at 24–25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Exhibit "A," Records, Vol. I at 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, September 8, 1999 at 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, September 10, 1999 at 3.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[6]
TSN, September 8, 1999 at 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, September 8, 1999 at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Exhibit "B," Records at 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
TSN, September 8, 1999 at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, September 16, 1999 at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, September 16, 1999 at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, September 8, 1999 at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Exhibit "C," Records at 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
TSN, September 16, 1999 at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People v. Belga, 349 SCRA 678 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, September 10, 1999 at 6–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, September 16, 1999 at 9.chan
robles virtual law library chan robles virtual law library
[21]
TSN, September 16, 1999 at 10. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People v. Egan, 382 SCRA 326 (2002).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Approved on October 11, 1993, cited in People v. Pedro Flores, Jr. y
Flores
Alias "Pesiong," G.R. No. 128823–24, December 27, 2002.
[24]
Approved on June 17, 1992.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
People v. Flores, Jr. y Flores Alias "Pesiong," G.R. No. 128823–24,
December
27, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People v. Larin, 297 SCRA 309 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Rule 120, Section 5, Rules of Court — Section 5. When an offense
includes
or is included in another. — An offense charged necessarily includes
the
offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of
the
former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the
latter.
And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved,
when
the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of
those
constituting the latter."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred | 
