THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
141186
November 27, 2003
-versus-
RAUL S. PULANCO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.:
This is an appeal
from the Decision[1]
dated October 4, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Morong,
Rizal,
in Criminal Case No. 2996-M, convicting appellant Raul S. Pulanco of
rape
as defined and penalized under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accusatory portion
of the information against appellant Pulanco read as follows:
That on or
about the 11th day of March 1998, in the Municipality of Tanay,
Province
of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused while armed with a deadly weapon, taking
advantage
of his superior strength and moral authority over Ma. Cecilia C. Gahol,
a fourteen (14) year old girl, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously engage in sexual intercourse with her, against her will
and without her consent.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On arraignment, the
appellant
pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
According to the prosecution,
on March 11, 1998, at around 4:00 p.m., complainant Ma. Cecilia C.
Gahol,
a 14-year-old girl, together with her 10-year-old niece Gretchen
Rivera,
went to the house of a certain Barrientos inside Camp Capinpin, Tanay,
Rizal to collect payment for the banana-cues they sold to camp
employees
on credit. The girls were told to return at around 7:00 p.m.[3]
Cecilia and Gretchen returned to Camp Capinpin at 7:00 p.m. and, after
collecting the payment from Barrientos, headed for home.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While they were walking
along a dark and isolated road inside the camp, Cecilia was suddenly
accosted
by appellant. He coiled his left arm around her neck and poked a knife
at her side, warning her not to resist. Appellant threatened her "Sige,
gumalaw ka, tutuluyan kita." He pulled Cecilia towards his hut nearby.
She shouted at Gretchen to call for help. Gretchen cried as she tried
to
pull Cecilia away from appellant but the latter pushed Gretchen so hard
that she fell down and her back hit a hollow block.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Again, Cecilia ordered
Gretchen to run home and tell her Uncle Nestor what was happening.
Appellant,
however, exclaimed "Sige magsumbong ka't papatayin ko kayo paglaya ko."
Appellant then warned Cecilia to send her niece home but not to report
the matter to anybody, otherwise he would kill both of them.[6]
Gretchen initially refused to leave Cecilia but later acceded because
of
fear. Instead of going straight home, however, Gretchen went to her
neighbor's
house in tears and stayed there for about half an hour.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Immediately after Gretchen
left, appellant dragged Cecilia to his hut. Once inside, appellant put
out the lighted candle and ordered Cecilia to undress, threatening to
kill
her if she refused. Cecilia unwillingly removed her blouse and macarena
skirt but refused to take off her undergarments. It was appellant who
removed
them before taking his pants off. With both of them naked, appellant
sprayed
perfume on Cecilia's neck and ordered her to lie down. Appellant then
lay
beside her and started kissing her lips. She cried and boxed appellant
but her struggle was futile.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Cecilia tearfully begged
appellant "maawa na po kayo, huwag n'yo na pong ituloy ang binabalak
ninyo,"
but appellant ignored her plea. Instead, he went on top of her and
placed
her legs on his shoulders before inserting his penis into her vagina.
She
felt pain in her genitals. She could not do anything though as
appellant
had pinned her down, his left hand holding her right hand and his right
hand poking a knife at her side.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While appellant was
having carnal knowledge of Cecilia, he whispered that he had raped and
killed many. Appellant stayed on top of her for about three minutes.
Amidst
her helplessness, she could only mutter "Putang ina mo. Mamatay ka na
sana.
Hayop ka."[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After appellant satisfied
his lust, he put on his pants and ordered her to dress up. She pleaded
with appellant to let her go because her niece was waiting for her.
Appellant
initially refused but gave in later after she assured him that she
would
not file any charges.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Cecilia headed for home,
unaware that appellant was following her. When she was about to knock
at
their door, the appellant suddenly called her and gestured to her to
come
back. Cecilia refused. At that point, her brother Nestor opened the
door
and asked her about the man who was following her. She told her brother
that the man had raped her. Overcome with anger, Nestor went to the
barangay
hall and reported the incident. After Cecilia gave her statement to a
barangay
official, a kagawad ordered some barangay tanods to arrest appellant.
That
same night, appellant was brought to the police station at the Tanay
Municipal
Hall for investigation.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The following day, March
12, 1998, Cecilia was examined at the PNP crime laboratory.[13]
The report stated:
GENITAL
There is moderate growth
of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with the
pinkish
brown labia minora representing in between. On separating the same
disclosed
an elastic fleshy-type hymen with healed shallow laceration at 3
o'clock
position and deep-healed lacerations at 6 and 8 o'clock positions.
External
vaginal orifice offers strong resistance to the examining index finger.
Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix is firm and
closed.cralaw:red
CONCLUSION
Findings are compatible
with recent sexual intercourse.cralaw:red
Barring unforeseen complications,
it is estimated that the above injuries will resolve in 4–6 days.[14]
The appellant denied
the charge. Uncorroborated by the testimony of any other witness,
appellant
testified that he and Cecilia were sweethearts and had long been
engaging
in sexual intercourse.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to appellant,
at around 6:00 p.m. on March 11, 1998, he was at the barracks cooking
supper
when Cecilia and a little girl arrived. After finishing his chores, he
and Cecilia listened to music and played tong-its. Before Cecilia and
the
little girl went home, he and Cecilia had sexual intercourse at around
7:00 p.m. Then, about 8:00 p.m., he accompanied the girls home. He
headed
back to his house to sleep after Cecilia told him to go home. Moments
later,
he was roused by several barangay tanods who arrested and brought him
to
the Tanay Municipal Hall. He later learned that Cecilia filed a
complaint
for rape against him.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court gave
weight to the prosecution evidence and convicted appellant of rape. The
trial court disregarded appellant's "sweetheart theory" as no evidence
was presented by the defense to prove that appellant and Cecilia were
indeed
lovers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this appeal, appellant
raises the following assignments of error:
I
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN ACCORDING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE
DESPITE
THE FACT THAT IT IS WEAK AND INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT, CONSIDERING THAT
IT IS PERFORATED WITH MATERIAL FLAWS.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
THE COURT A QUO
LIKEWISE
ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ALIBI AND SWEETHEART THEORY OF THE APPELLANT
ALTHOUGH THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO BUTTRESS THIS.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant maintains
that
Cecilia consented to have sexual intercourse with him. Her failure to
exert
even token resistance proved that there was no rape. Moreover, she did
not escape even if she had the opportunity to do so. Her acts indicated
submissiveness and mutual agreement, as sweethearts, to engage in
sexual
contact.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant further claims
that the reason behind the filing of the complaint for rape by Cecilia
was probably because she was a scorned lover.cralaw:red
We are not persuaded.cralaw:red
Appellant's sweetheart
theory does not deserve serious consideration. As an affirmative
defense,
appellant's allegation that he and Cecilia were lovers needed
convincing
proof.[17]
However, other than his self-serving assertions, not an iota of
evidence
was adduced by appellant to establish the existence of such a romantic
relationship.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even assuming that appellant
and Cecilia were indeed sweethearts, such was not an excuse for rape.
Sexual
intercourse was sufficiently established, not with Cecilia's consent
but
through force and intimidation. As held in People vs. Domingo:[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(A)
sweetheart
cannot be forced to have sex against her will. From a mere
fiancée,
definitely a man cannot demand sexual submission and, worse, employ
violence
upon her on the mere justification of love. Love is not a license for
lust.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, if
appellant
and Cecilia had really been sweethearts, the latter would not have gone
to the extent of filing this criminal action which exposed her to the
discomforting
experience of recounting in public how she was violated.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Cecilia's alleged
failure
to resist appellant's sexual assault and to escape despite an
opportunity
to do so should not be interpreted as consent. These circumstances, by
themselves, did not necessarily negate rape or taint her credibility.
At
any rate, it was evident from Cecilia's testimony that appellant
employed
force and intimidation against her, and that she resisted from the
moment
appellant dragged her to his hut:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Now, when
Raul Pulanco started to pull you, what did he say, if any?
A He told me not
to
resist. There is a knife poking at me.
Q Did you actually
see
the knife poked at you?
A No, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What was your
reaction,
if any, to this statement of Raul Pulanco?
A None, sir.
Q You did not
shout
or cry for help?
A How can I shout,
the
knife poked at me is hurting.
Q How about
Gretchen,
what was she doing when Raul Pulanco dragged you and poked a knife at
you?
A A little bit far
from
me.
Q What was she
doing
at that time?
A Walking, sir.
Q Did you come to
know
if she saw you being pulled by Raul Pulanco?
A Yes, sir.
Q How did you know
that
Gretchen saw you being pulled by Raul Pulanco?
A I shouted at
her,
sir.
FISCAL RAMIREZ:
Q What did you
shout
at Gretchen?
A "Lapad, tulungan
mo
ako".
Q When you said
Lapad,
to whom are (sic) you referring to?
A My niece, sir.
Q Now, what was
your
(sic) reaction of Gretchen to your cries for help?
A She's pulling
me,
sir.
Q You mentioned
that
Raul Pulanco poked a knife at you, what part of your body did he poke
his
knife?
A Right side of my
body,
sir.
Q And what was the
relative
position of Raul Pulanco with respect to you when he poked that knife
to
(sic) you?
A One of the hands
of
Raul Pulanco is (sic) on my shoulder and the other one is (sic) holding
a balisong.
Q Will you kindly
demonstrate
to us how Raul Pulanco put his hand on your shoulder and how he poked
the
knife at you?
A Raul Pulanco was
at
my back with his left arm encircling my neck and the left hand placing
(sic) my right shoulder, and his right hand with a balisong was on the
right side of my body.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What did you
feel
if any when Raul Pulanco put his hand on your neck and poked a knife at
your right side?
A It hurt, sir.
Q Were you afraid
at
that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why are (sic)
you
afraid?
A Because of a
balisong
poked at me, sir.
Q After he poked
that
knife at you, what did he do next?
A He instructed me
to
tell my niece to go home and if I don't do that he will kill us.
Q And did you
comply
to (sic) this order of Raul Pulanco?
A I complied with
his
order because I don't (sic) want to involve my niece, sir.
FISCAL RAMIREZ:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. What did
Gretchen
do after you instructed her to leave?
A She said that
she
will not go home unless I am with her, sir.
Q And what
happened
due to this statement of Gretchen?
A I repeated my
request
for her to go home and she goes (sic) home because she will be involved.
Q And what
happened
after Gretchen left?
A He forced me to
go
to his hut.
Q How did he force
you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A He threatened me
that
he will kill me if I did not go with him.
Q How did you and
Raul
Pulanco go to the hut?
A He's pulling me,
sir.
Q Will you kindly
demonstrate
to us again how this Raul Pulanco pulled you to the hut?
A Raul Pulanco did
not
change his position. His left hand still encircled my neck and touching
my shoulder. We both walking (sic) backward.
Q How far is this
hut
where Raul Pulanco brought you from the place where he initially
dragged
you?
A Around ten to
twelve
meters, sir.
Q What happened
after
he was able to pull you inside the hut?
A He brought me up
(sic)
to the hut.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q Now, after he
brought
you inside the hut, what happened next?
A He instructed me
to
undress and if I will not undress he will kill me, sir.
Q Did you comply
to
(sic) this order of Raul Pulanco?
A Yes, sir,
because
I am (sic) afraid.
FISCAL RAMIREZ:
Q And after that,
what
happened?
A He kissed my
lips
and then he inserted his organ to mine.
Q What did you do
if
any when Raul Pulanco kissed you in the lips?
A I was crying and
I
am (sic) boxing him.[20]
The force necessary in
rape is relative, depending on the age, the size and the strength of
the
parties.[21]
In People vs. Antonio,[22]
we ruled:
(i)t is not
necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it
be so great and of such character as could not be resisted, it is only
necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate
the
purpose which the accused had in mind. Intimidation must be viewed in
the
light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the
commission
of the crime and not by any hard (and) fast rule.
In the instant case,
the
appellant certainly employed an amount of force sufficient to
consummate
the rape. It must be stressed that, when the rape was committed,
Cecilia
was only 14 years old, hardly an adult. Appellant, on the other hand,
was
already 20 years old and physically strong, considering that he was a
construction
worker. The inequality of their physical strength made any resistance
on
the part of Cecilia futile.[23]
The physical advantage of appellant not only overpowered her but also
broke
her will to resist, specially when appellant poked a knife at her side
with the threat to kill her if she resisted. Faced with such a
predicament,
it was not easy for her to defend herself, much less escape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Be that as it may, the
law does not impose the burden on the rape victim to prove resistance.
What is simply required of the prosecution is to establish the use of
force
or intimidation by the accused to have sexual intercourse with the
victim.[24]
The prosecution in this case proved beyond reasonable doubt that
Cecilia
was intimidated by appellant. Barely out of childhood, there was
nothing
she could do but resign herself to appellant's evil desires to protect
her life. Minor victims like Cecilia are easily intimidated and
browbeaten
into silence even by the mildest threat on their lives.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In any case, appellant
failed to prove any ill motive on the part of the victim to testify
falsely
against him. His argument that she filed the complaint because she was
"probably a scorned lover" was a flimsy defense, a desperate attempt to
stave off certain conviction. It has been consistently held that the
witness'
testimony deserves full faith and credit where there exists no dubious
reason or improper motive why she should testify falsely against the
accused,
or why she should implicate the accused in a serious offense.[26]
It is likewise settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims
are given full weight and credit. When a woman or a child says that she
has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that
rape
was indeed committed.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Undoubtedly, Cecilia's
testimony bears all the hallmarks of truth which cannot be defeated by
appellant's bare denial. Her straightforward narration of the facts
leads
this Court to conclude that the trial court was correct in convicting
appellant
of the crime charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All told, this Court
affirms the conviction of appellant for the crime of rape punishable
under
Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code. However, the decision of the trial court should be
modified
in relation to the award of damages. While we affirm the award of
P50,000
as civil indemnity, in crimes of rape, moral damages should also be
awarded
to the victim without need for pleading or proof. The fact that Cecilia
suffered mental, physical and psychological trauma is sufficient basis
for moral damages. There is no need to require the detailed recital
thereof
by the victim during the trial. The Court itself will assume and
acknowledge
such agony on her part as a gauge of her credibility.[28]
Cecilia is thus entitled not only to P50,000 civil indemnity but also
to
another P50,000 as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the trial court dated October 4, 1999 convicting appellant Raul S.
Pulanco
of rape as defined and penalized under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the
Revised
Penal Code and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is hereby
AFFIRMED,
subject to the MODIFICATION that appellant is also ordered to pay
complainant
Ma. Cecilia C. Gahol the additional amount of P50,000 as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez
and Carpio Morales, JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Reynaldo G. Ros.
[2]
Record, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, October 6, 1998, p. 4; TSN, November 3, 1998, p. 3.
[4]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, October 6, 1998, pp. 4–5; TSN, November 3, 1998, p. 5.
[6]
TSN, November 3, 1998, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, October 6, 1998, pp. 5–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, November 3, 1998, pp. 6–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid., pp. 8–9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Ibid., pp. 9–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Ibid., pp. 10–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, October 6, 1998, pp. 8–10; TSN, November 3, 1998, pp. 10–16.
[13]
TSN, November 3, 1998, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Record, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, July 13, 1999, pp. 3–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Rollo, p. 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People vs. Monfero, 308 SCRA 396 [1999]; People vs. Palma, 308 SCRA 446
[1999] citing People vs. Bayani, 262 SCRA 660 [1996].
[18]
226 SCRA 156 [1993]; see also People vs. Baltar, 335 SCRA 319 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People vs. Cepeda, 324 SCRA 290 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, November 3, 1998, pp. 4–8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People vs. Moreno, 294 SCRA 728 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
233 SCRA 283 [1994].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People vs. Ferrer, 295 SCRA 190 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People vs. Segundo, 228 SCRA 691 [1993].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
People vs. Ortega, G.R. No. 137824, September 17, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People vs. Lomerio, 326 SCRA 530 [2000]; People vs. Merino, 321 SCRA
199
[1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People vs. Ferrer, 295 SCRA 190 [1998]; People vs. Domingo, 226 SCRA
156
[1993].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People vs. Mostrales, 294 SCRA 701 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |