FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
142416
February 11, 2003
-versus-
FRANCISCO
SORONGON
ALIAS "TOTO,"
Accused-Appellant. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant Francisco
Sorongon was charged with rape in an Information[1]
which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about February
14, 1996, in the Municipality of Digos, Province of Davao del Sur,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously,
by means of force, violence and intimidation, that is, by then and
there
pulling the offended party by the hand towards a grassy field, boxing
her
abdomen, covering her mouth, pressing a knife at her abdomen and
threatening
to kill her should she resist, mashing her private parts, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have carnal
knowledge
of the said offended party, Milagros Eyo, against her will and consent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Milagros
Eyo left her workplace on February 14, 1996 at around 6:00 in the
evening.
While walking towards her home in Sampaguita, Kapatagan, Digos, Davao
del
Sur, she became aware of someone following her. She looked back and saw
accused-appellant Francisco Sorongon. Before she could make any move,
accused-appellant
suddenly grabbed her left hand and pressed a knife against her abdomen.
Milagros tried to attract attention by repeatedly shouting for help but
accused-appellant silenced her by punching her in the abdomen, covering
her mouth and pressing a knife at her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant pushed
Milagros to a grassy field beside the road where she was made to lie
down.
In that position, accused-appellant touched her breasts and private
parts.
Despite resistance, accused-appellant easily overpowered Milagros and
rendered
her unconscious when he stepped on her face.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When Milagros recovered
consciousness, she felt pain all over her body including her private
parts.
She found accused-appellant lying on top of her repeatedly thrusting
his
organ into her vagina. It was at this point that her neighbors,
Francisco
Ontalan and Nonoy Rosima, arrived and caused accused-appellant to flee.
Her neighbors took her home.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Salud dela Cruz,
Rural Officer of Digos, Davao del Sur, conducted a genital examination
two days later and found a fresh lacerated wound about 0.5 cm. in
diameter
in the fourchette and a fresh lacerated wound on the hymen at the 6:00
o’clock position.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant, on
the other hand, claims that Milagros was his sweetheart. Because it was
Valentine’s day, he fetched her from her workplace. As they were
walking
home, they were carried away by their emotion. They started kissing and
hugging each other. The foreplay was suddenly interrupted by a
flashlight
trained on them. To cover up Milagros’ embarrassment, she pretended
that
she was raped by accused-appellant. She allegedly tried to show some
resistance
and even bit his small finger which caused some blood to drip. She then
filed charges of rape against him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court gave
credence to the prosecution’s version and rendered a decision,[3]
the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in conformity
with all the foregoing and considering that the crime of rape was
committed
with the use of bladed weapon, and in order to serve the ends of
justice,
the Court is left with no other alternative but to impose upon the
accused
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with the accessory penalties provided
for by law and to indemnify the victim the amount of P100,000.00 as
moral
and exemplary damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused FRANCISCO SORONGON,
being detained is entitled to full credit of the preventive
imprisonment
he had undergone provided he has signed his conformity to abide by the
rules and regulations imposed upon inmates by the provincial jail
authorities
of Davao del Sur, otherwise he shall be entitled to only 4/5 of the
preventive
imprisonment he had undergone.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence this appeal, raising
the following errors:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I.
The trial court
erred
in believing private complainant’s allegation of rape contrary to what
she reported at the Kapatagan Police Detachment that the accused merely
attempted to rape her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II.
The trial court
erred
in not finding that complainant lied when she testified that a sharp
knife
was used and pressed on her stomach contrary to what the medical
certificate
shows that there was no stomach injury and that her t-shirt showed no
tear
or perforation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III.
The trial court
erred
in not finding that private complainant lied and her testimonies were
incredible
when she claimed that accused-appellant boxed her at the epigastric
part
of the stomach 30 to 35 times.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IV.
The trial court
erred
in not believing that they were sweethearts.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In fine, accused-appellant
assails the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of Milagros.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Credible witness and
credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination
of the weight of a particular testimony. This principle could not ring
any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the
complainant,
corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician. Be that as it
may, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone
uncorroborated
testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear,
convincing
and otherwise consistent with human nature.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his first assignment
of error, accused-appellant noted that Milagros testified in open court
that she was raped whereas she claimed before the Kapatagaan police
that
accused-appellant only attempted to rape her. Hence, Milagros did not
present
the PNP blotter book in evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On this score, we agree
with the trial court when it held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The minor inconsistencies
in the private complainant’s statements during the time she was
investigated
by the Barangay Captain of Kapatagan and at the time she was
investigated
by the police in Digos, Davao del Sur are quite understandable for a
barrio
lass who was there present to air the acts of the accused which are
repugnant
to her modesty. These inconsistencies pointed by the defense, however,
were not made during the trial proper or during the time she was
presented
in Court but "inconsistencies" which were simply placed or put in
writing
in the blotter book by persons other than herself.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Entries in a police
blotter, though regularly done in the course of the performance of
official
duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries for they
are
often incomplete and inaccurate. They, therefore, should not be given
undue
significance or probative value as to the facts stated therein. Blotter
entries are merely prima facie proofs of the facts stated therein.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, the
trial court doubted the testimonies of the defense witnesses when it
observed
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The testimonies of the
defense witnesses, Barangay Captain Gidel Romero, Barangay Kagawad
Benjamin
Benzuelo and Barangay Kagawad Cornelio Cometa (whose desire for
acquittal
is understandable considering the fact that the barangay captain is
related
to the accused) which were all geared towards attacking the credibility
of the private complainant, appear to be fabricated, not credible and
are
not enough to successfully assail the credible and straightforward
testimony
of the private complainant whose deportment, behavior and manner of
testifying
during trial has been fully observed by this Court. The private
complainant
even shed tears when asked to recount the harrowing experience she has
had with the accused and who even bit her lips when asked to identify
the
man who brutally ravished her body.[7]
The victim’s act of
crying during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge
with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Well-settled is the
rule that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses
is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position
of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the
witnesses’
deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied
to
the appellate courts. For this reason, the trial court’s findings are
accorded
finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance
of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or
misappreciated
and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Significantly, Milagros’
testimony that she was in fact raped by accused-appellant was
corroborated
by the medical examination which Milagros had undergone two days after
the incident. The results of the medical examination showed that
Milagros
suffered fresh hymenal lacerations consistent with the date of the
rape.
This kind of evidence leaves no doubt in our mind that, indeed,
Milagros
was raped.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant next
argues that the trial court erred in giving credence to Milagros’
testimony
that she was boxed on the abdomen 30 to 35 times and a sharp knife was
used and pressed on her abdomen considering that the medical
certificate
showed no abdominal injury and her t-shirt was not torn or perforated.cralaw:red
This contention is without
merit. Again, we agree with the trial court’s finding that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accused’ contention
that the private complainant lied when she testified that she was boxed
and a knife was pointed to her considering that the Medical Certificate
shows no injury on the stomach and that the T-shirt presented in Court
was neither torn nor perforated, holds no water, for in the first
place,
there was no testimony from the private complainant to the effect that
she was injured or wounded. Besides, the Medical Certificate reveals
the
fact that there was abrasion of her right thigh, contusion on the
maxillary
area (left) and multiple abrasion on the face. The multiple abrasion on
the face may have been the result of the accused’ act of stepping on
the
private complainant’s face.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lastly, accused-appellant
argues that the trial court erred in disregarding his testimony that he
and Milagros were sweethearts. We are not persuaded. This theory is
inconsistent
with Milagros’ act of undergoing medical examination. Moreover, while
accused-appellant
insisted that he had a Valentine’s card, no such card was presented in
court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In People v. Corea,[11]
we held that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x Moreover, even
if such averment is true, it does not necessarily follow that no rape
can
be committed against one’s sweetheart. Such a relationship provides no
license to explore and invade that which every virtuous woman holds so
dearly and trample upon her honor and dignity. That relationship is
held
sacred by many x x x. A sweetheart cannot be forced to engage in sexual
intercourse against her will. As a matter of fact, proof even of a
prior
history of a common-law marital relationship will not prevail over
clear
and positive evidence of copulation by the use of force or
intimidation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the matter of damages,
the trial court ordered accused-appellant to "indemnify" the victim
P100,000.00
as moral and exemplary damages. In People v. Padrigone,[12]
it was held that civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the
fact
of rape. This is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral
damages
or, in this case, moral and exemplary damages, which are based on
different
jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound
discretion.
Thus, in accordance with current jurisprudence, accused-appellant is
ordered
to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The award of moral damages
is in accord with jurisprudence. Moral damages in the amount of
P50,000.00
are awarded in rape cases without need of proof other than the fact of
the rape itself, because it is assumed that the victim has suffered
moral
injuries entitling her to such an award.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, the award
of exemplary damages is justified. The circumstance of use of a deadly
weapon was duly alleged in the information and proven at the trial. In
People v. Edem,[14]
we awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in a case of
rape
committed with the use of a deadly weapon.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial of Digos, Davao del Sur, Branch 18, finding
accused-appellant
Francisco Sorongon alias "Toto" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime
of rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay the
offended party, Milagros Eyo P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto,
P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug,
Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:cralaw:red
[1]
Rollo, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Exhibit [E], Records, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Penned by Judge Rodolfo A. Escovilla of the Regional Trial Court of
Digos,
Davao del Sur, Branch 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 60-84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
People v. Dy, G.R. Nos. 115236-37, January 29, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
People v. Durohom, G.R. No. 146276, November 21, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Decision, Rollo, pp. 34-35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People v. Dy, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
People v. Aspuria, G.R. Nos. 139240-43, November 12, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Decision, Rollo, pp. 33-34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Cited in People v. Padrigone, G.R. No. 137664, May 9, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
G.R. No. 137664, May 9, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People v. Amante, G.R. Nos. 149414-15, November 18, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
G.R. No. 130970, February 27, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |