FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
142860
January 16, 2003
-versus-
VICTOR TAPERLA Y
TAMOSA, RONNIE AVILA Y CULPA (Acquitted)
and JONATHAN
LASTIMADO
Y ALPECHE (Acquitted),
Accused.
VICTOR TAPERLA Y
TAMOSA,
Accused-Appellant.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Before us is an appeal
from the decision[1]
dated November 22, 1999, of the Regional Trial of Davao City, Branch
33,
in Criminal Case No. 43, 500-99, finding accused-appellant Victor
Taperla
guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
His co-accused, Ronnie Avila y Culpa and Jonathan Lastimado y Alpeche,
were acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt
beyond
reasonable doubt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accusatory portion
of the Information reads: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about July
4, 1998, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, conspiring and
confederating
with one another by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with
MARICEL
BASCONES, against her will.cralaw:red
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon arraignment, the
three accused pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the evening of July
4, 1999, at around 9:00 o’clock, seventeen-year old Maricel Bascones
was
walking towards the direction of her aunt’s house located in Sitio
Kinapa-an,
Daliao, Toril, Davao City. She decided to take a short-cut by passing
through
the Davao Fish Port Complex which was adjacent to her aunt’s house.[3]
As she approached the fish port’s main gate, she noticed that
accused-appellant
had been following her. Maricel hurriedly walked away but was
nonetheless
blocked by Ronnie Avila and Jonathan Lastimado, who took hold of her
arms
and brought her to accused-appellant.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused-appellant dragged
the victim towards the back of the Polar Bear Storage. Maricel tried to
break free from him but to no avail. She tried to shout but nobody was
around.[5]
Accused-appellant’s size and weight, at 5’5" tall and 64 kilograms in
weight,
enabled him to successfully bring the victim, who stood only 4’11" and
weighed only 45 kilograms, to the back of the storage building.[6]
He laid Maricel on top of a makeshift table and pinned her neck with
his
arm. Then, he removed his shorts and forcibly spread her legs. As he
tried
to insert his penis into her vagina, the victim continued to fight
back.
Accused-appellant punched the victim’s stomach which caused her to gasp
for breath.[7]
He was able to insert his penis into the vagina of the victim and
thereafter
ejaculated. After consummating his lustful act, accused-appellant
threatened
to kill the victim’s brother if she were to tell anyone what had just
transpired.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Maricel immediately
proceeded to her aunt’s house where she narrated her harrowing
experience.
They first went to the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Lizada and thereafter
proceeded to Dr. Casquejo who conducted a physical examination of the
victim.[9]
They then headed to the police station where they filed their complaint
against the accused-appellant.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Medical Findings
revealed the following:
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
a) 1 x
½ cm abrasion at the left lateral portion of the thyroid gland
area
of the neck.
b)
Contusion
lateral portion of the neck left and right side and painful to slight
pressure.
c)
Contusion
upper and lower lips and painful to slight pressure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d) 10
x 6 cm. contusion lower third of the right arm anterior side and
extends
downwards at the upper third right forearm anterior portion.
e) 6 x
5 cm. contusion lower third anterior side left forearm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
f) 6 x
5 cm. contusion posterior area lower third right forearm.[11]
Dr. Casquejo further
testified that Maricel’s vaginal canal had lacerations at 3 and 9
o’clock
positions and the mucus fluid taken inside tested positive for
spermatocytes.[12]
On the other hand, accused-appellant
claimed that he and Maricel were lovers and that what happened on the
night
of July 4, 1999 was consensual.[13]
After trial, judgment
was rendered against accused-appellant, the dispositive portion of
which
reads: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, for all of
the foregoing, the Court holds that the prosecution was able to prove
the
guilt of the accused VICTOR TAPERLA beyond reasonable doubt as to rebut
his constitutionally presumed innocence. Accordingly, the accused
VICTOR
TAPERLA is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the indivisible penalty of
RECLUSION
PERPETUA with all the accessory penalties attendant thereto. He is
further
sentenced to indemnify the offended party, Maricel Bascones, of the sum
of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and the additional sum of P50,000.00
as
moral damages. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For failure of the prosecution
to prove the guilt of the accused RONNIE AVILA y CULPA and JONATHAN
LASTIMADO
y ALPECHE beyond reasonable doubt and thus failed to rebut their
constitutionally
presumed innocence, they are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged in
the
Information. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The immediate release
from confinement of accused Ronnie Avila y Culpa and Jonathan Lastimado
y Alpeche are hereby ordered unless they are detained for some other
lawful
cause. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The immediate confinement
at the National Penitentiary of Victor Taperla is hereby ordered.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
In this appeal, accused-appellant
raises the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF
THE CRIME CHARGED.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE ERRONEOUS
INFORMATION AS TO THE DATE OF COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE AND THE ABSENCE
OF AN AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The "sweetheart theory"
advanced by the defense fails to convince us. It is uncorroborated,
self-serving
and deserves scant consideration. Save for his own declaration,
accused-appellant
was unable to prove that carnal knowledge between him and Maricel was
consensual.
Accused-appellant’s claim that he met the victim on the night of the
alleged
incident and had sexual intercourse with her is highly incredible and
contrary
to ordinary human behavior. No woman, much less a married one with five
children, would have sexual relations with a complete stranger whom she
had just met. There is no evidence on record that she is a pervert,
nymphomaniac,
temptress or in any other condition that may justify such a theory.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Verily, accused-appellant
failed to substantiate his sweetheart theory. There were no letters or
notes, no photos or mementos, nothing at all prove their alleged love
relationship.[16]
Even assuming that they were sweethearts, he had no excuse to employ
force
and intimidation in satisfying his carnal desires.[17]
In People v. Gecomo, it was held that "love is not a license for carnal
intercourse through force or intimidationA sweetheart cannot be
forced
to have sex against her will. A man cannot demand sexual submission
and,
worse, employ violence upon her on a mere justification of love."[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The evidence shows that
accused-appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the victim by
using force and intimidation. During her testimony, Maricel clearly
described
how appellant put his arm around his neck, forcibly dragged her inside
the storage, removed her clothes and hit her on the stomach when he had
difficulty inserting his penis into her vagina. Maricel suffered
contusions
and abrasions on different parts of her body, particularly the upper
and
lower portion of the lips, lateral portion of the thyroid gland,
bilateral
portion of the neck and arms of the victim, indicating that she had
been
forced to have carnal knowledge with accused-appellant. Abrasions on
the
victim’s body are ample proof of struggle and resistance against rape.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards the alleged
discrepancy of the time of the rape, the rule is well settled that in
rape
cases, the date or time of the incident is not an essential element of
the offense and therefore need not be accurately stated.[20]
It is not a pre-requisite for the same to fall within the purview of
Section
11 of Rule 110, which states:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SEC. 11. Time of the
commission of the offense. - It is not necessary to state in the
complaint
or information the precise time at which the offense was committed
except
when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be
alleged
to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which
the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It cannot be said that
accused-appellant was deprived of due process when the Information
filed
against him for Rape failed to state the exact date of the commission
of
the offense. Date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for
the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of the woman. The
phrase
"on or about July 4, 1998" stated in the information gives the
prosecution
sufficient latitude to prove any date which is not so remote as to
surprise
and prejudice the defendant.[21]
Thus, the precise date need not be alleged in the Information.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All told, we find that
accused-appellant is guilty of rape, as defined in Article 266-A, in
relation
to Article 266-B,[23]
of the Revised Penal Code: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ART. 266-A. Rape; When
and How Committed.- Rape is committed.cralaw:red
1) By a man who have
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through
force threat or intimidation;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x x x x x x x.cralaw:red
Lastly, in line with
the prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity
for the crime of rape is reduced to P50,000.00 considering that the
death
penalty is not imposed.[24]
Civil indemnity is automatically granted to the offended party without
need of further evidence other than the fact of the commission of the
crime
and the accused’s responsibility therefor.[25]
The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is affirmed. Moral damages are
separate and distinct from civil indemnity.[26]
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Davao, Branch 33, in Criminal Case No.
43-500-99,
finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of
rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordering him to pay the offended party P50,000.00 as moral damages, is
AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the civil indemnity in the amount
of P75,000.00 is reduced to P50,000.00. 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]
Penned by Judge Wenceslao E. Ibabao, Records, pp. 133-157.
[2]
Rollo, p. 31.
[3]
TSN, August 6, 1999, pp. 11-12.
[4]
Ibid., pp. 13-14.
[5]
Id., pp. 14-15.
[6]
Id., p. 43.
[7]
Id., pp. 16-17.
[8]
Id., p. 18.
[9]
Id., pp. 19-20.
[10]
Id., p. 22.
[11]
Exhibit 'A'.
[12]
TSN, July 28, 1999, pp. 15-16; Exhibit 'B'.
[13]
TSN, September 15, 1999, pp. 4-6.
[14]
Rollo, pp. 99-100.
[15]
People v. Saladino, 353 SCRA 819 (2001).
[16]
People v. Jimenez, 302 SCRA 607 (1999).
[17]
People v. Buendia, 314 SCRA 655 (1999).
[18]
People v. Jimenez, supra.
[19]
People v. Marabillas, 303 SCRA 352 (1999).
[20]
People v. Perez, 353 SCRA 609 (2001); People v. Bugayong, 299 SCRA 528
(1998).
[21]
US v. Dichao, 27 Phil. 421 (1914), cited in Francisco, Criminal
Procedure,
1996 Ed., p. 70.
[22]
People v. Mauricio, 353 SCRA 114 (2001).
[23]
ART. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua x x x.
[24]
People v. Rafales, 323 SCRA 13 (2000); People v. Buendia, 314 SCRA 655
(1999).
[25]
People v. Adora, 275 SCRA 441 (1997).
[26]
People v. Garigadi, 317 SCRA 399 (1999). |