SECOND DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
144053
December 11, 2003
-versus-
JOSEPH DIZON Y
NARIDO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
On appeal is the
decision[1]
dated March 6, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch
110, finding appellant Joseph Dizon y Narido guilty of rape, imposing
on
him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify
private
complainant Janice May Salvador the amount of P50,000, plus the costs
of
suit.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant was charged
in an Information which reads:
That on or
about the 21st day of May, 1996, in Pasay City, Metro Manila,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
Joseph Dizon y Narido, being armed with a gun, by means of force,
threats
and intimidation upon the person of Janice May Salvador, did then and
there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the said
complainant Janice May Salvador against her will and consent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to Law.[3]
Appellant pleaded not
guilty
upon arraignment.
During trial, seven
witnesses testified for the prosecution, including its principal
witness,
the private complainant Janice May Salvador. Hereunder is the
prosecution's
version of facts in the case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Janice May
Salvador testified she was fifteen years old, and had just graduated
from
Ramon Magsaysay High School at the time of the alleged incident.
Sometime
in early May 1996, her best friend and classmate Sheryl[4]
Manlulu confided to her through the phone, that she was upset because
she
(Sheryl) was supposed to meet with a certain Joseph Dizon, but the
latter
stood her up ("Inindiyan siya"). Janice was told that this Joseph had
been
courting Sheryl since April 1996. Sheryl then gave Joseph's number to
Janice,
pleading with the latter to call Joseph and find out why the latter did
not show up.[5]
Janice obliged and immediately called Joseph. She introduced herself as
Sheryl's friend. In the course of their conversation, Joseph asked for
her phone number.[6]
Thereafter, Joseph had become an occasional caller.[7]
Janice found him interesting.[8]
Their phone conversations generally dwelt on Sheryl and the state of
Joseph's
courtship.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 18, 1996, Joseph
called Janice and asked her to accompany him to Sheryl's house on the
20th
of May, as it was Sheryl's birthday. Janice advised Joseph to ask
permission
from Sheryl first. Sheryl in turn informed Joseph that the 20th was her
enrollment day, and so Sheryl suggested instead that they visit her the
following day, May 21st. After asking permission from her mother,
Janice
agreed to meet Joseph on said date at the LRT Tayuman Station between
4:00
to 4:30 p.m.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 20, 1996, Joseph
again called Janice. Aside from asking whether she had already greeted
Sheryl on her birthday, to which she positively replied, Joseph
described
what he would be wearing the next day, so that Janice would easily
recognize
him at their first meeting. Joseph however told Janice that there was
no
need for her to describe herself, as Joseph already knew what she
looked
like from the pictures Sheryl had shown him.[10]
On May 21, 1996, Janice
was awakened by a telephone call from Joseph, asking her to accompany
him
in buying a gift for Sheryl but Janice refused. Later that day, at the
appointed hour, the two met. Joseph first saw Janice, called out to
her,
approached and introduced himself. They were talking as they climbed
the
stairs of the LRT station. Joseph's beeper suddenly sounded. Joseph
stepped
back, read the message and then told Janice it was his mother. Joseph
then
asked Janice to accompany him to the Manila Doctor's Hospital where his
mother worked as a Medical Assistant. Janice was reluctant at first,
because
Sheryl might already be waiting for them. However, Joseph assured her
that
it would only be for a short while, and that it was important.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
They proceeded to the
7th floor of the hospital. Joseph entered a room, after which he asked
Janice to come in as well. There, Joseph introduced her to his mother,
saying, "Ma, si Janice, my friend."[12]
Joseph's mother smiled at Janice. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As they were leaving
the hospital, Joseph asked Janice to accompany him first to Pasay City
in order to deliver some important documents. Again, Janice reminded
him
that they might be late for their appointment with Sheryl. Joseph
however
assured her that they won't take long, so Janice agreed to go. They
again
took the LRT and alighted at the Buendia station. From there they
hailed
an FX taxi, as Joseph told her it was quite far if they walked. Joseph
opened the door of the taxi and got in beside Janice. He then whispered
something to the driver, which Janice said she was unable to hear.
Janice
inquired from Joseph where they were bound, but Joseph only told her
"Diyan
lang."[13]
It was about 6:30 p.m. when they boarded the FX taxi. When she asked
about
the documents to be delivered, Joseph told her that they were the
financial
reports of his business. Janice then noticed that the taxi suddenly
turned
right in a very dark place.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Janice asked Joseph
why they made a sudden turn, and the latter justified it by saying that
somebody had detected he was armed with a gun.[15]
He assured her that he would explain everything to her after they had
alighted,
as the taxi driver might hear them.[16]
The taxi entered a compound that appeared to Janice as an apartelle.
They
were ushered into a room on the second floor.[17]
Inside, Joseph took out a calling card from his wallet and told Janice
that he was going to call his "boss." Janice saw the name of a certain
SPO Gagangco on the card.[18]
Joseph instructed Janice to sit in the corner while he made the call.
Their
conversation was quite long and Janice only heard bits of it, with
Joseph
saying, "Send men as soon as possible because I have with me a girl."[19]
Joseph then pulled out his firearm from his beltbag and toyed with the
firearm while he talked on the phone.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Janice sat in the corner
of the room, she was already panicky. She didn't know the place and was
also told by Joseph that they would only go to that place "when the
situation
worsens."[20]
She then felt scared, for if the person who had detected Joseph was a
policeman,
she feared that she could get involved in his trouble.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After hanging up, Joseph
sat on the floor beside Janice and started to embrace her. Surprised,
Janice
blurted out, "Putang ina mo. Anong nangyayari sa 'yo?"[22]
She tried to reach the main door and the door leading to the bathroom,
in order to escape from Joseph, but he blocked the way.[23]
Joseph then chased her around the room while she, in turn, screamed and
shouted for help.[24]
This prompted Joseph to poke a gun at her neck and threaten to kill
her,
saying, "Don't make me mad, I am going to kill you."[25]
Frightened, Janice slumped in a corner of the room. Joseph then sat in
front of her, and again started to embrace and kiss her. Janice tried
to
fight back, scream and push him away in vain.[26]
Joseph succeeded in removing her sleeveless cotton shirt and her
brassiere,
then kissed her all over her face, neck and breast and thereafter,
unzipped
and removed her pants.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Joseph dragged the complainant
to the bed, laid her down and took off her panty. She kicked him and
tried
to remove his hands from her forearms but he proved too strong for her.[28]
Joseph then removed his pants and brief and positioned himself between
her legs, at the same time pinning her down by holding her wrists with
both of his hands.[29]
She then felt Joseph's penis coming in and out of her organ, and she
felt
terrible pain. She felt so weak and scared.[30]
After some time, Joseph
stopped and she noticed a mucous-looking substance left in her pubic
hair.[31]
She then covered her nudity with the bed sheet. She felt scared and mad
at the same time. Joseph put on his brief, sat on the bed, and dialed
Sheryl's
phone number. He ordered Janice to tell Sheryl that they would be
arriving
soon. He also told her not to tell Sheryl about what had just happened
and threatened her again. Out of fear, Janice complied and did as told.
While Janice was on the phone, Joseph was beside her, holding his gun.[32]
Janice then got dressed and hurriedly left the room.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Once outside the room,
at the gate of the compound, she met two men to whom she related her
ordeal.
The two men, however, referred her to the cashier where she again
narrated
what she had gone through.[33]
She told them to report the matter to the police as Joseph was armed
with
a gun. However, she was ignored and even blamed for going with Joseph.[34]
After more or less 10 minutes, Joseph appeared before the cashier to
pay
the bill. Short of cash, Joseph asked money from her, but she did not
give
any. Instead, she discreetly exited towards the driveway. She again
related
her fateful experience to the guard at the driveway who then advised
her
to stay so she would not be harmed. Thereafter, a call on the intercom
came through to the guard, and Janice was told that it was okay for her
to leave.[35]
At past 9:00 p.m. she left the compound of Queensland Lodge. She
arrived
home at 10:00 p.m. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As she was nearing her
house, her father, Juanito Salvador, saw her and asked why she was late
in coming home. Janice did not answer but instead rushed inside their
house.
Then she immediately told her mother, Myrna Salvador, everything that
had
happened to her.[36]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The family sought the
help of their policeman-neighbor who accompanied them to the Western
Police
District (WPD) station along Taft Avenue. They were immediately advised
to go to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for medical
examination.[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the NBI, the physical
examination was conducted by the medico-legal officer, Dr. Eduardo
Vargas,
Jr. From the NBI, they were referred to the Pasay City Police Station.
The police asked for the address of Joseph but Janice did not know it.
Thus, Janice was instructed by the police to call Joseph at home to get
the exact address, but the person who answered the phone did not
entertain
her call.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Together with the police,
Janice and her father went to Queensland Lodge for ocular inspection
and
there, they were able to redeem Joseph's beeper and driver's license
which
Joseph had earlier used as security for the unpaid balance of his bill.
From his driver's license they were able to determine Joseph's exact
address.[39]
The following day, May 22, 1996, Janice and her father returned to the
police station where Joseph was already held in custody. Janice pointed
to Joseph as the person who had raped her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The defense presented
appellant Joseph Dizon and his mother Ma. Cristina Narido Dizon as
witnesses.
In essence, appellant's defense is a variant of the "sweetheart
theory",
denying the charge but alleging that appellant and Janice had engaged
in
sex with her consent at the time and date in question. Hereunder is the
defense's version of the incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Joseph Dizon
testified that he got to know the complainant, Janice May Salvador,
through
the girl he was courting, namely Sheryl Manlulu. In the second week of
April 1996, Joseph said Janice called him up on the phone and
introduced
herself as the best friend of Sheryl. Janice called in order to help
him
and Sheryl settle a petty argument. Prior to the telephone call, he had
already heard Janice's name mentioned by Sheryl, but that was the first
time they talked.[40]
The conversation lasted about 30 minutes. They exchanged personal
information
about each other, such as their likes, dislikes, hobbies, etc.
Thereafter,
Joseph and Janice would already exchange telephone calls. She called
him
about five times a week, while he would call her about thrice a week.[41]
Joseph found Janice to be a nice person to talk to and very interesting.[42]
Eventually, they found themselves talking about more serious matters,
with
her asking him his preference in a woman, and him asking Janice the
latter's
concept of an ideal man.[43]
The phone conversations usually lasted 30 minutes on the average, and
would
happen at around 8:00 p.m.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 18, 1996, during
another phone conversation, Joseph and Janice agreed to meet on May 21,
1996, at 2:00 p.m., at the LRT Tayuman Station. Janice had previously
informed
him that Sheryl's birthday was forthcoming. Joseph stated that Sheryl's
birthday was actually on the 20th of May but he was informed by Janice
that Sheryl will have a birthday party at her house on the 21st. Thus,
he made the date with Janice so that she can accompany him to Sheryl's
house as it would be his first time to go there. Although he had been
courting
Sheryl for some time, he would visit her at her grandparents' house as
Sheryl tended a store there. Appellant in fact had already professed
his
love for Sheryl at this time but she was not yet his girlfriend as they
had some petty arguments. Joseph also suspected that Janice might have
told Sheryl something against him.[44]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 20, 1996, Joseph
called Janice in order to finalize the date they had set for the
following
day, May 21. Since they haven't met before, they each described what
they
would be wearing. However, Joseph stated that he already had an idea of
how she looked, based on Janice's photograph which Sheryl had shown
him.
He was also aware that Sheryl had shown Janice his picture. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 21, 1996, Joseph
called Janice in the morning but was told by the person on the other
end
that Janice was still asleep. Later that day, Joseph arrived at the LRT
Tayuman station at about 3:30 p.m. He was late due to the traffic and
the
fact that he came from Parañaque. Janice was not there when he
arrived.
He went down from the station and found a pay phone from which he
called
Janice at her house. He was informed that Janice had in fact left their
house since early morning. He then called Sheryl's house, but the
latter
was also not around. Joseph asked the person who answered the phone if
there was indeed a party there. He was informed that there was none.
After
hanging up the phone, Joseph again went up the LRT station. Joseph had
a hunch that Janice was only roaming around the mall, thus, he also
went
around the mall and returned to the LRT station at around 4:30. Janice
was already there waiting for him. Janice appeared friendly and they
smiled
at each other. After which, Joseph held her hand and apologized for
being
late. Janice said, "Okey lang, sige."[45]
Janice then told her that she had also been late because she had to
pass
by her school and also dropped by Sheryl's house as she had to talk to
Sheryl. Joseph confronted her about the fact that he learned there was
no party at Sheryl's house. Janice insisted that it was Sheryl who had
told her. So, the two of them agreed to just stroll around, forgetting
about their previous plan of going to Sheryl's party. Joseph then
suggested
they go first to his mother's office at the Manila Doctor's Hospital,
located
along U.N. Avenue.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Joseph said he was already
courting Janice at this time. Since Janice already said bad things
about
him to Sheryl ("Sinisiraan niya ako kay Sheryl"), his attention became
focused on Janice. Joseph added that a week after the first phone call
from Janice, he and Sheryl argued over the phone. He suspected that
Janice
had bad-mouthed him before Sheryl. Sheryl was also asking him why he
was
courting Janice. Joseph denied that he was courting Janice. However,
Joseph
admitted that, on the same month of April, his attention had already
shifted
to Janice, and the reason he agreed to go to Sheryl's party was because
of Janice.[46]
Joseph testified later on that he and Janice had been sweethearts since
May 10.[47]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Continuing his testimony,[48]
Joseph admitted he possessed a beeper that day, but he denied that the
beeper sounded as Janice testified. Joseph said that the beeper was not
his and he only found it that same day, near the LRT. According to him,
it could not have sounded as the beeper was not operational then.
Appellant
said that he planned on turning over the beeper to the LRT security
desk
after he met Janice. The court then inquired why he left the beeper at
the Queensland Lodge as security if it was not really his. Joseph
replied
that he did not have any money then and had nothing else to leave as
collateral.
Joseph denied that he had a gun in his possession, much less a holder
of
a license to possess one.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After meeting Janice
at the LRT, they proceeded to the office of Joseph's mother who worked
as a Medical Assistant at the Manila Doctor's Hospital. Joseph said
this
was for formality, so that his mother would get to know Janice. Joseph
introduced Janice to his mother as his girlfriend. His mother was happy
to meet Janice, his mother even said "so this is Janice your girlfriend
whom you have always been talking to on the phone."[49]
Janice, in turn, smiled and greeted his mother good afternoon. They
left
about 30 minutes after.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Joseph had planned on
strolling around Makati with Janice so they took the LRT again and
alighted
at the Buendia Station. Janice had previously agreed but when they got
off, she told him that she was tired and wanted to rest as she had been
out of the house since morning. Appellant took it as a suggestion that
Janice was in fact intimating indirectly that she wanted to go to bed
with
him. Thus, appellant told her that he knew of a place, Queensland
motel,
where she could rest. They took an FX taxi. Janice boarded first,
assisted
and followed by Joseph. The FX taxi proceeded to the Queensland Lodge
at
F.B. Harrison St. Upon arriving at the motel's compound, a roomboy
opened
the door. Janice alighted ahead of him as he was still paying for the
fare.
The roomboy then asked him whether they were staying for "short time"
only,
and he said yes. Janice was beside him while he was talking to the
roomboy
and was positive that she heard their conversation as the three of them
were very near each other. The roomboy left and when he came back, led
them upstairs to the second floor of the building, particularly Room 11
thereof. When the roomboy had left, Janice, who was sitting on the bed
watching TV, invited him to sit beside her and watch the movie with
her.
They watched for about 10 minutes and then they started kissing. Joseph
kissed Janice on the cheeks and forehead while holding her hands.
Janice
then asked him if he really loved her and he told her yes. Joseph added
that even during their telephone conversations, he had already
developed
feelings for her and that during the time he and Sheryl had quarrels,
it
was Janice who comforted him. Janice paused to ask him why he loved her
and what was it in her that he liked. Joseph answered that aside from
being
the one who comforted him, Janice was also "mabait" (kind), "matalino"
(intelligent) and "malambing" (sweet). They continued kissing and since
they were on the foot of the bed, they accidentally fell to the floor
while
they were kissing. They were then horsing around ("Nagkukulitan kami")
on the floor. Joseph testified that while all this was going on, the
door
was closed but he had not locked it.[50]
Joseph also denied poking a gun at Janice while ordering her to
undress.
Joseph said this did not happen, as he did not have a gun. According to
him, they undressed each other and no violence was used upon Janice to
remove her clothing.[51]
In tears, appellant again denied the charges against him, and stated
that
he loved Janice. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Continuing his testimony,[52]
appellant said Janice seemed happy when he kissed her. He denied
threatening
her, saying that the truth was that they were lovers.[53]
In fact, it was Janice who removed her maong pants first, and then let
him remove her panties while she was already lying on the bed.[54]
Janice passionately kissed him back.[55]
Joseph went on to describe in detail their sexual encounter. He
testified
that only half of his private organ was able to penetrate Janice. He
did
so about three to five times before pulling it out as he was about to
ejaculate
and was afraid of impregnating her.[56]
He did not attempt to insert the full length of his organ into her as,
although she was already wet, he was so concerned as she was telling
him
it was painful.[57]
Thereafter, according
to appellant, he asked Janice to first call her parents so that they
would
not worry, as it was already past 8:00 in the evening. Janice did not
do
so, but instead called up Sheryl Manlulu.[58]
He could hear her telling Sheryl that they were still together in his
mother's
office.[59]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant claimed that
the reason Janice testified against him was that her father did not
like
him.[60]
He said Mr. Salvador was reputedly very strict, and did not allow
anyone
to court his daughter, especially considering that Janice was the
youngest
child.[61]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant also testified
that Janice was beside him when he was settling the bill at the motel's
cashier. It was true that he ran short of cash and asked Janice if he
could
borrow some money, but she replied "Wala akong pera, bahala ka."[62]
Thus, he left his beeper and driver's license as security. Thereafter,
Joseph wanted to take Janice home but she forbade him to do so, saying
her father might kill her. Janice then boarded a jeep in front of the
motel.
Appellant walked towards Libertad Street where he borrowed money from a
classmate. He reached home at 3:00 a.m.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Early the next day,
Joseph was told by his grandmother that there were policemen who came
to
their house. Joseph then proceeded to the police headquarters at 8:00
p.m.
From the headquarters, early the next day, May 23, Joseph called Mr.
Salvador,
asking what was going on. The latter said they would proceed to the
headquarters
right away. A confrontation ensued, but appellant denied that he raped
Janice. He was detained right there and then.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On cross-examination,
Joseph stated that Janice told him she was already 18 years old, as old
as Sheryl, who also told him that she was 18. Janice became his
girlfriend
on May 10, 1996, according to Joseph. His relationship with Sheryl
allegedly
ended because of Janice.[63]
Sheryl was allegedly disappointed because Janice "discredited" him
before
Sheryl.[64]
Janice allegedly did so after the first phone call. Despite this,
appellant
testified that he started courting Janice during their second phone
conversation,
as Janice was a "caring" person, "a shoulder to cry on".[65]
Appellant added that he in fact wanted to marry Janice. 66 Joseph
confirmed
that he inserted about half of his penis inside Janice's vagina and
made
in and out movements.[67]
Janice pleaded with him to go "dahan-dahan," and he was so concerned
for
her as she said it was painful.[68]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's mother,
Ma. Cristina Narido Dizon, corroborated his testimony. She stated that
at around 5:00 p.m. of May 21, 1996, her son Joseph came to see her at
the clinic where she worked. According to her, Joseph wanted to borrow
some money as well as introduce his girlfriend to her.[69]
She confirmed meeting Janice May Salvador.[70]
She said Janice and Joseph were a few feet away from her, and she could
see that the two were holding hands.[71]
She also knew that prior to that day, her son and Janice were already
phone
pals, because she would sometimes be the one to pick up the phone when
Janice called, asking for her son.[72]
The meeting at the clinic was her first time to meet Janice in person.
Her son borrowed money from her so that he could treat somebody, whom
she
surmised meant Janice, on a date. Joseph was not carrying a belt bag
then,
and she did not ask Joseph to bring papers or documents.[73]
On March 6, 2000, the
trial court promulgated its judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds the herein accused JOSEPH DIZON Y NARIDO GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under
Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 8353 and is
hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The period during
which
the accused was in detention during the pendency of this case shall be
credited to him in full provided that he agreed to abide by and comply
with the rules and regulations of the Pasay City Jail.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accused is further
ordered
to indemnify the private complainant, JANICE MAY SALVADOR, the amount
of
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[74]
Hence, the instant
appeal.
Before us, appellant
raises the following issues:
WHETHER OR
NOT
THERE ARE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S SUBJECT
DECISION, FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT,
AND chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHETHER OR NOT
THERE
ARE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ENGENDER REASONABLE DOUBT TO WARRANT HIS
ACQUITTAL
OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED.[75]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Stated simply, the
principal
issue for resolution is whether or not the prosecution has proved
beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant for the crime of rape.
Basically,
appellant assails the credibility of complainant Janice May Salvador.
Thus,
the resolution of the main issue rests upon the credibility of the
testimony
of the offended party herself and other witnesses for the prosecution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In reviewing rape cases,
this Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation for
rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but even more
difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of
the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two persons are usually
involved,
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution;
and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.[76]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant stresses that
the testimony of the complainant should be determined under the
"severest"
scrutiny.[77]
Appellant assails the trial court's finding that the narration of the
complainant
was given in a "direct and straightforward manner." Appellant says that
this refers only to the "manner" of the narration and not to the
"substance"
thereof. It was merely the "presentation" of complainant's testimony
which
was credible, he said.[78]
Appellant avers that the trial court did not consider the manner in
which
complainant testified in her cross-examination. The trial court also
did
not explain why and how it got the impression that the narration of the
complainant was "direct and straightforward."[79]
Insofar as the "substance" of the narration is concerned, appellant
avers
that there was insufficient discussion on the substance of
complainant's
testimony by itself and in relation to the other testimonial evidence
adduced
by the prosecution.[80]
Appellant further avers that the facts are simple and no difficult
details
are needed. Thus, he contends the trial court erred in concluding that
"the detailed and minutiae manner of narration indicates sincerity and
truthfulness, and thus, deserves credence."[81]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For the appellee, the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that an examination of
the
testimony of Janice would disclose that she was forced or intimidated
by
appellant to submit to his carnal designs. Citing pertinent portions of
the transcript of Janice's testimony, the OSG avers that Janice's
credibility
is beyond question, she gave a straightforward and honest account of
what
actually happened.[82]
The OSG adds that Janice was lengthily and intensively grilled by the
defense
for possible loopholes in her testimony, or any disposition on her part
to prevaricate. However, according to the OSG, there was not an
instance
that she faltered or gave a conflicting statement. All throughout, she
was very firm and candid.[83]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Well-settled is the
general rule that when the credibility of witnesses is at issue,
appellate
courts will not disturb the finding of the trial court on the ground
that
the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses'
deportment,
demeanor, and manner of testifying. Only in exceptional cases will such
finding be rejected where, for instance, the records reveal
contradictory
observations. After careful scrutiny of the records, particularly the
testimony
of private complainant Janice May Salvador, this Court finds no reason
to disturb the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility
of witnesses for the prosecution.cralaw:red
Indeed, Janice's account
of her ordeal in the hands of the appellant was straightforward, firm,
candid and consistent. Notwithstanding the rigid, lengthy and rigorous
cross-examination of the defense, Janice May Salvador remained
steadfast
in her narration of the details of her harrowing experience. To us, the
observations of the trial court were well-founded. A thorough reading
of
the transcript shows that Janice's testimony bears the earmarks of
truth
and credibility.cralaw:red
Thus, as held by this
Court, "when the testimony of a rape victim is plain and
straightforward,
to the point and unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency,
it deserves full faith and credit; certainly, it is one that cannot be
discarded."[84]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant contends that
the absence of vaginal lacerations and the absence of bleeding by the
complainant,
who was only 15 years old and a virgin, cast doubt on the commission of
rape.[85]
Citing People v. Paragsa[86]
appellant claims that "the absence of laceration in the vaginal walls
of
the minor private complainant negates the charge of rape." According to
appellant, the absence of bleeding or laceration indicates that at the
time of sexual encounter, complainant's organ was already adequately
lubricated.
Such lubrication can only come about in a consensual intercourse, says
appellant,[87]
citing: "No laceration, no forced copulation".[88]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant argues that
the medical findings support his contention. The gynecological
examination,
according to the defense, found that the area around the hymen was
abraded
and contused on all sides. Hymen was intact, "distensible" and without
any laceration. The defense adds that the abrasions and contusions were
incurred in accord with the ordinary and natural deflowering of a
virgin,
hence the vaginal trauma attendant to a virgin's first sex.[89]
This, plus an intact hymen, according to the defense, bolsters
appellant's
testimony that he inserted only half of his penis into complainant's
vagina.
With regard to the physical examination findings, appellant contends
that
it is simply highly improbable and incredible that despite the
purported
struggle in the course of a sexual assault, complainant only sustained
such peculiarly localized abrasions. She incurred seven abrasions at
the
back of her arms which, according to the defense, are least expected to
be found, considering the circumstances given. Thus, the defense
concludes,
the trial court did not have sufficient factual basis to conclude that
the "medical findings further strengthened the story of complainant
that
she was forced to copulate.[90]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In reply, the OSG maintains
that the absence of vaginal lacerations does not negate the commission
of rape. As explained by the examining physician, Dr. Vargas himself,
penetration
of the vagina does not necessarily produce laceration of the hymen.[91]
The absence of extensive abrasions and contusions on the vaginal wall
does
not rule out rape because the slightest penetration is enough.[92]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The contention of the
OSG is well-taken. That the victim's hymen is intact does not negate a
finding that rape was committed.[93]
In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof — a
mere
knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's
penis
suffices to constitute the crime of rape.[94]
In this case, appellant himself testified that he inserted half the
length
of his penis into Janice's vagina. This is admission that sexual
congress
took place. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the
female
organ, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen suffices to
warrant
conviction for rape.[95]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, as testified
to by Dr. Vargas, Janice's hymen was the distensible or elastic kind,
in
which case, it can be penetrated by an adult Filipino male organ in
full
erection without producing hymenal laceration.[96]
This satisfactorily explains the absence of genital injury, according
to
the medico-legal officer.[97]
But the defense argues
that the "incomplete penile penetration" merits another interpretation
in favor of appellant's innocence. It is not improbable that due to a
first
timer's pain, and soft pleas from the private complainant, the
appellant
contented himself to half the pleasure and desisted from going deeper
into
her. This, according to the defense, is not the way a rapist behaves.[98]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Granting arguendo that
there was incomplete penile penetration, this fact alone does not
persuade
us to accept appellant's sweetheart theory. Appellant could be the
considerate
and gentle lover he portrayed himself to be. But this would not detract
from the pain and dishonor the victim suffered. Moreover, the records
show,
despite half-way penetration, appellant's carnal lust was satiated in
full
measure, as evidenced by his having reached orgasm.[99]
Nothing in the law of rape excuses appellant's offense simply because
he
claims he acted as a reluctant Lothario. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's defense
also contends that complainant was not entirely blameless under the
circumstances.
She may even be faulted as negligent, according to appellant. Citing
People
v. Joven,[100]
appellant claims that complainant must answer for her contributory
negligence,
hence, the charge must be dismissed and the appellant acquitted.[101]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On this point, the OSG
stresses that Janice was tricked and intimidated by the appellant.[102]
Under the circumstances, 15-year-old Janice could not be expected to
have
the steely nerve to disregard the words or commands of the appellant.
Surely,
according to the OSG, her only fault was her naivete and immaturity.[103]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering the circumstances
that led to the commission of the offense, it appears to us that
appellant
used his gun to sufficiently establish fear in Janice's mind, enough
for
her to succumb to appellant's actual designs. He took advantage of her
immaturity, he played on her naivete, he used threats to cow her. But
there
was no attributable negligence on her part that contributed to the
rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As the OSG argues, contrary
to appellant's allegation, Janice vigorously resisted and tried to stop
the sexual assault. She screamed for help but no one came.[104]
She kicked and pushed appellant away to prevent him from consummating
his
lustful desire. But he had a gun and he threatened to kill her.[105]
The conduct of the woman
immediately after an alleged sexual assault is crucial to establish the
truth or falsity of the rape charge. The victim's instant willingness,
as well as courage, to face interrogation and medical examination could
be a mute but eloquent proof of the truth of her claim.[106]
In this case, the complainant after the assault hurried out of the room
and asked for help from two persons she saw in the lodge, but they
unfortunately
hesitated to help her. She then turned to the cashier and security
guard
of the lodge, but they also proved uncaring. Certainly, the OSG
contends,
it is hard to believe that she went to the extent of narrating her
experience
to complete strangers if she was not telling them the truth. Janice
lost
no time in disclosing the incident to her mother the same night when
she
arrived home. Accompanied by her parents and a policeman-neighbor, she
reported the incident to the police, and she submitted herself to
medical
examination.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the time of the incident,
Janice had just graduated from high school. She admitted she never had
a boyfriend yet. It is apparent that appellant had sufficiently
conditioned
her mind to believe that he was involved in the drama of carrying a
gun,
instilling fear in Janice to obediently follow him and his wishes. She
became an easy prey to appellant's sexual designs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the sweetheart defense,
appellant admits that no love letters or notes were available under the
circumstances because Janice and he were phone pals. But appellant
faults
the prosecution for failing to rebut the sweetheart theory proffered by
the defense.[107]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For the appellee, the
OSG contends that appellant's sweetheart theory is nothing but a sham.
In the first place, appellant failed to establish the existence of a
romantic
relationship. Janice might be a phone pal but she vehemently denied
that
she had feelings for the appellant.[108]
According to the OSG, the appellant merely concocted the alleged
romance
in order to exculpate him from criminal liability.[109]
But, even granting that they were sweethearts, this fact would not, by
itself, exonerate appellant.[110]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Having admitted to having
had carnal knowledge of the complainant on the date and time in
question,
the appellant bears the burden of proving his defense, that she
consented
to the sexual act, by clear and convincing evidence. This, he failed to
do. No cogent reason exists to overturn the decision of the trial
court.
We sustain appellant's conviction for the crime of rape with the use of
a gun, a deadly weapon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The penalty for rape
when attended by the circumstance of use of a deadly weapon is
reclusion
perpetua to death. Following Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code,
"When
there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission
of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied." Hence we agree that
the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed by the
trial
court. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the amount of damages
awarded, however, modifications are in order. While we find the award
of
P50,000 as civil indemnity to be proper, moral damages in the amount of
P50,000 and exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 should also be
imposed.
Moral damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of
further
proof other than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed
that
a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to
such
an award.[111]
The use of a deadly weapon having attended the commission of the crime,
112 exemplary damages ought also to be awarded in favor of private
complainant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Brach 110, finding
appellant JOSEPH DIZON Y NARIDO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime
of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is hereby ordered to pay
private
complainant, Janice May Salvador, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages,
together
with the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 115–137. Penned by Judge Porfirio G. Macaraeg.
[2]
Id. at 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Sheril, Cheryl in some parts of the records.
[5]
TSN, 8 August 1997, pp. 6–7.
[6]
Id. at 8–9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 13–15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, 8 August 1997, pp. 17–19.
[12]
Id. at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 20–21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
"Natiktikan na ako na may dalang baril." See TSN, 8 August 1997, p. 8.
[16]
TSN, 8 August 1997, pp. 22–23.
[17]
Id. at 23–24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id. at 24–25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id. at 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Translated as "Son of a bitch. What's happening to you?"
[23]
TSN, 8 August 1997, p. 26.
[24]
Id. at 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Id. at 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id. at 29–31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id. at 32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 33.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id. at 33–34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Id. at 34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
TSN, 8 August 1997, pp. 34–35.
[33]
Id. at 36–37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Id. at 37–38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Id. at 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Id. at 40.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
Id. at 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Id. at 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
Id. at 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
TSN, 24 February 1999, pp. 5 and 8.
[41]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Id. at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
Id. at 24–25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
TSN, 16 April 1999, p. 9.
[48]
Id. at 2–24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
Id. at 20–21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
Id. at 23–24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[52]
TSN, 4 June 1999, pp. 3–39.
[53]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
Id. at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
Id. at 14–16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
TSN, 4 June 1999, p. 16.
[58]
Id. at 18–19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[59]
Id. at 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[60]
Id. at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[61]
Id. at 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[62]
Id. at 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
TSN, 16 June 1999, p. 9.
[64]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[66]
Id. at 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[67]
Id. at 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[68]
Id. at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[69]
TSN, 29 July 1999, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[70]
Id. at 3–4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[71]
Id. at 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[72]
Id. at 4–5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[73]
Id. at 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[74]
Rollo, p. 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[75]
Id. at 81.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[76]
People v. Dayna, G.R. No. 134486, 16 November 2001, 369 SCRA 245,
250–251.
[77]
Rollo, p. 84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[78]
Id. at 85.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[79]
Id. at 86.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[80]
Id. at 87.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[81]
Id. at 95.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[82]
Id. at 159.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[83]
Id. at 169.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[84]
People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 129397, 8 February 1999, 302 SCRA 669, 678.
[85]
Rollo, p. 88.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[86]
No. L-44060, 20 July 1978, 84 SCRA 105, 114.
[87]
Rollo, p. 91.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[88]
Id. at 93.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[89]
Id. at 91.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[90]
Id. at 95.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[91]
Id. at 173.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[92]
Id. at 175, citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 121039-45, 25 January
1999,
302 SCRA 21, 53.
[93]
People v. Gagto, G.R. No. 113345, 9 February 1996, 253 SCRA 455, 464.
[94]
People v. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, 25 June 1996, 257 SCRA 561, 573.
[95]
People v. Galimba, G.R. No. 111563-64, 20 February 1996, 253 SCRA 722,
730.
[96]
TSN, 21 May 1997, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[97]
See People v. Conde, G.R. No. 112034, 31 January 1996, 252 SCRA 681,
689.
[98]
Rollo, pp. 92–93.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[99]
TSN, 16 June 1999, p. 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[100]
No. L-36022, 22 May 1975, 64 SCRA 126.
[101]
Rollo, p. 97.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[102]
Id. at 171.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[103]
Id. at 171–172.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[104]
Id. at 175.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[105]
Id. at 176.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[106]
People v. Rapisora, G.R. No. 138086, 25 January 2001, 350 SCRA 299, 309.
[107]
Rollo, pp. 100–101.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[108]
Id. at 170.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[109]
Id. at 171.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[110]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[111]
People v. Lachica, G.R. No. 143677, 9 May 2002, 382 SCRA 162, 180.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[112]
People v. Añonuevo, G.R. No. 137843, 12 October 2001, 367 SCRA
237,
251.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |