SECOND DIVISION.
.
PEPITO SIBUYO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
145217
December 10, 2003
-versus-
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This is a Petition
for Review on
Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, as amended, of the decision of the Court of Appeals[1]
in CA-G.R. CR No. 18998 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial
Court,
Pasig City, Branch 167,[2]
finding petitioner Pepito Sibuyo guilty of acts of lasciviousness,
sentencing
him to an indeterminate penalty and to suffer all the accessory
penalties
provided for by law, and to pay the costs. The trial court failed to
award
moral damages in favor of the private complainant Jocelyn Junio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Indictment
The petitioner was charged
with acts of lasciviousness in a criminal complaint, the accusatory
portion
of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
undersigned
complainant, under oath, accuses PEPITO SIBUYO of the crime of Acts of
Lasciviousness, committed as follows:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about the
21st day of May 1993, in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
with lewd designs and by means of force, violence and intimidation,
did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of
lasciviousness
upon the person of one Jocelyn Junio, by then and there kissing kissing
(sic) her neck and touching her breast against the latter's will and
consent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On his arraignment,
the petitioner, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case for the
Prosecution
Jocelyn Junio and petitioner
Pepito Sibuyo were co-workers at the Philusa Corporation located in
Capitol
Drive, Pasig, Metro Manila. She was a labeler in the non-liquid section
of the company while petitioner is a warehouseman assigned in the
salvaging
section. The "salvage room" where the petitioner held office was where
returned items of the company including disposable items were stocked.
The petitioner had a folding bed in the room where he held office and
installed
a partition made of cartons, the "size of one plywood," to serve as his
resting area which was accessible to anyone in the company who may want
to take a rest or a nap during breaktime, although the management
discouraged
such practice of hanging around the salvage room. Sometimes, Jocelyn
would
take a nap in the salvage room, together with other co-workers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For the more than ten
(10) years that Jocelyn and Pepito had known each other, they became
friends,
comfortable with each other, and sometimes invited by other friends and
co-workers to stand as godparents of their children.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 21, 1993, at
around 10:30 a.m., Jocelyn experienced stomach pains while working. As
breaktime was then approaching, she asked permission from her superior,
Jaime Lim, to take a rest which the latter granted.[4]
On her way out of the non-liquid section, Jocelyn told Olivia
Rañola,
a co-worker, that she was taking a rest at the salvage room which was
only
four rooms away. She was wary of resting in the company clinic as it
was
located outside their building and she had to take a long walk or ride
a tricycle to reach the same.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When Jocelyn was in
the hallway going to the salvage room, she met the petitioner who was
then
carrying some samples out of the said room. She greeted him by nodding,
and signaled her intention of using the bed in the salvage room.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Jocelyn prepared the
folding bed and the electric fan. She then applied some liniment on her
stomach to relieve the pain, and laid down. She managed to get some
sleep.
However, she was flustered when she felt that someone was on top of
her,
kissing her, and mashing her right breast. She was shocked when he saw
the petitioner kissing her neck, his left hand mashing her right
breast,
and his right hand on the folding bed. Infuriated, Jocelyn started to
struggle
to fend off his assault. She kicked him and tried to free herself of
his
hold. Undeterred, the petitioner whispered, "Tayo lang dalawa,
pagbigyan
mo na ako." Incensed at the effrontery, she warned the petitioner that
if she will not be allowed to stand up, she will kick him. The
petitioner
stood up and let go of Jocelyn. She forthwith ran towards the front
door
but it was locked. She tried to exit through the back door but it was
also
locked. She loosened some nails on the lock. The petitioner went back
to
his working table and told Jocelyn to calm down and take her rest as he
will not bother her anymore. When she succeeded unlocking the door,
Jocelyn
bolted out from the salvage room and went to their locker room where
she
met a co-worker, Hilaria Franco. Still trembling from her experience,
Jocelyn
narrated to Hilaria what the petitioner had done to her inside the
salvage
room.[7]
Hilaria tried to calm her down and comfort Jocelyn and advised her to
rest
a while in the locker room. Thereafter, Jocelyn went back to her place
of work, and there, she silently cried as she mulled over what had just
happened. One of her co-workers, Olivia Rañola, noticed Jocelyn.
She tried to calm her down, while Jocelyn also confided to Olivia about
her misfortune. Jocelyn showed the marks on her arms when she fended
off
the petitioner's assault on her person.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Later that day, petitioner
made a phone call to Jocelyn and told her, "Sinayang mo ang pagkakataon
nating dalawa." Jocelyn boiled alone and cursed him, threw expletives[9]
at him and slammed the receiver down. Since then, Jocelyn avoided the
petitioner.[10]
The latter tried to talk to her a number of times but failed. He called
Jocelyn on the phone several times to no avail. He would call her on
the
phone using other names but Jocelyn recognized his voice and slammed
the
phone down.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the petitioner's
repeated attempts to talk to her through the phone proved futile, the
petitioner
went to the non-liquid section to confront her. Upon seeing her, the
petitioner
cursed her and gave her the dirty finger. He then asked Jocelyn, "Anong
pinagkakalat mong ni-rape kita?"[11]
When the petitioner and Jocelyn exchanged heated words, their
co-workers
tried to pacify them. The commotion that ensued reached the management.
The manager, Divina Puyo, required the non-liquid section supervisor to
submit his report on the incident. Other three (3) managers were
informed
about the incident. Management decided to create a committee to
investigate
Jocelyn's charge of acts of lasciviousness against the petitioner.
Jocelyn
testified before the investigating committee and narrated how the
petitioner
committed the crime. Meanwhile, the company ordered the preventive
suspension
of the petitioner and terminated his employment effective July 27,
1993,
on the ground that the investigating committee had found him guilty of
acts of indecency against Jocelyn, which was punishable by dismissal
under
the company's existing policy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 2, 1993, petitioner
filed with the Department of Labor and Employment a case for illegal
dismissal
against Philusa, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-08-04870-93. The
petitioner
averred that Jocelyn's charge of acts of lasciviousness was merely a
concoction
of Jocelyn. After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter[12]
rendered a Decision[13]
on April 25, 1994, in favor of petitioner. The Labor Arbiter found that
the company had not observed the two-notice rule before terminating the
employment of the petitioner. Although the Investigating Committee
conducted
an investigation, the petitioner was not given the opportunity to
confront
Jocelyn and the witnesses against her, with the assistance of counsel.
Thus, no fair hearing was given to the petitioner before the
termination
of his employment. The company appealed to the NLRC.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While the appeal was
pending, Jocelyn filed a criminal complaint on December 13, 1993
against
the petitioner with the prosecutor's office, for acts of lasciviousness
and submitted an affidavit in support of the complaint. The case was
docketed
as Criminal Case No. 105753.[15]
After the requisite preliminary investigation, a criminal complaint was
filed against the petitioner with the Regional Trial Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his defense, the
petitioner testified that he was a warehouseman at Philusa Corporation,
assigned in the salvaging section.[16]
On May 21, 1993, at around 10:30 a.m. and after taking his break, he
went
to his working place and saw Jocelyn Junio lying on his folding bed.[17]
Jocelyn told him that she was having stomach pains. The petitioner
advised
her to go to the clinic but Jocelyn just smiled and continued lying in
bed. Jocelyn was peeved when the petitioner got the electric fan from
her.
He went to the comfort room to answer the call of nature, but when he
returned
to his working place, Jocelyn was no longer around.[18]
Thereafter, he learned that Jocelyn started spreading rumors that he
had
made sexual advances to her. He immediately sought the advice of his
production
manager on what to do, or what the management can do, to stop Jocelyn.
However, no action was taken by the manager. He was even being tagged
by
Jocelyn's boyfriend as a maniac. Thus, he confronted Jocelyn and her
boyfriend,
which caught the attention of the management.[19]
Next thing he knew, he was charged by Jocelyn of acts of
lasciviousness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner further
averred that he had been plaguing the company with requests and demands
for his promotion in the office. However, his requests fell on deaf
ears.
All he got were excuses. When he incurred a considerable number of
absences
from work, the manager reproached him. He suspected that the company
was
using Jocelyn to get rid of him, as he had noticed that Jocelyn
ingratiated
herself to management, to the extent that Jocelyn had been called names
like "Tigas" or "Makapal ang mukha." The petitioner testified that
Jocelyn
has the tendency to fabricate stories and exaggerate them.[20]
He further averred that he and Jocelyn were close friends. There were
times
that he would fetch a pail of water for Jocelyn upon her request when
she
needed it while using the comfort room. He would see her sitting on the
latrine with her pants down, but never put any malice to it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 31, 1995,
the trial court rendered judgment finding the petitioner guilty as
charged.
The decretal portion of which reads as follows:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds the accused Pepito Sibuyo GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt
of the crime of acts of lasciviousness and is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate
penalty of Six (6) Months, as minimum, to Four (4) years and Two (2)
Months,
as maximum; to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law;
and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For lack of
substantiating
evidence, a finding on the civil indemnity against the accused in favor
of the offended party cannot be reached.
SO ORDERED.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner Pepito
Sibuyo appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which rendered
judgment
affirming the trial court's decision, giving weight to the findings of
the court a quo. It also accorded faith and credence to the testimony
of
the private complainant Jocelyn since the petitioner had failed to
prove
any nefarious motive on her part to charge him for acts of
lasciviousness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the present recourse,
the petitioner contends that the trial and the appellate courts erred
(1)
when they found no nefarious motive on the part of Jocelyn when she
filed
the criminal charge against him; and (2) when they gave credence and
full
probative weight to the testimony of Jocelyn despite the fact that it
took
her seven months after the commission of the alleged acts when she
charged
him with acts of lasciviousness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition is
bereft
of merit.chanrobles virtual law library
The petitioner asserts
that contrary to the findings of the trial court and the appellate
court,
Jocelyn admitted when she testified that she charged him with acts of
lasciviousness
because the petitioner maligned her in connection with the charge for
illegal
dismissal against petitioner in the NLRC. The petitioner further
asserts
that Jocelyn was being used by the company to fend off his charge of
illegal
dismissal against it. In fact, the company arranged for the company
lawyer,
Atty. Negre, to help her in the preliminary aspect of the criminal
complaint
against him for acts of lasciviousness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner contends
that the deafening silence of Jocelyn, after he allegedly subjected her
to lascivious act, for seven months in contrast to his act of
immediately
confronting Jocelyn when the latter spread nasty rumors that he
allegedly
raped her belie the charges of Jocelyn and fortify his defense. If it
were
true that he subjected her to lascivious acts or attempted to rape her,
she should have charged him without delay instead of concealing the
affront
of her honor for a considerable period of time.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioner further
contends that it was highly improbable for him to have molested Jocelyn
in the salvaging section where employees were at work. No one in his
right
mind would dare molest another in an open area crawling with people.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The ruminations of the
petitioner do not hold water. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First. The
petitioner himself testified that he was solicitous of Jocelyn when she
had a stomach ache. According to the petitioner, Jocelyn had been
intimate
to him. It is incredible that Jocelyn would concoct the charge against
the petitioner and allow herself to be used by the company to pillory
the
petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second. The
petitioner
has not adduced any evidence to prove ill-motive on the part of the
complainant
to pillory him and cause his dismissal from the company and enmesh
herself
in a litigation before the Labor Arbiter and in the NLRC on appeal.
Absent
any ill-motive, her testimony is worthy of full faith and
credence. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third. That the
company
provided Jocelyn the services of counsel to help her prepare the
criminal
charges against the petitioner was not unexpected. In point of fact,
the
company was obliged to do so if its employees are molested by a
co-employee
in the company premises. Such acts constitute not only a violation of
company
rules but also subversive of the morale of the employees in general,
and
women employees in particular. Moreover, Jocelyn was the principal
witness
of the company against the petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court gave
credence to the testimony of the complainant. It is well-settled that
this
Court will not interfere with the trial court's evaluation of the
credibility
of witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or
circumstance
of weight and influence that has been overlooked or the significance of
which has been misapprehended or misinterpreted.[22]
As it is, the petitioner failed to sufficiently show any circumstance
that
might have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted by the
trial
court. We agree with the Court of Appeals when it declared that the
trial
court was in a better position to decide the question of credibility of
witnesses having heard them during trial, and that no compelling reason
has been presented by the petitioner to disturb such findings.[23]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That Jocelyn took seven
months to file her criminal complaint for acts of lasciviousness
against
the petitioner could enfeeble the credibility of Jocelyn and as
verisimilitude
of her charge. The evidence on record shows that immediately after the
incident, Jocelyn cried her heart out and confided to some co-workers,
her way of coping with her horrible experience. She is a woman who felt
that she had been violated. While she may have decided not to report
immediately
to her superiors, the petitioner, kept on pestering her, calling her on
the phone, and confronted her in front of other co-workers, which
eventually
reached the management of the company. Jocelyn cannot be blamed for
failing
to charge the petitioner with acts of lasciviousness only seven months
after the crime was committed. She knew fully well that if she charged
the petitioner she will undergo embarrassment and humiliation of a
public
trial and during which she will reveal to the public how the petitioner
subjected her to acts of lasciviousness. We agree with the ruminations
of the trial court:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Similarly,
the late filing of the criminal action by the complainant cannot
militate
against her. As sufficiently explained by her, her honor and reputation
was being besmirched in the labor case filed by the accused against
their
employer, as precisely the accused was contesting his dismissal,
claiming
that the act of lasciviousness he was administratively charged of was
spurious.
Complainant is entitled to a personal vindication, apart from the
justice
and rectification she was seeking from her employer. Nonetheless, the
delay
in filing the criminal case was not an indication of a fabricated
charge.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The fact that the
petitioner
molested Jocelyn in a place frequented by other co-workers, some of
whom
use it as a short-cut and a passageway, is not improbable. In a catena
of cases, we have ruled that lust is no respecter of time and place. If
rape can be committed in places where people congregate, even in the
same
room where other members of the family are sleeping, there is less
reason
to believe that other people sleeping in the same room can serve as a
deterrent
for the commission of lascivious acts.[25]
Thus, we find no reversible error in the decision of the Court of
Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Hector L. Hofileña (Chairman), with
Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr.,
concurring.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Penned by Judge Alfredo C. Flores.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, 13 October 1994, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, 22 February 1995, p. 37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, 13 October 1994, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, 13 October 1994, pp. 5–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 6–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
"Gago, putang ina mo!"chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
TSN, 13 October 1994, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
LA Eduardo J. Carpio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Exhibit "3-A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, 22 February 1995, p. 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, 22 February 1995, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 13–14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, 22 February 1995, p. 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id. at 15–16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Footnote text not found in the original.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People vs. Perez, 351 SCRA 549 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
See Rollo, p. 23.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Records, p. 174.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
People vs. Jimenez, 356 SCRA 508 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |