FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
151858
November 27, 2003
-versus-
JOSELITO PASCUA Y
TEOPE,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Appellant Joselito
Pascua y Teope was charged before the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo
City, Branch 32 in Criminal Case No. 12575-SP(00) with the crime of
rape
in an information[1]
which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That
sometime
in the month of August, 2000, in the City of San Pablo, Republic of the
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused
above-named, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation,
did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of one ALMA AGAPAY, against her will and consent. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The mental
disability
of the victim shall be appreciated as aggravating circumstance.
Contrary to law.
Appellant pleaded "not
guilty." Trial on the merits then ensued.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in August,
2000, complainant Alma Agapay, a 22-year old mental retardate, was on
the
railroad tracks near their house at Daang Bakal, Public Market, San
Pablo
City when appellant approached her and said, "I don't know you but I
know
your mother." He then pulled Alma and brought her inside an old
abandoned
train car. He tied her hands above her head and made her lie down on
the
floor covered with a flattened carton box. He removed her dress and
panties,
after which he also undressed. While holding a knife with his right
hand,
he kissed her then inserted his penis into her vagina, causing it to
bleed.
Alma felt pain. She shouted and tried to fight back but her efforts
were
in vain since she could not move her right arm due to a stroke she
suffered
before. After raping her three or four times, appellant threatened to
kill
her and her mother if she would tell anybody what happened.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A month later, Alma's
mother, Trinidad Agapay, noticed that her daughter was behaving
strangely.
When she asked her what was wrong, the latter confessed that she had
been
raped by appellant. Trinidad brought Alma to the police authorities
where
they filed a complaint for rape against appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Alma was thereafter
brought to Dr. Ma. Arlene Bicomong Cuervas, a physician at the San
Pablo
City District Hospital. However, Dr. Cuervas only conducted a partial
medical
examination on Alma because she refused to undergo internal examination
since it was painful. Dr. Cuervas found that Alma sustained hematoma on
the hypogastric area measuring about 6 x 3 cm.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his defense, appellant
denied the charge against him. He testified that he does not know Alma
or her mother, Trinidad. However, he admitted seeing her sometimes in
the
public market but did not pay much attention to her as he was always
busy
working at the Philippine National Railways (PNR) train station.cralaw:red
On August 29, 2001,
the trial court rendered a Decision,[2]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
the guilt of the accused having been established beyond reasonable
doubt
for the crime of Rape, the Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accused is
further
ordered to indemnify the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this appeal. In
his Brief, appellant raises the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE INCREDULOUS TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In reviewing rape
cases,
the Court has always been guided by three well-entrenched principles:
(a)
that an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult
to
prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to
disprove;
(b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime which usually
involves
two persons, the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with
extreme
caution; and (c) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or
fall
on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness
of evidence of the defense. Accordingly, the primordial consideration
in
a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of the
complainant's testimony.[4]
In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of
the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Significantly, the trial
court found Alma to be credible when it observed, thus:
It is
undisputed
that the victim is a retardate or suffering from a sort of mental
deficiency.
Her manner of testifying as well as deportment in Court bespeak of her
mental defect. However, the Court has observed that she could perceive
and make known or express her perceptions to others. In the instant
case,
she clearly explained her perceptions of what happened when she was
ravished
sexually by the accused. Her behaviour at the witness stand pointing to
the accused as the one who raped her and requested that accused be
brought
to the police and be sentenced to death were clearly expressed in a
straightforward
manner, thus the Court was impressed of her positive identification of
the accused x x x. In the instant case, the Court
similarly
considers the conduct of the victim where after the incident she was
described
to have remained silent in one place of their house, unable to eat and
has become thinner which invited the attention of her mother and
prompted
to ask the victim why she was behaving that way and why she was getting
thinner and thinner. She was constrained to reveal to her mother what
the
accused had done to her and without much ado, the mother sought the
help
of a neighbor to report the matter to a nearby PSAF Office. This
complaint
to the PSAF Office led to the investigation of the case.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant cites the
alleged
discrepancy or inconsistency between Alma's testimony that she was
raped
three (3) times causing her to bleed "dalawang buong dugo," on the one
hand, and the medico-legal findings and the testimony of the examining
physician that there was no abrasion or spermatozoa, that the hymen
remains
intact with no laceration and that there is a possibility that a penis
has not touched the labia of Alma's vagina, on the other hand.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A cursory examination
of the transcripts, however, shows Dr. Cuervas in fact testified that
appellant's
penis could have touched Alma's vagina but was not inserted because
there
was no laceration.[7]
Case law has it that a freshly lacerated hymen is not an essential
element
of rape. Mere touching, no matter how slight of the labia or lips of
the
female organ by the male genitalia even without rapture or laceration
of
the hymen is sufficient to consummate rape.[8]
For the same reason,
the medical finding that the hymen of the victim is still intact does
not
negate rape. Full penetration is not required, as proof of entrance
showing
the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum
of the female organ is sufficient. In proving sexual intercourse, it is
enough that there is the slightest penetration of the male organ into
the
female sex organ.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In any case, Alma's
testimony that she bled cannot be completely disproved by the finding
that
her hymen was intact with no laceration considering that there was no
internal
examination conducted "to determine the vaginal canal (sic), the
presence
of fluid in the vaginal canal, for the uterus and ovaries to be
assessed."[10]
What was conducted was only a partial and external examination.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We have consistently
held that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to a
prosecution
for rape. It is merely corroborative in character and not
indispensable.
The accused may be convicted even solely on the basis of her testimony
if credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and
the
course of things.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Besides, we have held
time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the
testimonies
of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching
upon
the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the
witnesses.
Instead of weakening their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to
strengthen
the witnesses' credibility because they discount the possibility of
their
being rehearsed.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It has been held in
a long line of cases that the findings of the trial court on the
credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect. It is
the
trial judge who sees the behavior and demeanor of the witness in court.
The evaluation or assessment made by the trial court acquires greater
significance
in rape cases because from the nature of the offense, the only evidence
that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is
the victim's testimony.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In contrast, appellant
could only offer denial in his defense. It is well-settled that denial,
if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving
assertion that deserves no weight in law. Between the categorical and
positive
assertions of the prosecution witnesses and the negative averments of
the
accused which are uncorroborated by reliable and independent evidence,
the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to
greater
evidentiary weight.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Besides, appellant's
bare denial of the crime charged is inherently weak. It cannot prevail
over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the private
complainant,
whose credibility was upheld by the trial court. Between the positive
declarations
of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the
appellant,
the former deserves more credence. Denials must be buttressed by strong
evidence of non-culpability.[15]
Appellant failed in this regard.cralaw:red
Moreover, appellant
cannot point to any motive as to why Alma would file a complaint for
rape
against him. In the absence of any evidence to show that the witness
was
actuated by any improper motive, his identification of the appellant as
the author of the crime shall be given full faith and credit.[16]
Rape is punishable by
reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code. The mental condition of the victim cannot be
appreciated
to aggravate the crime and to warrant the death penalty. Under Article
266 (10) of the Revised
Penal Code, the rape shall be qualified "when the offender knew of
the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of
the
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime." Being in
the
nature of a qualifying circumstance, this should be specifically
alleged
in the Information. The allegation therein of the mental disability of
the victim is insufficient. What should be alleged is the knowledge by
the offender of such mental disability.[17]
Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court ordered
appellant to indemnify the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages only. The
award of moral damages is in line with current case law. 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 award.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In addition, the trial
court should have also ordered appellant to pay the victim P50,000.00
as
civil indemnity ex delicto. In People v. Padrigone,[19]
citing People v. Belga,[20]
we held that civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact
of rape; it is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral
damages
which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the
court
in the exercise of sound discretion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo
City,
Branch 32, finding appellant Joselito Pascua y Teope 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 victim, Alma Agapay, the
amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION
that appellant is further ordered to pay the victim the amount of
P50,000.00
as civil indemnity ex delicto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban,
Carpio and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Penned by Judge Zorayda Herradura-Salcedo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Appellant's Brief, Rollo, p. 46.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
People v. Medina, G.R. Nos. 127756-58, 18 June 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
People v. Biong, G.R. Nos. 144445-47, 30 April 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Decision, Records, p. 69.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, August 7, 2001, p, 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People v. Medina, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
People v. Evina, G.R. Nos. 124830-31, 27 June 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
TSN, August 7, 2001, p. 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People v. Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, 30 April 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
People v. Hilet, G.R. No. 146685, 30 April 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People v. Fabian, G.R. Nos. 148386-70, 8 July 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
People v. Hilet, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People v. Medina, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People v. Clidoro, G.R. No. 143004, 9 April 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 135877, 22 August 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 142416, 11 February 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
G.R. No. 137664, 9 May 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
G.R. No. 129769, 19 January 2001, 349 SCRA 678, 685.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|
