PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
Nos.
121731-33
November 12, 2003
-versus-
DARWIN DAVID,
RICHARD
GACER
AND JOSELITO SUGALAN,
Accused,
DARWIN DAVID,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is an
appeal from the Decision,[1]
dated February 6, 1995, of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch
136, in Criminal Case Nos. 91-4009 to 11, convicting herein appellant
Darwin
David and his co-accused Joselito V. Sugalan of the crime of rape as
defined
and penalized by Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Except for the sequence
in the enumeration of the names of the accused, the three separate
informations
for forcible abduction with rape filed against appellant Darwin David
and
his co-accused, Joselito Sugalan and Richard Gacer, were identically
worded,
as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or
about the 5th day of February 1991, and subsequent thereto, in the
Municipality
of Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines a place within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Darwin David Y Diaz,
conspiring and confederating with Richard Gacer, who is still at large,
and one Joselito Sugalan and all of them mutually helping and aiding
one
another, with lewd and unchaste design, lured aforenamed victim Agnes
A.
Thomas into attending a certain party at 15353, Wawa, Moonwalk,
Parañaque,
Metro Manila, when in fact, there was no such party and upon arrival
thereat,
the accused by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with
the complainant against her will and consent.
Contrary to law.cralaw:red
Of the three accused,
only
appellant Darwin David and Joselito Sugalan were arrested. Richard
Gacer
has remained at large.
Arraigned on September
13, 1991, appellant Darwin David and Joselito Sugalan pleaded not
guilty
to the charge.[2]
As culled from the evidence
of the prosecution, the facts were as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
On February
5, 1991, 14-year-old Agnes Thomas was in front of her employer's house
in Moonwalk, Parañaque when Richard Gacer and a certain Ricky
approached
and invited her to attend a party later that night. They agreed to meet
at a nearby vulcanizing shop. Agnes knew Richard as he used to deliver
bread in the neighborhood.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about 9:00 p.m.
that
evening, Agnes and her friend "Pogi" (the brother of Ricky) met with
Richard
and Ricky at the designated place. Thereafter, they proceeded to the
house
of Joselito Sugalan in Sto. Niño St., San Agustin Village,
Parañaque.
Upon reaching the place, Agnes asked where the party was but no one
answered
her. She asked to go home but Richard and Joselito prevented her from
leaving.
Only brothers Ricky and "Pogi" were allowed to leave. Agnes was then
led
to the "sala" (the victim referred to this portion of the house as the
terrace), after which Richard, Joselito and Darwin David, whom she saw
for the first time, conferred with one another. A few minutes later,
Joselito
entered the sala and offered Agnes a bottle of beer. When she refused
to
drink, Joselito poked a fan knife at her and forced her to consume most
of its contents. After Joselito left, Richard came in and started to
undress
her. She tried to resist but by then she was starting to feel dizzy.
Before
losing consciousness, she felt that Richard was already on top of her.
When she regained consciousness, she found herself naked and Richard
was
gone. Instead, she was alone with Darwin who poked a knife at her and
forced
her to sit down. Then he took his turn raping her. She saw blood oozing
from her private part even before Darwin could insert his penis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Agnes could only
cry
in pain after having been ravished twice. After Darwin left, Joselito
came
in and asked her "masarap ba?" Then, he raped her too.cralaw:red
While the whole
incident
was taking place, Joselito's mother, grandmother, brother and cousin
were
in a room inside the house.cralaw:red
Subsequently,
Agnes
heard Joselito arguing with Darwin as to who would take responsibility
for their acts. The following day, Joselito told his mother that Agnes
would be staying with them. Joselito's mother asked her if she wanted
to
marry her son but Agnes refused. Nevertheless, she stayed with the
Sugalan
family for about two months during which Joselito made her a sex slave.
She complained about Joselito's physical abuses but Joselito's mother
who
was herself afraid of her son, advised her to endure her suffering. She
was never allowed to go out alone. In one instance, she attempted to
escape
when she attended mass with the Sugalan family but Joselito's mother
prevented
her from doing so.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 5, 1991,
Agnes
succeeded in fleeing from the Sugalan residence after Joselito
physically
maltreated and threatened to kill her. From Parañaque, she
proceeded
to her Auntie Fe in Malibay, Pasay City. She told her aunt that she
came
from work and that she met an accident in Baclaran. It took her more
than
a month before she could muster the courage to reveal what really
happened,
because of fear of the Sugalans. Accompanied by her aunt, she reported
the incident to the police authorities and subjected herself to a
medical
examination.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The examination
report
on Agnes Thomas, prepared by Dr. Roberto Simbalon, Jr., NBI
medico-legal
officer, showed the following:chanrobles virtual law library
(1) there
were
no extra-genital injuries at the time of the examination;
(2) a healed
laceration
was found compatible with the date of the first alleged rape; and
(3) there were
signs
of probable pregnancy. Dr. Simbalon concluded that, under normal
circumstances,
the healed laceration of the hymen was caused by sexual intercourse.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Darwin and Joselito
denied
the charges against them. Joselito, 20 years old and single, claimed
that
he met Agnes on January 22, 1991 in a peryahan. She became his
girlfriend
and live-in partner from January 29, 1991 up to the first week of April
1991. They stayed in Parañaque with Joselito's mother,
grandmother,
brother and sister. He considered her as his wife and the rest of the
family
treated her very well. To prove his claim, he presented three pictures
of Agnes with handwritten notes indicating her birthday and a list of
some
of the clothes she left in their house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Joselito alleged
that
in the evening of February 5, 1991, he and Agnes slept in their room.
Sometime
in March, they had an argument because of her jealousy. He slapped her,
prompting the latter to leave the house and file the present charge
against
him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Joselito further
said
that he and his childhood friend, Darwin David, were members of a
fraternity
called "NAKAJEDU or NK" but denied having known their co-accused
Richard
Gacer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Julieta Valdez,
Joselito's
mother, testified that her son and Agnes lived together as husband and
wife in her house since January 29, 1991 up to the first week of April
1991. She met Agnes for the first time in the early morning of January
30, 1991. Upon learning that Agnes wanted to live with Joselito, she
asked
her if she wanted to marry him but the former replied that she was too
young and that she was afraid of her aunt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Darwin testified,
in
essence, that on February 5, 1991, he was with his girlfriend (now his
wife) from 6:00 p.m. up to about 12:30 midnight. He came to know Agnes
only through his friend Joselito.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a thorough
evaluation
of the evidence, the trial court convicted Darwin and Joselito of rape
and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of
its
decision read:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
and in consideration of all the foregoing, the Court finds both
accused,
Joselito Sugalan and Darwin David, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
the
crime of Rape and hereby sentences each of them to suffer an
imprisonment
of Reclusion Perpetua, and to jointly and severally indemnify the
offended
party of the (sic) sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regard the
accused,
Richard Gacer, who remains at large and had not been apprehended by the
agents of the law since the filing of this case in Court, let the case
as against said accused be archived within a period of ninety (90) days
from today; thereafter, the same to be automatically calendared for
trial.
In the meantime, let an alias warrant of arrest be issued for his
apprehension.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
So ordered.cralaw:red
Hence, this appeal.
Meanwhile, Joselito
Sugalan escaped from detention and has not been re-arrested ever since.
Thus, in a resolution dated October 14, 1996, we dismissed the appeal
of
Joselito Sugalan considering that he was at large.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Darwin David
raised a single assignment of error:chanrobles virtual law library
THE LOWER
COURT
ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONY OF ALLEGED
VICTIM
AGNES A. THOMAS AND IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS WEAK AND NOT
SUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In reviewing rape
cases,
the Court is guided by the following principles:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) 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) in view of the
nature
of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of
the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and cralaw:red
(c) the evidence
for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be
allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The conviction or
acquittal
of an accused, therefore, depends almost entirely on the credibility of
the victim's testimony since, by the intrinsic nature of this crime, it
usually involves only two persons — the victim and the accused.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this regard, the
rule is well-settled that the trial court's conclusions on the
credibility
of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and
respect,
and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain
facts
or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked
or
misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the
result
of the case.[5]
The trial court is in a better position to assess the credibility of
witnesses,
considering its firsthand opportunity to observe their demeanor and
manner
of testifying during the trial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a careful review
of the testimonies of the witnesses in this case, we find no reason to
overturn the trial court's assessment of the victim's credibility. We
find
her account to be truthful and credible, having convincingly narrated
in
detail how the three accused took turns in sexually abusing her that
fateful
night. In the words of the trial court, "the offended party's story is
so replete with details, picturing in a step-by-step fashion how the
three
accused took turn(s) in ravishing her," thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FISCAL LANOT
Q Who actually
detained
you in the balcony?
A Darwin told me
to
go to the terrace, sir.cralaw:red
Q What exactly did
Darwin
tell you or when he asked you to go to the terrace?
A He said,
"Sandali
lang, may pag-uusapan lang kaming tatlo."
Q And when you
said
"kaming tatlo" to whom was he referring?
A Richard Gacer,
Darwin
David and Joselito Sugalan.cralaw:red
Q After you were
detained
at the terrace, what happened next?
A One of them
entered
the terrace and asked me to drink beer.cralaw:red
Q And did you
drink
beer?
A I did not want
to
drink beer, but they threatened me to drink beer that's why I drank the
beer.cralaw:red
Q Who threatened
you?
A Joselito
Sugalan,
sir.cralaw:red
Q How were you
threatened?
A He poked a fan
knife
at me sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q When this
Joselito
Sugalan poked you a fan knife, what happened next?
A I drank the
beer,
and after a while he left the terrace, and I felt dizzy and then
Richard
Gacer came to the terrace.cralaw:red
Q And after that
what
happened next?
A He told me to
take
off my clothes.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q Did you undress?
A No, sir.cralaw:red
Q When you refused
to
undress, what happened next?
A He forced me, he
pulled
my jacket.cralaw:red
COURT
Who did that?
A Richard Gacer,
Your
Honor.cralaw:red
Q What else
transpired?
A At that time I
was
fighting, I was fighting against him but I was already dizzy, I fell
asleep,
sir.cralaw:red
FISCAL LANOT
For the
record
your Honor may I place that the witness is crying, or her tears is
(sic)
falling down from her eyes.cralaw:red
COURT
Alright
place
that on record.cralaw:red
FISCAL LANOT
And when you
feel
(sic) asleep, did you regain consciousness?
A No sir, I did
not
regain consciousness.cralaw:red
COURT
When did you
gain
your consciousness?
A When Darwin
followed
Richard, Your Honor.cralaw:red
FISCAL LANOT
When Darwin
followed
Richard, what did Darwin David do to you?
A I did not know,
I
just felt pain, sir.cralaw:red
Q Miss witness,
this
Richard Gacer you said that he pulled your jacket, and after he pulled
your jacket, what else if anything did he do to you, before you loss
(sic)
consciousness?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I did not know
sir,
I just felt that as if he was on top of me sir,
COURT
Who was on
top
of you?
A Richard Gacer,
your
Honor.cralaw:red
FISCAL LANOT
Were you
wearing
a party (sic) at that time.cralaw:red
A I did not know.cralaw:red
Q Why did you not
know
that?
A Because I feel
asleep,
because at that time I was already dizzy, sir.cralaw:red
Q What did Ricky
do
on top of you?
A I do not know,
sir.cralaw:red
Q Miss witness you
said
that this Darwin David followed, what do you mean that he followed when
you said he followed?
A After Richard
abused
me, Darwin followed him, sir.cralaw:red
Q Miss witness why
do
you say that you were abused by Richard Gacer and Darwin David?
A Because when
Darwin
asked me to sit down, I was naked, and at that time I was looking for
my
clothes but I did not find my clothes.cralaw:red
Q Did you feel
anything
when you saw yourself naked?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What did you
feel?
No answer
FISCAL LANOT
Your Honor,
for
the record, the witness is crying unceasingly.cralaw:red
COURT
Alright make
that
of record that she is crying unceasingly.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
FISCAL LANOT
Now Miss
witness
you said you regained consciousness, and when you regain (sic)
consciousness
your clothes or you were naked and Darwin David was there, now Miss
witness
what did you feel, I was asking you then what did you feel on any part
of your body?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. PUNSALAN
Your Honor
may
I object to that, on the ground that my compañero here is
actually
leading the witness Your Honor. The witness in fact, she has not felt
any
pain.cralaw:red
COURT
She felt
pain,
over ruled.cralaw:red
A I felt pain in
my
vagina.cralaw:red
COURT
Now earlier
you
said you were abused by Richard followed by Darwin, in what way did
they
abused (sic) you?
A They forced me,
Your
Honor.cralaw:red
FISCAL LANOT
In the case
of
Darwin David, how did he force you in abusing you?
A He threatened me
with
the use of a fan knife, he was poking the fan knife at me.cralaw:red
COURT
What did he
want
to do?
A He wanted to do
it
to me.cralaw:red
FISCAL LANOT
May I ask
that
the work "pagsasamantala" be quoted. What do you mean by
"pagsasamantala",
you said "gagalawin", what do you mean by "gagalawin, what part or
parts
of your body was to be touched or "gagalawin."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A My vagina, sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
FISCAL LANOT
Going back
to
my question to you Miss witness, you said that firstly this Richard
Gacer
abused you, now before he abused you, what did you observed (sic) on
him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT
You know
abused
is still a conclusion.cralaw:red
FISCAL LANOT
Was he naked
or
was he dressed up?
A Yes, sir,
Richard
Gacer was naked when he abused me.cralaw:red
Q You said that he
was
naked, what did you see on him, if anything, aside from the knife that
was being poked at you?
A His penis sir.cralaw:red
Q And what did he
do
with his penis?
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
A He inserted his
penis
to my vagina, sir.cralaw:red
Q And how about
Darwin
David, you said he also poked a knife on you before you were abused,
now,
was he naked or was he dressed up?
A He was still
dressed
up.cralaw:red
Q What next did he
do?
COURT
You can
shorten
that fiscal, she said that the other guy also abused her, you are
bringing
her again to the same line of x x x
FISCAL LANOT
Now Miss
witness,
I was asking you what exactly did Darwin David do to you when you said
after Richard abused you?
A When I was still
lying
(sic) he asked me to sit down and then he poked the fan knife at me and
he was already taking off his clothes, he also inserted his penis into
my vagina, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When Darwin
inserted
his penis into your vagina, what did you feel if anything?
A I felt pain, sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
FISCAL LANOT
Okay, Miss
witness
after Darwin inserted his penis into your vagina, what happened next,
no,
no, after he finished abusing you and after he finished inserting his
penis
into your vagina, what happened next?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A After Darwin
David
left, I cried because I was already feeling pain then I saw Joselito
Sugalan
there.cralaw:red
Q What did
Joselito
Sugalan do to you, if anything?
A He asked me
"masarap
ba?" but I did not answer him sir.cralaw:red
Q What else
happened
after that?
A He abused me,
too.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
FISCAL
You said
that
Joselito Sugalan was there already and you said he asked you did you
enjoy,
what happened next after that?
A He forcibly
abused
me again but I tried to fight back but I could not because he was
strong,
then because of that I fell to the ground then on the ground I
continued
fighting back and could not because he is (sic) strong and he succeeded
to (sic) insert his penis into my vagina, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When Joselito
Sugalan
succeeded inserting his penis into your vagina what did you feel?
A I still felt
pain
in my vagina.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
FISCAL LANOT
After you
were
abused, you were raped by Joselito Sugalan, what happened next?
A He told me if I
would
continue to fight back he would stab me with the fan knife.cralaw:red
Q What happened
next
after that?
A After my head
hit
a stone on the floor, I stopped fighting back and I decided not to
fight
back because he might stab me.cralaw:red
Q After that what
happened
next?
A After he
inserted
his penis into my vagina, he left then he talked with Darwin David,
they
said Richard Gacer had already left.cralaw:red
Q Why did you say
that
Darwin David and Joselito Sugalan were talking?
A I heard sir.cralaw:red
Q Did you see them
talking?
A No sir.cralaw:red
Q Where were they
when
you heard them talking?
A Outside sir.cralaw:red
Q What happened
next
after that?
A One of them said
who
would answer for the thing that happened but I did not see who said
that,
I heard they decided that it was Joselito Sugalan who would answer for
what happened.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant points out
alleged
inconsistencies in the victim's testimony which purportedly negated any
guilt on his part for the crimes charged:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. The
victim
stated that when Richard Gacer and Ricky invited her to attend a party
on February 5, 1991, appellant David was with them. However, in the
later
part of her testimony, she declared that it was only Richard and Ricky
who accompanied her to Joselito's house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The victim
stated
in her direct testimony that she stayed in the house of Joselito for
one
(1) month. But later on she contradicted her former statement when she
averred that she left the house of Joselito only on 5 April 1991 or
about
two (2) months from the date of the alleged rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The victim
testified
that when Richard ordered her to undress and she refused, the latter
pulled
off her jacket, and while fighting him off, she felt dizzy and lost
consciousness.
However, in the later part of her testimony, she declared that she saw
Richard naked and thereafter, the latter inserted his penis into her
private
part.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The above
inconsistencies
were minor and trivial, and did not affect the victim's credibility. In
her testimony, she consistently declared that: (a) it was Richard and
Ricky
who invited her to the party and accompanied her to Joselito's house
and
(b) it was there at Joselito's house where she saw Darwin:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT
Who were
your
companions who were allowed to go?
A Ricky and his
brother.cralaw:red
Q Where was Darwin
David
at that time?
A He was at the
house
of Joselito Sugalan, sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q Miss witness,
will
you please tell the Honorable Court on that particular time of 9:45 in
the evening of February 5, 1991, who were in the house of Joselito
Sugalan?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Darwin,
Joselito,
Richard Gacer, mother of Joselito Sugalan, his grandmother, the brother
of Joselito Sugalan and his cousin.cralaw:red
FISCAL LANOT
What
happened
next after you were not allowed to go home? Ah, you said you were
detained?
A Yes sir.cralaw:red
Q Who actually
detained
you in the balcony?
A Darwin told me
to
go to the terrace, sir.cralaw:red
Q What exactly did
Darwin
tell you when you or when he asked you to go to the terrace?
A He said,
"Sandali
lang, may pag-uusapan lang kaming tatlo."
Q And when you
said
"kaming tatlo" to whom was he referring?
A Richard Gacer,
Darwin
David and Joselito Sugalan.cralaw:red
Regarding her stay
at
the Sugalan residence, the victim immediately corrected herself by
declaring
that she stayed there for about two months, not just one month. At any
rate, Joselito confirmed her stay with his family when he stated that
he
and the victim lived as husband and wife for two months.cralaw:red
The victim
likewise
categorically testified that she saw Richard naked and felt his organ
in
her private part before losing consciousness:chanrobles virtual law library
FISCAL LANOT
Going back
to
my question to you Miss Witness, you said that firstly this Richard
Gacer
abused you, now before he abused you, what did you observe on him?
COURT
You know
abused
is still a conclusion.cralaw:red
FISCAL
Was he naked
or
was he dressed up?
A Yes sir, Richard
was
naked when he abused me.cralaw:red
Q You said that he
was
naked, what did you see on him, if anything aside from the knife that
was
being poked at you?
A His penis sir.cralaw:red
Q And what did he
do
with his penis?
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
A He inserted his
penis
to my vagina, sir.[7]
In the case of People
vs.
Arafiles,[8]
we ruled that protracted examination of a young girl, not accustomed to
a public trial, can produce contradictions which are insufficient to
destroy
her credibility. On the contrary, they may in fact serve as badges of
truth,
indicating that the witness was unrehearsed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant contends that
the absence of extra-genital injuries on the victim was contrary to her
testimony that she had been constantly subjected to physical brutality
from February 5, 1991 until her escape on April 5, 1991.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We do not agree. The
absence of any extra-genital injuries on Agnes Thomas was explained by
the fact that Dr. Simbalon physically examined her only on June 14,
1991
or more than four months after she was raped. Moreover, while there
were
no extra-genital injuries on the victim, Dr. Simbalon nonetheless found
a healed laceration in her vagina and signs of probable pregnancy.[9]
These circumstances were consistent with her allegation that she was
raped
on February 5, 1991.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant likewise disputes
the presence of drugs in the beer that was given to the victim, arguing
that the record did not support this fact. Our ruling in People vs. Del
Rosario[10]
squarely applies:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
True, there
was no test conducted to determine the presence of any sedative or drug
in the drinks given to the victims which caused them to lose momentary
control of their faculties. But this is of little consequence as the
same
is not an indispensable element in a prosecution of rape. Under the
circumstances,
it suffices that the victim was found to have been unconscious at the
time
the offender had carnal knowledge of her. (Emphasis ours.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant insists that
he cannot be held guilty of rape because there was no real struggle or
determined effort on the part of the victim to resist. She did not even
shout for help or create any disturbance which could have roused the
other
occupants of the house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are not persuaded.
Rape is perpetrated when the accused has carnal knowledge of the victim
through the use of force or intimidation.[11]
Agnes testified that before she was sexually abused, the three accused
brandished a knife at her and threatened to kill her if she did not
give
in to their lustful desires. The act of holding a knife, by itself, is
strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening
the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her to submission.[12]
As stated in the case of People vs. Paranzo:[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court has repeatedly
held that rape is committed when intimidation is used on the victim and
the latter submitted against her will because of fear for her life or
personal
safety. It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be
so great or of such character as could not be resisted because all that
is required is that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the
accused had in mind.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The failure of the victim
to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapists was not
tantamount to consent. Physical resistance need not be established in
rape
when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits
herself
to her attackers because of fear. Besides, physical resistance is not
the
sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the
lust
of an accused.[14]
Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance
while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.[15]
Here, the victim categorically testified that she was cowed into
submission
because appellant pointed a knife at her and threatened to kill her.
Moreover,
she was too helpless to resist the molestation as she was dizzy and
weak
because of the beer she was forced to drink.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, appellant
questions Agne's credibility for reporting the incident only after more
than a month from the time she arrived at her aunt's place, when she
could
no longer hide her pregnancy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court has consistently
held that delay in reporting rape because of threats of physical
violence
should not be taken against the victim. A rape victim is oftentimes
controlled
by fear rather than reason. It is through fear, springing from the
initial
rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a feeling of extreme
psychological
terror which will, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submission.[16]
The present case of Agnes is no exception. She was physically abused
and
constantly threatened with death by Joselito. A girl merely 14 years
old
when she was sexually assaulted could not be expected to act like an
adult
with the courage and intelligence to disregard a threat to her life. We
note that the only reason for the victim's prolonged stay in the
Sugalan
residence was the continued presence of Joselito's relatives who were
watching
her and preventing her from leaving.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's defense
of alibi cannot prevail over Agnes' unwavering positive identification
of him as one of her abusers and tormentors. He failed to establish the
impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. He merely
claimed
that, at the time of the alleged rape, he was with his girlfriend
(Glenda
Mendoza, now his wife) in her house until midnight. While Glenda
executed
an affidavit, nothing was mentioned therein to corroborate appellant's
declaration that they were together at the time the rape of Agnes took
place. For his alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he
was not at the scene of the crime but that it was physically impossible
for him to be there.[17]
It was not physically impossible for the appellant to be at the crime
scene
considering that his house was within walking distance from that of
Joselito.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, the defense
failed to show any ill motive on the part of the victim to falsely
implicate
appellant in a very serious case. As we have said in a number of cases,
no woman will concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of
her
private part and expose herself to the stigma and humiliation of a
public
trial if she is not motivated by an earnest desire to seek justice
against
the one who defiled her.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court failed
to rule on the issue of conspiracy. We have consistently held that
conspiracy
need not be established by direct proof of an agreement by the parties
to commit the crime. The conduct of the malefactors before, during or
after
the commission of the crime is sufficient to prove conspiracy.[19]
In the present case, the following concerted acts of the appellant and
his co-conspirators revealed their common criminal intent:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a)
Joselito's
house served as the hideout where the accused raped the victim;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) Richard was
designated
to lure Agnes to Joselito's place;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) Joselito forced
Agnes to drink a drug-laced bottle of beer purposely to weaken her
resistance
to the rape;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) appellant and his
co-accused conferred with one another, before and after raping Agnes,
to
decide on what to do with her; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(e) there appeared
to be a pre-arranged order among the accused in raping the victim —
first
Richard, then Darwin and finally Joselito.chan
robles virtual lalibrary
These acts were
indicative
of a concerted design to accomplish a common purpose — to ravish and
defile
the victim.
Appellant Darwin David
and his co-accused, Joselito Sugalan, should be held responsible not
only
for their own unlawful acts but also for the act of their co-accused
Richard
Gacer. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Hence,
appellant
should be held guilty of three counts of rape.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under our penal law,
whenever rape is committed by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death, a penalty composed of two indivisible
penalties.
There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the
commission
of the crime, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed
on the appellant.[21]
The trial court awarded
only P50,000 as moral damages in favor of the victim. Moral damages are
separate and distinct from the civil indemnity awarded to rape victims.
Hence, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of
P50,000
should likewise be awarded to the victim as civil indemnity in addition
to the P50,000 already awarded as moral damages.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appealed
Decision dated February 6, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 136 in Criminal Case Nos. 91-4009 to 11 is hereby MODIFIED as to
the penalty and award of damages. The appellant is sentenced to
reclusion
perpetua for each count of rape and ordered to pay the victim P50,000
as
civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages for each count of rape or
a total of P300,000. Costs against appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez
and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Penned by Judge Jose R. Bautista. Rollo, pp. 24–43.
[2]
Original Records, p. 116.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
People vs. Barcelona, 325 SCRA 168, 175 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
People vs. Ramos, 345 SCRA 685, 692 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
People vs. Bali-balita, 340 SCRA 450, 467 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, August 9, 1991, pp. 7–18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, August 9, 1991, pp. 11–12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
325 SCRA 181, 192 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, February 17, 1993, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
282 SCRA 178, 185 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
People vs. Reynaldo, 291 SCRA 701, 713–714 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
317 SCRA 367, 384 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
People vs. Mostrales, 294 SCRA 701, 710 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People vs. Buendia, 314 SCRA 655, 666 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People vs. de Leon, 332 SCRA 37, 47 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id., pp. 46.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People vs. Talo, 344 SCRA 294, 311 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People vs. Barro, Sr., 338 SCRA 312, 324 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People vs. Dado, 244 SCRA 655, 667 [1995].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Art. 63 in relation to Article 335.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People vs. Reyes, 315 SCRA 563, 578 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|