PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
Nos.
148743-45
November 18, 2003
-versus-
FELIX MONTES Y
NALLOS,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:
There is no standard
form of behavior of a rape victim, especially when she is of tender
years.
In this case, the young victim clearly and definitively described her
horrifying
ordeal in the hands of appellant. In effect, she has said all that is
required
to prove her ravishment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case
Felix Montes appeals
the April 4, 2001 Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City (Branch 274)
in Criminal Case Nos. 95-698 to 95-700, finding him guilty of three (3)
counts of rape as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE,
this Court finds the accused Felix Montes y Nallos guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of THREE (3) COUNTS OF RAPE DEFINED AND PENALIZED UNDER ARTICLE
335
OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE, AND HEREBY SENTENCES HIM TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF THREE
(3) RECLUSION PERPETUA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The Court hereby
orders
the accused to indemnify the victim, Analyn P. Mendez, the amount of
FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00) as moral damages for each count of rape."[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Three (3) separate
Informations,
3 all dated October 31, 1995, charged appellant as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Criminal Case No.
95-698
"That on or
about the 17th day of October 1995, in the Municipality of
Parañaque,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of the complainant Analyn P. Mendez, a minor, 12 years of age, against
her will."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Criminal
Case
No. 95-699
"That on or
about the 18th day of October 1995, in the Municipality of
Parañaque,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of the complainant Analyn P. Mendez, a minor, 12 years of age, against
her will."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Criminal
Case
No. 95-700
"That on or
about the 19th day of October 1995, in the Municipality of
Parañaque,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of the complainant Analyn P. Mendez, a minor, 12 years of age, against
her will."[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When arraigned on
November
27, 1995,[7]
appellant, assisted by his counsel de oficio, 8 pleaded not guilty.
After
trial in due course, the court a quo rendered the assailed Decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred The Facts
Version of the
Prosecution
In its Brief, 9 the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecution's
version
of the facts in the following manner:chanrobles virtual law library
"On October
17, 1995, about 6 o'clock in the morning, twelve-year[-]old Analyn P.
Mendez
hereinafter, private complainant was in their house in Yellowbell
Street,
UPS IV, Parañaque, Metro Manila, cleaning their house. After
doing
her chore, private complainant and her sister, Ronalyn Mendez, went out
of their house to fetch water.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Outside their
house,
the two (2) sisters met appellant who was their neighbor. Appellant
summoned
[private complainant] to buy 'pandesal'; hence, she did not go with
Ronalyn
x x x anymore.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"After buying
'pandesal,'
private complainant borrowed from appellant his bicycle in his
vulcanizing
shop fronting his house. Using the bicycle, private complainant went to
the place where they usually go to to fetch water to check if it was
their
turn to get water.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Afterwards,
private
complainant returned to their house. Upon reaching the front of their
house,
Ronalyn x x x borrowed the bicycle
from her, to which private complainant acceded. Then,
Ronalyn
x x x headed towards the place where they fetch
water. Private complainant was left behind waiting for
Ronalyn
x x x to return.cralaw:red
"While private
complainant
was waiting for Ronalyn x x x in
front
of their house, appellant called her to wash the dishes inside his
house.cralaw:red
"When private
complainant
was washing the dishes, appellant went outside his house. After washing
the dishes, private complainant wanted to go outside appellant's house.
However, she was not able to do so because the door was locked. Private
complainant kept on trying to open the door but failed. Just as she was
trying to open the door again, she heard appellant behind the door
about
to get in. Consequently, private complainant said: 'Buksan mo ito.'
Appellant
opened the door but he did not let private complainant go out. Instead,
he gave private complainant a glass of Coca-Cola and 'pandesal.' After
finishing the food which appellant gave her, private complainant was
not
allowed by appellant to go out of his house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Thereafter,
appellant
went inside his kitchen. Before doing so, he told private complainant
to
stay because he was going to give her something. When he returned from
the kitchen, appellant was already holding a foot-long knife. He then
pointed
the knife at private complainant and warned her not to shout;
otherwise,
he would kill her. He ordered private complainant to transfer the chair
near the table inside his room and private complainant obeyed. After
that,
appellant went inside his room and ordered private complainant to lie
down
on his bed. Private complainant refused to lie down. At this juncture,
somebody from the outside called appellant. Appellant consequently
peeped
through the door to look at who was calling. When appellant peeped
through
the door, he was only two (2) arms length away from private
complainant.
Private complainant tried to escape by heading towards the kitchen
because
there was an opening leading outside. However, appellant was able to
hold
her arm and ordered her to go back to his room.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Inside the room,
appellant
undressed private complainant. While appellant was undressing her,
private
complainant kept on saying: 'Ayaw ko.' Appellant told her that if she
would
not follow him, he would stab her. After removing private complainant's
dress and short pants, appellant ordered her to lie down. Appellant was
holding the knife when he ordered private complainant to lie down.
Appellant
then inserted his organ into private complainant's organ. Private
complainant
felt pain when appellant inserted his penis inside her vagina.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"While appellant
was
doing the dastardly acts, somebody from the outside called appellant.
The
person who called appellant wanted to have a vulcanizing service.
Immediately,
appellant dressed up and went outside his house. Before he went out, he
locked the door of his room; hence, private complainant was not able to
get out.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Subsequently,
private
complainant heard her sister Ronalyn x x
x
ask appellant if private complainant was inside his appellant's house.
Appellant replied in the negative. Private complainant was afraid to
shout
because she was reminded of the knife which appellant placed on top of
the table near appellant's room.cralaw:red
"When appellant
returned,
he tied private complainant's hands and feet with a cord,
x
x x a half centimeter in diameter.cralaw:red
"On the night of
October
18, 1995, or the following night, appellant again raped private
complainant.
Before he raped her, he untied [private complainant]. After untying
her,
he undressed her and made her lie down. Immediately thereafter,
appellant
went on top of her and inserted his penis inside her vagina. Private
complainant
again felt pain. Appellant was likewise armed with a knife at that
time.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In the early
morning
of October 19, 1995, appellant again raped private complainant. She
testified
that appellant again tied her after the second rape. Appellant untied
her
before raping her for the third time. On the third assault, appellant
again
undressed her. After undressing her, appellant put her to bed, went on
top of her and then inserted his penis inside her vagina. Private
complainant
felt pain all over her body after appellant raped her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Thereafter,
private
complainant asked appellant to let her go because her mother would be
looking
for her. Appellant replied that he would release her later. He also
told
private complainant that he would give her the amount of P50.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"About 6:30 a.m.
of
that day, appellant finally allowed private complainant to leave using
the back door. Before private complainant left appellant's house,
appellant
gave her P50.00 and told her not to immediately go home. He told her to
go to the YP at the Uniwide to buy food and give some to her siblings.cralaw:red
"Private
complainant
proceeded to the Uniwide. She stayed there until 5 o'clock in the
afternoon
roaming around. She was afraid to go home because she thought that her
mother might whip her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"About 5 o'clock
in
the afternoon, private complainant went home. When she arrived at their
house, she saw her parents who told her that appellant would be put to
jail because her dress was seen inside appellant's house. Private
complainant
did not tell her parents about the horrifying experience she had
undergone
because she was scared that her parents might punish her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Eventually,
private
complainant, together with her mother, went to the Barangay Hall and
reported
to the barangay officials what appellant did to her. Thereafter,
private
complainant executed her statement before the police."[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Version of the
Defense
Appellant interposes
the defenses of denial and alibi. In his Brief,[11]
he presents the following version of the facts:chanrobles virtual law library
"Accused,
Felix
Montes, who is a driver by occupation, testified that the victim and
her
family are his neighbors for quite a number of years. The victim's
family
collects garbage x x x. Upon her mother's orders, the
victim x x x collects his garbage,
and by reason thereof, he gives her money from time to time.
"On October 17,
1995,
at about 10:30 in the morning, while he was preparing to drive some of
the school children waiting in front of his house, two (2) policemen
arrived,
held his arm, brought him inside his room and searched his whole house.
He asked for the reason for his arrest but was not given an answer.
When
they were about to go out, the victim's mother went inside the comfort
room of the house, found the victim's clothes and brought it out.
Accused
touched the victim's clothes, allegedly retrieved from his bathroom,
and
realized that they were still damp.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"He was brought to
the
police station in Bicutan, where he was detained from October 17, 1995
to October 23, 1995 without any charges being filed against him. He
only
came to know of the rape charge against him, when the barangay
officials
brought the victim and her mother to the police station on October 21,
1995. The victim and her mother executed their sworn statements.
Thereafter,
he was transferred to the Parañaque City Jail.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Accused denies
culpability
of the crime, and that the victim told him that the accusation was made
only to extort money from him and to reimburse the barangay officials
who
were helping the family in their living expenses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The victim's
mother,
Evelyn Mendez, was presented to testify on the due execution and
authenticity
of her signature in the Affidavit of Desistance which was executed on
June
3, 1996."[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Ruling of the
Trial
Court
After evaluating the
evidence on record, the court a quo found that the testimony of the
victim
on the three counts of rape was clear, convincing, positive and
consistent
with human nature and the ordinary course of things. Noting her age, it
also held that it was improbable that she would have publicly admitted
that she had been ravished and her honor tainted by the accused, if the
incidents of rape were not true.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dismissing the denial
proffered by the accused, the court stressed that such defense was
inherently
weak and had always been disfavored by the courts vis-a-vis the clear
and
categorical narrative of the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The RTC likewise ruled
that the Affidavit of Desistance[13]
allegedly executed by the victim after the institution of the criminal
action had neither been submitted in court nor affirmed by her.
Moreover,
it pointed out that desistance in seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness cannot be a ground for dismissing the action. Once the
case
is filed in court, it is no longer the victim's right to decide whether
or not to continue it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this appeal.[14]
The Issue
Before us, appellant
assigns this single error for our consideration:chanrobles virtual law library
"The Court
a quo erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the crime of rape."[15] The Court's
Ruling
The appeal has no merit.cralaw:red
Lone Issue:
Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Appellant contends that
the trial court's complete reliance on the testimony of the alleged
victim
was misplaced, because her actions after the alleged rape were contrary
to the normal behavior of one who was raped three times for three
consecutive
days. He considers the following behavior unusual:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First,
she did not go home immediately after he had supposedly released her;
Second,
after she was missing from home for three days, she concealed her
horrible
ordeal from her parents, supposedly because she was afraid of being
scolded;
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third,
she preferred to relate her harrowing experience to barangay officials
who were complete strangers, rather than to her parents.cralaw:red
Appellant also faults
the
court a quo for not giving weight to her Affidavit of Desistance which,
though she did not affirm, allegedly impaired her credibility. In
addition,
he stressed that the prosecution failed to present the record of his
arrest,
which would have proved that he was in jail when the incidents of rape
were allegedly committed.
Credibility of
Complainant's Testimony
There is no standard
form of behavior when one is confronted with a strange, startling or
frightful
event,[16]
especially in the heinous crime of rape. It has long been recognized
that
the human mind works unpredictably when placed under emotional stress.[17]
Rape victims have exhibited such an incalculable range of emotions that
it is unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from them.[18]
Hence, it is with good reason that the Court has not laid down any rule
on how a rape victim should behave immediately after her ravishment.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, it is not
proper to judge by adult norms of behavior the actions of children who
have undergone traumatic experiences.[20]
Certainly, a child cannot be expected to act like an adult or do what
may
be expected of mature people under similar circumstances.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
These legal precepts
point out the folly of the contentions of appellant about the behavior
of complainant. The fact that she did not immediately go home after
being
released by him was not unnatural. Shaken by fear of his threats and
the
offense to her honor, there is no telling how she should have acted
upon
her release. Neither is it farfetched to believe that her days in
captivity
and his threats on her life left a lingering effect on her young and
impressionable
mind, prompting her to follow his explicit instructions not to go home
immediately. We quote from the cross-examination as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Atty.
Mergas:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Then you said
that
the accused pointed a knife at you in the sala. How long is this knife?
Witness A. Mendez:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Ganyan lang po.cralaw:red
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtual law library
Witness making a
demonstration.
I invite the attention of the counsel for stipulation as to the
demonstration
made by the witness.cralaw:red
COURT:chanrobles virtual law library
All right, you
stipulate
on the size of the knife.cralaw:red
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtual law library
More or less a
foot
long?
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
More or less.cralaw:red
Court:chanrobles virtual law library
All right.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
Q Why did you not
shout
when the accused pointed x x x the
knife at you?
A Pag magsigaw daw
po
ako, papatayin niya ako.[22] x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
Q Madam Witness,
last
hearing, you testified that after the accused x
x
x raped you, he tied your hands, is that correct?
A Opo.cralaw:red
Q What did the
accused
use in tying your hands?
A Lubid po.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
Q How long was
that
rope, lubid?
Witness A. Mendez:chanrobles virtual law library
(Demonstrating the
length)
Court:chanrobles virtual law library
Could you
stipulate,
the prosecution and the defense, on the length of the rope used in
tying
x x x
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtual law library
Three to four.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
More or less, a
meter.cralaw:red
Q And the diameter
of
the rope?
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtual law library
Witness pointing
to
an electrical cord with the diameter of one centimeter.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
One centimeter,
Your
Honor, more or less.cralaw:red
Court:chanrobles virtual law library
More or less one
centimeter?
All right, proceed.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
Q How many loops
did
the accused make in tying you?
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Your Honor, we
have
to object because the question is, I think, vague. Your Honor please,
as
stated by the witness, she was tied on her feet and hands,
so
x x x is the counsel referring to
x
x x the number of loops x x
x
on the hand or on the feet?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
I am
referring
to the hand, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Witness A. Mendez:chanrobles virtual law library
A Apat po.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
Q So, your hands
were
tied by the accused in what place of the house?
A Sa may kama po.cralaw:red
Q Only your hands?
A Hindi po.cralaw:red
Q What else? The
accused
also tied your neck, is that correct?
A Hindi po.cralaw:red
Q Your body?
A Hindi rin po.cralaw:red
Q Your head?
A Hindi rin po.cralaw:red
Q Then, only your
hand?
A Pati po paa.cralaw:red
Q Then, what did
the
accused use in tying your feet?
A Lubid din po.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q How long [wa]s
that
lubid or rope [used] in tying your feet?
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtual law library
Witness
demonstrating
the length of the rope that was allegedly used in tying her feet to be
around two feet.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
More or less
two
feet.cralaw:red
Court:chanrobles virtual law library
So, more or
less,
two feet, the rope used in tying her feet.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
Q But the accused
did
not harm you, correct?
A Hindi po.cralaw:red
Q As a matter of
fact,
he did not use anything in closing your mouth?
A Damit lang po.cralaw:red
Q How did the
accused
close your mouth?
A Nilagyan po ng
damit.cralaw:red
Q What kind of
cloth?
A Kulay puti na
damit.cralaw:red
Q Then, after the
accused
tied you on the hand and the feet, and on the mouth, he left the house?
A Hindi po.[23] x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
Q When the accused
raped
you [for] the second time, your hands, feet and your mouth were tied?
A Hindi po. Iyong
pagkatapos
niya po saka niya ako tinalian uli.cralaw:red
Q You said the
accused
went out of the house. What time did he return?
A Saglit lang po
siya.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Then, what did
the
accused do?
A Sinarado niya po
iyong
gate.cralaw:red
Q What gate?
A Sa may
vulcanizing
po.cralaw:red
Q Then he went
inside
the house?
A Opo.cralaw:red
Q Then he raped
you
again?
A Hindi na po.cralaw:red
Q Then he slept
besides
you?
A Hindi po.cralaw:red
Q Where did the
accused
sleep?
A Sa kama po.cralaw:red
Q How about you?
A Sa may tabi po
ng
kama.cralaw:red
Q Under the bed or
on
the bed?
A Sa sahig po.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When you slept
near
the back of the bed, the accused removed the tie of your hands, your
feet,
and your mouth, is that correct?
A Hindi po."[24]
Neither is the initial
reluctance of a rape victim in revealing the assault on her virtue
uncommon.[25]
Cases have shown that young girls usually conceal their ordeal because
of threats made by their assailants.[26]
In this case, the records more than sufficiently established that
appellant
had threatened the young girl.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither was the credibility
of complainant impugned by her failure to divulge the crime to her
parents
immediately. Her hesitation may be attributable to her age and the
threats
against her.[27]
Indeed, it is not unlikely for a minor to be intimidated into silence
by
the mildest threat on her life.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a litany of cases,
this Court has ruled that the testimonies of child-victims of rape are
to be given full weight and credence.[29]
Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely
understands
sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious
as rape, if what she claims is not true.[30]
Her candid narration of how she was raped bears the earmarks of
credibility,
especially if no ill will - as in this case - motivates her to testify
falsely against the accused.[31]
It is well-settled that when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says
she has been raped, she says in effect all that is required to prove
the
ravishment.[32]
The accused may thus be convicted solely on her testimony — provided it
is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and
the
normal course of things.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Here, complainant vividly
recited details of the rape incidents. Her narration was
straightforward,
categorical and unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency.
She did not waver even during extensive cross-examination by the
defense
counsel. Seen through the eyes of a guileless and hapless girl, the
ordeal
was narrated as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
"Atty.
Mergas:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Why did you not
shout
when the accused pointed x x x the
knife at you?
A Pag magsigaw daw
po
ako, papatayin niya ako.cralaw:red
Q Then what
happened?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Sabi niya po
pumunta
lang ako sa may mesa.cralaw:red
Q Where is this
mesa
or this table located?
A Doon lang po sa
may
katabi ng kuwarto niya. Dingding lang po ang pagitan.cralaw:red
Q What did you do
at
the table?
A Sabi niya po
ipasok
ko raw 'yong upuan doon sa loob ng kuwarto.cralaw:red
Q By the way, did
you
go to the table?
A Opo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What did you do
there
at the table?
A Hindi, upuan po.cralaw:red
Q Now, which is
which,
table or chair?
A Upuan.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q So, where is
your
chair located?
A Sa may katabi po
ng
mesa.cralaw:red
Q What did you do
with
the chair?
A Nilagay ko po
doon
sa loob ng kuwarto.cralaw:red
Q Why did you
place
it inside the room?
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtual law library
Already
answered,
there was an order. Allegedly she was ordered by the accused to bring
that
chair inside the room.cralaw:red
Court:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All right,
proceed
to another matter.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Where was the
accused
at the time when you brought the chair inside the room?
A Nandoon po sa
may
sala set.cralaw:red
Q And at that
time,
the accused [was] no longer point[ing] the knife at you, is that
correct?
A Hindi na po.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Then while you
were
inside the room and the accused was at the sala, there was a noise
outside,
is that correct?
A Wala na po.cralaw:red
Q But there was a
person
calling for 'tatang,' is that correct?
A Wala po.cralaw:red
Q But there was a
customer
in the vulcanizing, is that correct?
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtual law library
Objection,
Your
Honor.cralaw:red
Witness A. Mendez:chanrobles virtual law library
A Wala po.cralaw:red
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtual law library
Already
answered,
I withdraw my objection
Court:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
What was the
answer?
Witness A. Mendez:chanrobles virtual law library
A Wala po.cralaw:red
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
Q While you said
the
accused was in the sala and you were in the room, why did you not shout
when you were in the room of the accused?
A Natatakot po
kasi
ako.[34]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Atty. Mergas:chanrobles virtual law library
Q Madam Witness,
you
said that someone called the accused and he peeped at the door. Did you
see the person who called the accused?
A Hindi po.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Then how far
were
you from the accused when the accused peeped at the door?
A Malapit lang po.cralaw:red
Q An arm's length?
A Dalawa po.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When the accused
peeped
at the door, why did you not shout?
A Natatakot nga po
ako
eh!
Q And after that
incident,
what happened?
A Sinaraduhan niya
po
'yong pinto.cralaw:red
Q And where did
you
go after that?
A Lalabas po sana
ako
doon sa may kusina kaso lang hinawakan naman po niya yong braso ko.cralaw:red
Q You said you
wanted
to go out [through] the kitchen, you mean to say there is a door in the
kitchen?
A Hindi po, 'yong
nasira
lang pong pader.cralaw:red
Q So, there is an
exit
at the kitchen, is that correct?
A Opo.cralaw:red
Q When the accused
held
your arm, what happened?
A Pinasok niya na
po
ako sa kuwarto niya.cralaw:red
Q And you were not
shouting
at that time?
A Hindi po kasi
may
hawak siyang kutsilyo.cralaw:red
Q Then what
happened?
A Pinasok niya na
po
ako doon sa kuwarto.cralaw:red
Q After the
accused
brought you inside the room, what happened?
A Hinubaran niya
na
po ako.cralaw:red
Q You did not do
anything
while the accused was undressing you, Madam Witness?
A Sabi ko po,
'Ayaw
ko.'
Q Aside from
saying
'ayaw ko', what did you do?
A Sabi niya 'pag
hindi
ko raw po siya sinunod sasaksakin niya na po ako.cralaw:red
Q So, you were the
one
who undressed yourself?
Prosecutor Garcia:chanrobles virtual law library
Objection,
Your
Honor please, that is misleading. As testified by the witness,
'Hinubaran
niya po ako.'
Court:chanrobles virtual law library
Misleading,
objection
is sustained.cralaw:red
Q How did the
accused
undress you, Madam Witness?
A Hinubaran po.cralaw:red
Q By the way, what
did
you wear at that time?
A A pair of shorts.cralaw:red
Q And what did the
accused
first took out from your body?
A Damit po.cralaw:red
Q Then after that,
what
happened?
A Shorts po.cralaw:red
Q Then?
A Pinahiga niya po
ako
sa kama.cralaw:red
Q Then the accused
raped
you?
A Opo.cralaw:red
Q And why did you
not
shout while the accused was raping you?
A May hawak siyang
kutsilyo
eh! pa'no ako makakasigaw.cralaw:red
Q How did the
accused
rape you?
A Pinasok niya po
'yong
ari niya sa ari ko po.cralaw:red
Q You said that
the
accused forced you to lie down on the bed. The accused was then
standing,
is that correct?
A Opo.cralaw:red
Q Immediately
after
the accused removed your dress and your shorts, he raped you, is that
correct?
A Opo."[35]
The trial court thus
found
private complainant's testimony to be both credible and convincing. It
is a settled doctrine that the competence and the credibility of
witnesses
are best determined by the trial court,[36]
because it has the unique opportunity of observing their deportment on
the stand while testifying.[37]
Its findings — absent any arbitrariness or oversight of facts or
circumstances
of weight and substance - are final and conclusive upon this Court and
will not be disturbed on appeal.[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred Appellant's
Defenses
As to appellant's denial
and alibi, the trial court was correct in brushing these aside for
being
uncorroborated and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. As
a rule, these defenses are negative and self-serving and are always
received
with caution - not only because they are inherently weak and
unreliable,
but also because they are easy to fabricate.[39]
They cannot prevail over, and are worthless in the face of, positive
identification
by a credible witness[40]
or the positive and categorical statements of the victim.[41]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As admitted by appellant,
the alleged Affidavit of Desistance of the victim was never identified
by her, but submitted in court only after the institution of the rape
cases.
Such being the case, the Affidavit - even when construed as a pardon in
the erstwhile "private crime" of rape[42]
- is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal cases, since the
actions
have already been instituted.[43]
To justify the dismissal of the Complaints, the pardon should have been
made prior to the institution of the criminal actions.[44]
Finally, weak and unconvincing
was the alibi of appellant that he was in jail when the alleged rape
incidents
were committed. Having proffered this matter, he had the burden to
prove
it with competent evidence. For him to now place the blame on the
prosecution
for allegedly failing to produce the record of his arrest is against
the
fundamental rule that upon those who allege rests the burden of proof.[45]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appeal
is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against
appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., CJ., Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Written by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino (now a justice of the Court of
Appeals).
[2]
RTC Decision, p. 11; rollo, p. 36; records, Vol. II, p. 838.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Signed by 2nd Assistant Prosecutor Elizabeth Yu-Guray.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 13; records, Vol. I, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., pp. 14 & 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., pp. 15 & 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Order dated November 27, 1995; records, Vol. I, p. 38. See also
Certificate
of Arraignment; id., p. 37.
[8]
Atty. Ma. Teresita S. Carandang.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, pp. 92–109. Signed by Assistant Solicitors General Carlos N.
Ortega
and Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and Solicitor Blaise Marie E. Alaras.
[10]
Appellee's Brief, pp. 3–8; rollo, pp. 96–101. Citations omitted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, pp. 51–65. Signed by Attys. Amelia C. Garchitorena, Marvin R.
Osias
and Josie Christina T. Dugoy of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).
[12]
Appellant's Brief, pp. 5–6; id., pp. 57–58. Citations omitted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Records, Vol. II, p. 500.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
This case was deemed submitted for decision on April 29, 2003, upon
receipt
by this Court of appellant's Manifestation that he was adopting his
Brief
received by the Court on September 11, 2002, as his Reply Brief also.
Appellee's
Brief was received by this Court on February 5, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Appellant's Brief, p. 6; rollo, p. 58.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People v. Quezada, 375 SCRA 248, January 30, 2002; People v. Dy, 375
SCRA
15, January 29, 2002; People v. Panganiban, 412 Phil. 98, June 25, 2001.
[17]
People v. Quezada, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People v. Degamo, G.R. No. 121211, April 30, 2003; People v. Remoto,
314
Phil. 432, May 29, 1995.
[19]
People v. Dy, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People v. Dizon, 356 SCRA 69, April 3, 2001; People v. Villanos, 337
SCRA
78, August 1, 2000.
[21]
People v. Sta. Ana, 353 Phil. 388, June 26, 1998; People v. Tadulan,
337
Phil. 685, April 15, 1997.
[22]
TSN, March 11, 1996, pp. 32–33; records, Vol. I, pp. 283–284.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
TSN, March 20, 1996, pp. 5–9; id., pp. 332–336.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id., pp. 31–32 & 358–359.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
People v. Dagpin, 346 SCRA 860, December 4, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People v. Labayne, 357 SCRA 184, April 20, 2001; People v. Optana, 351
SCRA 485, February 12, 2001; People v. Mirafuentes, 349 SCRA 204,
January
16, 2001.
[27]
People v. Quezada, supra; People v. Villanos, supra; People v.
Emocling,
357 Phil. 893, October 7, 1998; People v. Antipona, 274 SCRA 328, June
19, 1997.
[28]
People v. Ibay, 233 SCRA 15, June 8, 1994.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
People v. Palaña, 379 SCRA 553, March 20, 2002; People v.
Makilang,
368 SCRA 155, October 23, 2001; People v. Galvez, 365 SCRA 681,
September
24, 2001.
[30]
People v. Garcia, 381 SCRA 722, May 7, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
People v. Pailanco, 379 Phil. 869, January 20, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
People v. Balas, 372 SCRA 80, December 11, 2001; People v. Manayan, 368
SCRA 300, October 25, 2001; People v. Tagaylo, 345 SCRA 284, November
20,
2000.
[33]
People v. Musa, 371 SCRA 234, November 29, 2001; People v. Belga, 349
SCRA
678, January 19, 2001; People v. Taño, 387 Phil. 465, May 5,
2000.
[34]
TSN, March 11, 1996, pp. 33–35; records, Vol. I, pp. 284–286.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Id., pp. 51–54 & 302–305. We have omitted repeated references in
the
TSN to the names of defense counsel and the witness.
[36]
People v. Tadeo, 371 SCRA 303, December 3, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
People v. Plana, 370 SCRA 542, November 27, 2001; People v. De Guzman,
388 Phil. 943, June 8, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
People v. Obordo, 382 SCRA 98, May 9, 2002; People v. Bertulfo, 381
SCRA
762, May 7, 2002; People v. Abella, 339 SCRA 129, August 28, 2000.
[39]
People v. Bertulfo, supra; People v. Paraiso, 349 SCRA 335, January 17,
2001; People v. Alba, 358 SCRA 361, May 31, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People v. Manzano, 370 SCRA 515, November 26, 2001; People v. Del
Valle,
372 SCRA 297, December 14, 2001; People v. Virtucio Jr., 326 SCRA 198,
February 22, 2000.
[41]
People v. Catubig, 416 Phil. 102, August 23, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
Under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA No. 8493), the crime of rape has
been
reclassified from a crime against chastity to a crime against persons,
and it may now be prosecuted even without the initiative or even
consent
of the offended party. Since the crime in this case was committed in
1995,
RA No. 8353 was inapplicable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
People v. Libo-on, 358 SCRA 152, May 23, 2001, citing People v. Igat,
353
Phil. 294, June 22, 1998; People P. Nardo, 353 SCRA 339, March 1, 2001;
People v. Manbuyod Jr., 352 Phil. 866, May 20, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
People v. Trelles, 340 SCRA 652, September 19, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
People v. Villar, 379 Phil. 417, January 19, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|