ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION
[
G.R. No. 119405-06.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO LEOTERIO y SANOZA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Accused Rodolfo Leoterio y Sanoza appeals from the decision
1
of
Complainant Mergena Manahan y Tahop initiated the aforementioned
criminal cases by filing two complaints on
CRIMINAL CASE NO. Q-93-46506
That on or about the 14th day of June 1993, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence and/or intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with lewd designs and with the use of a knife, had carnal knowledge of the undersigned, a minor, fourteen (14) years of age, without her consent and against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
Contrary to law. [2cräläwvirtualibräry
CRIMINAL CASE NO. Q-93-46507
That on or about the 8th day of July 1993, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, by means of force, violence, and/or intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with lewd designs and with the use of a knife, had carnal knowledge of the undersigned, a minor, fourteen (14) years of age, without her consent and against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
Contrary to law. [3cräläwvirtualibräry
These cases were consolidated and jointly tried. Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty in each case. 4cräläwvirtualibräry
The witnesses presented by the parties were complainant Mergena Manahan, Bienvenida Manahan, SPO3 Ramon Mangadap, and Dr. Vladimir Villasenor of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Service, for the prosecution; and the accused, for the defense.
The evidence for the prosecution established the following facts:
On and prior to 8 July 1993, complainant Mergena Manahan, an orphan from Samar who turned 15 years old on 3 November 1993, and who only reached Grade II, lived with her sister Bienvenida Manahan at No. 643 Apple Street, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City, together with their younger brother Proceso, Bienvenidas daughter Joan, and the accused, who was Bienvenidas "live-in partner." 5 Their one-room dwelling had an area of about four by six meters. 6cräläwvirtualibräry
At about
On
Upon returning home that afternoon, Bienvenida Manahan found
Mergena pale and shaking, sitting with her hands on her chest, while the
accused was kneeling with his face touching the complainants face. The two children, Proceso and Joan, were
asleep. Bienvenida asked the accused
what he and Mergena were doing, and the accused replied that he was only
teasing Mergena. The accused left for
work that afternoon. Bienvenida kept
asking Mergena what happened until the latter cried and admitted that she was
raped by the accused. Bienvenida brought
her sister to their Purok Leader who accompanied them to the police
station. The police handed them a
request for a medical examination at Camp
Crame where she was examined by Dr,
Vladimir Villasenor, Police Senior Inspector and Medico-Legal Officer of the
PNP Crime Laboratory Service. Dr. Villasenor found a hymenal laceration "at
Five days later, Bienvenida obtained Mergenas medico-legal report from Camp Crame. She brought the report to Police Station 5 along Commonwealth Avenue 10 where she and her sister executed their affidavits. 11 SPO3 Ramon Mangadap and PO3 Mariano Ranjo of the said station, accompanied by Bienvenida and Mergena, went to the house on Apple Street, Barangay Commonwealth, where the accused was still residing. Upon reaching there, Bienvenida and Mergena pointed out the accused to the policeman. PO3 Ranjo apprehended the latter and turned him over to the Desk Officer, 12 and consequently the accused was brought into police custody. 13 By this time, Bienvenida and Mergena had already moved out of their house at Apple Street, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City. 14cräläwvirtualibräry
The accused told a different story. According to him, at
The accused could think of no ulterior motive on the part of Mergena, who is "malambing," in charging him with rape; but he attributed ill motive against Bienvenida Manahan because he was "about to know" that Bienvenida was having a relationship with his kumpadre. The accused believed that the rape were filed to pre-empt his filing of a case against Bienvenida and his kumpadre. 18cräläwvirtualibräry
The trial court dismissed what it called the "uncorroborated
defense of the accused," and gave greater weight to the positive testimony of
Mergena, who described "in open, plain-spoken terms"
19
how she was raped by the accused on 14 June 1993 and 8 July 1993, and whose
"simplicity of narration allows no reason for the Court to entertain doubt as
to the candor of her testimony."
20
Thus, in its decision of
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in these cases finding
accused Rodolfo Leoterio y Sanoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Rape for two (2) counts punishable under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for each count and to indemnify the victim Mergena Manahan y Tahop in the
amount of P50,000.00 as damages.
SO ORDERED.
The accused appealed to us from the judgment, and in seeking its reversal assigns in his Appellants Brief this lone error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED APPELLANT DESPITE THE MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WHICH RENDERED IT UNTRUTHFUL.
Thereunder, he questioned the possibility of rape occurring in broad daylight, in a one-room house where two children were sleeping. He likewise raises the complainants failure to notify the authorities, or at least her sister, about the rape when it first happened, thus seriously affecting the truthfulness of her testimony. Indeed, about one month had gone by before the complainant told her sister about the first rape.
These arguments do not persuade us. We have long adhered to the rule that it is not necessary for the rape to be committed in an isolated place; rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed. In the cases at bar, the rapes were committed inside a dwelling which had not been proved to be without walls and in the presence of children who were fast asleep. Rape has been successfully consummated in places where people congregate, like parks or school premises, and even in a house where there are other occupants. 21 As to the delay in reporting the first rape, it is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their virtue because of the rapist threats on their lives. 22 This is especially true in this case where the victim, an orphan of tender years who only completed second grade, was living with the accused. Besides, the fact remains that the complainant reported the two rapes to her sister a few hours after the commission of the second on 8 July 1993.
The accused likewise insist that the complainants "shifting testimony" as to how she was raped eroded her credibility. He cites the following exchanges where there appears an apparent inconsistency as to which hand of the accused held the knife or was used to undress her:
ATTY. VILLARIN:
Q: Which hand did Rodolfo Leoterio use in holding you, Miss witness?
A: Right hand maam.
Q: Where did Rodolfo Leoterio hold you?
A: My both hands, maam.
Witness demonstrating by raisng his two hands above her head.
Q: You mean to say Rodolfo Leoterio held your two hands upward using his right hand only?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: What was the left hand of Rodolfo Leoterio doing?.
A: the left hand was holding the knife, maam.
Q: What were you doing while Rodolfo Leoterio was holding your both arms using his right hand and holding a knife using his left hand?
A: I cannot move maam.
Q: Since you said that Rodolfo Leoterio was holding your both arms using his right hand and holding a knife with his left hand, so what hand did he use to undress you?
A: He released his hold of the knife, and then he undressed me, maam.
Q: Where did he place the knife?
A: Beside him, maam.
Q: So using his left hand he undressed you while you are standing?
A: I was already lying, maam.
COURT:
Q: I thought you were standing up, how come that you are lying down?
A: He ordered me to lie down, maam.
ATTY. VILLARIN:
x x x
Q: What did Rodolfo Leoterio do if he told you to lie down and you refused to lie down?
A: He slapped me, maam.
Q: You mean the right hand he is using in holding your both arms?
A: Yes, maam.
x x x
Q: When did Rodolfo Leoterio release the knife, when he was undressing you or when he started separating your thighs?
A: When he was spreading my thighs, maam.
Q: Not during the time he was undressing you?
A: No, maam.
Q: At the time Rodolfo was undressing you, what hand was he using?
A: Left hand, maam.
Q: What hand did Rodolfo Leoterio use in holding both your arms?
A: Left hand, maam.
Q: What hand did Rodolfo Leoterio use in holding both your arms?
A: Left hand, maam.
Q: The same left hand he used in undressing you?
A: Yes, maam.
In effect, the accused attempts to cast doubt on the complainants credibility because of these alleged inconsistencies. The trial court itself noted inconsistencies in the complainants testimony, but these were "on minor details and do not at all touch upon the basis of the who, the how and when of the crime committed." On the contrary, further observed the trial court, 23 they even served to enhance her credibility as these inconsistencies indicated that she was not a rehearsed witness. It is settled that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, for the latter is in the unique position of hearing the witnesses and observing their deportment and manner of testifying, hence it can decide the credibility issue best. 24 Additionally, the testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age are generally credible, 25 especially in the case of the complainant in light of her voluntary submission to the examination of her private parts and to the investigation by the police authorities and, thereafter, to public trial and to the humiliation and ordeal of testifying to all the gory details of sexual assault. 26 Only a woman seeking justice with truth as her weapon could have endured these.
Even if we were to disregard these well-entrenched precepts, an examination of the complainants entire testimony reveals that she satisfactorily explained all seeming inconsistencies in her testimony. She did not sway from one version to another but remained true to her story, except that she was unable to give the complete details of the rapes in one exchange, perhaps, due to a want of inquiries. This only showed that she was not coached to supply contrived testimony, a circumstance which enhanced her credibility rather than impaired it.
Further strengthening the complainants credibility is her lack of ulterior motive against the accused and the absolute absence of evidence that even remotely suggested that she could have been actuated by such motive. It is settled that where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that she was not so actuated and her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. 27 The accused attributed evil motive against his live-in partner Bienvenida Manahan allegedly because he was "about to know" of Bienvenidas relationship with his kumpadre, thus, she pre-empted him by filing a complaint for rape before he could file his charges against her. This contention is patently unmeritorious as no evidence was offered to prove such relationship. In any event, the accused even admitted that he did not file any case against Bienvenida because he had no right to do so as he and Bienvenida were not married to each other. 28 Finally, there is at all no evidence that Bienvenida instigated the filing of the rape cases against the accused.
All told, the challenged decision is in accordance with the facts
and the applicable law and jurisprudence.
However, in conformity with current jurisprudence, indemnity in the
amount of P50,000.00 in each case should have been awarded.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the
challenged decision of Branch 79 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in
Criminal Case No. Q-93-46506 and Criminal Case No. Q-93-46507, is hereby
AFFIRMED, subject to the modification as to the indemnity. As modified, accused-appellant Rodolfo
Leoterio y Sanoza is ordered to pay indemnity of P50,000.00 in each
case.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Melo, Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Original Record (OR), 119-125; Rollo, 21-26. Per Judge Godofredo L. Legaspi.
2 Id., 2-3; Id., 16-17.
3 OR, 4; Rollo, 18.
4 Rollo, 19.
5 TSN, 24 January 1994, 2-4; TSN, 25 January 1994, 5-7; TSN, 18 April 1994, 5.
6 TSN, 24 January 1994, 10. Bienvenida Manahan estimated the houses area to be three meters by three meters (TSN, 19 April 1994, 5).
7 TSN, 24 January 1994, 4-12.
8 TSN, 24 January 1994, 14-19.
9 TSN, 28 June 1994, 2-7.
10 TSN, 27 June 1994, 2-3.
11 OR, 8-9.
12 TSN, 27 June 1994, 2-5.
13 TSN, 19 April 1994, 4-7.
14 TSN, 21 June 1994, 11.
15 TSN, 29 August 1994, 4-5.
16 TSN, 29 August 1994, 6.
17 TSN, 30 August 1994, 6.
18 TSN, 21 June 1994, 7.
19 OR, 122; Rollo, 23.
20 Id., 123; Id., 24.
21 People v. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707, 723 [1991].
22 People v. Alib, 222 SCRA 517, 529-230 [1993].
23 OR, 123; Rollo, 24.
24 People v. Cristobal, G.R. No. 116279,29 January 1996, 7.
25 People v. Liquiran, 228 SCRA 62, 71 [1993].
26 People v. Grefiel, 215 SCRA 596, 609 [1992].
27 People v. Simon, 209 SCRA 148, 159 [1992]; People vs. Castor, 216 SCRA 410, 419 [1992]; People v. Lase, 219 SCRA 584, 595 [1993].