August 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > August 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 185283 : August 25, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LEOPOLDO ESLERA :
[G.R. No. 185283 : August 25, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LEOPOLDO ESLERA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 August 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 185283* (People of the Philippines v. Leopoldo Eslera).
This case is about a conviction for the crime of rape despite certain inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Lingayen, Pangasinan charged the accused Leopoldo Eslera (Eslera) with the crime of rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, in Criminal Case L-6590.
ZEN[1] testified that she was 15 years old when Eslera, her uncle, raped her. The RTC considered her mentally retarded but not insane.[2] She was cooking at around noon of July 20, 2001 at their house in Salasa, Bugallon, Pangasinan, when Eslera came, gagged her mouth with handkerchief, brought her upstairs, and tied her hands and feet. Being then helpless, he ravished her. He then untied her and went down the house, leaving ZEN in her room. She immediately reported the incident to her mother, ZENA.[3]
ZENA testified that Eslera was her brother-in-law, being the elder brother of her husband, ZENO.[4] When she got home from Lingayen at 1:00 p.m. on July 20, 2001 she noticed that ZEN looked weak but ZENA did not give importance to it then. Later that afternoon, ZEN told her mother that she did not want to be in the house because she was afraid. On further inquiry, ZEN told her that Eslera might do to her again what he did.[5] On hearing this, ZENA brought her daughter to Region I Medical Center for examination and treatment.[6] The medico-legal expert found healed lacerations at 7 and 8 o'clock positions on ZEN's hymen.[7]
For his defense, Eslera said that he and his brother, ZENO, went fishing at 10:00 a.m. on July 20, 2001 at the Agno River which was about three kilometers away. They returned home at 1:00 p.m.[8] ZENO, who was ZEN's father, attempted to corroborate his older brother Eslera's testimony but said that they left to fish at around 8:00 a.m on July 20, 2001 for a river in Socony, more than one kilometer away. They fished for two hours and returned home at 11:00 a.m. ZENO then left to get his cow while Eslera went up to the second floor of the house to sleep, ZEN was at home. ZENO claimed, however, that he was just downstairs during the time Eslera was asleep upstairs. ZENO had lunch with Eslera at 12 noon. The latter then went up the second floor of the house again to sleep. ZENO said that he never left the house until 5:00 p.m.[9]
On September 28, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment, finding Eslera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC likewise ordered him to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages. On appeal,[10] the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment on June 30, 2008, affirming the RTC decision with the modification that, in addition to moral damages, Eslera is to pay the complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Eslera appealed to this Court imputing error to the CA for giving full weight and credence to ZEN's testimony when this appeared incredible and inconsistent.
Eslera claims that he was out fishing with ZEN's father when the alleged rape took place. Further, he claims that the Court cannot believe ZEN because at one point she testified that Eslera was unable to insert his penis into her vagina, that it just remained between her legs, and that it was only his middle finger that he got into her. On cross-examination, however, she testified that it was his penis that he inserted into her vagina, not his middle finger.[11]
When it comes to the question of credibility, the Court must give way to the trial court's assessment of the witness and her testimony, especially when as in this case it is not tainted with arbitrariness. The reason is that, looking at the witness, the trial court had the advantage of appreciating her facial and body language which count for so much in evaluating her story.[12]
As to some incoherence in ZEN's testimony, these could be imputed to her young age and the fact that, as the court observed, she had a mind far below her age. Still, the core of her story remained unsullied and was clarified by persistent cross-examination. In fact, her inconsistencies bolster her credibility as it erases the suspicion that she had been coached or rehearsed. [13]
Eslera interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[14]
ZEN's testimony established how Eslera violated her. She described with clarity how he undressed her and succeeded in forcing himself on her. On cross-examination, she maintained that her uncle raped her. Supporting her claim is the medico-legal finding that she had healed hymenal lacerations.[15] When the rape victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, sufficient basis exists for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[16]
The Court sees no reason to reverse the finding of the RTC and the CA.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01717 dated June 30, 2008, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen in Criminal Case L-6590, finding the accused Leopoldo Eslera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and ordering him to pay complainant, as modified, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 185283* (People of the Philippines v. Leopoldo Eslera).
This case is about a conviction for the crime of rape despite certain inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Lingayen, Pangasinan charged the accused Leopoldo Eslera (Eslera) with the crime of rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, in Criminal Case L-6590.
ZEN[1] testified that she was 15 years old when Eslera, her uncle, raped her. The RTC considered her mentally retarded but not insane.[2] She was cooking at around noon of July 20, 2001 at their house in Salasa, Bugallon, Pangasinan, when Eslera came, gagged her mouth with handkerchief, brought her upstairs, and tied her hands and feet. Being then helpless, he ravished her. He then untied her and went down the house, leaving ZEN in her room. She immediately reported the incident to her mother, ZENA.[3]
ZENA testified that Eslera was her brother-in-law, being the elder brother of her husband, ZENO.[4] When she got home from Lingayen at 1:00 p.m. on July 20, 2001 she noticed that ZEN looked weak but ZENA did not give importance to it then. Later that afternoon, ZEN told her mother that she did not want to be in the house because she was afraid. On further inquiry, ZEN told her that Eslera might do to her again what he did.[5] On hearing this, ZENA brought her daughter to Region I Medical Center for examination and treatment.[6] The medico-legal expert found healed lacerations at 7 and 8 o'clock positions on ZEN's hymen.[7]
For his defense, Eslera said that he and his brother, ZENO, went fishing at 10:00 a.m. on July 20, 2001 at the Agno River which was about three kilometers away. They returned home at 1:00 p.m.[8] ZENO, who was ZEN's father, attempted to corroborate his older brother Eslera's testimony but said that they left to fish at around 8:00 a.m on July 20, 2001 for a river in Socony, more than one kilometer away. They fished for two hours and returned home at 11:00 a.m. ZENO then left to get his cow while Eslera went up to the second floor of the house to sleep, ZEN was at home. ZENO claimed, however, that he was just downstairs during the time Eslera was asleep upstairs. ZENO had lunch with Eslera at 12 noon. The latter then went up the second floor of the house again to sleep. ZENO said that he never left the house until 5:00 p.m.[9]
On September 28, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment, finding Eslera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC likewise ordered him to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages. On appeal,[10] the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment on June 30, 2008, affirming the RTC decision with the modification that, in addition to moral damages, Eslera is to pay the complainant P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Eslera appealed to this Court imputing error to the CA for giving full weight and credence to ZEN's testimony when this appeared incredible and inconsistent.
Eslera claims that he was out fishing with ZEN's father when the alleged rape took place. Further, he claims that the Court cannot believe ZEN because at one point she testified that Eslera was unable to insert his penis into her vagina, that it just remained between her legs, and that it was only his middle finger that he got into her. On cross-examination, however, she testified that it was his penis that he inserted into her vagina, not his middle finger.[11]
When it comes to the question of credibility, the Court must give way to the trial court's assessment of the witness and her testimony, especially when as in this case it is not tainted with arbitrariness. The reason is that, looking at the witness, the trial court had the advantage of appreciating her facial and body language which count for so much in evaluating her story.[12]
As to some incoherence in ZEN's testimony, these could be imputed to her young age and the fact that, as the court observed, she had a mind far below her age. Still, the core of her story remained unsullied and was clarified by persistent cross-examination. In fact, her inconsistencies bolster her credibility as it erases the suspicion that she had been coached or rehearsed. [13]
Eslera interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses, because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[14]
ZEN's testimony established how Eslera violated her. She described with clarity how he undressed her and succeeded in forcing himself on her. On cross-examination, she maintained that her uncle raped her. Supporting her claim is the medico-legal finding that she had healed hymenal lacerations.[15] When the rape victim's straightforward testimony is consistent with the physical finding of penetration, sufficient basis exists for concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.[16]
The Court sees no reason to reverse the finding of the RTC and the CA.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01717 dated June 30, 2008, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen in Criminal Case L-6590, finding the accused Leopoldo Eslera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and ordering him to pay complainant, as modified, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* J. Nachura, no part. J. Velasco, Jr., additional member, per raffle dated August 25, 2010.
[1] Pursuant to Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, are withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her. People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 421-426.
[2] TSN, November 15, 2002, p. S.
[3] Supra note 1.
[4] Supra note 1.
[5] TSN, November 14, 2001, pp. 4-5.
[6 ] Id. at 6.
[7] Medico-Legal Certificate, records, p. 15. s TSN, September 12, 2003, pp. 5-6.
[9] TSN, September 30, 2004, pp. 3-9.
10 Docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01717.
[11] TSN, November 15,2002, p. 10.
[12] People v. Macapanas, G.R. No. 187049, May 4, 2010.
[13] Id.
[14] People v. Ayade, G.R. No. 188561, January 15, 2010.
[15] Supra note 7.
[16] People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 173471, March 17, 2009,581 SCRA 655, 668-669.
