June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 175217 : June 16, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. EDGARDO MONZON Y DIS CART EN ALIAS "IGAY":
[G.R. No. 175217 : June 16, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. EDGARDO MONZON Y DIS CART EN ALIAS "IGAY"
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 175217 (People of the Philippines v. Edgardo[1] Monzon y Discarten alias "Igay").-
This case is about the need to adduce substantial evidence to support the oft-abuse defenses of denial and alibi as well as "sweetheart theory" in rape cases.
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Calamba, Laguna charged the accused Edgardo D. Monzon (Monzon) alias "Igay" with two counts of rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba in Criminal Cases 6208- 98-C and 6209-98-C.[2]
At the trial, complainant ABC[3] testified that she started working as a house help for accused Monzon and his family on July 30, 1998. While she was taking a bath at around 4:00 in the afternoon of August 22, 1998, Monzon knocked at the door and entered the bathroom in the guise of getting something. Once inside, he held ABC's hands and closed the door. She pleaded "huwag po, huwag po" but he removed her blouse and shorts while poking a knife at her chest. He ordered her to lie on the floor. Although she fought back, he succeeded in ravishing her. He afterwards threatened to kill her if she would tell his wife what had happened.
ABC further testified that Monzon sexually abused her again on August 28, 1998 at around 9:00 in the morning. She was in the kitchen when he called her to come into the master's bedroom. Once inside, he ordered her to undress. When she did not obey, Monzon himself removed her dress. She fought back but he held her hands and made her lie down on the bed. When she hied to shout, he covered her mouth. Once again, Monzon succeeded in his carnal desire.
For his defense, Monzon testified that on August 22, 1998 he did some work at the house of Ma. Cecil G. Mundin (Mundin), arriving there at past 9:00 in the morning after taking his wife to her parlor job. He went home at noon for lunch, then took his child to school. He returned to Mundin's house at 2:00 in the afternoon and went home at 5:00 p.m.
On August 28, 1998 Monzon remained at the parlor where his wife worked and helped her clean the shop from 9:00 to 10:00 in the morning. He then proceeded to Mundin's house where a certain Comelio Sustado fetched him. The two of them went to Vanessa Homes Subdivision in Bucal, Calamba, Laguna to meet Charlie Fortaleza (Fortaleza) who at 11:00 a.m. asked him to bring an owner-type jeep to a shop for repair. He arrived at the shop at 11:45 a.m. At 12:30 in the afternoon Fortaleza arrived and took him to lunch. They also bought materials that Fortaleza needed for his house before returning to the repair shop. Monzon fetched his wife at 9:00 in the evening and then they headed for home.
Monzon claimed that his relationship with ABC began on August 19, 1998 when he came home and asked her to give him a head massage. While massaging him, ABC told him that she liked him. When he kissed her, she kissed him back. And it was actually ABC who peeped at him while he was taking a bath. When he invited her to join him, she removed her dress and soaped his body. Although he kissed her and she reciprocated, he had no sexual intercourse with her. He explained that the lacerations found on ABC may have been due to the fact that he inserted his index finger into her private part.
The defense presented four other witnesses including Mundin who testified that it was impossible for Monzon to have raped ABC on August 22, 1998 since Monzon was in her house from 2:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon. At 5:30 in the afternoon, they fetched Monzon's wife from the parlor and had snacks until 7:00 in the evening. They parted ways at around 8:00 in the evening.
On April 7, 2000 the RTC of Calamba rendered a joint judgment, finding Monzon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape[4] and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC also ordered him to indemnify ABC with P50,000.00 in moral damages for each count of rape.
On Monzon's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR- HC 00984, the latter court rendered judgment,[5] upholding the RTC decision, hence, this recourse to this Court by appeal.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Monzon raped ABC on the two occasions she mentioned.
In adjudging rape cases, this Court is guided by the following principles: (1) 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; (2) 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 (3) 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 for the defense.[6]
The credibility then of the complainant is of paramount importance. On this score, it is doctrinally settled that appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court. The Court accords the highest respect on the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of a witness since it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial.[7]
In this case, the trial court found ABC's narration of the alleged rape to be clear, convincing, and straightforward. Such finding binds the appellate courts, there being no showing that it was made arbitrarily or that the trial court overlooked certain facts of substance which, if considered, could affect the result of the case.[8]
Monzon anchors his defense mainly on alibi and denial. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of nonculpability to merit credibility. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused show he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, but there must also be clear and convincing proof that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[9]
As the RTC and CA noted, Monzon failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at his house on August 22 and 28, 1998 when ABC was raped. His place of work was only a 10-minute ride away, while the parlor where his wife worked was at most 20-minute ride from his house. Moreover, Mundin testified that she lost sight of Monzon for two hours on the date of the first offense.
Monzon also feebly invokes the "sweetheart theory." For the Court to even consider giving credence to this defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory since independent proof is required - such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.[10] In this case, Monzon failed to present evidence of this kind.
Finally, Monzon capitalizes on the alleged absence of resistance or struggle on the part of ABC when the alleged rape took place. It is settled that physical resistance is not an essential element of the felony and need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety. It is enough that the malefactor intimidated the complainant into submission. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[11]
In any event, ABC in fact testified that Monzon poked a knife at her chest. He also threatened to kill her if she would reveal what happened to his wife. There was, therefore, the essence of force and intimidation sufficient to engender fear in her mind that she would be killed if she did not yield to Monzon's desires.[12]
This being a case of simple rape, the penalty imposed by the RTC of reclusion perpetua and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape, is proper. However, this Court further awards P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[13]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00984 dated July 28, 2006 that upheld the Regional Trial Court's judgment of conviction against accused Edgardo D. Monzon alias "Igay" for two counts of rape in Criminal Cases 6208-98-C and 6209-98-C, with the MODIFICATION that the additional amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity be awarded for each count of rape.
Costs against the accused-appellant. Mendoza, J., on leave; Perez, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 842.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 175217 (People of the Philippines v. Edgardo[1] Monzon y Discarten alias "Igay").-
This case is about the need to adduce substantial evidence to support the oft-abuse defenses of denial and alibi as well as "sweetheart theory" in rape cases.
The Facts and the Case
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Calamba, Laguna charged the accused Edgardo D. Monzon (Monzon) alias "Igay" with two counts of rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba in Criminal Cases 6208- 98-C and 6209-98-C.[2]
At the trial, complainant ABC[3] testified that she started working as a house help for accused Monzon and his family on July 30, 1998. While she was taking a bath at around 4:00 in the afternoon of August 22, 1998, Monzon knocked at the door and entered the bathroom in the guise of getting something. Once inside, he held ABC's hands and closed the door. She pleaded "huwag po, huwag po" but he removed her blouse and shorts while poking a knife at her chest. He ordered her to lie on the floor. Although she fought back, he succeeded in ravishing her. He afterwards threatened to kill her if she would tell his wife what had happened.
ABC further testified that Monzon sexually abused her again on August 28, 1998 at around 9:00 in the morning. She was in the kitchen when he called her to come into the master's bedroom. Once inside, he ordered her to undress. When she did not obey, Monzon himself removed her dress. She fought back but he held her hands and made her lie down on the bed. When she hied to shout, he covered her mouth. Once again, Monzon succeeded in his carnal desire.
For his defense, Monzon testified that on August 22, 1998 he did some work at the house of Ma. Cecil G. Mundin (Mundin), arriving there at past 9:00 in the morning after taking his wife to her parlor job. He went home at noon for lunch, then took his child to school. He returned to Mundin's house at 2:00 in the afternoon and went home at 5:00 p.m.
On August 28, 1998 Monzon remained at the parlor where his wife worked and helped her clean the shop from 9:00 to 10:00 in the morning. He then proceeded to Mundin's house where a certain Comelio Sustado fetched him. The two of them went to Vanessa Homes Subdivision in Bucal, Calamba, Laguna to meet Charlie Fortaleza (Fortaleza) who at 11:00 a.m. asked him to bring an owner-type jeep to a shop for repair. He arrived at the shop at 11:45 a.m. At 12:30 in the afternoon Fortaleza arrived and took him to lunch. They also bought materials that Fortaleza needed for his house before returning to the repair shop. Monzon fetched his wife at 9:00 in the evening and then they headed for home.
Monzon claimed that his relationship with ABC began on August 19, 1998 when he came home and asked her to give him a head massage. While massaging him, ABC told him that she liked him. When he kissed her, she kissed him back. And it was actually ABC who peeped at him while he was taking a bath. When he invited her to join him, she removed her dress and soaped his body. Although he kissed her and she reciprocated, he had no sexual intercourse with her. He explained that the lacerations found on ABC may have been due to the fact that he inserted his index finger into her private part.
The defense presented four other witnesses including Mundin who testified that it was impossible for Monzon to have raped ABC on August 22, 1998 since Monzon was in her house from 2:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon. At 5:30 in the afternoon, they fetched Monzon's wife from the parlor and had snacks until 7:00 in the evening. They parted ways at around 8:00 in the evening.
On April 7, 2000 the RTC of Calamba rendered a joint judgment, finding Monzon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape[4] and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC also ordered him to indemnify ABC with P50,000.00 in moral damages for each count of rape.
On Monzon's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR- HC 00984, the latter court rendered judgment,[5] upholding the RTC decision, hence, this recourse to this Court by appeal.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Monzon raped ABC on the two occasions she mentioned.
The Court's Ruling
In adjudging rape cases, this Court is guided by the following principles: (1) 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; (2) 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 (3) 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 for the defense.[6]
The credibility then of the complainant is of paramount importance. On this score, it is doctrinally settled that appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court. The Court accords the highest respect on the trial court's evaluation of the testimony of a witness since it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial.[7]
In this case, the trial court found ABC's narration of the alleged rape to be clear, convincing, and straightforward. Such finding binds the appellate courts, there being no showing that it was made arbitrarily or that the trial court overlooked certain facts of substance which, if considered, could affect the result of the case.[8]
Monzon anchors his defense mainly on alibi and denial. Nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the complainant. Alibi is an inherently weak defense, which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution because it can easily be fabricated. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of nonculpability to merit credibility. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused show he was elsewhere at the time the crime was committed, but there must also be clear and convincing proof that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission.[9]
As the RTC and CA noted, Monzon failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at his house on August 22 and 28, 1998 when ABC was raped. His place of work was only a 10-minute ride away, while the parlor where his wife worked was at most 20-minute ride from his house. Moreover, Mundin testified that she lost sight of Monzon for two hours on the date of the first offense.
Monzon also feebly invokes the "sweetheart theory." For the Court to even consider giving credence to this defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory since independent proof is required - such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.[10] In this case, Monzon failed to present evidence of this kind.
Finally, Monzon capitalizes on the alleged absence of resistance or struggle on the part of ABC when the alleged rape took place. It is settled that physical resistance is not an essential element of the felony and need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety. It is enough that the malefactor intimidated the complainant into submission. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the accused.[11]
In any event, ABC in fact testified that Monzon poked a knife at her chest. He also threatened to kill her if she would reveal what happened to his wife. There was, therefore, the essence of force and intimidation sufficient to engender fear in her mind that she would be killed if she did not yield to Monzon's desires.[12]
This being a case of simple rape, the penalty imposed by the RTC of reclusion perpetua and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape, is proper. However, this Court further awards P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[13]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00984 dated July 28, 2006 that upheld the Regional Trial Court's judgment of conviction against accused Edgardo D. Monzon alias "Igay" for two counts of rape in Criminal Cases 6208-98-C and 6209-98-C, with the MODIFICATION that the additional amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity be awarded for each count of rape.
Costs against the accused-appellant. Mendoza, J., on leave; Perez, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 842.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] As stated in the Counter-Affidavit of the accused, but also referred to as "Eduardo" in most parts of the records.
[2] Records (Vol. I), p. 28; records (Vol. II), p. 1.
[3] A fictitious name to conceal her real identity.
[4] CA rollo, pp. 24-32.
[5] Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Enrico A. Lanzanas.
[6] People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 172118, April 24,2007, 522 SCRA 189, 199.
[7] People v. Dela Cruz, 412 Phil. 273, 287 (2001).
[8] People v. Barcelona, 382 Phil. 46, 53 (2000).
[9] People v. Penaso, 383 Phil. 200, 210 (2000).
[10] People v. Baldo, G.R. No. 175238, February 24, 2009, 580 SCRA 225, 232.
[11] People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 170569, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 244, 258.
[12] People v. Barcelona, supra note 8, at 54.
[13] People v. Molleda, 462 Phil. 461, 471 (2003).
