June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181254 : June 16, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RENE NAMORA:
[G.R. No. 181254 : June 16, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RENE NAMORA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 181254 (People of the Philippines v. Rene Namora).-
This case is about the weight given to the absence of hymenal lacerations and other physical signs of injuries on the complainant's body in the face of her claim that the accused raped her.
The public prosecutor charged the accused Rene Namora with two counts of rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta, Pangasinan in Criminal Cases U-9210 and U-9211.
EM,[1] the complainant, one month short of 18 years of age when she made her complaint,[2] testified that she worked for Vic Wong, owner of Santrans Bus Company, at the bakery he operated at the bus terminal. She recounted that at noontime of Novelnber 24, 1996, EM was sweeping an area of the bus terminal when Namora suddenly approached her from behind, tied her mouth with a shirt, and poked a knife at her neck. He dragged her up an empty bus, laid her down on some of its seats, then threatened to kill her should she report him to the company or to her parents. He then undressed her, removed her shorts and panty with one hand while keeping the knife in the other, then ravished her.
Fearful of Namora, EM was unable to fight back. After he was through with her, Namora put his underwear back on and went out to wash the buses. EM returned to the bakery.[3]
EM further testified that near noon on December 19, 1996, she was sweeping an area near the terminal's comfort room when Namora again held her from behind and poked a knife at her neck. This time he dragged her to the terminal's bodega, where he forced her down, climbed on top of her, and touched her breasts, EM was unable to do anything out of fear that Namora would stab her with the knife. He threatened to kill her should she relate the incident to anyone.
Namora then took off his pants and underwear, removed EM's pants and panty, and once more ravished her. He left her in the bodega afterwards. On returning to the bakery, EM directly reported to Wong what Namora did to her. Wong accompanied EM to the police station where a police officer took her statement. They then brought her to the Pozorrubio Community Hospital for examination. From the hospital, they proceeded to the office of the Provincial Prosecutor where she gave her statement[4] and filed a complaint.[5]
RM, EM's mother, testified that on December 19, 1996 at around 6:00 in the evening, after coming home from the prosecutor's office, EM told her about the rape. RM and her husband went to Wong's residence with a request that EM undergo another medical examination because they were not satisfied with the result of the first, which showed that EM's hymen remained intact and that she did not suffer from any laceration, abrasion, contusion, or hematoma.[6] On December 20, 1996, they brought EM to the Emergency Hospital, where Dr. Noel Obedoza examined her.[7]
Dr. Obedoza testified that he was convinced that EM was indeed raped for not only did she have a kiss mark on her left lateral aspect neck, her hymen also had healed lacerations at 5, 9, and 11 o'clock, using the orientation of a time piece. The vagina admitted the tip of the forefinger with minimal resistance. EM bore no sign, however, of external physical abrasions, hematoma, or laceration on the torso and extremities. A smear o taken to detect the presence of sperm turned up with negative results.[8]
The first defense witness, Dr. Joseph Gomez of the Pozorrubio Community Hospital, testified that on examination of EM on December 20, 1996, he found no lacerations, abrasions, or hematoma on her vagina. Moreover, a vaginal smear he made following examination tested negative for sperm.[9]
The second defense witness, Gina Namora, wife of the accused, testified that every morning her husband would do haircuts at home and sometimes help her with the laundry and cleaning. She insisted that he did not work for Wong in 1997 when the supposed rapes were committed. On learning of the arrest of her husband, she went to EM's house and pleaded for an amicable settlement of the case. EM agreed to settle for PI0,000.00 but warned Gina against telling her parents about it. But, since Gina did not have that amount, she offered to give EM just P7,000.00, which offer she accepted. Gina asked EM to wait five days for her to raise the money.[10]
Gina testified further that on September 28, 2000, she met EM, who was then accompanied by her husband, a child, and an aunt. They went to Barangay Captain Fred Mejia's house to document the settlement of the rape cases but the latter refused to have a part in it considering the gravity of the offense. He suggested that they instead see a certain Atty. Cruz.[11] The latter prepared a compromise agreement which she and EM signed. Gina then gave her the P7,000.00 which she took.[12]
Namora testified that he worked for Mrs. Wong as a bus washer from 4:00 p.m. when the buses began to come in. He would eat lunch at home and go to the bus terminal only at 4:00 p.m. He claimed never having been acquainted with EM. The only time he saw her was at the town hall when the police arrested him in 1996. Someone told him that Mrs. Wong wanted him to go to the town hall and, when he got there, the police arrested and detained him. The police let him go the next day, however, because of the negative result of a medico-legal examination of the complainant. But they advised him not to leave Pozorrubio.[13] He continued to work for Wong until 1997.
On September 26, 2003 the RTC found Namora guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. It also ordered him to pay EM P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. The RTC also ordered Namora to pay EM P25,000.00 in exemplary damages and to pay the costs. It ruled that Namora relied merely on alibi and denial to support his defense. It found credible EM's claim, despite the absence of lacerations, abrasions, or hematoma on her body, that Namora raped her.
Namora appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC 01027 but the CA rendered a decision dated November 16, 2007, affirming the RTC decision with the modification that Namora be made to pay exemplary damages of P25,000.00 for each count of rape and not collectively for the two counts.[14] The CA affirmed the trial court's findings and held that in the absence of ill motive to wrongly accuse Namora, EM can be believed, given her natural and convincing testimony. The CA ruled that EM's acceptance of P7,000.00 in settlement cannot be taken against her; she had suffered and Namora's wife made an offer that addressed her husband's civil liability for the offense. The fact remained that, while EM accepted the money, she did not withdraw the criminal charges.
The core issue in this case is whether or not Namora raped EM, using force and intimidation, on the two occasions she mentioned in her testimony.
Namora claims that EM's testimony is contradicted by the physical evidence. Dr. Joseph Gomez of the Pozorrubio Community Hospital found no evidence of forced sexual intercourse when he examined EM just hours after the last supposed rape.[15] He found no signs of lacerations, abrasions, or hematoma on her body. Dr. Gomez took a smear of her and found no sperm. Namora concludes that, as against EM's uncorroborated testimony, the documentary and expert evidence pointing to his innocence should prevail.
But, as the Court held in People v. Llanto,[16] the absence of lacerations on the complainant's hymen does not necessarily negate the fact of rape since, anatomically, the hymen can remain intact in some cases despite repeated sexual intercourse. The strength and stretch capacity of the hymen varies from one female to another, such that it may be so elastic as to distend without tearing during intercourse. In a few cases, the hymen may be so resistant that surgery may be needed to remove it so intercourse can take place. The Court reiterated this ruling in the recent case of People v. Opong.[17]
Notably, both the RTC ahd the CA found EM's testimony straightforward and convincing, not prompted by any ill motive. In fact, she did not know Namora previously as to provide some basis for inventing such a serious charge against him. Her categorical assertion that Namora raped her twice elicits belief. It is not likely for a girl of 17 to concoct false tales of rape right at her place of work at the expense of her reputation. She would not risk the probability of malicious gossip, of being held in contempt by her co-workers, or of even losing her work, if her claim of rape proved untrue.
Besides, the complainant's credibility essentially raises a question of fact that is best entrusted to the trial court's first-hand judgment. The trial judge had the advantage of watching the witnesses as they told their story. The trial judge could sense the tiniest hesitation or lack of certainty of the witness. Of course, if the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted certain undeniable facts of record that can change the outcome of the case, the appellate court can step in and rectify its findings.[18] Here, the Court sees no reason to reverse the trial court's findings that the CA itself affirmed.
The Court finds correct the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on the accused as well as the damages awarded to the complainant. It also find correct the P50,000.00 in civil indemnity imposed on him for each count of rape without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape. The award of moral and exemplary damages are likewise in order, except that exemplary damages should be increased to P30,000.00 for each count of rape, in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[19]
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 16, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR HC 01027 in that exemplary damages are increased to P30,000.00 for each count of rape. Mendoza, J., on leave; Perez, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 842.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 181254 (People of the Philippines v. Rene Namora).-
This case is about the weight given to the absence of hymenal lacerations and other physical signs of injuries on the complainant's body in the face of her claim that the accused raped her.
The Facts and the Case
The public prosecutor charged the accused Rene Namora with two counts of rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta, Pangasinan in Criminal Cases U-9210 and U-9211.
EM,[1] the complainant, one month short of 18 years of age when she made her complaint,[2] testified that she worked for Vic Wong, owner of Santrans Bus Company, at the bakery he operated at the bus terminal. She recounted that at noontime of Novelnber 24, 1996, EM was sweeping an area of the bus terminal when Namora suddenly approached her from behind, tied her mouth with a shirt, and poked a knife at her neck. He dragged her up an empty bus, laid her down on some of its seats, then threatened to kill her should she report him to the company or to her parents. He then undressed her, removed her shorts and panty with one hand while keeping the knife in the other, then ravished her.
Fearful of Namora, EM was unable to fight back. After he was through with her, Namora put his underwear back on and went out to wash the buses. EM returned to the bakery.[3]
EM further testified that near noon on December 19, 1996, she was sweeping an area near the terminal's comfort room when Namora again held her from behind and poked a knife at her neck. This time he dragged her to the terminal's bodega, where he forced her down, climbed on top of her, and touched her breasts, EM was unable to do anything out of fear that Namora would stab her with the knife. He threatened to kill her should she relate the incident to anyone.
Namora then took off his pants and underwear, removed EM's pants and panty, and once more ravished her. He left her in the bodega afterwards. On returning to the bakery, EM directly reported to Wong what Namora did to her. Wong accompanied EM to the police station where a police officer took her statement. They then brought her to the Pozorrubio Community Hospital for examination. From the hospital, they proceeded to the office of the Provincial Prosecutor where she gave her statement[4] and filed a complaint.[5]
RM, EM's mother, testified that on December 19, 1996 at around 6:00 in the evening, after coming home from the prosecutor's office, EM told her about the rape. RM and her husband went to Wong's residence with a request that EM undergo another medical examination because they were not satisfied with the result of the first, which showed that EM's hymen remained intact and that she did not suffer from any laceration, abrasion, contusion, or hematoma.[6] On December 20, 1996, they brought EM to the Emergency Hospital, where Dr. Noel Obedoza examined her.[7]
Dr. Obedoza testified that he was convinced that EM was indeed raped for not only did she have a kiss mark on her left lateral aspect neck, her hymen also had healed lacerations at 5, 9, and 11 o'clock, using the orientation of a time piece. The vagina admitted the tip of the forefinger with minimal resistance. EM bore no sign, however, of external physical abrasions, hematoma, or laceration on the torso and extremities. A smear o taken to detect the presence of sperm turned up with negative results.[8]
The first defense witness, Dr. Joseph Gomez of the Pozorrubio Community Hospital, testified that on examination of EM on December 20, 1996, he found no lacerations, abrasions, or hematoma on her vagina. Moreover, a vaginal smear he made following examination tested negative for sperm.[9]
The second defense witness, Gina Namora, wife of the accused, testified that every morning her husband would do haircuts at home and sometimes help her with the laundry and cleaning. She insisted that he did not work for Wong in 1997 when the supposed rapes were committed. On learning of the arrest of her husband, she went to EM's house and pleaded for an amicable settlement of the case. EM agreed to settle for PI0,000.00 but warned Gina against telling her parents about it. But, since Gina did not have that amount, she offered to give EM just P7,000.00, which offer she accepted. Gina asked EM to wait five days for her to raise the money.[10]
Gina testified further that on September 28, 2000, she met EM, who was then accompanied by her husband, a child, and an aunt. They went to Barangay Captain Fred Mejia's house to document the settlement of the rape cases but the latter refused to have a part in it considering the gravity of the offense. He suggested that they instead see a certain Atty. Cruz.[11] The latter prepared a compromise agreement which she and EM signed. Gina then gave her the P7,000.00 which she took.[12]
Namora testified that he worked for Mrs. Wong as a bus washer from 4:00 p.m. when the buses began to come in. He would eat lunch at home and go to the bus terminal only at 4:00 p.m. He claimed never having been acquainted with EM. The only time he saw her was at the town hall when the police arrested him in 1996. Someone told him that Mrs. Wong wanted him to go to the town hall and, when he got there, the police arrested and detained him. The police let him go the next day, however, because of the negative result of a medico-legal examination of the complainant. But they advised him not to leave Pozorrubio.[13] He continued to work for Wong until 1997.
On September 26, 2003 the RTC found Namora guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. It also ordered him to pay EM P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. The RTC also ordered Namora to pay EM P25,000.00 in exemplary damages and to pay the costs. It ruled that Namora relied merely on alibi and denial to support his defense. It found credible EM's claim, despite the absence of lacerations, abrasions, or hematoma on her body, that Namora raped her.
Namora appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC 01027 but the CA rendered a decision dated November 16, 2007, affirming the RTC decision with the modification that Namora be made to pay exemplary damages of P25,000.00 for each count of rape and not collectively for the two counts.[14] The CA affirmed the trial court's findings and held that in the absence of ill motive to wrongly accuse Namora, EM can be believed, given her natural and convincing testimony. The CA ruled that EM's acceptance of P7,000.00 in settlement cannot be taken against her; she had suffered and Namora's wife made an offer that addressed her husband's civil liability for the offense. The fact remained that, while EM accepted the money, she did not withdraw the criminal charges.
The Issue Presented
The core issue in this case is whether or not Namora raped EM, using force and intimidation, on the two occasions she mentioned in her testimony.
The Ruling of the Court
Namora claims that EM's testimony is contradicted by the physical evidence. Dr. Joseph Gomez of the Pozorrubio Community Hospital found no evidence of forced sexual intercourse when he examined EM just hours after the last supposed rape.[15] He found no signs of lacerations, abrasions, or hematoma on her body. Dr. Gomez took a smear of her and found no sperm. Namora concludes that, as against EM's uncorroborated testimony, the documentary and expert evidence pointing to his innocence should prevail.
But, as the Court held in People v. Llanto,[16] the absence of lacerations on the complainant's hymen does not necessarily negate the fact of rape since, anatomically, the hymen can remain intact in some cases despite repeated sexual intercourse. The strength and stretch capacity of the hymen varies from one female to another, such that it may be so elastic as to distend without tearing during intercourse. In a few cases, the hymen may be so resistant that surgery may be needed to remove it so intercourse can take place. The Court reiterated this ruling in the recent case of People v. Opong.[17]
Notably, both the RTC ahd the CA found EM's testimony straightforward and convincing, not prompted by any ill motive. In fact, she did not know Namora previously as to provide some basis for inventing such a serious charge against him. Her categorical assertion that Namora raped her twice elicits belief. It is not likely for a girl of 17 to concoct false tales of rape right at her place of work at the expense of her reputation. She would not risk the probability of malicious gossip, of being held in contempt by her co-workers, or of even losing her work, if her claim of rape proved untrue.
Besides, the complainant's credibility essentially raises a question of fact that is best entrusted to the trial court's first-hand judgment. The trial judge had the advantage of watching the witnesses as they told their story. The trial judge could sense the tiniest hesitation or lack of certainty of the witness. Of course, if the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted certain undeniable facts of record that can change the outcome of the case, the appellate court can step in and rectify its findings.[18] Here, the Court sees no reason to reverse the trial court's findings that the CA itself affirmed.
The Court finds correct the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on the accused as well as the damages awarded to the complainant. It also find correct the P50,000.00 in civil indemnity imposed on him for each count of rape without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape. The award of moral and exemplary damages are likewise in order, except that exemplary damages should be increased to P30,000.00 for each count of rape, in accordance with recent jurisprudence.[19]
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 16, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR HC 01027 in that exemplary damages are increased to P30,000.00 for each count of rape. 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] 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, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy (People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 421-426).
[2] TSN, March 15, 2001, p. 3.
[3] Id. at 6.
[4] Exhibit "C," records, pp..5-8.
[5] TSN, March 15, 2001, p. 14.
[6] Medico-Legal, records, p. 9.
[7] TSN, July 9, 2001, p. 5.
[8] TSN, August 13, 2001, pp. 3-4.
[9] TSN, May 9, 2002, p. 7.
[10] TSN, February 4,2002, p. 8.
[11] Id. at 10.
[12] Id. at 12-13.
[13] TSN, March 19, 2002, pp. 3-6.
[14] The CA did not give any denomination for this award.
[15] TSN, May 9, 2002, p. 13.
[16] 443 Phil. 580, 594 (2003), citing People v. Aguinaldo, 375 Phil. 295, 312 (1999).
[17] G.R. No. 177822, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 706, 725, citing People v. Gabayron, 343 Phil. 593, 607 (1997).
[18] People v. Ayade, G.R. No. 188561, January 15, 2010.
[19] People v. Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010.
