September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177159 : September 01, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MICHAEL LINGAHAN :
[G.R. No. 177159 : September 01, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MICHAEL LINGAHAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 September 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 177159* (People of the Philippines v. Michael Lingahan).
Appellant Michael Lingahan was indicted for two counts of rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, on February 2, 2001, docketed as Criminal Cases 01-20374[1] and 01-20375.[2]
BC[3] testified that on January 31, 2001, at around 2:30 a.m., she flagged down an FX taxi with a signboard heading to Antipolo City and sat at the middle passenger seat. Subsequently, the man beside the driver, later on identified as appellant Lingahan transferred at the back passenger seat[4] and at a point on the road wrapped his left arm around her neck. He pressed a screwdriver at her neck and demanded for money. He also started fondling her. She fought back but was unable to resist him. Eventually he raped her.[5] He also forced her to lay his penis into her mouth.[6]
When the vehicle finally stopped, Lingahan raped her a second time. The FX driver joined in and raped her, too.[7]
After satisfying their carnal desires, the men told BC that they took her because they were short of two thousand pesos to release an impounded vehicle. Thinking that it was her chance, BC offered to find the money if they would send her home. The men agreed but made her promise that she will not tell anybody about the incident.[8]
At 5:30 a.m., the two men drove BC home.[9] As soon as her brother opened the door for her, she immediately told him that she was raped, then she rushed to their telephone to instruct the security guards at the gate to stop the FX vehicle but it had already passed through. They immediately brought the matter to the police and BC underwent medical examination at Camp Crame.[10] The medico-legal officer noted 12 injuries on BC's body while her genital examination revealed indications of recent penetration.[11]
Meanwhile, they received a call that the two men returned to BCs house and were apprehended. Then their identities were revealed as Rodrigo Perez, the driver, and Michael Lingahan, the companion. They were taken to the Antipolo police station for investigation.[12]
For their part, the accused admitted that they had sexual intercourse with BC during the date that the alleged rape took place. Their only defense was that those sexual encounters happened with BCs consent.
On February 11, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment[13] finding Lingahan guilty of the two rapes of which he was charged. In Criminal Case 02-20374 [sic], he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years of prision correccional as minimum to ten years of prision mayor as maximum, while in Criminal Case No. 01-20375, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC also ordered him to pay the complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each of the two rapes.
On appeal,[14] the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a decision[15] dated January 31, 2007, affirming the RTC decision in its entirety. The case was then elevated to this Court for review.
BCs testimony deserves full faith and credit. As BC recounted her ordeal in detail, particularly how the sexual intercourse took place, she had positively identified Lingahan as her rapist, and she never wavered in this identification.
Further strengthening BCs credibility was her conduct immediately following the rape. Her behavior after the incident was indicative of her resistance to Lingahan's devious acts. BC lost no time in disclosing the incident to the first person she saw, her brother, to seek help in apprehending her rapists. She immediately rushed towards their telephone to alarm the security guards of their subdivision. Then, they went to the police station to report the incident and to submit herself to a medical examination of her bodily injuries, including those on her private parts.
A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her.[16] The lack of active resistance cannot be equated to consent. Besides, resistance is not an element of rape.[17] BCs failure to shout or tenaciously resist Lingahan's advances should not be taken as a manifestation of her voluntary submission to Lingahan's sexual advances. The fact that Lingahan had a screwdriver on hand or by his side at the time of the rape is enough to intimidate BC. Even the medical evidence verifies Lingahan's manhandling of the victim as the physical examination revealed 12 injuries on BC's body: five in the head and neck, two at the back and another five in the upper extremities which is significantly consistent with BC's testimony that she was restrained, and the injury in her neck was consistent with manual strangulation. Hence, the consensual sex theory appears to be a mere fabrication of Lingahan to exculpate himself from the rape charges filed against him.
Contrary to Lingahan's assertion that the crime of rape by sexual assault,[18] in Criminal Case 01-20374, although proven should not have been considered for lack of a proper allegation in the information, the Court ruled that a variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he fails to object to evidence showing that the crime was committed in a different manner than what was alleged.[19]
In this case, the Court holds that while the amended information failed to specifically allege that the rape was committed through sexual assault, Lingahan did not object to the presentation of evidence showing that the crime charged was committed in a different manner than what was stated in the amended information. Thus, the variance is not a bar to Lingahan's conviction of the crime charged in the amended information.
In sum, the Court finds no reason to reverse the finding of the RTC and the CA. Thus, Lingahan's conviction for both charge of rape must stand.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the CA decision dated January 31, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 01436 but with MODIFICATION, that in Criminal Case 01-20374, Lingahan is to pay the complainant P30,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages, in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence.[20]
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 177159* (People of the Philippines v. Michael Lingahan).
Appellant Michael Lingahan was indicted for two counts of rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, on February 2, 2001, docketed as Criminal Cases 01-20374[1] and 01-20375.[2]
BC[3] testified that on January 31, 2001, at around 2:30 a.m., she flagged down an FX taxi with a signboard heading to Antipolo City and sat at the middle passenger seat. Subsequently, the man beside the driver, later on identified as appellant Lingahan transferred at the back passenger seat[4] and at a point on the road wrapped his left arm around her neck. He pressed a screwdriver at her neck and demanded for money. He also started fondling her. She fought back but was unable to resist him. Eventually he raped her.[5] He also forced her to lay his penis into her mouth.[6]
When the vehicle finally stopped, Lingahan raped her a second time. The FX driver joined in and raped her, too.[7]
After satisfying their carnal desires, the men told BC that they took her because they were short of two thousand pesos to release an impounded vehicle. Thinking that it was her chance, BC offered to find the money if they would send her home. The men agreed but made her promise that she will not tell anybody about the incident.[8]
At 5:30 a.m., the two men drove BC home.[9] As soon as her brother opened the door for her, she immediately told him that she was raped, then she rushed to their telephone to instruct the security guards at the gate to stop the FX vehicle but it had already passed through. They immediately brought the matter to the police and BC underwent medical examination at Camp Crame.[10] The medico-legal officer noted 12 injuries on BC's body while her genital examination revealed indications of recent penetration.[11]
Meanwhile, they received a call that the two men returned to BCs house and were apprehended. Then their identities were revealed as Rodrigo Perez, the driver, and Michael Lingahan, the companion. They were taken to the Antipolo police station for investigation.[12]
For their part, the accused admitted that they had sexual intercourse with BC during the date that the alleged rape took place. Their only defense was that those sexual encounters happened with BCs consent.
On February 11, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment[13] finding Lingahan guilty of the two rapes of which he was charged. In Criminal Case 02-20374 [sic], he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years of prision correccional as minimum to ten years of prision mayor as maximum, while in Criminal Case No. 01-20375, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC also ordered him to pay the complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages, for each of the two rapes.
On appeal,[14] the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a decision[15] dated January 31, 2007, affirming the RTC decision in its entirety. The case was then elevated to this Court for review.
BCs testimony deserves full faith and credit. As BC recounted her ordeal in detail, particularly how the sexual intercourse took place, she had positively identified Lingahan as her rapist, and she never wavered in this identification.
Further strengthening BCs credibility was her conduct immediately following the rape. Her behavior after the incident was indicative of her resistance to Lingahan's devious acts. BC lost no time in disclosing the incident to the first person she saw, her brother, to seek help in apprehending her rapists. She immediately rushed towards their telephone to alarm the security guards of their subdivision. Then, they went to the police station to report the incident and to submit herself to a medical examination of her bodily injuries, including those on her private parts.
A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her.[16] The lack of active resistance cannot be equated to consent. Besides, resistance is not an element of rape.[17] BCs failure to shout or tenaciously resist Lingahan's advances should not be taken as a manifestation of her voluntary submission to Lingahan's sexual advances. The fact that Lingahan had a screwdriver on hand or by his side at the time of the rape is enough to intimidate BC. Even the medical evidence verifies Lingahan's manhandling of the victim as the physical examination revealed 12 injuries on BC's body: five in the head and neck, two at the back and another five in the upper extremities which is significantly consistent with BC's testimony that she was restrained, and the injury in her neck was consistent with manual strangulation. Hence, the consensual sex theory appears to be a mere fabrication of Lingahan to exculpate himself from the rape charges filed against him.
Contrary to Lingahan's assertion that the crime of rape by sexual assault,[18] in Criminal Case 01-20374, although proven should not have been considered for lack of a proper allegation in the information, the Court ruled that a variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he fails to object to evidence showing that the crime was committed in a different manner than what was alleged.[19]
In this case, the Court holds that while the amended information failed to specifically allege that the rape was committed through sexual assault, Lingahan did not object to the presentation of evidence showing that the crime charged was committed in a different manner than what was stated in the amended information. Thus, the variance is not a bar to Lingahan's conviction of the crime charged in the amended information.
In sum, the Court finds no reason to reverse the finding of the RTC and the CA. Thus, Lingahan's conviction for both charge of rape must stand.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the CA decision dated January 31, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 01436 but with MODIFICATION, that in Criminal Case 01-20374, Lingahan is to pay the complainant P30,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as moral damages, in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence.[20]
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. Villarama. Jr., additional member, per raffle dated August 4. 2010. J. Peralta. no part. J. Bersamin, additional member, per Special Order No. 882 dated August 31, 2010.
[1] Records, pp. 1-2.
[2] Id. at 2 1-22.
[3] 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.
[4] TSN, March 5, 2002, pp. 5-9.
[5] Id. at 9-13.
[6] Id. at 14-15.
[7] Id. at 19-24.
[8] Id. at 25-26.
[9] Id. at 27-30
.[10] Id. at 30-32.
[11] TSN, May 21,2002, pp. 2-9.
[12] TSN, March 5, 2002, pp. 32-33.
[13] CA rollo, pp. 8-13.
[14] Docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01436.
[15] Rollo, pp. 2-26.
[16] People v. Batonio, G.R. No. 176153, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 760, 770.
[17] People v. Durano, G.R. No. 175316, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 466, 480.
[18] REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 266-A. Rape; when and how committed. - Rape is committed -1)By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shallcommit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anai orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or ana! orifice of another person.
[19] People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 168101, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 435, 451, citing People v. Abiera, G.R. No. 93947, May 21, 1993, 222 SCRA 378, 381 and People v. Atienza, 383 Phil. 707, 715 (2000).
[20] People v. Bunagan, G.R. No. 177161, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 808, 814; People v. Hermocilla, G.R. No. 375830, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 296, 306; People v. Olaybar 459 Phil. 114, 129 (2003); People v. Soriano, 436 Phil. 719, 758 (2002)
