Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > January 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 124973 January 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY BANELA:



[G.R. No. 124973. January 18, 1999.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICKY BANELA y ARCEGA, Accused-Appellant.



When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. And so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility and unless the same is controverted by competent physical and testimonial evidence, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

This principle guides the Court in resolving this appeal from the amended decision rendered on December 21, 1995 by the Honorable Augusto T. Parcero, Presiding Judge of Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court of the Fifth Judicial Region stationed in Daet, Camarines Noter, finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape and disposing:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding Ricky Banela y Arcega guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape which is defined and punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (prior to its amendment by RA 7659) and in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the offended party Marilou Alfonso, the sum of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.


(p. 33, Rollo.)

Accused-appellant’s conviction for said crime arose from an Information reading as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor upon complaint of the offended party and assisted by the Social Worker Officer Vilma Garcia hereby accuses RICKY BANELA Y ARCEGA of the crime of RAPE defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about 12 o’clock midnight of October 7, 1993 at Market Tienda No. 3, Daet Public Market, municipality of Daet, province of Camarines Noter, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by using force and intimidation unlawfully, feloniously, and criminally, did then and there, commit sexual intercourse with one Marilou B. Alfonso, a girl of 14 years old against the will of the latter to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.chanrobles law library

(p. 9, Rollo.)

The factual background of the imputed felony, as summarized by the Solicitor-General in the appellee’s brief, is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The incident occurred on October 7, 1993 . . .

Shortly before midnight Marilou, was asked by her father to pick up the latter’s clothes in Barangay Mantagbac, Daet, Camarines Noter, after which they were to proceed to the latter’s house in Moreno District, (p. 4, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994).

After getting the clothes, Marilou started on her way home. Along the route, she passed by Summer Place, a restaurant located in the Daet Public Market (p. 4, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). She entered the restaurant and decided to stay a while to listen to her favorite music played in a jukebox (p. 6, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). While enjoying the music, she noticed appellant, Norlito Cereno and two other men having a drinking spree inside the restaurant (p. 6, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). After the tune ended, Marilou left Summer Place (p. 7, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). She resumed her trek home, passing through the fruit stalls near the public market. Looking back, she saw appellant and his companions trailing her (pp. 7-8, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). She quickened her pace. The men chased her and eventually caught up with her. Appellant accosted her and asked where she was going; to which she replied that she was going home (p. 8, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). All of a sudden, appellant’s companions grabbed her arms while appellant covered her mouth. They dragged her back to where she came from stopping right behind Summer Place (pp. 8-10, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). Two of appellant’s companions firmly held Marilou’s arms. One of them forced Marilou to lie down on her back (p. 10, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). Norlito Cereno then tore off the victim’s red shirt and removed her white short pants, bra, and panty. Marilou cried and struggled with all her might to free herself but she was easily overpowered by brute force (pp. 11-12, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). Norlito Cereno stripped and placed himself on top of Marilou (pp. 12-13, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). As appellant held Marilou’s legs, Norlito Cereno succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her (p. 12, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). After Norlito had satisfied his lust, appellant took his turn and likewise had sexual intercourse with Marilou. He covered her mouth with his hand and threatened to kill her if she reported to the police (pp. 14-15, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). After appellant, the third malefactor attempted to have sexual intercourse with Marilou but failed when several security guards on foot patrol arrived at the scene after hearing the victim’s cries (p. 15, TSN, Oct. 21, 1994). Avoiding a confrontation, the culprits hurriedly fled into the dead of night (p. 15, TSN, Oct. 1, 1994).

The security guards found Marilou totally naked, writhing in pain and blood oozing from her lips (pp. 5 and 6, TSN, Dec. 9, 1994). They brought her to a stall nearby and gave her a piece of cloth to cover herself (p. 6, TSN, Dec. 9, 1994). When asked by the guards what happened to her, she responded that she was raped (p. 6, TSN, Dec. 9, 1994). One of the security guards proceeded to the police station to report the incident (p. 7, TSN, Dec. 9, 1994). SPO3 Salvador Bamba, PO3 Teresita Montoya, and SPO1 Corpuz arrived and brought Marilou to the police station. Afterwards, she was brought to the Camarines Noter Provincial Hospital for examination (p. 9, TSN, December 9, 1994).

Meanwhile, in their search for the culprits whom they believed were lurking in the vicinity of Zabala Street and Vinzons avenue, the police finally found a suspect in the person of Norlito Nazareno whom they brought to the police station for investigation (p. 10, TSN, Dec. 9, 1994).

Dr. Marcelito Abas conducted an examination on the victim at about 1:55 in the morning of October 8, 1993 (See Exhibit A and p. 5, TSN, Oct. 20, 1994). The findings are as

"x       x       x

Laceration at the hymen with minimal fresh bleeding at 5 & 7 o’clock;

x       x       x

REMARKS: Complains of pain on the right zygomatic area."cralaw virtua1aw library

(Exhibits A, A-2, A-3)

(pp. 95-97, Rollo.)

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. He testified that on October 7, 1993, about 12 o’clock midnight, he was at Magang, Daet, Camarines Noter where he slept in the house of his aunt, Araceli Villamor. He averred that he slept at 8 o’clock that evening and learned of the case only when policemen came and brought him to the police station of Daet, Camarines Noter as a suspect in the rape of Marilou. He declared that he knew Norlito Cereno, alias Norlito Nazareno, a bystander at Daet Centro. He alleged that he was being charged for rape and not Norlito Nazareno because the wife of Nazareno is a friend of Marilou (tsn, June 21, 1995, pp. 2-28). The alibi did not impress the trial court.chanrobles law library

Hence, the instant appeal, anchored on the catch-all argument that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The arguments advanced in the appeal mainly revolve on the issue of credibility. It is contended that Marilou could not have possibly made any positive identification of her assailants since she was sexually abused in an unlighted place. Accused-appellant further claims that in her direct examination, Marilou positively identified accused-appellant as the person who raped her, whereas in her "Salaysay" executed immediately after the incident, she failed to name him.

It is doctrinally settled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimony is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. A trial court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses carry great weight and respect and will be sustained by the appellate courts unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case (People v. Castillo, Jr., 275 SCRA 753 [1997]; People v. Cogonon, 262 SCRA 693 [1996]; People v. Cura, 240 SCRA 234 [1995]). In the instant case, we see no cogent reason to depart from this established rule as accused-appellant has failed to present any substantial evidence which would merit a reversal of the findings of the court below.

The fact that the crime was committed in a dark and unlighted place does not cast doubt on the complainant’s positive identification of the culprits. Marilou was able to clearly establish that she was raped by accused-appellant since she actually saw him lying on top of her. She felt his penis inserted into her sexual organ which caused her pain. Moreover, the face of accused-appellant was in full view of Marilou and very near her while he was covering her mouth and warning her not to report the matter to the police. Recognition was easy for she had known accused-appellant for sometime because they are neighbors in Mantagbac, Daet, Camarines Noter (October 21, 1994, pp. 3-4, 14-15).

The alleged inconsistency between Marilou’s sworn statement or "Salaysay", and her testimony in open court is more apparent than real, brought about by the way the questions to Marilou were phrased. In her "Salaysay", she declared:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

T: Sino ang inirereklamo mo?

S: Yun pong dalawang lalaki na hindi ko naman kilala, subalit kung makikita ay aking silang makikilala.

(Record, p. 5; Rollo, p. 55).

On the other hand, the relevant portion of her testimony in court is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q. Miss Witness, do you know the accused in this case in the person of Ricky Banela?

WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Yes sir, I know him, sir. He is a resident of Mantagbac.

Q. Why do you know him?

A: He is our neighbor.

Q: Where?

A: Near the ‘ermita’ (chapel of Mantagbac)

Q: If he is present inside the courtroom can you point him out?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Look around and if he is present, go near him and point him out.

A: This one, sir. (Witness pointed to a person who when asked gave the name Ricky Banela).

(tsn, October 21, 1994, pp. 3-4).

In recent cases, this Court had the occasion to rule that inconsistencies between testimony in open court and sworn statements given to investigators do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex-parte affidavits are almost always incomplete. Sworn statements are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court (People v. Lazaro, 249 SCRA 234 [1995]; People v. Layno, 264 SCRA 558 [1996]; People v. Pontilar, Jr., 275 SCRA 338 [1997]).

Further, it is an oft-repeated rule that when there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witness to testify falsely against an accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence (People v. Sotto, 275 SCRA 191 [1997]; People v. Casil, 241 SCRA 285 [1995]; People v. Tabao, 240 SCRA 758 [1995]). In the case at bar, Accused-appellant was not able to show any improper ulterior motive on the part of complainant to falsely incriminate him in such a serious offense. Indeed, her only motive can well be to bring before the bar of justice the person who had abused her.

Moreover, in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, oftentimes the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the perpetrator is the testimony of the offended woman herself. Thus, her testimony, standing alone can be made the basis of conviction if such testimony meets the test of credibility (People v. Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997]; People v. Ching, 240 SCRA 267 [1995]; People v. Sanchez, 250 SCRA 14 [1995]).

We have consistently held that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the rape has been committed, and that if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof (People v. Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997]; People v. Tabao, 240 SCRA 758 [1995]; People v. Segundo, 228 SCRA 691 [1993]). This is true in the instant case where the trial court found that there is clear, convincing, and competent physical and testimonial evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against Accused-Appellant.

Accused-appellant’s all too familiar and banal defense of alibi cum denial does not inspire the slightest belief or consideration. This Court has unfailingly upheld the doctrine that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime (People v. Narca, 275 SCRA 696 [1997]; People v. Paredes, 264 SCRA 578 [1996]). For alibi to prosper the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (People v. Baniel, 275 SCRA 472 [1997]; People v. Ballabare, 264 SCRA 350 [1996]). Accused-appellant has failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene when it happened. In fact, Accused-appellant was in the same municipality (Daet, Camarines Noter) where the rape occurred (tsn, June 21, 1995, p. 2).

Accused-appellant is charged with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a women under any of the following circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. By using force or intimidation.

x       x       x

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

x       x       x

However, at the time Marilou was raped on October 7, 1993, the death penalty had yet to be restored as Republic Act No. 7659 which revived the death penalty took effect only on January 1, 1994. Hence, the maximum penalty imposable on accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.

Originally, Marilou had filed a complaint not only against accused-appellant Ricky Banela but also against Norlito Nazareno (Record, p. 3). However, during the preliminary examination conducted by the Municipal Trial Court of Daet, Marilou declared that it was only accused-appellant who sexually abused her. Thus, Norlito Nazareno was dropped from the complaint per Order dated October 14, 1993 of said MTC (Record, p. 11).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Finally, we find it opportune to take note of the new policy adopted by the Court in the case of People of the Phil. v. Senen Prades (G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998), pertaining to the award of indemnity and damages. The Court declared in the aforesaid case that "the indemnification for the victim shall be in the increased amount of P75,000.00 if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstance under which the death penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory laws." However, in the case at bar, the crime of rape was committed in 1993, or before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659, the amendatory law restoring the death penalty. Hence, the civil indemnity to be awarded to the offended party shall remain to be P50,000.00.

Likewise, as declared in Prades, moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as has heretofore been the practice, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The fact that complainant has suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the bases for moral damages are too obvious to still require the recital thereof at the trial of the victim, since the Court itself even assumes and acknowledges such agony on her part as a gauge of her credibility.

WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, including the award of P50,000.00 as compensatory damages, with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Ricky Banela is ordered to pay the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. No special pronouncement is made as to costs.chanrobles law library


Davide, Jr., C.J., Kapunan, Martinez and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

January-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 126466 January 14, 1999 - ARTURO BORJAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114170 January 15, 1999 - PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-97-1257 January 18, 1999 - EUSEBIA CORAJE, ET AL. v. HENRY BRACEROS

  • G.R. Nos. 109279-80 January 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OCTAVIO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 124973 January 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY BANELA

  • G.R. No. 132601 January 19, 1999 - LEO ECHEGARAY v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

  • G.R. No. 108576 January 20, 1999 - CIR v. COURT OF APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113099 January 20, 1999 - ASIA FANCY PLYWOOD CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121212 January 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO CALAYCA

  • G.R. No. 123050 January 20, 1999 - SUICO IND’L. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123810 January 20, 1999 - CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123997 January 20, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125849 January 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO BAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 126124 January 20, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY P. PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 127410 January 20, 1999 - CONRADO L. TIU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128017 January 20, 1999 - RAMON ITURALDE v. ALFREDO FALCASANTOS

  • G.R. No. 128096 January 20, 1999 - PANFILO M. LACSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1176 January 21, 1999 - LETICIA V. MALLORCA v. REYNALDO M. PANOPIO

  • G.R. No. 102965 January 21, 1999 - JAMES REBURIANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109840 January 21, 1999 - JOSE L. CHUA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116111 January 21, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117103 January 21, 1999 - RENATO S. ONG, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 117254 January 21, 1999 - CIR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119446 January 21, 1999 - PHIL. HOME ASSURANCE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119682 January 21, 1999 - FRANCISCO BAGUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124062 January 21, 1999 - REYNALDO T. COMETA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126005 January 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126051 January 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD REALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 126094-95 January 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO REDUCA


  • G.R. No. 127838 January 21, 1999 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. JOSE J. LUCAS

  • G.R. No. 128297 January 21, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128690 January 21, 1999 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130756 January 21, 1999 - ESTER B. MARALIT v. JESUSA CORAZON L. IMPERIAL

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1371 January 22, 1999 - BALTAZAR D. AMION v. ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON

  • G.R. No. 123184 January 22, 1999 - SERAFIN QUEBEC SR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123555 January 22, 1999 - PROGRESSIVE DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125134 January 22, 1999 - XERXES ADZUARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125299 January 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO DORIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125982 January 22, 1999 - GSIS v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127833 January 22, 1999 - TEODORO URQUIAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112675 January 25, 1999 - AFISCO INSURANCE CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 January 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126634 January 25, 1999 - TRANSGLOBE INT’L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131247 January 25, 1999 - PRUBANKERS ASSO. v. PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO.


  • G.R. No. 109242 January 26, 1999 - LITO C. MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125213 January 26, 1999 - MILAGROS L. DIAZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • Adm. Case No. 4826 January 27, 1999 - IN RE: THE PETITION TO REMOVE ATTY. JOSE A. GRAPILON


  • G.R. No. 133197 January 27, 1999 - PCGG v. EDUARDO COJUANGCO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108946 January 28, 1999 - FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.


  • G.R. No. 113787 January 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINO GUILLERMO

  • G.R. No. 119464 January 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO VERMUDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 122544 & 124741 January 28, 1999 - REGINA P. DIZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125925 January 28, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENTURA VINUYA

  • G.R. No. 125986 January 28, 1999 - LUXURIA HOMES INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127941 January 28, 1999 - BIBLIA TOLEDO-BANAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128941 January 28, 1999 - CAPITOL COLLEGE OF ILIGAN, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133054 January 28, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GERSON R. ABADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119712 January 29, 1999 - DBP, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122746 January 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO VILLANUEVA