October 2000 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > October 2000 Decisions >
G.R. No. 134581 October 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN N. DEL ROSARIO :
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 134581. October 26, 2000.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO Y NAVARRO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO Y NAVARRO was found guilty of raping his own daughter-in-law and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the trial court. He was also ordered to indemnify his victim Ritchie Quisim del Rosario in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs. 1 He is now before us assailing the credibility of the victim and asserting that the court a quo erred in perfunctorily dismissing his alibi as well as paying no heed to the testimonies of his witnesses.
The version of the prosecution is that on the night of 30 January 1997 Ritchie Quisim del Rosario called on her father-in-law Benjamin del Rosario to borrow P1,000.00 to buy medicine for her asthma. Benjamin readily granted her request and instructed her to pick up the money the following day at his house in No. 47 Diego Silang St., Cubao, Quezon City.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
As instructed, Ritchie was at the house of her father-in-law the following day, 31 January 1997, at ten o’clock in the morning. The accused was alone in the house. According to Ritchie, he told her to wait in the sala as he was going to take a bath. After a while, he came out of the bathroom with only a towel wrapped around his waist. 2 Suddenly he grabbed her and dragged her to his room, locked the door, got his gun from the drawer and threatened her with it. Ritchie attempted to resist but the accused twisted her arm and then tied both arms at the back with a blanket. Undaunted, she again tried to break free but this time the accused punched her on the right thigh. 3 Benjamin then forcibly removed her shorts, panty, bra and her blouse, mounted her, and inserted his penis into her organ. Ritchie’s entreaties and shouts for help proved futile. After her attacker had finally satisfied his lust, he ordered her to dress up. He warned her not to tell anybody saying, "P - - - ina mo, huwag kang magkakamaling magsasalita . . . ." He threatened to kill her should she tell her husband Rogelio about the incident. 4 The accused then flagged down a taxi for her but not before repeating his warning to keep the matter to herself.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
On 4 February 1997 Ritchie finally decided to relate her tormenting experience to her mother-in-law Latsmi Siwani del Rosario who in turn revealed to Rogelio, the victim’s husband and youngest son of the accused, what she was told. 5 They wasted no time in reporting the matter to the police at Camp Crame where Ritchie was directed to undergo a medical examination at the PNP Crime Laboratory. 6
Dr. Emmanuel Reyes, the Medico-Legal Officer at the Crime Laboratory, testified on the result of his examination: 7
i) the subject came in as fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female. Her breasts were pendulous and with dark brown areola and nipples;
ii) contusions on the proximal 3rd of her right thigh measuring 10 x 3 cm. Just lateral to its anterior midline; abundant growth of pubic hair in her genitals; labia majora are full, convex and gaping with the dark brown labia minora presenting in between. On separation there was a congested vestibule and an abraded posterior fourchette with carunculae myrtiformis . . .
iii) the subject was in non-virgin state physically and for the physical injuries it was estimated to resolve in five to seven days.
Dr. Reyes clarified that the contusion on the right thigh could have been caused by the application of a blunt force on the area like a fistic blow or any hard instrument while the reddening of the vestibules and the abrasion on the posterior fourchette could have been caused by the forcible entry of a hard blunt object without the presence of adequate lubrication.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
In his defense, Accused Benjamin del Rosario testified that at around nine o’clock in the morning of 31 January 1997 he was on his way, together with his common-law wife Elizabeth Babala, to the Quiapo Church. Thirty (30) minutes later, they went to Raon to buy batteries for his wireless telephone, as evidenced by Exh. "6," 8 and thereafter they decided to drop by and take lunch at his sister’s place at Blumentritt St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. There they whiled their time away until six o’clock in the evening when they finally left for Cubao to watch a Tagalog movie at the Remar Theater.
A couple of weeks later, or on 19 February 1997, at around eight o’clock in the evening, Benjamin and his common-law wife Elizabeth Babala boarded a jeepney to take them home to Diego Silang St., Cubao. After alighting from the jeepney, they were accosted by two (2) burly men. The two (2) introduced themselves as policemen and informed Benjamin that he was being charged with rape. He was forced to board a waiting police van and inside he recognized his son Rogelio del Rosario together with his common-law wife Ritchie Quisim del Rosario. When he asked his son why he was doing this to him, Rogelio scornfully replied, "Maramot ka, matanda ka. Mabulok ka sa bilangguan." 9 All the while that he was being maligned by his son, Benjamin simply kept quiet.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
The accused further testified that on another occasion he again met his son Rogelio who told him that "his door is (was) open if I (Benjamin) have a million to give him." 10 Benjamin believed that the money would only be used by his son Rogelio, a self-confessed drug user and a casino gambler, to sustain his vices. Both Rogelio and Ritchie were in fact drug users according to the accused. For him, Rogelio was not only a dissolute person who never knew how to earn a living but a parasite who would often badger him for money to support his bad habits.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
He asserted that the only reason why Ritchie was filing the rape charge against him was because of his decision to finally stop giving them support and his firm refusal to grant them, without any consideration, a piece of lot which the couple had been interested in. He clarified that previous to the alleged rape incident he had sold a parcel of land in Nitang, Novaliches valued at P600,000.00 to his son Rogelio for only P200,000.00. In fact on 11 November 1996 Rogelio paid P40,000.00 as earnest money 11 but he came back four (4) days later only to demand the return of P10,000.00 to try his luck at the casino. This infuriated the accused. But Rogelio shouted back at his father and wondered aloud why the accused would not want to give him back his money.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
On 1 December 1996 Rogelio and Ritchie returned to their father’s house in Cubao and demanded the remaining P30,000.00. He scolded them again for taking back what was supposed to be an earnest money, but Rogelio cursed him instead. At any rate, the couple got what they wanted. But a week later, they returned again, this time not only to demand from him the original title of his lot but even had the temerity to order him to execute a deed of sale in their favor. When he denied what seemed to be preposterous demands, Rogelio threatened him and said, "Magsisisi ka. Lintik lang ang walang ganti." 12 He never thought his son would make good his threat until a complaint for rape was lodged against him nine (9) days later.
The defense presented an array of witnesses who not only corroborated the alibi of the accused but also belied the claim of the complaining witness that she was at the house of the accused in Cubao at the time the alleged rape took place.
Paula del Rosario, a sister of the accused, narrated that on 31 January 1997, at around noontime, the accused and Elizabeth Babala were at her place at Blumentritt St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. They stayed there until six o’clock in the evening when they finally went home. Paula further revealed that her nephew Rogelio went to her house very often to ask or borrow money from her. On 20 February 1997 she met him at the police station and tried to convince him of the innocence of his father. But Rogelio spewed a seething and venomous remark, "Maramot ho ‘yong matandang ‘yan. Ibig ko na ho siyang mamatay sa bilangguan." 13
Mario del Rosario, another son of the accused, testified that he and Ritchie and Rogelio were neighbors at LMR Compound, Gulod Novaliches. On the date of the alleged rape, he was with the couple the whole day helping them pack their things in their apartment as they were transferring to a new residence at Jordan Planes, Quezon City. He also helped them transfer their belongings to their new place. 14
Elizabeth Babala, the common-law wife of the accused, corroborated the testimony of Benjamin that he was at his sister’s house at the time of the commission of the crime. She disclosed that when she asked Ritchie inside the police van how she and Rogelio could falsely accuse Benjamin, she allegedly shot back, "Lintik, ganti-ganti lang!" 15
Finally, Jaime Pascual, a neighbor of Rogelio and Ritchie in Novaliches, swore to having seen the two (2) in the morning of 31 January 1997. Before leaving for work, he was even reminded by Ritchie about the vehicle which he promised them a week earlier to be used for hauling their belongings as they were moving to their new place. When he arrived home from work at around six o’clock in the evening, he was again met by Ritchie who told him that her mother-in-law wanted to talk to him over the phone. Jaime then called up as requested only to be told that she (Ritchie’s mother-in-law) could not pay the P1,000.00 rent for the vehicle that would be used in transporting their belongings. But Jaime assured Rogelio’s mother that if she could pay the driver P250.00 he would just make other arrangements for the payment of the balance. At around 9:30 in the evening, he brought the vehicle to the complainant’s apartment and helped load Ritchie’s and Rogelio’s things for transport. 16
The lower court, after giving full credence to the testimony of the complainant, found the accused Benjamin del Rosario guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Thus —
We observed in court how the private complainant, a frail woman, tearfully narrated the savagery on her person. To her it was doubly revolting and dehumanizing because the offender is the father of her husband. We fine combed through the records for any hint of perversion of the truth on her part but could not find any.
Her story was direct, simple and credible.
As against the private complainant’s narration of the incident pointing to the accused as the offender, all that the accused could offer was alibi . . .
The defense portrays the complainant and her husband as a conniving and scheming pair out to extort money from the accused. That is why they underscored Rogelio’s alleged utterances like maramot kang matanda, mabulok ka sa bilangguan, lintik, ganti-ganti lang and that he would allegedly drop the case in exchange for a million pesos etc. All these utterances were made after the incident and to an aggrieved husband whose wife suffered such a humiliation in the hands of his father, they are expressions of his pain and anger. In fact, Rogelio did not have any participation in the filing of the complaint. 17
The appeal is devoid of merit.
First. The accused-appellant bewails the erroneous and unqualified reliance by the lower court on the "incredible and inconsistent" testimony of the complainant. To buttress his stance, he points out the supposed "material inconsistencies" in her testimony as shown by the following: she claimed that she was lawfully married to Rogelio del Rosario but failed to produce a copy of her marriage certificate; she declared that she was suffering from asthma but failed to present proof of this affirmative allegation; she was being untruthful when she said that she borrowed money to buy medicine as the same was belied by Dr. Emmanuel Reyes who testified that complaining witness had admitted to him that she borrowed money "to pay for her hospital bills." 18
Indeed, we are at a loss on how these matters could be considered "material" to the issue at hand. Certainly, the failure of complainant to adduce evidence to prove clearly peripheral issues does not amount to a perversion of truth as to effectively erode her credibility. The linchpin of the controversy is her testimony that she had been raped by the accused. What have been raised appear to be trivial issues that cannot foreclose the possibility that Benjamin had in fact ravished her.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Second. The accused-appellant insists that the complainant gave two (2) different versions of her alleged rape thus effectively tarnishing her credibility. In his brief, he points out the alleged inconsistencies in the two (2) versions —
. . . In her first version, the private complainant alleged in her sworn statement (Exhs. "C," "3") that the accused pulled her towards his room and then locked the door. The accused tied up the private complainant and forced her to lie down on the bed. The private complainant allegedly resisted while already lying down, but the accused punched her in the thigh of all places. The accused then took a gun from his drawer and then pointed it at the private complainant and threatened to shoot her if she did not stop resisting. All resistance then ceased and the accused began to remove the private complainant’s shorts and underwear and raped her.
In her second version, which was given in open court, the private complainant testified that when she was pulled into the room of the accused, she immediately resisted. However, the accused took his gun, twisted the private complainant’s arm behind her back, and tied her hand using a blanket (TSN, June 23, 1997, p. 10). This was done with one hand as the accused held the gun with the other. On cross-examination, the private complainant, apparently realizing the improbability of her testimony on direct examination, then volunteered without being asked the statement that the accused put down his gun and tied her up with the blanket using both hands (TSN, September 16, 1997, p. 6). 19
We are not persuaded. Etched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that a victim of a savage crime cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every lurid detail of a frightening experience — a verity born out of human nature and experience. This is especially true with a rape victim who is required to utilize every fiber of her body and mind to repel an attack from a stronger aggressor. What is essential is that Ritchie categorically identified her attacker after she stated in open court and in her sworn statement that the accused dragged her into the room, threatened her with a gun, undressed her and then raped her. These are the vital points in her testimonies constitutive of the offense committed.
Third. The accused-appellant posits that it is improbable, if not impossible, for him, a sixty-nine (69)-year old man suffering from a heart disease, to overpower and rape a healthy twenty-nine (29)-year old victim.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
This argument deserves scant consideration. There is no adequate showing that at the time the rape was committed in 1997 accused-appellant was totally incapable of perpetrating the offense. Although the Cardiac Catherization Report, 20 dated 6 October 1992, reveals that accused-appellant was suffering from a coronary artery disease, it does not conclusively prove that he was unable to engage in any form of strenuous activity. It may be recalled that he poked a gun at the victim which could have effectively stifled any form of resistance on her part and facilitated in fact his vicious intent. Neither can his advanced age discount the commission of rape. If lust is no respecter of time and place, it is neither shackled by age.
Fourth. The accused-appellant decries the precipitate disregard by the lower court of the testimonies of his witnesses. He contends that Mario del Rosario, his other son, and Jaime Pascual, neighbor of the complainant, positively averred that complainant never left her house on 31 January 1997. In fact they helped her and Rogelio in transferring to their new place. Likewise, the lower court is also in error when it ignored his defense of alibi which he claims had been sufficiently substantiated by Elizabeth Babala and Paula del Rosario.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
A gratuitous disclaimer by accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive identification of him by the complaining witness; more so if the same is corroborated only by his relatives and friends. 21 Dictated by the natural impulse of self-preservation and filial piety, relatives would invariably rush to the succor of a beleaguered family member. This fact of life takes more significance in this case where the person in the line of fire is the patriarch of the del Rosario clan. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated. 22 We also do not make much of the claim by defense witness Jaime Pascual that he saw the complainant at her residence in Novaliches, Quezon City, on 31 January 1997. On cross-examination Jaime’s testimony wilted when he admitted that on that fateful day he left for work at 8:45 in the morning and returned only at 6:00 o’clock in the evening. In short, he could not have been privy to what the complainant was doing during the interim. He even clarified that it only took him one (1) hour to travel from his residence in Novaliches to his place of work in Cubao, which is roughly the same time required for the complainant to commute from her residence in Novaliches to her father-in-law’s apartment in Cubao.
All told, Accused-appellant failed to satisfactorily prove to this Court that he was at his sister’s residence at the time the crime happened, but more importantly, that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission. 23 In the absence of compelling reasons, the factual findings of the trial court are accorded the highest respect. "Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked, but modest withal, in a printed abstract in a court of last resort. She oft hides in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind’s eye of the judge who tries the case . . . The brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching overeagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one, are alone seen by him." 24
By now, Accused-appellant is already seventy-two (72) years old and suffering from an acute heart ailment that requires a heart bypass operation. We therefore recommend that for humanitarian reasons accused-appellant, after having served a term of imprisonment consistent with the ends of retributive justice, be referred to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, for the possible grant of executive clemency at his discretion. Let copy of this Decision be immediately furnished the Secretary of Justice.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision finding accused-appellant BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO Y NAVARRO guilty of RAPE and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim Ritchie Quisim del Rosario the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs, is AFFIRMED. Costs against Accused-Appellant.
SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
The version of the prosecution is that on the night of 30 January 1997 Ritchie Quisim del Rosario called on her father-in-law Benjamin del Rosario to borrow P1,000.00 to buy medicine for her asthma. Benjamin readily granted her request and instructed her to pick up the money the following day at his house in No. 47 Diego Silang St., Cubao, Quezon City.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
As instructed, Ritchie was at the house of her father-in-law the following day, 31 January 1997, at ten o’clock in the morning. The accused was alone in the house. According to Ritchie, he told her to wait in the sala as he was going to take a bath. After a while, he came out of the bathroom with only a towel wrapped around his waist. 2 Suddenly he grabbed her and dragged her to his room, locked the door, got his gun from the drawer and threatened her with it. Ritchie attempted to resist but the accused twisted her arm and then tied both arms at the back with a blanket. Undaunted, she again tried to break free but this time the accused punched her on the right thigh. 3 Benjamin then forcibly removed her shorts, panty, bra and her blouse, mounted her, and inserted his penis into her organ. Ritchie’s entreaties and shouts for help proved futile. After her attacker had finally satisfied his lust, he ordered her to dress up. He warned her not to tell anybody saying, "P - - - ina mo, huwag kang magkakamaling magsasalita . . . ." He threatened to kill her should she tell her husband Rogelio about the incident. 4 The accused then flagged down a taxi for her but not before repeating his warning to keep the matter to herself.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
On 4 February 1997 Ritchie finally decided to relate her tormenting experience to her mother-in-law Latsmi Siwani del Rosario who in turn revealed to Rogelio, the victim’s husband and youngest son of the accused, what she was told. 5 They wasted no time in reporting the matter to the police at Camp Crame where Ritchie was directed to undergo a medical examination at the PNP Crime Laboratory. 6
Dr. Emmanuel Reyes, the Medico-Legal Officer at the Crime Laboratory, testified on the result of his examination: 7
i) the subject came in as fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female. Her breasts were pendulous and with dark brown areola and nipples;
ii) contusions on the proximal 3rd of her right thigh measuring 10 x 3 cm. Just lateral to its anterior midline; abundant growth of pubic hair in her genitals; labia majora are full, convex and gaping with the dark brown labia minora presenting in between. On separation there was a congested vestibule and an abraded posterior fourchette with carunculae myrtiformis . . .
iii) the subject was in non-virgin state physically and for the physical injuries it was estimated to resolve in five to seven days.
Dr. Reyes clarified that the contusion on the right thigh could have been caused by the application of a blunt force on the area like a fistic blow or any hard instrument while the reddening of the vestibules and the abrasion on the posterior fourchette could have been caused by the forcible entry of a hard blunt object without the presence of adequate lubrication.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
In his defense, Accused Benjamin del Rosario testified that at around nine o’clock in the morning of 31 January 1997 he was on his way, together with his common-law wife Elizabeth Babala, to the Quiapo Church. Thirty (30) minutes later, they went to Raon to buy batteries for his wireless telephone, as evidenced by Exh. "6," 8 and thereafter they decided to drop by and take lunch at his sister’s place at Blumentritt St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. There they whiled their time away until six o’clock in the evening when they finally left for Cubao to watch a Tagalog movie at the Remar Theater.
A couple of weeks later, or on 19 February 1997, at around eight o’clock in the evening, Benjamin and his common-law wife Elizabeth Babala boarded a jeepney to take them home to Diego Silang St., Cubao. After alighting from the jeepney, they were accosted by two (2) burly men. The two (2) introduced themselves as policemen and informed Benjamin that he was being charged with rape. He was forced to board a waiting police van and inside he recognized his son Rogelio del Rosario together with his common-law wife Ritchie Quisim del Rosario. When he asked his son why he was doing this to him, Rogelio scornfully replied, "Maramot ka, matanda ka. Mabulok ka sa bilangguan." 9 All the while that he was being maligned by his son, Benjamin simply kept quiet.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
The accused further testified that on another occasion he again met his son Rogelio who told him that "his door is (was) open if I (Benjamin) have a million to give him." 10 Benjamin believed that the money would only be used by his son Rogelio, a self-confessed drug user and a casino gambler, to sustain his vices. Both Rogelio and Ritchie were in fact drug users according to the accused. For him, Rogelio was not only a dissolute person who never knew how to earn a living but a parasite who would often badger him for money to support his bad habits.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
He asserted that the only reason why Ritchie was filing the rape charge against him was because of his decision to finally stop giving them support and his firm refusal to grant them, without any consideration, a piece of lot which the couple had been interested in. He clarified that previous to the alleged rape incident he had sold a parcel of land in Nitang, Novaliches valued at P600,000.00 to his son Rogelio for only P200,000.00. In fact on 11 November 1996 Rogelio paid P40,000.00 as earnest money 11 but he came back four (4) days later only to demand the return of P10,000.00 to try his luck at the casino. This infuriated the accused. But Rogelio shouted back at his father and wondered aloud why the accused would not want to give him back his money.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
On 1 December 1996 Rogelio and Ritchie returned to their father’s house in Cubao and demanded the remaining P30,000.00. He scolded them again for taking back what was supposed to be an earnest money, but Rogelio cursed him instead. At any rate, the couple got what they wanted. But a week later, they returned again, this time not only to demand from him the original title of his lot but even had the temerity to order him to execute a deed of sale in their favor. When he denied what seemed to be preposterous demands, Rogelio threatened him and said, "Magsisisi ka. Lintik lang ang walang ganti." 12 He never thought his son would make good his threat until a complaint for rape was lodged against him nine (9) days later.
The defense presented an array of witnesses who not only corroborated the alibi of the accused but also belied the claim of the complaining witness that she was at the house of the accused in Cubao at the time the alleged rape took place.
Paula del Rosario, a sister of the accused, narrated that on 31 January 1997, at around noontime, the accused and Elizabeth Babala were at her place at Blumentritt St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. They stayed there until six o’clock in the evening when they finally went home. Paula further revealed that her nephew Rogelio went to her house very often to ask or borrow money from her. On 20 February 1997 she met him at the police station and tried to convince him of the innocence of his father. But Rogelio spewed a seething and venomous remark, "Maramot ho ‘yong matandang ‘yan. Ibig ko na ho siyang mamatay sa bilangguan." 13
Mario del Rosario, another son of the accused, testified that he and Ritchie and Rogelio were neighbors at LMR Compound, Gulod Novaliches. On the date of the alleged rape, he was with the couple the whole day helping them pack their things in their apartment as they were transferring to a new residence at Jordan Planes, Quezon City. He also helped them transfer their belongings to their new place. 14
Elizabeth Babala, the common-law wife of the accused, corroborated the testimony of Benjamin that he was at his sister’s house at the time of the commission of the crime. She disclosed that when she asked Ritchie inside the police van how she and Rogelio could falsely accuse Benjamin, she allegedly shot back, "Lintik, ganti-ganti lang!" 15
Finally, Jaime Pascual, a neighbor of Rogelio and Ritchie in Novaliches, swore to having seen the two (2) in the morning of 31 January 1997. Before leaving for work, he was even reminded by Ritchie about the vehicle which he promised them a week earlier to be used for hauling their belongings as they were moving to their new place. When he arrived home from work at around six o’clock in the evening, he was again met by Ritchie who told him that her mother-in-law wanted to talk to him over the phone. Jaime then called up as requested only to be told that she (Ritchie’s mother-in-law) could not pay the P1,000.00 rent for the vehicle that would be used in transporting their belongings. But Jaime assured Rogelio’s mother that if she could pay the driver P250.00 he would just make other arrangements for the payment of the balance. At around 9:30 in the evening, he brought the vehicle to the complainant’s apartment and helped load Ritchie’s and Rogelio’s things for transport. 16
The lower court, after giving full credence to the testimony of the complainant, found the accused Benjamin del Rosario guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Thus —
We observed in court how the private complainant, a frail woman, tearfully narrated the savagery on her person. To her it was doubly revolting and dehumanizing because the offender is the father of her husband. We fine combed through the records for any hint of perversion of the truth on her part but could not find any.
Her story was direct, simple and credible.
As against the private complainant’s narration of the incident pointing to the accused as the offender, all that the accused could offer was alibi . . .
The defense portrays the complainant and her husband as a conniving and scheming pair out to extort money from the accused. That is why they underscored Rogelio’s alleged utterances like maramot kang matanda, mabulok ka sa bilangguan, lintik, ganti-ganti lang and that he would allegedly drop the case in exchange for a million pesos etc. All these utterances were made after the incident and to an aggrieved husband whose wife suffered such a humiliation in the hands of his father, they are expressions of his pain and anger. In fact, Rogelio did not have any participation in the filing of the complaint. 17
The appeal is devoid of merit.
First. The accused-appellant bewails the erroneous and unqualified reliance by the lower court on the "incredible and inconsistent" testimony of the complainant. To buttress his stance, he points out the supposed "material inconsistencies" in her testimony as shown by the following: she claimed that she was lawfully married to Rogelio del Rosario but failed to produce a copy of her marriage certificate; she declared that she was suffering from asthma but failed to present proof of this affirmative allegation; she was being untruthful when she said that she borrowed money to buy medicine as the same was belied by Dr. Emmanuel Reyes who testified that complaining witness had admitted to him that she borrowed money "to pay for her hospital bills." 18
Indeed, we are at a loss on how these matters could be considered "material" to the issue at hand. Certainly, the failure of complainant to adduce evidence to prove clearly peripheral issues does not amount to a perversion of truth as to effectively erode her credibility. The linchpin of the controversy is her testimony that she had been raped by the accused. What have been raised appear to be trivial issues that cannot foreclose the possibility that Benjamin had in fact ravished her.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Second. The accused-appellant insists that the complainant gave two (2) different versions of her alleged rape thus effectively tarnishing her credibility. In his brief, he points out the alleged inconsistencies in the two (2) versions —
. . . In her first version, the private complainant alleged in her sworn statement (Exhs. "C," "3") that the accused pulled her towards his room and then locked the door. The accused tied up the private complainant and forced her to lie down on the bed. The private complainant allegedly resisted while already lying down, but the accused punched her in the thigh of all places. The accused then took a gun from his drawer and then pointed it at the private complainant and threatened to shoot her if she did not stop resisting. All resistance then ceased and the accused began to remove the private complainant’s shorts and underwear and raped her.
In her second version, which was given in open court, the private complainant testified that when she was pulled into the room of the accused, she immediately resisted. However, the accused took his gun, twisted the private complainant’s arm behind her back, and tied her hand using a blanket (TSN, June 23, 1997, p. 10). This was done with one hand as the accused held the gun with the other. On cross-examination, the private complainant, apparently realizing the improbability of her testimony on direct examination, then volunteered without being asked the statement that the accused put down his gun and tied her up with the blanket using both hands (TSN, September 16, 1997, p. 6). 19
We are not persuaded. Etched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that a victim of a savage crime cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every lurid detail of a frightening experience — a verity born out of human nature and experience. This is especially true with a rape victim who is required to utilize every fiber of her body and mind to repel an attack from a stronger aggressor. What is essential is that Ritchie categorically identified her attacker after she stated in open court and in her sworn statement that the accused dragged her into the room, threatened her with a gun, undressed her and then raped her. These are the vital points in her testimonies constitutive of the offense committed.
Third. The accused-appellant posits that it is improbable, if not impossible, for him, a sixty-nine (69)-year old man suffering from a heart disease, to overpower and rape a healthy twenty-nine (29)-year old victim.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
This argument deserves scant consideration. There is no adequate showing that at the time the rape was committed in 1997 accused-appellant was totally incapable of perpetrating the offense. Although the Cardiac Catherization Report, 20 dated 6 October 1992, reveals that accused-appellant was suffering from a coronary artery disease, it does not conclusively prove that he was unable to engage in any form of strenuous activity. It may be recalled that he poked a gun at the victim which could have effectively stifled any form of resistance on her part and facilitated in fact his vicious intent. Neither can his advanced age discount the commission of rape. If lust is no respecter of time and place, it is neither shackled by age.
Fourth. The accused-appellant decries the precipitate disregard by the lower court of the testimonies of his witnesses. He contends that Mario del Rosario, his other son, and Jaime Pascual, neighbor of the complainant, positively averred that complainant never left her house on 31 January 1997. In fact they helped her and Rogelio in transferring to their new place. Likewise, the lower court is also in error when it ignored his defense of alibi which he claims had been sufficiently substantiated by Elizabeth Babala and Paula del Rosario.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
A gratuitous disclaimer by accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive identification of him by the complaining witness; more so if the same is corroborated only by his relatives and friends. 21 Dictated by the natural impulse of self-preservation and filial piety, relatives would invariably rush to the succor of a beleaguered family member. This fact of life takes more significance in this case where the person in the line of fire is the patriarch of the del Rosario clan. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it can be easily fabricated. 22 We also do not make much of the claim by defense witness Jaime Pascual that he saw the complainant at her residence in Novaliches, Quezon City, on 31 January 1997. On cross-examination Jaime’s testimony wilted when he admitted that on that fateful day he left for work at 8:45 in the morning and returned only at 6:00 o’clock in the evening. In short, he could not have been privy to what the complainant was doing during the interim. He even clarified that it only took him one (1) hour to travel from his residence in Novaliches to his place of work in Cubao, which is roughly the same time required for the complainant to commute from her residence in Novaliches to her father-in-law’s apartment in Cubao.
All told, Accused-appellant failed to satisfactorily prove to this Court that he was at his sister’s residence at the time the crime happened, but more importantly, that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission. 23 In the absence of compelling reasons, the factual findings of the trial court are accorded the highest respect. "Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked, but modest withal, in a printed abstract in a court of last resort. She oft hides in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind’s eye of the judge who tries the case . . . The brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching overeagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one, are alone seen by him." 24
By now, Accused-appellant is already seventy-two (72) years old and suffering from an acute heart ailment that requires a heart bypass operation. We therefore recommend that for humanitarian reasons accused-appellant, after having served a term of imprisonment consistent with the ends of retributive justice, be referred to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, for the possible grant of executive clemency at his discretion. Let copy of this Decision be immediately furnished the Secretary of Justice.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision finding accused-appellant BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO Y NAVARRO guilty of RAPE and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim Ritchie Quisim del Rosario the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs, is AFFIRMED. Costs against Accused-Appellant.
SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Decision penned by Judge Monina A. Zenarosa, RTC-Br. 76, Quezon City.
2. TSN, 23 June 1997, p. 9.
3. Id., p. 11.
4. Id., p 14.
5. Id., p. 17.
6. Original Records, p. 13.
7. TSN, 5 August 1997, p. 15.
8. Original Records, p. 156; Receipt issued by Belden Mktg., dated 31 January 1997.
9. TSN, 28 January 1998, p. 7.
10. Ibid.
11. Exh. "7," dated 11 November 1996, issued by accused-appellant Benjamin del Rosario.
12. See Note 9.
13. TSN, 30 September 1997, p. 12.
14. TSN, 8 December 1997, p. 10.
15. TSN, 6 January 1998, p. 16.
16. TSN, 15 December 1997, pp. 12-18.
17. Rollo, pp. 129-130
18. TSN, 5 August 1997, p. 11.
19. Rollo, pp. 58-59.
20. Exh. 11, dated 20 January 1998.
21. People v. Torres, G.R. No. 105389, 28 April 1994, 232 SCRA 42.
22. People v. Matildo, G.R. No. 107643, 2 March 1999, 230 SCRA 635.
23. People v. Cabresos, G.R. No. 109776, 26 May 1995, 244 SCRA 362.
24. People v. Delovino, G.R. Nos. 106132-33, 23 August 1995, 247 SCRA 637; see Creamer v. Bivert, 214 Mo. 473, 474 (1908), cited in M. Frances McNamara, 2000 Famous Legal Quotations (1967), 548.
