ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 119368. August 18, 1997]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO Senoy ERARDO, Accused-Appellant.
.D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
In an information, dated 21 June 1993, herein accused-appellant Marcelino Senoy Erardo was charged with the crime of rape committed as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of June 1993, around 2:30 oclock in the afternoon, in Barrio Site, Barangay Labangan, Municipality of San Jose, Province of Occidental Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of Julie Ann Kiam, a woman who was deprived of reason, against her will and consent.
Contrary to law.1chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
When arraigned on 3 May 1994, accused-appellant Erardo, with the
assistance of counsel, Atty. Francis Villamar, entered a plea of not guilty
to the crime charged.2chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
After trial, on 26 January 1995, the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46, through the Honorable Judge Emilio L. Leachon, rendered judgement, the dispositive part of which reads:
Accordingly, therefore, the Court finds the accused, Marcelino
Senoy Erardo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the
victim-complainant Julie Ann Kiam in the amount of P40,000.00.
The Court likewise orders the immediate commitment of the accused Marcelino Senoy Erardo to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Metro Manila after the promulgation of this judgment/decision of the Court.
It is so ordered.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Hence, this appeal, where accused-appellant Erardo assigns the following errors to the trial court:
I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TESTIMONY OF DR. HURLEY DE LOS REYES, THE PHYSICIAN WHO EXAMINED THE ALLEGED VICTIM, THAT THE LATTERS VAGINA CONTAINED OLD HYMENAL LACERATIONS AND COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY INFLICTED [SIC] ON THE LAST THREE DAYS (DATE OF THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE CRIME).
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF RAPE COMMITTED IN THE AFTERNOON OF 1 JUNE 1993. 4chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The events (as related by prosecution witness Jennylyn Cordero) which led to the filing of the complaint and information, are as follows:
At around 2:30 oclock in the afternoon of 1 June 1993, Jennylyn Cordero (the victims aunt), while sitting in the balcony of her house attending to her child, saw her niece, the victim Julie Ann Kiam, a 12-year-old mental retardate, waving at the accused-appellant Marcelino Senoy Erardo, a neighbor. Julie Ann was walking towards a thicket, and accused-appellant followed her there. Concerned for her nieces safety, Jennylyn, after leaving her child in the care of a neighbor, followed Julie Ann and the accused-appellant Erardo to the bushes. Thereupon, she saw accused-appellant in the act of pulling his pants over his exposed sexual organ, and the victim Julie Ann, sitting close to him on the grass, naked, from the waist-down.
At that point, Jennylyn Cordero confronted accused-appellant with the question, Bakit mo pinagsamantalahan ang pamangkin kong retardate?5 Accused-appellant ignored the question and hurriedly left. Thereafter, Jennylyn Cordero ushered the victim Julie Ann to her house where they waited for the latters mother, Delia Cordero-Kiam (who is Jennylyns sister-in-law).
Mrs. Kiam was shocked and angry upon hearing Jennylyns account of what had transpired. Not knowing who, or what government office could help her, Mrs. Kiam sent for her father (her husband, Julie Anns father, was in Manila at that time), who promptly arrived the next day. He advised Mrs. Kiam to have Julie Ann examined by the doctor; and then to file a criminal case for rape in court.
Julie Ann was examined by one Dr. Hurley de los Reyes on 3 June 1993, and the corresponding medical certificate was issued. The victims family then proceeded to the police station where they filed a complaint for rape against accused-appellant Marcelino SenoyErardo.
To corroborate Jennylyn Corderos testimony, the prosecution presented the victims mother, Mrs. Delia Cordero-Kiam who testified that accused-appellant Marcelino Erardo went to her house on 2 June 1993 to ask for her (Mrs. Kiams) forgiveness for what he had done to her daughter Julie Ann. According to Mrs. Kiam, accused-appellant admitted that he indeed engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim Julie Ann, but claimed that he took care not to hurt her.6 Mrs. Kiam further testified that after consulting with other members of her family, she had her daughter Julie Ann examined by a doctor, and thereafter, they filed a complaint for rape against accused-appellant Marcelino Erardo.
The prosecution also presented Dr. Hurley de los Reyes who
testified that he was the doctor who examined the victim Julie Ann Kiam three
days after the date of the alleged rape, and that he found no injuries on the
external parts of her body.
He declared
that he found hymenal lacerations on the victims vagina which he estimated to
be around one (1) to two (2) weeks old, and which could have been caused by a
round blunt object such as a male penis.7chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The testimony of one Dr. Ray Sague, a resident physician of the
National Center for Mental Health in Mandaluyong City, was also presented.
Said witness testified that the victim,
Julie Ann Kiam, suffers from mental retardation, and has, in fact, the
mentality of a three-year-old child.8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Finally, the prosecution presented the victim, Julie Ann Kiam, herself who, on direct examination, testified thus:
"xxx xxx xxx
Q: (Atty. Eufrocino Ramos, private prosecutor): Do you know the accused Senoy Erardo in this case?
A: (Julie Ann Kiam): Yes, Sir.
Q: If he is in the courtroom, will you be able to point him out?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Point him out now?
(Interpreter: At this juncture, witness is pointing to the lone accused sittingon the bench, and who, when asked his name, responded that he is Senoy Erardo).
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, this Senoy Erardo whom you pointed, what did he do to you?
A: He iyot me, Sir.
Q: What do you mean by iyot?
A: Tusok, Sir.
Q: What was tusok to you?
A: His titi penis, Sir.
Q:Where were you hit by this titi he tusok you?
(Interpreter: The witness, your Honor, is pointing to her private organ).
Q: When the accused made tusok or penetrated you, how did you feel?
A: I cried, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Why did you cry, according to you?
A: Because it is painful, Sir.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On cross-examination, the victim, Julie Ann Kiam, testified thus:
"xxx xxx xxx
Q: (Atty Francis Villamar, counsel for the accused): Ms. Witness, you said that Senoy Erardo made some penetration to you which you called "tusok, is it not a fact that what is inserted to you is a finger?
A: (Julie Ann Kiam): Yes, Sir, finger.
Q: (by the Court): Aside from finger, is there anything that was inserted to your vagina?
A: Wood, your Honor.
Q: Have you seen a human penis?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: Do you have [sic] sexual intercourse before, Miss Witness?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: Who?
A: Senoy Erardo, your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: (Atty. Villamar): Aside from the penis of Senoy Erardo, you also saw other penis of some other men?
A: None, Sir.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Q: (Atty. Ramos): When your auntie saw you that afternoon, prior to that, what did Senoy use in penetrating you?
A: Wood, Sir.
Q: What else?
A: Titi, Sir.
Q: How long is the titi or penis?
(Interpreter: The witness is demonstrating how big is the penis by
using her hands which estimated by counsels to be four and one-half (4 &
1/2) inches, your Honor).11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Accused-appellant, on the other hand, interposed the defense of
alibi.
He testified that he never even
saw the victim Julie Ann Kiam in the afternoon of 1 June 1993.
According to accused-appellant, he reported for
work in the saltfarm of a certain Mr. Jack Chua on that day, and was in said
saltfarm from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, and from 1:15 to 6:00 p.m.
Accused-appellant further testified that on
2 June 1993, a day after the alleged rape, he was called to the house of Delia
Cordero-Kiam, the victims mother, where he was confronted with the accusation
of allegedly raping Julie Ann Kiam, and asked to give the amount of P100,000.00
to settle the case.
Finally,
accused-appellant testified that there was no quarrel or misunderstanding
between him and any member of the victims family; and, that they in fact had a
good relationship prior to 1 June 1993.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
To corroborate accused-appellants testimony, the defense
presented his brother Zosimo Erardo who testified that on 2 June 1993, one
Kagawad Santiago Bicol went to his house to verify the complaint for rape of
Delia CorderoKiam against his brother Marcelino Senoy Erardo; that later
that day, he accompanied his brother, the accused-appellant, to the Kiam
residence where they were confronted by Delia Cordero-Kaim, Jennylyn Cordero,
and one Rebecca Cordero; and, that on that same occasion, accused-appellant
denied that he raped Delia Kiams daughter Julie Ann. Zosimo Erardo further testified that the Kiam family asked for
the amount of P100,000.00 to settle the case, but that accused-appellant
refused to pay.13
It is noteworthy that, on cross-examination, the same witness testified that
thereafter, his brother, the accused-appellant, left Barangay Labangan and was
gone for several months.14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The defense was supposed to present one Mr. Andres Andrade, accused-appellants co-worker, to testify that accused-appellant was at the aforementioned saltfarm between 1:15 to 6:00 oclock in the afternoon of 1 June 1993. However, the prosecution and the defense entered into a stipulation that said witness if presented would testify as above-stated, and so the defense dispensed with the presentation of Andres Andrade.
In convicting accused-appellant of the crime of rape, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially that of the victim, Julie Ann Kiam herself. Said the court:
As borne out by the transcript of stenographic notes, the victim Julie Ann Kiam, was able to answer clearly the questions propounded to her by counsels of both parties and the court. The Court is convinced by the manner of the testimony of the victim that she was in fact raped by the accused Marcelino Senoy Erardo thru the latters insidious approaches and employment of trickery and intimidation on a hapless retardate minor child of twelve summers x x x.
In this case, the prosecution has clearly proven the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt thru the testimonies of all its witnesses named
above and the documentary exhibits.
Upon the other hand, the defense was able to present the accused and his
brother Zosimo Erardo only, and their testimonies were permeated with strong
denials of the commission of the crime. x x x.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
We are inclined to agree with the findings of the trial court.
Under the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
(1).by using force or intimidation;
(2).when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and,
(3).when the woman is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented.16chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In this case, the victim Julie Ann Kiam, at the time of the
incident, was a twelve-year-old woman with the mentality of a three-year-old
child.17
This Court has held that carnal knowledge of a woman above twelve (12) years of
age but with the mental age of a child below twelve (12) years, even if done
with her consent, is rape18
because a mental retardate can not validly give her consent to or oppose the
sexual act.19chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In his appeal to this Court, accused-appellant Erardo submits
that the trial court erred in finding that he committed the crime of rape
against Julie Ann Kiam on 1 June 1993.
He argues that it is incredible that prosecution witness Jennylyn
Cordero did not even utter a word upon seeing the alleged act of rape, but
merely ordered her niece, the victim Julie Ann Kiam, to go home.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This contention is untenable.
Jennylyn Cordero had testified under oath that she did ask
accused-appellant why he took advantage of her mentally-retardate niece,21
before taking the victim to her house.
While it is true that this alleged utterance was not mentioned in her
affidavit, Jennylyn Cordero explained, to the satisfaction of the court, that
this was so because the officer who was taking her sworn statement never asked
her about it.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
At any rate, testimonial evidence in court carries more weight
than affidavits.23
Testimonies given during trials are much more precise and elaborate than those
stated in sworn statements.
Ex-parte
affidavits are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for varied
reasons, at times because of partial or innocent suggestion or for want of
specific inquiries.
Witnesses cannot be
expected everytime, except when told, to distinguish between what may be
consequential and what may be mere insignificant details.24chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Furthermore, the fact that Jennylyn Cordero neither screamed nor
asked for help upon discovering the dastardly act on her niece, does not lessen
her credibility as a witness.
This
Court has held that not every witness to or victim of a crime can be expected
to act reasonably and conformably with the expectations of mankind.25
Witnessing a crime is an unusual experience which elicits different reaction
from the witnesses and for which no clear-cut standard form of behavior can be
expected or drawn.26chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Accused-appellant likewise submits that the lower court erred in not taking into consideration the testimony of Dr. Hurley de los Reyes, the physician who examined the victim, that the latters vagina contained old hymenal lacerations which could not have possibly been inflicted in the last three (3) days (before examination). Accused-appellant contends that since the medical examination was conducted three (3) days after the alleged commission of rape, this implies that the hymenal lacerations already existed prior to the date of the alleged rape.
This contention is likewise unavailing.
This Court has ruled that the claim that another person is
responsible for the old healed hymenal lacerations prior to the date of the
examination does not negate the commission of rape by accused-appellant when this
has been demonstrated in vivid detail by complainant herself.27
The absence of fresh lacerations does not prove that she was not raped.28chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
We now deal with accused-appellants defense of alibi.
As aforestated, accused-appellant was
allegedly at his place of work at the time of the Commission of the rape.
Significant; however, is the fact that
accused-appellants place of work and the scene of the crime are located in the
same Barrio (Site), and accused-appellant had not positively shown that it was
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of
the commission thereof.
Time and again,
this Court has ruled that alibi is an inherently weak defense and cannot
prevail over the positive identification made by the victim and prosecution
witnesses.29chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In the case at bar, the victim Julie Ann Kiam herself, on both
direct and cross-examination, pointed to the accused-appellant Marcelino Erardo
as the man who had raped her.30
This Court has held that when the victim says that she has been raped, she says
in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed, and if
her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on
the basis thereof.31chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The fact that the victim in this case is a mental retardate is no
consequence, as it is a settled rule that a mental retardate, for that reason
alone, is not disqualified from being a witness.32
This Court has likewise held that a mental retardate who has the ability to
make perceptions known to others is a competent witness.33chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Moreover, the trial court had observed that the victim Julie Ann
Kiam was able to answer clearly the questions propounded to her by counsels of
both parties and the court; and the trial court was convinced from the manner
by which she testified that she had in fact been raped by accused-appellant
Marcelino Senoy Erardo.34
Well-settled is the rule that when the question of credence as to which of the
conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense where a rape was
committed is in issue, the trial courts answer is generally viewed as correct
and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so
conclude, having seen closely the way the witness testified, their deportment,
and the peculiar manner in which they gave their testimonies and other evidence
in court.35chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Finally, other circumstances exist which point to the guilt of
accused-appellant.
In his testimony,
defense witness Zosimo Erardo stated that his brother, the accused-appellant Marcelino
Erardo, left town after the rape incident and that he was gone for several
months.36
Accused-appellant himself admitted that he went to Panay for a month before
surrendering himself to the authorities.37chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
While the flight of an accused person after the commission of an
offense creates no legal presumption of guilt, it is nevertheless a
circumstance which is admissible in evidence against him, and, if not explained
in a manner consistent with his innocence, is to be considered as tending to
show that he was the person who committed the deed.38chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
It is also worthy to note the testimony of Mrs. Delia
Cordero-Kiam that accused-appellant, together with his brother, went to her
house to ask for forgiveness.
This
Court has ruled that such an act (of asking for forgiveness) is undeniably
indicative of guilt.39chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In sum, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Marcelino Senoy Erardo is guilty of the crime of rape as charged.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua, as meted out by the
trial court on accused-appellant, is in accordance with law.
However, the amount of indemnity for the
victim is hereby raised from Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) to Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to conform with prevailing jurisprudence which
awards moral damages of P50,000.00 in the rape of young girls with ages ranging
from thirteen (13) to nineteen (19) years, rape of a mental retardate, forcible
adbuction with rape and statutory rape.40chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision, dated 26 January 1995,
of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro (Branch 46) is
hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that indemnity to the victim which
accused-appellant is adjudged to pay is raised from P40,000.00 to P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, p. 18.
2 Id.
3 Ibid, at pp. 25-26.
4 Ibid, at p. 36.
5 TSN, 6 May 1994, p. 23.
6 TSN, 10 May 1994, pp. 5-6.
7 TSN, 11 May 1994, pp. 5-6.
8 TSN, 9 August 1994, p. 9.
9 TSN, 12 August 1994, pp. 6-7.
10 TSN, 12 August 1994, pp. 9-10.
11 TSN, 12 August 1994, p. 13.
12 TSN, 14 December 1994, pp. 8-9.
13 Rollo, p. 23.
14 TSN, 9 November 1994, p. 6.
15 Rollo, p. 25.
16 The Revised Penal Code, Article 335, 1st paragraph.
17 Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Ray Sague of the National Center of Mental Health, after examining the victim, Julie Ann Kiam; Dr. Sague also testified for the prosecution.
18 People v. Rex Tabao, G.R. No. 111290, 30 January 1995, 240 SCRA 758.
19 People v. Jose Antonio, G.R. No. 107950, 17 June 1994 233 SCRA 283.
20 Rollo, p. 37.
21 TSN, 6 May 1994, p.22.
22 Ibid, at p. 23.
23 People v. Flaviniano Matildo, G.R. No. 107643, 2 March 1994, 230 SCRA 635.
24 People v. Teodoro Miranda, et. al., G.R. No. 92369, 10 August 1994, 235 SCRA 202.
25 People v. Alberni Dupoli, G.R. No. 97474, 14 February 1994, 230 SCRA 62.
26 People v. Allan Rubio, G.R. No. 118315, 20 June 1996, 257 SCRA 528.
27 People v. Eduardo Benitez, G.R. No. 108771, 21 June 1994 233 SCRA 318.
28 People v. Rodolfo Ngo, G.R. No. 95680, 4 October 1991, 202 SCRA 549.
29 People v. Norberto Clores, G.R. No. 82362, 26 April 1990, 184 SCRA 638.
30 TSN, 12 August 1994, pp. 6, 9 and 10.
31 People v. Amadeo Hangdaan, G.R. No. 90035, 13 September 1991, 201 SCRA 568.
32 People v. Alejandro Salomon, G.R. No. 96848, 21 January 1994, 229 SCRA 403.
33 People v. Leonardo Gerones, G.R. No. 91116, 24 January 1991, 193 SCRA 263.
34 Rollo, p. 25.
35 People v. Ramon Carson, G.R. No. 93732, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 266.
36 TSN, 9 November 1994, p. 6.
37 TSN, 14 December 1994, p. 10.
38 U.S. v. Lucas Virrey, No. 12901, 12 February 1918, 37 Phil. 618.
39 People v. Alberni Dupoli, supra.
40 People v. Romeo Joya, G.R. No. 79090, 1 October 1993, 227 SCRA 9.