x x x

x x x

x x x chanrobles virtual law library

It is noted that there was no underlying reason why the complainant and/or her father would bring an action against the accused, except that the accused had raped Escelea Tabada on July 8, 1995, at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening. If it were not true that she was raped by the accused, why would she expose herself to an embarrassment and traumatic experience connected with the litigation of this rape case. We are aware of the Filipino culture especially on virginity. We likened it as a mirror, once dropped and broken, it can no longer be pieced together ... not ever. This is true among the Filipino folks that the complainant belonged, poor and helpless and everything is entrusted to God. The complainant is a young girl, a little over twelve (12) years old and almost illiterate, having attended school up to Grade III only. So poor that her family cannot even buy the cheapest television set and she has to go to a house of a neighbor for the meagery of seeing a television show ... and expose herself to the danger of the dark night. All said, it is very difficult to be poor. Going to the court is a shout for help ... let us try to hear it.

x x x

x x x

x x x chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, under the above circumstances and evaluation, this court finds the accused "GUILTY" of rape and sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the complainant the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for moral damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

x x x

x x x

x x x chanrobles virtual law library

(pp. 33-37, Rollo.) chanrobles virtual law library

In accused-appellant's brief, he assigns the following alleged errors:

I chanrobles virtual law library

THAT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF RAPE BASED ON THE TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINANT ESCELEA TABADA AND HER WITNESS.

II chanrobles virtual law library

THAT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROSECUTION, BASED ON THE AFFIDAVITS AND ORAL TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINANT AND ITS WITNESSES WAS ABLE TO PROVED [sic] BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME OF RAPE AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT.

III chanrobles virtual law library

THAT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN SENTENCING THE ACCUSED TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA AND TO INDEMNIFY THE COMPLAINANT THE AMOUNT OF P50,000.00 REPRESENTING MORAL DAMAGES BASED ON THE EVIDENCES PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION. chanrobles virtual law library

(p. 101, Rollo.) chanrobles virtual law library

He particularly argues that his conviction is not supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt considering that other than the written statement of the complainant before the Police Station of Isabela and before the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court, and her testimony during direct examination, no other evidence was presented to conclusively prove that there was ever rape at all; that she only presumed that it was accused-appellant who attacked her since she admitted that immediately upon opening the door, the perpetrator hastily covered her face with a towel; that nothing in her testimony clearly and convincingly shows that she was able to identify accused-appellant as the perpetrator; that complainant implicated accused-appellant only because her father forced her to do so; and lastly, that no actual proof was presented that the rape of the complainant actually happened considering that although a medical certificate was presented, the medico-legal officer who prepared the same was not presented in court to explain the same. chanrobles virtual law library

We agree with the trial court. chanrobles virtual law library

As aptly recalled by the trial court, there are three guiding principles in the review of rape cases, to wit: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense (People vs. Gallo, 284 SCRA 590 [1998]; People vs. Balmoria, 287 SCRA 687 [1998]; People vs. Auxtero, 289 SCRA 75 [1998]; People vs. Sta. Ana, 291 SCRA 188 [1998]). chanrobles virtual law library

Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of complainant's testimony. chanrobles virtual law library

The trial court described complainant as "a young girl, a little over twelve (12) years old and almost illiterate, having attended school up to Grade III only. So poor that her family cannot even buy the cheapest television set and she has to go to a house of a neighbor for the meagery of seeing a television show ... and exposes herself to the danger of the dark night." But verily, age, youth, and poverty are not guarantees of credibility. Hence, thorough scrutiny must be made by the Court. chanrobles virtual law library

Complainant narrated the incident in this wise: chanrobles virtual law library

Q While you went upstairs and about to enter the room of your grandmother, did you hear anything? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q What was that? chanrobles virtual law library

A I heard a call, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q How was the call made? chanrobles virtual law library

A It is just by saying: "Lea". chanrobles virtual law library

Q After you heard your name was mentioned, what did you say if any? chanrobles virtual law library

A I answered: "Who is that?" chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did the person calling your name answer you? chanrobles virtual law library

A I heard, sir, "me Totong". chanrobles virtual law library

Q When you say the person who called your name "Lea" was "Totong", you are referring to whom? chanrobles virtual law library

A Rodegelio, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q When you say "Rodegelio", you are referring to Rodegelio Turco, Jr., the accused in this case? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q After the person calling your name "Lea" identified himself as "Totong", what did you do? chanrobles virtual law library

A I opened the door, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And when you opened the door, what happened next? chanrobles virtual law library

A Totong with the use of towel covered my face, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Aside from covering your face with a towel, what else did he do? chanrobles virtual law library

A He covered my mouth, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Aside from covering your mouth, what else did he do? chanrobles virtual law library

A He placed his right hand on my neck, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Aside from placing his right hand ... when he placed his right hand on your neck, where was he? Was he infront or behind? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was at my back, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q After placing his right hand on your neck behind you, what did "Totong" do next with that position? chanrobles virtual law library

A He covered my mouth, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q After covering your mouth and face, what did he do next? chanrobles virtual law library

A He told me to walk, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where did he bring you? chanrobles virtual law library

A I don't know exactly where he brought me, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q But you know very well that he brought you to a certain place? chanrobles virtual law library

A I don't know exactly the place where he brought me, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Is it far from your house where you were forcibly taken? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Do you have a copra kiln? chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. G.V. DELA PENA III: chanrobles virtual law library

The witness already answered that she does not know where she was brought, leading, Your Honor. chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: (Questioning the witness) chanrobles virtual law library

Q According to you, from your house you were brought by the accused to a place which you do not know? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor. chanrobles virtual law library

Q What place? chanrobles virtual law library

A Pig pen, Your Honor. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Do you know the owner, of that pig pen? chanrobles virtual law library

A Our pig pen, Your Honor. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Who owned that pig pen? chanrobles virtual law library

A My father, Your Honor. chanrobles virtual law library

Q How far is that pig pen to your house? chanrobles virtual law library

A (From this witness stand to that road outside of this building). chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: chanrobles virtual law library

It is about 12 meters. Alright, continue. chanrobles virtual law library

PROSECUTOR M.L. GENERALAO: (Continuing) chanrobles virtual law library

Q You stated in answer to the question of the Honorable Court that you were brought to the pig pen or the place where you were sexually abused, were you place inside or outside? chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. G.V. DELA PENA III: chanrobles virtual law library

Leading, Your Honor. chanrobles virtual law library

PROSECUTOR M.L. GENERALAO: chanrobles virtual law library

I will withdraw. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you please explain to the Court what particular place of the pig pen that you were brought by the accused? chanrobles virtual law library

A Inside the grasses, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q When you were already inside the grasses near this pig pen, what did the accused do to you? chanrobles virtual law library

A He put me down, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q When you were already down on the ground, what did the accused do next? chanrobles virtual law library

A He mounted on me, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And when the accused was already on top of you, what did he do next? chanrobles virtual law library

A He molested me, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Before he molested you, did he remove anything from your body? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q What? chanrobles virtual law library

A My shortpants and panty, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q You stated that the accused while on top of you removed your pants and panty, did he totally remove it from your body? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q After removing your shortpants and panty, what else did the accused do? chanrobles virtual law library

A He abused me, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q You said that he abused you, how did he abuse your? chanrobles virtual law library

A He put his private part inside my private part, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q When the accused was on top of you and he forcibly abused you, what did you do? chanrobles virtual law library

A I tried to move my body, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q While you were trying to move your body and while the accused was on top of you, what did the accused do? chanrobles virtual law library

A He tried to insert his private part to my private part, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And was he able to insert his private part? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q What did you feel when his private part was already inside your private part? chanrobles virtual law library

A I felt pain, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you please explain why you felt when the private part of the accused was already inside your private part? chanrobles virtual law library

A I felt pain when he already finished, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q By the way, before July 8, 1995, were you had been raped? Will you please tell us whether you have already experienced or you have already your menstruation at that time? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Now you stated to the Honorable Court ... after the accused had sexually abused you and you said you felt pains after he consumated the sexual act, after that what did he do next after consumating the act? chanrobles virtual law library

A After consumating his desire, he raised my panty and shortpants then he kissed me and hold my nipple, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q After the accused had raised your shortpants and panty, embraced you, kissed you and hold your breast, did he tell you anything? chanrobles virtual law library

A He threatened me, "that if you will reveal the incident to anybody I will kill you." chanrobles virtual law library

Q In what dialect? In Chavacano, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

A After the accused embraced you, kissed you and hold your nipple and threatened you in Chavacano dialect, what happened next after that? chanrobles virtual law library

No more, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

(tsn, Aug. 19, 1996, pp. 14-22.) chanrobles virtual law library

On cross-examination, the victim did display some apparent confusion when the defense counsel asked her about the events that transpired before the ill-fated July 8, 1995. The query prompted her to narrate the incident prior to said date when she also watched television at the home of Leonora Cabase, and that when she arrived home, accused-appellant came and called her "Lea" and when she asked who was it, he answered "so Totong". When she asked what he wanted, he said he wanted to borrow a guitar. She said that she could not lend him the guitar since her father was not yet around. He insisted but to no avail, and hence he just went home. She went to sleep afterwards. On re-direct examination, she clarified that when accused-appellant came to borrow the guitar on July 8, 1995, it was about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon. Lastly, she said that the incident of the borrowing of the guitar and the incident that transpired at 7 o'clock in the evening on July 8, 1995 were separate incidents. chanrobles virtual law library

Significantly, three things could be perceived: complainant's youth, her apparent confusion concerning the events that transpired, and her fear of both accused-appellant and her father. chanrobles virtual law library

At the outset, it should be remembered that the declarations on the witness stand of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence (People vs. Bernaldez, 294 SCRA 317 [1998]). Succinctly, when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified were not true (People vs. Clopino, 290 SCRA 432 [1998]). In addition, we take cognizance of the trial court's observation on the segment of the Filipino society to which the victim belongs - almost illiterate, having attended school up to the third grade only, and so poor that she had to go to a neighbor's house to watch television, yet one who values her virginity which like a "mirror, once dropped and broken ... can no longer be pieced together ... not ever," this being "true among the Filipino folks [to which] complainant belonged, poor and helpless everything is entrusted to God" (p. 35, Rollo). chanrobles virtual law library

The victim's relatively low level of intelligence explains the lapses in her testimony, having intermingled two incidents. Nonetheless, it can easily be gathered from the record that the defense counsel may have contributed to this confusion when he asked the victim what transpired "before" the incident (tsn, August 19, 1996, p. 37). Minor lapses in a witness' testimony should be expected when a person recounts details of an experience so humiliating and so painful to recall as rape (People vs. Gementiza, 285 SCRA 478 [1998]).Rape, as a harrowing experience, is usually not remembered in detail. For, such an offense is not something which enhances one's life experience as to be worth recalling or reliving but, rather, something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim for the rest of her life, which her conscious or subconscious mind would prefer to forget (People vs. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463 [1997]). These lapses do not detract from the overwhelming testimony of a prosecution witness positively identifying the malefactor (People vs. Baccay, 284 SCRA 296 [1998]). Further, the testimony of a witness must be considered and calibrated in its entirety and not by truncated portions thereof or isolated passages therein (People vs. Natan, 193 SCRA 355 [1991]). chanrobles virtual law library

The Court finds that the victim had no motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant. Her testimony deserves the credence accorded thereto by the trial court (People vs. Luzorata, 286 SCRA 487 [1998]). Pertinently, no woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished (People vs. Taneo, 284 SCRA 251 [1998]). chanrobles virtual law library

Another point to consider is the blood relationship between accused-appellant and the victim. At this juncture, we reiterate the trial court's observation thereon - the mother of accused-appellant being a first degree cousin of the victim's father, that makes the victim and accused-appellant second degree cousins or sixth civil degree relatives. Filipino culture, particularly in the provinces, looks at the extended family as closely-knit and recognizes the obligation of an older relative to protect and take care of a younger one. On the contrary, in the instant case, the victim initiated the prosecution of her cousin. If the charge were not true, it is indeed difficult to understand why the victim would charge her own cousin as the malefactor. Too, she having no compelling motive to file said case against accused-appellant, the conclusion that the rape really happened is logically reinforced. chanrobles virtual law library

As regards the initial delay of the victim in reporting the rape incident, suffice it to state that the delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is not uncommon (People vs. Gallo, supra). In the case at bar, the victim's fear of her father who had moral ascendancy over her, was explicit. She testified that she did not disclose the incident to her father because of fear both of her father as well as of accused-appellant (tsn, August 19, 1996, pp. 23-24). Such reaction is typical of a twelve-year-old girl and only strengthens her credibility. chanrobles virtual law library

The issue of credibility of the victim having been settled, there are a few points presented by the defense that must be passed upon: chanrobles virtual law library

1. Other than their blood relationship, was there an intimate relationship between accused-appellant and the victim? The theory initially advanced by the defense in the proceedings before the court a quo is the "sweetheart theory". In this regard, .we agree with the trial court that the "sweetheart story" was a mere concoction of accused-appellant in order to exculpate himself from criminal liability. In People vs. Venerable (290 SCRA 15 [1998]), we held that the sweetheart theory of the accused was unavailing and self-serving where he failed to introduce love letters, gifts, and the like to attest to his alleged amorous affair with the victim. Hence, the defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory that he and the victim were sweethearts. Independent proof is necessary, such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. It is likewise remarkable, a confession possibly of the bankruptcy of this theory that accused-appellant has not insisted on this defense in his brief, seemingly abandoning this line. chanrobles virtual law library

We, therefore, conclude that whatever familiarity and supposed closeness there was between accused-appellant and the victim, is explained not by an intimate relationship but by their blood relationship. Hence, it is noticeable that on the day of the incident, when accused-appellant called upon the victim and the latter asked who he was, the victim knew right away that her caller was accused-appellant when the latter replied "Si Totong". chanrobles virtual law library

Accused-appellant, in his direct testimony, tried to deny any blood relation with the victim Escelea Tabada and touched on the apparent friendship between them, as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

Q You mentioned earlier that you know the complainant, why do you know the complainant Escelea Tabada? chanrobles virtual law library

A I only know her when I was already in jail, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q You mean to say that you never knew the complainant before you were arrested? chanrobles virtual law library

A I do not know her, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: (Questioning the witness) chanrobles virtual law library

Q Why, are you not related to the Tabadas? chanrobles virtual law library

A No, Your Honor. chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. G.V. DELA PENA III: (Continuing) chanrobles virtual law library

Q Have you ever seen the complainant in Begang? chanrobles virtual law library

A The complainant is at Begang, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q And you mentioned that you were not related with the complainant, Mr. Witness? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir, we are only close. chanrobles virtual law library

Q So, in other words, Mr. Witness, you and the complainant Escelea Tabada were already friends? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

(tsn, June 16, 1998, pp. 42-43.) chanrobles virtual law library

However, on cross-examination, he notably crumbled: chanrobles virtual law library

Q Now, you stated in your direct examination that you are not related to the Tabadas in San Antonio Begang, Isabela, Basilan, is that right? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir, we are only close. chanrobles virtual law library

Q Is it not a fact Mr. Witness that your mother is the first cousin of the father of Escelea Tabada? chanrobles virtual law library

A They are cousins, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q So, indeed you are related to the Tabadas? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

Q So, when you said that you are not related to the Tabadas, you were not telling the truth? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. chanrobles virtual law library

(ibid, p. 51.) chanrobles virtual law library

2. Accused-appellant argues that no actual proof was presented that the rape actually happened since the medico-legal officer who prepared the medical certificate was not presented in court to explain the same. chanrobles virtual law library

In People vs. Bernaldez (supra), the court a quo erred in giving weight to the medical certificate issued by the examining physician despite the failure of the latter to testify. While the certificate could be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule since entries in official records (under Section 44, Rule 130, Rules of Court) constitute exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule, since it involved an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness, it could not be given weight or credit unless the doctor who issued it is presented in court to show his qualifications. We place emphasis on the distinction between admissibility of evidence and the probative value thereof. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or the rules (Section 3, Rule 128, Rules of Court) or is competent. Since admissibility of evidence is determined by its relevance and competence, admissibility is, therefore, an affair of logic and law. On the other hand, the weight to be given to such evidence, once admitted, depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided in Rule 133 and the jurisprudence laid down by the Court. Thus, while evidence may be admissible, it may be entitled to little or no weight at all. Conversely, evidence which may have evidentiary weight may be inadmissible because a special rule forbids its reception (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, 1998 ed., p. 550). chanrobles virtual law library

Withal, although the medical certificate is an exception to the hearsay rule, hence admissible as evidence, it has very little probative value due to the absence of the examining physician. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the prosecution relied solely on the medical certificate (stating that there was "[h]ymen rupture, secondary to penile insertion" as well as "foul-smelling discharges." The diagnosis was "[r]uptured hymen secondary to rape" [p. 68, Record]). In fact, reliance was made on the testimony of the victim herself which, standing alone even without medical examination, is sufficient to convict (People vs. Topaguen, 369 SCRA 601 [1997]). It is well-settled that a medical examination is not indispensable in the prosecution of rape (People vs. Lacaba, G.R. No. 130591, November 17, 1999; People vs. Salazar, 258 SCRA 55 [1996]; People vs. Venerable, supra). The absence of medical findings by a medico-legal officer does not disprove the occurrence of rape (People vs. Taneo, supra). It is enough that the evidence on hand convinces the court that conviction is proper (People vs. Auxtero, supra). In the instant case, the victim's testimony alone is credible and sufficient to convict. chanrobles virtual law library

As a final observation, it must be said that the amount awarded by the trial court in favor of Escelea Tabada as indemnification (P50,000.00 for moral damages) for the rape is incomplete based on established jurisprudence and must be modified. In People vs. Betonio (279 SCRA 532 [1977]), we held that the award of P50,000.00 to the victim as indemnity for rape not committed or qualified by any of the circumstances under the Death Penalty Law, needs no proof other than the conviction of the accused for the raped proved. This is different from the P50,000.00 awarded as moral damages which also needs no pleading or proof as basis thereof (People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 [1998]). chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Rodegelio Turco, Jr. aka "Totong" is ordered to indemnify the offended party, Escelea Tabada, in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos in addition to the sum of P50,000.00 already awarded by the trial court as moral damages. chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtual law library

Vitug, Panganiban, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.