SECOND DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
121997
December 10, 2003
-versus-
ANDRES MASAPOL,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
Before this Court
on appeal is the Decision[1]
of by the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 28, convicting the
appellant Andres Masapol of the crime of Rape, and sentencing him to
suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim Beatriz O.
Pascuin
the sum of P50,000.00 as damages.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant was
charged
of rape in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
undersigned
2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, upon a sworn complaint originally
filed by the offended party, accuses ANDRES MASAPOL Y DOE of the crime
of RAPE, defined and punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code,
committed as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about
7:00
o'clock in the evening of July 17, 1992, at Barangay Marangi,
Municipality
of San Fernando, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd
designs,
and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously, have carnal knowledge with one Beatriz O. Pascuin,
against
her will.chan
ACTS
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[2]
On his arraignment
on November 5, 1993 the appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a plea
of not guilty.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case for the
Prosecution
Manuel and his wife
Beatriz Pascuin resided in a remote area in Barangay Marangi, San
Fernando,
Camarines Sur. It was an area where the community did not as yet have
the
luxury of electric light in their houses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At around 7:00 p.m.
of July 17, 1992, Beatriz dropped by the store of Marcial Olitoquit to
buy kerosene. The store was about 300 meters away from their house. She
lighted the wick and used the kerosene lamp to light her way back home.
The road to their house was the path usually taken by carabaos going to
farm. The road sides were grassy and strewn with coconut trees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Suddenly, the appellant
Andres Masapol appeared out of nowhere and poked a knife at Beatriz.
Before
she could shout for help, the appellant covered her mouth with his
hand.
He warned her not to shout; otherwise, he would kill her. Beatriz boxed
the appellant on the stomach, in an attempt to remove the latter's hand
from her mouth. This enraged the appellant. He forthwith slapped
Beatriz
and boxed her on the abdomen and on her back. The appellant dragged her
off from the trail to a grassy area and forced her to lie down on the
ground.
Beatriz let go of the kerosene. It was then when the wick's flame went
off. The appellant removed her short pants and her panties even as she
kicked and struggled to free herself. Undeterred, the appellant
undressed
himself and went on top of her. While his right hand held a knife
pressed
on the base of her neck, the appellant forced Beatriz to spread her
legs.
He then inserted his penis with his left hand into her vagina and had
carnal
knowledge of her. Satiated, the appellant dismounted. He threatened to
kill her if she told anyone what he had done. The appellant then left.
Beatriz put on her shorts and sped back towards her house.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At first, Beatriz balked
at the thought of revealing her ordeal to her husband. She, however,
relented
and told her husband that she was raped by the appellant. Upon hearing
this, Manuel was enraged; instead of consoling his wife, he even mauled
Beatriz. He ordered her not to report the incident to the police
authorities
because he himself would confront the appellant and avenge the travesty
that had been committed against her. Manuel saw that his wife's polo
shirt
was torn under the armpit and that the buttons of her shorts were
missing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since then, Manuel was
on the lookout for the appellant. On August 29, 1992, Manuel armed
himself
with a bolo and waited for the appellant in the latter's house. Upon
seeing
the appellant, Manuel chased him and tried to hack him on the head, but
the appellant escaped. When apprised of the incident, Nelia Masapol,
the
appellant's wife, filed a criminal complaint the following day against
Manuel with Barangay Captain Ramon Dimagante. A conference was held.
Beatriz
executed a statement where she declared that she was raped by the
appellant
on July 17, 1992 and that when she reported the incident to her
husband,
he was so infuriated.[4]
Manuel informed the barangay captain that he chased the appellant and
wanted
to stab him with his bolo because the appellant sexually abused his
wife.
When questioned by the barangay captain, the appellant admitted that he
had sexual relations with Beatriz, but averred that the same was
consensual.[5]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Unable to settle the
case, the barangay captain forwarded the same to the San Fernando
Police
for investigation. On September 24, 1992, Beatriz gave a sworn
statement
to SPO4 Roger Atacador. She was examined by Dr. Alcantara of the Rural
Health Unit of San Fernando on September 14, 1992, who issued a medical
certificate thereon. During the preliminary investigation by the
Presiding
Judge of the MCTC, the appellant offered to settle the case. The judge
commented that if the appellant truly wanted to settle, he should pay
P33,000.00.
The appellant made an offer of P2,000.00, which Beatriz did not accept.
Although the court required him to submit a counter-affidavit, the
appellant
could not be located and failed to file any. The court, thus,
terminated
the preliminary examination and investigation of the case and proceeded
with trial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case for the
Appellant
The appellant admitted
having consensual sexual congress with Beatriz for sometime, even
before
July 17, 1992. He, however, denied having had carnal knowledge of her
on
July 17, 1992. He asserted that his daughter Amelia celebrated her
birthday
that day, and on the said date, he was in their house entertaining
guests.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Macaria Mayores, the
appellant's first cousin, testified that she was the biological mother
of Amelia, and that she gave Amelia to the appellant when the girl was
still ten months old. She further testified that she did not register
Amelia's
live birth since she was busy at that time and that Amelia would after
all be adopted by the appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nelia Masapol, the appellant's
wife, testified that they had been celebrating Amelia's birthday on
July
17 because it was on that date when Amelia was given to them by Macaria
Mayores.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Juana Chavez, a neighbor
of the appellant, testified that on July 17, 1992, she was at the
appellant's
residence, and helped prepare the food and serve the guests at Amelia's
birthday party. The appellant was in the house the whole day, while
Juana
testified that she stayed there from 4:00 p.m. until around 8:00 a.m.
the
following day.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Teresita Canaco, a barriomate
of both Beatriz and the appellant, testified that she had a
conversation
with Beatriz in the courthouse during the trial. Beatriz admitted to
her
that she only concocted the story of rape because her husband Manuel
had
maltreated her while being asked to confess. To stop the beating,
Beatriz
just told her husband that she was raped by the appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On rebuttal, the prosecution
adduced in evidence the baptismal certificate of Amelia Masapol,
showing
that she was born on September 19, and not July 17.[6]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the parties
adduced
their testimonial and documentary evidence, the trial court rendered
its
Decision on November 21, 1994, finding the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of the crime charged, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing findings that the prosecution was able to
prove the guilt of accused ANDRES MASAPOL of the crime of rape of which
he is presently charged beyond reasonable doubt, judgment is hereby
rendered
whereby the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua
and to pay the complainant damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND
(P50,000.00)
PESOS. With costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his appeal
brief,
the appellant assails the decision of the trial court, alleging that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME AS CHARGED DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUCH CONVICTION.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant asserts
that the prosecution failed to prove that he forced and intimidated
Beatriz
into having intercourse with him. He contends that the testimony of
Beatriz
is inconsistent with her statement to the barangay captain. The
prosecution
even failed to adduce any medical certificate to corroborate her
testimony.
He contends that the fragility of the evidence for the prosecution is
highlighted
by the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First.
Beatriz testified that the kerosene lamp she was holding fell on the
side
while she was being dragged by the appellant, and its light went out.
However,
in her statement to the barangay captain, she declared that it was the
appellant who blew the light off.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second.
Beatriz testified that she was dragged for about 100 meters away from
the
trail to a grassy place, and that the appellant had boxed and slapped
her.
However, the prosecution never presented any medical certificate
showing
that she sustained bruises or other injuries. The prosecution likewise
failed to adduce in evidence the panty and shorts Beatriz was wearing
to
show that her clothings had been torn.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third.
Beatriz declared that she could not shout because the appellant's hand
was covering her mouth, and even if she shouted, no one would hear her
as there were no houses nearby. However, she contradicted herself when
she declared in her statement to the barangay captain that she was
raped
near the house of one Manuel Calinog.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fourth.
Beatriz testified that after she was raped by the appellant, she put on
her panty and shorts and walked home crying and upon arriving home
immediately
told her husband, Manuel, about the incident. However, in her statement
to the barangay captain, she declared that it was only three days after
she was raped by the appellant that she told her husband Manuel about
it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appeal has no merit.
For a discrepancy or
inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for
acquittal,
it must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence
of the accused for the crime charged. An inconsistency which has
nothing
to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the
acquittal
of the accused.[9]
Even if the offended party may have erred in some aspects of her
testimony,
the same does not necessarily impair her testimony nor corrode her
credibility.
The modern trend of jurisprudence is that the testimony of a witness
may
be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the
corroborative
evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. The
doctrine
of FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS deals only with the weight of
evidence
and is not a positive rule of law, and the same is not an inflexible
one
of universal application.[10]
What is vital is that the act of copulation be proven under any of the
conditions enumerated in Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The general rule is
that contradictions and discrepancies between the testimony of a
witness
in contrast with what was stated in an affidavit do not necessarily
discredit
her.[12]
Affidavits given to police and barangay officers are ex parte. Such
affidavits
are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack of or absence of searching
inquiries by the investigating officer.[13]
The discrepancies in Beatriz' affidavit (Exhibit "B") and her testimony
do not impair her testimony and her credibility. Also, victims of rape
are not expected to have an accurate or errorless recollection of the
traumatic
experience that was so humiliating and painful, that she might, in
fact,
be trying to obliterate it from her memory.[14]
Whether the appellant himself put off the light from the kerosene lamp
with his left hand or the light was extinguished by itself when Beatriz
dropped it as the appellant dragged her to the grassy area and raped
her,
is inconsequential.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The failure of the
prosecution to adduce in evidence a medical certificate to prove that
the
appellant had carnal knowledge of her and that she sustained injuries
when
she resisted the appellant did not enfeeble the case for the
prosecution.
A medical examination and a medical certificate are merely
corroborative
and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.[15]
It is absurd for the appellant to claim a medical certificate because
Beatriz
is married and has children.[16]
Beatriz could not be faulted for the decision of the prosecution not to
adduce in evidence the medical certificate issued to her which she
turned
over to the prosecutor. The fact that the house of Manuel Calinog was
near
where she was raped by the appellant is likewise of minimal importance
because even if she wanted to, she could not have shouted for help as
the
appellant had covered her mouth with his hand.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The fact of the matter
is that Beatriz reported to her husband immediately upon arriving home
that the appellant had just raped her. Manuel corroborated his wife's
testimony,
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Do you
remember
where you were on the evening of July 17, 1992 at around 8:00 o'clock
in
the evening?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I was in my
house
in Marangi, San Fernando, Camarines Sur, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What were you
doing
there at that time?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I was cooking
rice,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q That evening, do
you
remember any unusual incident that happened?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir, my
wife
arrived home.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What happened
when
your wife arrived?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A She was crying,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Did you inquire
why
she was crying?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A My wife informed
me
that she was raped by Andres Masapol, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And what was
your
reaction?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A She informed me
of
what happened and that my wife and I will be killed, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What did you do?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before that.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Who threatened
your
wife?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A It was Andres
Masapol,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Proceed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROS.
LEAÑO:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What did you
tell
your wife?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I told my wife
that
I will not file a case because if he would kill us we better kill each
other.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Did you have any
occasion
to see Andres Masapol thereafter?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I was waiting
for
him in Balugo but he was evading me, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Why do you know
Andres
Masapol in the first place?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Because he is my
barriomate,
sir.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. TAYER:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Will you
describe
to the Honorable Court what is the appearance of your wife when she
arrived
for the first time?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A She was crying,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Besides she was
crying
what did you observe from her? chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A As if she was
shock,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Is it not that
she
was in that stage because you confronted her that night about her
relation
with the accused?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROS.
LEAÑO:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No basis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Objection
sustained,
that is your defense and you present your defense but not with this
witness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. TAYER:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What was she
wearing
when she arrived for the first time in your house?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A She was wearing
a
polo and short pants which length is up to the knee.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And if I am not
mistaken
that was properly worn by your wife as she arrived?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROS.
LEAÑO:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Your Honor
properly
worn x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
What do you
mean
by that, you reform.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. TAYER:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Was the clothes
with
buttons, the upper clothes?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And when she
arrived
that upper portion were buttoned?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A There was a tear
below
the right armpit, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q That was the
only
tear am I right?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A The button was
detached,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q How many buttons
were
detached?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Three (3) sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And about the
short
pants was it worn, tucked with her waist?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROS.
LEAÑO:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I think the
question
is vague.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
You reform.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. TAYER:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q When your wife
arrived
was she wearing the short pants?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And you said
your
wife reported that she was threatened by his assailant, am I right?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And what was the
exact
words that she uttered to you when she reported that she was being
threatened?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A My wife told me
that
if she would report the incident that she was raped, to me, she and I
will
be killed by the accused.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And what was
your
reaction?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I answered my
wife
that we will not file a case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And when you
said
that what was your intention?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I watched for
him
in Balugo, sir.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecutor proved
that the appellant used a knife, a deadly weapon, in forcing Beatriz to
submit to his lustful desires. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code,
the use of a deadly weapon such as a knife to commit a crime is a
special
aggravating circumstance which requires the imposition of reclusion
perpetua
to death.[19]
However, such circumstance was not alleged in the Information as
required
by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.[20]
Although the said rules took effect only on December 1, 2000, long
after
the commission of the crime on July 17, 1992, the same should be
applied
retroactively because it is favorable to the appellant. Hence, such
circumstance
should not be appreciated against the appellant.[21]
In the absence of any modifying circumstance, the appellant should be
sentenced
to reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised
Penal Code.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court failed
to award moral and exemplary damages in favor of Beatriz. According to
current jurisprudence, victims of rape are entitled to P50,000.00 as
moral
damages, 22 P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL
THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Naga
City, Branch 28, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The appellant Andres
Masapol
is found GUILTY of simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is
also
ordered to pay to the private complainant Beatriz O. Pascuin
P50,000.00,
as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P25,000.00, as
exemplary
damages. Costs against the appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Antonio N. Gerona.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Records, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Exhibit "B".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Exhibit "B-1".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Exhibit "C."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, p. 32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 96.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
People vs. Balmoja, 364 SCRA 125 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People v. Julian, 270 SCRA 733 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People v. Balmoja, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
People vs. Español, 256 SCRA 137 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People v. Villadares, 354 SCRA 86 (2001). chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
People v. Caniezo, 354 SCRA 202 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People v. Blazo, 352 SCRA 94 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People v. Vidal, 353 SCRA 194 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
TSN, 9 March 1994, pp. 3–5 (Pascuin).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 9–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
"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."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
20. "Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. — The complaint or information
shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver
the
acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying
and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the
offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute
punishing
it. (8a).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People vs. Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106–07, January 24, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People vs. Pagsanjan, G.R. No. 139694, December 27, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People vs. Lilo, G.R. Nos. 140736–39, February 4, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |