THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
134633
April 14, 2004
-versus-
ALVIN CAPARAS,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 76 in Criminal
Case No. 3325 finding appellant Alvin Caparas guilty of raping
complainant
Marilou F. Lumabas and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The
dispositive
portion of the appealed decision read:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding herein accused Alvin
Caparas
y Carino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined
and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua, to indemnify complainant
Marilou
Lumabas in the amount of P50,000 as moral damages and to pay the costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[2]
The information for
rape filed by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of San Mateo, Rizal
alleged:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about the
5th day of August, 1997 in the Municipality of San Mateo, Rizal,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously struck complainant MARILOU LUMABAS y FERRER
with his fist thereby rendering her unconscious and thereafter had
carnal
knowledge of said complainant against her will and without her consent.[3]
To prove that appellant
Caparas raped complainant Lumabas, the prosecution presented six
witnesses:
Dr. Emmanuel Reyes, medico-legal officer of the Philippine National
Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame; Ramona Rivera, complainant
Lumabas’
townmate; Alfonso Madriaga and Julian Quintana, barangay tanods of
Maly,
San Mateo, Rizal; Emilio Pangilinan, chief barangay tanod of Maly, San
Mateo Rizal; and complainant Lumabas.cralaw:red
The facts of the case
follow.cralaw:red
On August 5, 1997, complainant
Lumabas was at home with her two children, ages 7 and 3. At around 8:00
p.m., appellant Caparas knocked on the door and told complainant to
fetch
her husband Celso who was very drunk and needed assistance in walking
home.
Celso, together with appellant and three other friends, had a drinking
session in appellant’s house after planting palay together. Complainant
went with appellant. Since it was already dark and raining, she wore
rubber
boots and brought a flashlight and umbrella.cralaw:red
As they approached the
house of one Dominga Vergara, appellant suddenly grabbed complainant’s
hand and pulled her down on the grass. She tried to break loose but
failed.
When she was lying on her back, appellant muttered "pagbigyan mo ako"[4]
and "huwag kang sisigaw at papatayin kita."[5]
Complainant Lumabas shouted for help and tried to free herself but
appellant
choked her using his left hand. When she continued resisting, he
punched
her twice in the stomach while tightening his hold on her neck. As a
result,
she lost consciousness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When complainant came
to two hours later, she was naked from the waist down. Appellant was
gone.
Feeling weak and dizzy, she called for help while running/crawling
towards
Dominga Vergara’s house.cralaw:red
Vergara heard a woman
shouting for help so she asked for assistance from Alfonso Madriaga, a
barangay tanod, who lived nearby. Madriaga in turn called his fellow
barangay
tanod, Julian Quintana, and together they went to Vergara’s house where
they saw the half-naked complainant crawling on the ground. They
brought
her inside the house where she was clothed by Vergara. When asked by
Madriaga
who was responsible for her condition, complainant answered "Alvin" and
again lost consciousness for about half an hour. She regained
consciousness
when Ramona Rivera, who lived near Vergara, bit her left toe. Rivera,
noticing
complainant’s swollen neck, also asked her who was responsible for her
condition and she again answered that appellant raped her.cralaw:red
Complainant was brought
to Madriaga’s house while Rivera went to fetch the chief barangay
tanod,
Emilio Pangilinan, to report the incident. Complainant’s father,
Manoling
Ferrer, and husband Celso arrived at Madriaga’s house. Quintana
accompanied
Ferrer to the place where the alleged rape took place and there they
found
complainant’s underwear and pants. From Madriaga’s house, complainant
was
brought to the municipal hall by her father and husband where she
executed
her sworn statement.cralaw:red
On August 6, 1997, complainant
was examined by Dr. Emmanuel Reyes at the PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp
Crame, Quezon City. His findings showed the following:
GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fairly developed, fairly
nourished and coherent female subject, breasts are pendulous with dark
brown areola and nipples from which no secretions could be pressed out.
Abdomen is flat and soft. The following injuries are noted at the head,
trunk and extremeties;
1) Area of multiple
linear abrasions, right zygomatic region, measuring 4 by 2 cm, 7.5 cm
from
the anterior midline.cralaw:red
2) Area of multiple
linear abrasions, left zygomatic region, measuring 8 by 4 cm, 7 cm from
the anterior midline.cralaw:red
3) Contusion, right
lateral aspect of the neck, measuring 3 by 2.5 cm, 4 cm from the
anterior
midline with a superimposed abrasion, measuring 3 by 1.5 cm.cralaw:red
4) Contusion, left lateral
aspect of the neck, measuring 3 by 1.5 cm, 3.0 cm from the anterior
midline.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5) Are of multiple linear
abrasions, right costal extending to the left costal region, measuring
20 by 18 cm, bisected by its anterior midline.cralaw:red
6) Area of multiple
linear abrasions, right shoulder extending to the proximal 3rd of the
right
arm, measuring 15 by 8cm, bisected by its anterior midline.cralaw:red
7) Are of multiple linear
abrasions, distal 3rd of the thigh extending to the proximal 3rd of the
right leg, measuring 10 by 6cm, 3cm lateral to its anterior midline.cralaw:red
8) Area of multiple
linear abrasions, distal 3rd of the leg, measuring 6.5 by 6cm, 5cm
lateral
to its anterior midline.cralaw:red
GENITAL:
There is a moderate
growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coated with the
dark brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same
disclosed
carunculae myrtiformis. External vaginal orifice offers slight
resistance
to the introduction of the examining index finger and the virginesized
vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is wide with flattened rigosities.
Cervix
is normal in size, color and consistency with minimal amount of
menstrual
blood oozing from the external os.cralaw:red
CONCLUSIONS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Subject is in non-virgin
state physically.cralaw:red
Barring unforeseen complications,
it is estimated for gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.cralaw:red
According to Dr. Reyes,
the physical injuries on complainant’s neck could have been caused by
the
appellant’s attempt to strangle the complainant while the multiple
abrasions
and contusions on complainant’s right shoulder and costal region could
have been caused by her resistance and effort to free herself.cralaw:red
Dr. Reyes further testified
that the absence of hematoma on complainant’s vagina could be because
(1)
she had already delivered two babies by natural childbirth; (2) she
just
had her menstruation; (3) she was unconscious and (4) there was
lubrication
due to the moisture of the grass since she was allegedly raped on a
grassy
lot.cralaw:red
Appellant vehemently
denied that he raped complainant. He presented his common-law wife
Annabelle
Diaz who testified that, after drinking liquor with his co-workers,
including
complainant’s husband, appellant asked her to prepare dinner for him
while
he answered the call of nature in an outdoor bathroom 20 arms’ length
from
their house. Appellant returned thirty minutes later and went straight
to sleep without eating. Diaz was not surprised that appellant was in
the
outhouse for 30 minutes since that was his habit. She was sure
appellant
did not leave the toilet the entire time he was there.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant testified,
however, that he spent only five minutes[6]
in the outhouse, from where he proceeded to complainant’s house to ask
her to fetch her husband. Complainant, though angry at her husband for
getting drunk, went with appellant. While walking, she slipped since
the
road was muddy. Appellant held her by the shoulder and hip to help her
up but this angered her. She started hitting appellant with her
umbrella
and flashlight. Appellant asked her to stop and tried to pacify her but
she continued hitting him. Thus, he choked her to make her stop since
she
was hurting him. He also boxed her, rendering her unconscious.
Appellant
left the unconscious complainant and went straight home where he told
his
wife what happened.[7]
The trial court, finding
complainant’s testimony forthright, convicted appellant. Appellant’s
assertion
that he had a previous altercation with complainant’s father and
brother
was not given credence by the trial court which found that the Lumabas
couple exhibited no ill-felling towards appellant prior to the
incident.
In fact, complainant’s husband, Celso, even joined appellant in a
drinking
session and complainant voluntarily went with appellant to fetch her
husband.cralaw:red
Hence, this appeal with
a lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR RAPE HAS BEEN
PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[8]
Appellant faults the
trial court for finding that sexual intercourse occurred between him
and
complainant. He argues that the prosecution was not able to prove that
he had carnal knowledge of complainant. He points out that complainant
did not complain of pain in her private part; it was only during her
re-direct
examination when she mentioned feeling pain while urinating.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, the
Solicitor General argues that the conviction should be upheld since the
circumstances of the case indubitably showed the guilt of the appellant.cralaw:red
We affirm the decision
of the trial court.cralaw:red
The rule is when a rape’s
victim testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid
cross-
examination and without inconsistencies or contradictions in its
material
points, it must be given full faith and credit.[9]
In the case at bar, we find complainant’s narration of her harrowing
experience
credible and convincing:
Q. Kindly inform this
Hon. Court that unusual incident that happened to you?
A. We were walking that
night when he suddenly pulled me by my hand, sir.cralaw:red
Q. You said "he," whom
are you referring to?
A. Alvin, sir.cralaw:red
Q. Alvin Caparas, Madam
Witness?
A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q. Now after pulling
you by the arm, what happened next?
A. Pinahiga po ako sa
damuhan, sir.cralaw:red
Q. How did this accused
try to lay you down on the grass?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. When he took hold
of my hand, I tried to remove them but he laid me down on the ground
and
choked me, sir.cralaw:red
Q. And what hand did
he use in choking you, Madam Witness?
A. The left, sir.cralaw:red
Q. And when Alvin was
choking you on the ground what did you do?
A. I shouted, sir.cralaw:red
Q. Aside from that,
what else did you do?
A. I tried to break
loose, sir.cralaw:red
Q. And were you able
to break loose from the hold of Alvin Caparas?
A. No, sir.cralaw:red
Q. And what did Alvin
Caparas do when you tried to break loose from his hold?
A. He boxed me on my
stomach, sir.cralaw:red
Q. How many times?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. Two (2) times, sir.cralaw:red
Q. And what about his
left hand choking you or strangling you, what did he do with his right
arm?
A. He even tightened
his hold on my neck, sir.cralaw:red
Q. And after tightening
his hold on your neck and boxing you two times, what happened to you
Madam
Witness?
A. I lost consciousness,
sir.cralaw:red
Q. When Alvin Caparas
laid you on the ground, did he utter anything or not?
A. There was, sir.cralaw:red
Q. What did he utter?
A. He said and to quote:
"pagbigyan mo ako," sir.cralaw:red
Q. And what else did
he utter aside from that?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. He said and to quote:
"huwag kang sisigaw at papatayin kita," sir.cralaw:red
Q. And you said you
lost your consciousness, Madam Witness, Do you still affirm that?
A. Yes, sir, I lost
consciousness.cralaw:red
Q. And then, were you
able to regain consciousness after that?
A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
xxx xxx xxx
Prosecutor Ramolete:
Q. Now, Madam Witness,
after regaining consciousness, what did you notice in your body?
A. I was already half-naked
from the waist down and I was only wearing my blouse, sir.cralaw:red
xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Now, Madam Witness,
aside from being naked waist down what did you feel on your body?
A. I was dizzy and feeling
weak, sir.cralaw:red
Q. Why?
A. Because of what he
did, I felt weak, sir.cralaw:red
Q. And what did you
do after that, Madam Witness?
A. I ran towards the
house of Ingga, sir.[10]
On cross examination:
Q. Now, you have been
testifying that you want justice to what Mr. Caparas did to you. Can
you
tell us exactly what was that thing that Mr. Caparas did to you?
A. He choked me and
boxed me at my stomach until I lost my consciousness, sir.cralaw:red
Q. And these are the
things that you would want justice to be done to you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. At ang pagkakadisgrasya
ng puri ko.cralaw:red
Q. Will you please explain
or clarify what do you mean by "pagkakadisgrasya sa akin"?
A. Because when I regained
consciousness, I found out that I was half-naked and feeling weak, sir.cralaw:red
Q. And this is what
you would want this Court to give justice to you?
A. Yes, sir.[11]
On re-direct examination,
complainant said that she was raped by appellant because she felt pain
("masakit na mahapdi") in her vagina when she urinated after regaining
consciousness:
Q. You also mentioned
that aside from Alvin Caparas choking you boxing you twice on the
stomach,
you also stated and I quote: "dinisgrasya niya iyong aking puri." Do
you
still confirm that?
A. Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q. Kindly inform this
Hon. Court directly what do you mean by "dinisgrasya niya ang aking
puri"?
A. Ginahasa po niya
ako, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. When you said "ginahasa"
Madam Witness, did you feel any pain in your private part?
A. Yes, sir, when I
urinated I felt pain inside.cralaw:red
Q. How many times did
you urinate and felt pain on your private part?
A. Four times, one at
the municipal hall and three times at the house of my eldest sister,
sir.cralaw:red
Q. What kind of pain
was that Madam Witness?
A. Masakit na mahapdi,
sir.[12]
Q. And you also stated
that you felt pain at the lower portion of your body or on your private
part, I should say, you felt that pain even after you have had four (4)
deliveries and living with two men already?
A. Yes, sir.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rape[14]
is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following
circumstances:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. by using force and
intimidation;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. when a woman is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious and
3. when a woman is under
twelve years of age or is demented.[15]
Appellant’s intention
to rape complainant could be inferred from his overt acts. He forced
complainant
to lie down on the ground and he strangled her. He asked the victim to
satisfy his lustful desire. He threatened to kill her if she shouted.
When
complainant fiercely warded off appellant’s bestial advances by hitting
him with her umbrella and flashlight, appellant choked and boxed her
twice
in the stomach, rendering her unconscious. And taking advantage of
complainant’s
helpless state, he raped her. Thus, when complainant regained
consciousness
and found herself naked from the waist down, she knew that appellant
had
raped her. This was confirmed when she felt pain in her private part
when
she urinated several times that night.cralaw:red
Appellant anchors his
defense of denial to the fact that complainant was unconscious when he
allegedly raped her and therefore, she could not have known for sure
that
he indeed raped her. We disagree.cralaw:red
We have steadfastly
adhered to the rule that, when a woman testifies that she has been
raped
and her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be
convicted
on the basis thereof.[16]
As already mentioned, complainant’s testimony was forthright and
without
fabrication, hence, credible and convincing. Moreover, direct evidence
is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt
since
circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant its absence.[17]
All the requisites to establish guilt by circumstantial evidence are
present
in this case, namely: (1) there is more than one circumstance (2) the
facts
from which the inferences are derived are proved and, (3) the
combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable
doubt.[18]
Thus, the following unbroken chain of events points to no other
conclusion
than that appellant indeed raped complainant:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. on the night of the
incident, appellant had a drinking spree in his house with his
co-workers,
including complainant’s husband;
2. after almost three
hours of drinking, the group dispersed except complainant’s husband who
was too drunk to go home;
3. appellant told his
live-in partner that he was going to the outdoor toilet to answer the
call
of nature;
4. instead of going
back home right away, he went to complainant’s house on the pretext of
asking her to fetch her drunk husband from his house;
5. on their way to his
house, appellant forced complainant down on the grass, muttering
"pagbigyan
mo ako" and "hwag kang sisigaw at papatayin kita" while choking her;
6. complainant struggled
to free herself and repeatedly hit appellant with her umbrella and
flashlight;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
7. appellant strangled
and hit complainant twice on the stomach, rendering her unconscious;
8. complainant woke
up half-naked, feeling weak and dizzy, with bruises all over her body;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
9. with all the strength
she could muster, she called out for help and crawled towards a nearby
house in her ravaged state;
10. neighbors came to
her rescue, brought her inside Dominga Vergara’s house and clothed her;
11. when asked twice
what happened to her, she categorically and without hesitation answered
that appellant raped her;
12. that very same night,
she was brought to the municipal hall by her father and husband where
she
executed an affidavit-complaint charging appellant with rape;
13. when she urinated
at least four times that night, she felt pain in her vagina;
14. the next day, she
willingly submitted herself to a medical examination at the PNP Crime
Laboratory
in Camp Crame, Quezon City where she was found to be in a non-virgin
state
but negative for spermatozoa.cralaw:red
Appellant harps on the
fact that no spermatozoa was found in complainant’s organ. However, the
absence of spermatozoa does not necessarily negate rape.[19]
Likewise, the lack of fresh lacerations in complainant’s private part
was
immaterial because proof of hymenal lacerations is not an element of
rape.[20]
Appellant’s bare denial
that he did not rape complainant is a negative and self-serving
assertion
which merits no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary
value
than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative
matters.[21]
Here, appellant’s denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of
complainant and the other prosecution witnesses who were not shown to
have
any ill-motive to fabricate the charge of rape against appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It would have been contrary
to human experience for complainant to concoct a sordid tale of rape,
exposing
herself to the humiliation of a public trial on such a sensitive issue
as her chastity, and in such a small community where the residents knew
each other. The Court need not belabor the fact that the offended party
in a rape case is a victim many times over in a culture that puts a
premium
on purity or virginity.[22]
Rape stigmatizes the victim more than the perpetrator.[23]
All told, we rule that
appellant’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. His
conviction
is therefore AFFIRMED with the modification that, in addition to the
award
of moral damages of P50,000, complainant is also awarded civil
indemnity
of P50,000.[24]
With costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Morales, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
[2]
RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 70.
[3]
Original records, p. 1chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, October 16, 1997, p.7
[5]
Ibid., p. 8chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Appellant’s testimony contradicted that of his common-law wife,
Annabelle
Diaz, who said she was sure he did not leave the toilet for the entire
30 minutes he was supposedly there. (See next preceding paragraph.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 152.
[9]
People vs. Baway, 350 SCRA 29 [2001].
[10]
TSN, October 16, 1997, p. 7-8, 9.
[11]
Ibid at 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Ibid at 20-21.
[13]
Ibid at 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Article 335, Revised Penal Code
[15]
Id. (emphasis ours)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
People vs. de Villa, 351 SCRA 25 [2001]; People vs. Elpedes, 350 SCRA
716
[2001]; People vs. Seguis, 349 SCRA 547 [2001].
[17]
People vs. Capitle, 352 SCRA 727 [2001].
[18]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
People vs. Albior, 352 SCRA 35 [2001].
[20]
People vs. Vidal, 353 SCRA 194 [2001].
[21]
People vs. Serrano, 353 SCRA 161 [2001].
[22]
People vs. Queigan, 352 SCRA 150 [2001]
[23]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People v. David, G.R. Nos. 121731-33, November 12, 2003. |