EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
Nos.
142553-54
July 1, 2003
-versus-
ALBERT SAYANA,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
PUNO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us for automatic
review is the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 21, sentencing
Albert Sayana to the supreme penalty of death for two counts of
qualified
rape.
Appellant was charged
with two counts of rape committed against Cheska Angelika de Dios, the
daughter of his common-law wife, Alma de Dios. The Informations
alleged:
Criminal Case No. 456-M-99
That on or about the
4th day of October 1998, in the municipality of Plaridel, province of
Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, who was the common-law husband of the victim’s mother did then
and there willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously, by means of
force,
threat and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of
Cheska Angelika de Dios y Ely, an 11-year old girl, against her will
and
without her consent.cralaw:red
Contrary to law.[2]chanrobles virtual law library
Criminal Case No. 457-M-99
That in or about the
month of March 1997, in the municipality of Plaridel, province of
Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, who was the common-law husband of the mother of the victim,
did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of
force,
threat and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of
Cheska Angelika de Dios y Ely, an 11-year old girl, against her will
and
without her consent.cralaw:red
Contrary to law.[3]
The prosecution evidence
showed that some time in March 1997, appellant forced himself upon the
daughter of his common-law wife, eleven-year old Cheska Angelika de
Dios.
The deed took place in their residence at Maria Lourdes Subdivision,
Tabang,
Plaridel, Bulacan. Cheska recounted that after dinnertime, while
her mother was out of the house, appellant undressed her, laid on top
of
her, and made an up and down movement while he kissed her neck.
She
felt pain in her private part. She tried to scream but appellant
covered her mouth. After the act, appellant wiped her private
part,
and proceeded to the bathroom to wash himself. Fear prevented Cheska
from
telling her mother about the incident as she had often witnessed how
appellant
would beat her mother.[4]
According to Cheska,
appellant again violated her in the evening of October 4, 1998.
As
before, appellant undressed her and placed himself on top of her.
Cheska felt an up and down movement, his private part touching
hers.
At the same time, appellant would kiss her on the neck. She felt
pain in her private part. Cheska also tried to free herself from
his hold but appellant pinned her hands. He also prevented her
from
shouting by covering her mouth. After satisfying his lust,
appellant
wiped Cheska’s private part, and then went to the bathroom to wash.[5]chanrobles virtual law library
Cheska’s aunt, Erlinda
Obuyes, told the court that Cheska’s mother called her on the phone on
October 5, 1998, asking her to fetch her and her children at their
residence
in Bulacan as appellant had mauled her. Erlinda brought Alma and
her children to her home in Las Piñas, Metro Manila. After
two days, however, appellant came to get Alma and the children.
Alma
went with appellant, together with their two children, but left Cheska
to the care of Erlinda. Erlinda sought the help of their other
sister,
Arlene Dy, to enroll Cheska at Isabelo Elementary School in Tondo,
Manila
so that she could continue her studies. In mid-October, while
Cheska
was in the bathroom, Erlinda noticed a foul-smelling yellowish
substance
on Cheska’s underwear. Erlinda brought Cheska to a midwife, then
to a gynecologist, Dr. Nieves Montinola, who advised her to bring the
young
girl to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for
examination.
At the NBI, however, Erlinda did not allow Cheska to be examined
because
the examining officer wanted to insert a tube measuring 4 centimeters
in
diameter and 1 foot in length into her niece’s genitalia. Cheska
eventually admitted to Erlinda that appellant had abused her.[6]
Upon advice of her brother,
Erlinda brought Cheska to the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory
Office
for examination. Dr. Manuel Aves, a medico-legal officer at said
office, examined Cheska on October 31, 1998. The examination
revealed:[7]
GENERAL AND EXTRA-GENITAL
:chanrobles virtual law library
PHYSICAL BUILT
:
Heavychanrobles virtual law library
MENTAL STATUS :chanrobles virtual law library
BREAST
: Buddingchanrobles virtual law library
ABDOMEN
:
Flat, soft
PHYSICAL INJURIES
:
No signs of physical injury
GENITAL
: The vulva
is erythematous
PUBIC HAIR
:
Absent
LABIA
MAJORA
: Coaptated
LABIA
MINORA
: Light
pinkish
HYMEN
:
Superficial laceration
healed at 12 o’clock
The hymen is elastic
w/diameter of 1.2 to 1.5 cm.cralaw:red
EXTERNAL VAGINAL
ORIFICE
: The orifice w/ less resistance upon inserting prominent
examining
finger
VAGINAL CANAL
:
CERVIX
:
rugosities
smooth
PERI-URETHRAL AND VAGINAL
SMEARS: NEGATIVE
for spermatozoa
REMARKS
: The
subject
is in non-virgin state on time of exam.cralaw:red
Dr. Aves explained that
the erythematous vulva was a sign that there was manipulation in that
area.
He also stated that the vaginal laceration could have been due to
either:
intercourse, masturbation or instrumentation. Dr. Aves also
observed
that the diameter of the hymen was too wide for Cheska’s age. He
said that this could have been caused by penetration of the organ,
either
by instrument, or using of fingers or object, or intercourse.[8]
For his part, appellant
interposed denial and alibi. He claimed that it was impossible
for
him to rape Cheska in March 1997 as he was residing in Bataan at that
time
while Cheska and her mother were residing in Manila. They moved
to
Bulacan only in October 1997. He likewise denied having raped
Cheska
in the evening of October 4, 1998 because at that time, he was working
in Malolos town proper. He was employed as delivery driver at
Chowking,
Malolos Poblacion. On that day, he left the house and went to
work
at 3:00 in the afternoon and returned home past 11:00 in the evening.[9]chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant swore that
he treated Cheska as his own child and he did not have the heart to
molest
her. He belied the testimony of Erlinda Obuyes that he was
mauling
Cheska’s mother, Alma. He narrated that on October 5, 1998,
Erlinda
went to their house in Bulacan to get Alma and the children and brought
them to her home in Las Piñas. The following day, Alma
went
to see him and asked him to take them back. But because he was
busy,
he found time to fetch them only after four days. By that time,
Arlene
Dy had already taken Cheska in her custody. Appellant, together
with
Alma and their two children, returned to their home in Plaridel,
Bulacan.
They lived together as husband and wife until his parents took him back
to Bataan on October 20, 1998. Appellant alleged that Alma’s
sisters
might have concocted the charges against him for several reasons.
One, they were opposed to his relationship with Alma because they were
cousins. Two, he disapproved of Alma’s habit of going to her
sisters
in Manila whenever they would quarrel. He said that Alma’s
sisters
resented this because it was Alma whom they would often instruct to
procure
illegal drugs to sustain their drug habit. Three, he knew of the
sisters’ vice and he once threatened to expose them to Arlene Dy’s
husband
who was providing financial support to the entire family. Four,
he
knew of Arlene Dy’s illicit affair with another man and the fact that
she
had killed her former driver. And fifth, during one of his fights
with Alma, he threatened to reveal to the authorities the whereabouts
of
their father who was wanted for murder.[10]
Appellant’s alibi was
corroborated by his father, Fausto Sayana, and their neighbor,
Dominador
Rivera, and also by his time card. Fausto Sayana and Dominador
Rivera
both testified that appellant lived with his parents in Morong, Bataan
from February to August, 1997.[11]
Appellant’s time card, on the other hand, showed that on October 4,
1998,
he reported for work at 3:20 pm and went off duty at 9:18 pm.[12]
The defense also presented
Cheska’s school record[13]
showing that in October 1997, she transferred from A. Aquino Elementary
School to Tabang Elementary School as grade II pupil. The
following
school year, she enrolled in third grade at Tabang Elementary School
but
again transferred to another school in October 1998.cralaw:red
Another evidence proferred
by the defense was the Medico-Legal Report executed by Dr. Annabelle
Soliman,
Medico Legal Officer at NBI who examined Cheska on October 28,
1998.
Her findings indicate:[14]
GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
Height: 144.0
cms.
Weight: 100 lbs.cralaw:red
Fairly nourished, conscious,
coherent, cooperative, ambulatory. Breast, infantile.
Areolae,
light brown, measures 2.5 cms. in diameter. Nipples, flat, light
brown, measures 0.5 cm. in diameter.chanrobles virtual law library
No extragenital physical
injury noted.cralaw:red
GENITAL EXAMINATION:
Pubic hair, no growth.
Labia majora, minora, coaptated. Fourchette, tense.
Vestibular
mucosa, pinkish. Hymen, short, thin, intact. Hymenal
orifice
measures 1.2 cm. in diameter. Vaginal walls and rugosities cannot
be reached by examining finger.cralaw:red
CONCLUSIONS:
No evident signs of
extragenital physical injury noted on the body of the subject at the
time
of examination.cralaw:red
Hymen, intact and its
orifice small (1.2 cm. in diameter) as to preclude complete penetration
by an average-sized adult male organ in full erection without producing
hymenal injury.cralaw:red
Giving more weight to
Cheska’s testimony, the trial court found appellant guilty of the
charges
and meted him the death penalty, thus:
All premises considered,
the Court finds and so holds the accused Albert Sayana to be GUILTY
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of Rape in Criminal Case No. 456-M-99
and
Criminal Case No. 457-M-99.cralaw:red
Accordingly, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of Death by lethal injection on
both counts. Further, he is hereby ordered to indemnify the
complaining
witness Cheska Angelica de Dios in the sum of P75,000.00 in each of the
two cases.cralaw:red
With costs against the
accused.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[15]
Appellant raised the
following arguments in his brief:chanrobles virtual law library
1.
The trial court misappreciated the findings of the medico-legal, Dr.
Aves
and disregarded the findings of the medico-legal, Dr. Soliman.
2.
The trial court erred in failing to appreciate the inconsistencies in
the
statement and declarations of the complainant.
3.
The trial court erred in finding that the Prosecution has established
the
moral certainty sufficient to overcome the innocence of the accused
beyond
doubt, despite the contradictions and inconsistencies of her
declarations
and her witness and impossibility of her story.
4.
The trial court erred in completely disregarding the defense of the
accused.
5.
The trial court erred in failing to consider that complainant and her
aunt
were ill-motivated.[16]
We reverse the decision
of the trial court.
In reviewing rape cases,
the Court has always been guided by the following principles: (1)
an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the
accusation
is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person
accused,
though innocent, to disprove the charge; (2) considering that, in
the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the
crime
of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
great
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the evidence for the defense.[17]
The gravamen in the
crime of rape is carnal knowledge. The prosecution must prove
beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused had sexual contact with the alleged
victim.
This, the prosecution failed to do in this case. While the
complainant
testified that appellant forced her into sexual intercourse on two
occasions,
the physical evidence clouds her testimony. Records show that the
complainant was examined by several doctors. However, only the
reports
of the last two doctors who examined her were offered as
evidence.
The report of Dr. Annabel Soliman, Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI
shows
that there were no signs of injury in complainant’s genitalia. In
a later examination, however, conducted by Dr. Manuel Aves of the
Bulacan
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, a healed superficial hymenal
laceration
at 12:00 position was found. Dr. Aves explained that the location
of the laceration excludes sexual intercourse as possible cause
thereof.
Dr. Aves explained that lacerations found on the upper portion of the
hymen
are normally caused by instrumentation but not by sexual contact.
Dr. Aves testified as follows on direct examination:
x x
x
Q: Will
you please tell us, on the basis of this medico legal report, what were
your findings in your examination?
A:
There are two stages of examining the victim. One is extragenital
and two is genital area. In the extragenital, there was (sic) no
remarkable findings. The vulva is erythematous, the full area of
the genital area is inflamed, congested. There is absence of
pubic
hair, the labia majora is captated (sic) which is normal, the labia
minora
is light pinkish which is normal color and then on the hymen I noted a
superficial laceration, healed at 12 o’clock position and then it is
also
elastic with a diameter of 1.2 to 1.5 cm. which is too wide for her at
her age and then the external orifice, there is a less resistance upon
inserting rugositis (sic) then the cervix is smooth, negative for
spermatozoa
with the remarks that the subject is in a non-virgin state during the
time
of examination.cralaw:red
Q: Mr. Witness,
what could be (sic) caused this vulva to become erythematous?
A:
There is a sign of manipulation on that area, sir.cralaw:red
x
x x[18]
On cross-examination,
Dr. Aves ruled out penile penetration as possible cause of the hymenal
laceration, and submitted that it was more probably caused by
instrumentation,
thus:
x x
xchanrobles virtual law library
Q: Now,
you have this finding here superficial laceration healed at 12 o’clock
position, in layman’s language, what do you mean here when you say 12
o’clock?
A:
It is the position of the laceration. For example, that clock,
the
12 o’clock is on the upper portion, the 6 o’clock position is the lower
position, sir.cralaw:red
Q: On the
basis of your experience, when you had examined the patients in
connection
with rape cases, is it normal in rape case that the laceration is 12
o’clock
or at the 6 o’clock position?
A:
If there were (sic) sexual intercourse or penetration of the vagina,
the
most common of the laceration is the lower portion 5, 6, 7 o’clock
position,
sir.cralaw:red
Q: When
you said the most common laceration if there was sexual intercourse is
5, 6, 7 o’clock position, it is unusual to have laceration at 12
o’clock
position?
A:
There is no penile penetration on that part. It might be
insertion
of the finger or any instrument, sir. If the laceration is 6
o’clock,
I said if the laceration is located at the lower portion of the area of
the hymen, the most common cause is sexual intercourse or penile
penetration,
sir.cralaw:red
Q: And what
do you attribute usually to the presence of the laceration at 12
o’clock
position?
A:
Usually it might be caused by insertion of fingers or any instrument,
sir.cralaw:red
Q: Would
you say that such is more common with respect to the 12 o’clock
position?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: Than
sexual intercourse?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: But you
are precluding the possibility that it was due to penile penetration?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Atty. Ramos:
Q: Doctor,
the purported laceration that you found to (sic) Cheska Angelica is at
12 o’clock, you did not find any laceration at 6 o’clock area?
A:
It is only at the 12 o’clock position, sir.cralaw:red
Court:
Q: Is it
not a fact that there are some hymenal elasticity if there is sexual
intercourse,
(sic) you cannot find laceration?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Atty. Ramos:
Q: Mr. Witness,
in the case of sexual intercourse, when a man is on top of a woman and
making an up and down movement of the penis, you will agree that it is
6 o’clock position would be the possible laceration?
A:
Yes, sir, it is common.cralaw:red
Q: And before
the 12 o’clock position could be affected, (sic) it should be the 6
o’clock
position in an up and down movement?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Usually it is the 6 o’clock position the most common, sir.cralaw:red
Q: On the
basis of your findings, Doctor, what could be the cause of your finding
of the laceration at 12 o’clock position could it be sexual intercourse
or manipulation?
A:
In this particular case, it is manipulation, sir.cralaw:red
Q: In this
case?
A:
Yes, Your Honor.cralaw:red
Q: Why do
you say that?
A:
Because the position of the laceration of the hymen, sir.cralaw:red
Q: The extent
of the laceration?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Yes, sir, it is too shallow.cralaw:red
x x
x[19]
The explanation given
by Dr. Aves who testified for the prosecution itself, plus the fact
that
complainant underwent several gynecological examinations before she
went
to the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office discount the
credibility
of the latter’s testimony that she has been raped.cralaw:red
We are not unmindful
of the Court’s ruling that the absence of laceration in the hymen does
not preclude the existence of rape and that when a woman states that
she
has been raped, she states all that is necessary to prove the offense.
These principles, however, do not in themselves support a conviction.
They
must be weighed with the presumption of innocence of the accused.
To support a finding of guilt, it is necessary that the complainant’s
story
be believable in itself.[20]
In this case, we find
complainant’s testimony to be unclear and marked by some doubtful
allegations.
For one, she failed to establish that they were already living with
appellant
in Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan in March 1997, the alleged time of the
commission
of the first offense. She testified on direct examination that
they
were already residing in Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan in March 1997.
Her testimony, however, was impugned by her school records which showed
that she went to school in A. Aquino Elementary School in Tondo, Manila
as Grade II pupil until October 1997. It was only in October 1997
when she transferred to Tabang Elementary School in Bulacan. On
cross
examination, it appeared that she was unsure of the time when they
moved
to appellant’s house in Bulacan, thus:
x x
x
Atty. Ramos:
Cheska Angelica, last
time you stated that before you lived in Plaridel, Bulacan, you were in
Manila?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And you
would agree with me that your address in Manila is at Solis Street,
Tondo,
Manila?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: And you
left that place sometime in October 1997?
A:
No, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Court:
When was it when you
and your family transferred to (sic) Tondo to Plaridel?
A:
Month of January. I forgot the year and date.cralaw:red
xxx
Court:
In Tondo, did you go
to school?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: What
grade?
A:
Grade I and kinder.chanrobles virtual law library
Atty. Ramos:
Did you not start your
grade II in Tondo?
A:
No, sir.cralaw:red
Court:
So, you started schooling
for grade II in Tabang and not in Tondo?
A:
I started my grade II in Tondo and I stopped then and transferred to
Tabang,
Plaridel.cralaw:red
Atty. Ramos:
And you continued your
grade II in Tabang, Plaridel because at that time, you transferred your
residence from Tondo to Tabang?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: You transferred
your grade II in Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan sometime in January when you
transferred to Plaridel?
A:
(no answer.)chanrobles virtual law library
Court:
The Court will propound
the question. When you were in grade II, can you recall whether
it
was Christmas before or after Christmas when you transferred to Tabang
and ultimately you conducted your grade II in the elementary school of
the latter’s plac(e)?
A:
Before Christmas, your Honor.cralaw:red
Atty. Ramos:
A while ago, you said
that it was in the month of January when you transferred your residence
from Tondo to Plaridel, now are you saying that that was also the month
when you transferred to Plaridel and enrolled in Grade II?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Court:
Why did you say that
you transferred before Christmas, what can you say about that?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Before Christmas.cralaw:red
Q: Do you
understand (what) the month of January is?
A:
(no answer.)
Court:
The Court would like
to apprise you that the month of January comes after Christmas?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: So, why
is it that earlier, you said that you transferred in January;
whereas,
in the latter part when you were asked by the Court, you said you
transferred
before Christmas and of course, before Christmas, did you mean that was
before January when you transferred?
A:
I do not know.cralaw:red
Q: The child
maybe in (sic) confused, because there were transfer of residence and
transfer
of school. Now, the time that you transferred, was it from the
place,
from the grade II in Tondo to grade II in Tabang?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Both, your Honor.cralaw:red
x x
x[21]
The time when complainant
moved to Bulacan is a material fact that must be clearly established by
the prosecution because appellant could not have committed the offense
if it were true that complainant was still in Manila and appellant was
in Bataan at the alleged time of its commission.cralaw:red
In addition, we observe
that complainant’s narration of how appellant allegedly ravished her on
two occasions were incredibly identical, as if lifted from a single
script.cralaw:red
We have held in several
cases that the lone uncorroborated testimony of the complainant is
sufficient
to warrant a conviction, provided that such is credible, natural,
convincing
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.
However, we have also held that the testimony of the complainant should
not be received with precipitate credulity but with utmost
caution.
The test for determining the credibility of complainant’s testimony is
whether it is in conformity with common knowledge and consistent with
the
experience of mankind. Whatever is repugnant to these standards
becomes
incredible and lies outside judicial cognizance.[22]
Complainant’s testimony in this case fails to satisfy the test of
credibility.cralaw:red
Moreover, it appears
that complainant’s aunts have sufficient motive to concoct falsehoods
against
appellant. The latter mentioned several reasons why they resented
him and the prosecution never refuted these allegations. The
records
show that these charges were filed against appellant upon the prompting
of complainant’s aunts.cralaw:red
In rape cases, it is
the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its case with clarity
and persuasion to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and
inevitable conclusion. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.
Although the law does not demand absolute certainty of guilt, it
nonetheless
requires moral certainty to support a judgment of conviction. Where the
inculpatory facts admit of several interpretations, one consistent with
accused’s innocence and another with his guilt, the evidence thus
adduced
fails to meet the test of moral certainty and it becomes the
constitutional
duty of the Court to acquit the accused.[23]
Such is the case here.cralaw:red
IN VIEW WHEREOF, appellant
Albert Sayana is ACQUITTED. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections
is hereby ordered to immediately release appellant from the New Bilibid
Prison and to report to this Court compliance with this order within
five
(5) days from receipt hereof.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtual law library
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Vitug, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., on leave.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Original Records, pp. 108-115.
[2]
Id. at 2.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id. at 11.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
TSN, April 5, 1999, pp. 6-13.
[5]
TSN, April 14, 1999, pp. 4-12.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
TSN, May 10, 1999, pp. 4-12; May 14, 1999, pp. 2-5.
[7]
Exhibit "B", Original Records, p. 45.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
TSN, June 25, 1999, pp. 5-8.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
TSN, April 9, 1999, pp. 3-8; August 18, 1999, pp. 2-9.
[10]
TSN, September 6, 1999, pp. 4-13.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
TSN, November 22, 1999, p. 4; December 17, 1999, p. 3.
[12]
Exhibits "8" & "9", Original Records, p. 95.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Exhibits "10" & "13", Original Records, pp. 96-97.
[14]
Exhibit "1", Original Records, p. 90.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Decision, Crim. Cases Nos. 456-M-99 & 457-M-99, p. 8, Original
Records,
p. 115.
[16]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 13-14, Rollo, pp. 63-64.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
People vs. Morales, 363 SCRA 342 (2001); People vs. Villalobos, 358
SCRA
84 (2001); People vs. De la Cruz, 356 SCRA 704 (2001).
[18]
TSN, June 25, 1999, pp. 6-7.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
TSN, June 25, 1999, pp. 13-16.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
See People vs. Dela Cruz, supra note 17.
[21]
TSN, April 26, 1999, pp. 2-6chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
People vs. De la Cruz, supra note 17.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
People vs. De la Cruz, supra note 17; People vs. Aballe, 357 SCRA 802
(2001);
People vs. Villalobos, supra note 17. |