THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
143143-44
January 15, 2002
-versus-
ALBERTO GONZALES
JR.,
Appellant. D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J
.:
Appellant's claim that
he cannot be convicted of two counts of rape on the basis of an
information
that charged only one count is negated by the plain fact that he
pleaded
guilty to two separate though identically worded Informations bearing
different
case numbers. Furthermore, his counsel cross-examined complainant on
these
two separate charges. In his own testimony, appellant also denied
committing
either of the two acts of rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Statement of the Case
Alberto Gonzales Jr.
appeals the August 5, 1999 Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal (Branch 76) in
Criminal
Case Nos. 3514 and 3515,[2]
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape. The
RTC
disposed of the cases as follows:
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Crim. Case
No.
3514, finding accused Alberto Gonzales, Jr. [g]uilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape, as defined and penalized under Art. 266-A,
par. (1) and Art. 266-B, par. (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by R.A. 8353 in relation to Sec. 5 (b) R.A. 7610, and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the private
complainant, Maria Anub y Mangadan in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages and to pay the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. In Crim. Case
No.
3515, finding accused Alberto Gonzales, Jr. [g]uilty beyond doubt of
the
crime of rape, as defined and penalized under Art. 266-A Par. 1 and
Art.
266-B, Par. (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353 in
relation
to Sec. 5 (b) R.A. 7610, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the private complainant, Maria Anub y
Mangadan
in the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs."[3]
On March 4, 1998, two
separate
but identically worded Informations[4]charged
appellant thus:
"That on or
about the 26th day of January 1998 in the Municipality of San Mateo,
Province
of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, by means of force, coercion and intimidation
and
with lewd design or intent to cause or gratify his sexual desire or
abuse,
humiliate, degrade complainant did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with MARIA ANUB y MAGADAN, a
minor
fifteen (15) years old without her consent and against her will."[5]
On April 13, 1998, the
prosecution amended the Informations for the two criminal cases by
changing
the victim's age from 15 to 16 years as follows:
"That on or
about the 26th day of January 1998 in the Municipality of San Mateo,
Province
of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, by means of force, coercion and intimidation
and
with lewd design or intent to cause or gratify his sexual desire or
abuse,
humiliate, degrade complainant did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with MARIA ANUB y MAGADAN,[6]
a minor sixteen years old, without her consent and against her will."[7]
Upon his arraignment on
March 19, 1998, appellant, duly assisted by his counsel, Atty. Regino
M.
Garillo, pleaded not guilty to the two offenses charged.[8]
After trial on the merits, the trial court convicted him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Facts
Version of the
Prosecution
In its Brief,[9]
the Office of the Solicitor General presents the factual incidents of
the
case:
"Maria Anub was a housemaid
of Mrs. Mariel Caboteja in San Mateo, Rizal when the incidents of rape
occurred. She hails from Buyang Norte, Cambigce, Bohol. She did not
finish
Grade 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"About 10 o'clock in
the evening of January 26, 1998, she went to the nearby store of Mama
Ti
to deliver the ice candy that she prepared. As she went out of the
store,
appellant, a next-door neighbor, waved to her, asking her to come near.
She went near him and he asked her to massage him. She said that she
would
have to ask permission first from Mama Ti. Appellant told her not to
ask
permission anymore as Mama Ti might get angry. Appellant was known to
Maria
as she sometimes took care of his four-year old son, Paulo.cralaw:red
"Appellant brought Maria
to his house which was just beside the house of Maria's employer.
Appellant
turned off the lights in his room and when Maria asked him why it was
dark
inside his room, he told her that it was really like that. Appellant
then
removed his shirt and handed an Omega painkiller bottle to Maria and
asked
her to start the massage. Maria started to massage appellant's back but
after a few minutes, appellant pushed her down on the floor. He removed
her clothing and covered her mouth with his right hand. He threatened
her
that he would cut off her head if she shouted. While appellant was
removing
Maria's T-shirt, she was elbowing him away but he proved too strong for
her. Also, she was afraid that he would box her. Appellant then went on
top of Maria and inserted his penis into her vagina. Maria felt pain so
that she moved her body. She felt something hot (like urine) come out
from
appellant.cralaw:red
"Maria wanted to stand
up and escape but was unable to do so because appellant was still on
top
of her, holding her hands. Then, he again inserted his penis into her
vagina.
When appellant released her hands, she was able to stand up and r[u]n
outside
the room. She wore her shorts and T-shirt at the sala, then opened the
door to the kitchen and ran outside. She jumped off the fence going to
her employer's house.cralaw:red
"Regino Bravo, a neighbor,
saw Maria running down the stairs to where she lived about 12:30 after
x x x midnight. He noticed she was crying and was pale and trembling.
She
did not respond to him when he greeted her.cralaw:red
"It was only the following
day that Maria's employer learned of the incident. Alma Legaspi, who
was
also Maria's employer (Mariel's sister), was informed by their mother
about
10 o'clock in the evening to check on their housemaid who was not
feeling
well the whole day. She found Maria lying on the bed covered with a
blanket.
She did not respond to her inquiries as to what was wrong. She kept on
crying and mumbling that her head would be cut off. After sometime,
Maria,
who had difficulty speaking in Tagalog, was able to reveal that
appellant
raped her, 'nagalaw siya' by their neighbor, Alberto Gonzales, Jr. Alma
called her elder sister, Mariel Caboteja, and told her what happened.
Maria
told them that appellant raped her twice.cralaw:red
"They reported the matter
to the Marikina police but they were told it was not within their
jurisdiction.
They called up the San Mateo police station and two (2) police officers
came. Appellant was summoned and they were brought to the barangay hall
where Maria pointed to appellant as the one who raped her. They then
proceeded
to the police station of San Mateo, Rizal to file the complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The doctor who examined
Maria, Dr. Tomas D. Suguitan, is a Medico-Legal Officer of the PNP
Crime
Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City. He conducted the examination on
January 28, 1998 upon the request of the San Mateo Police station. His
finding, reduced in Medico-Legal Report No. M-228-98 (Exh. 'C' Rec. p.
8) has the following entries: 'On separating the same disclosed
an
abrade posterior fourchette and an elastic hymen with shallow healed
lacerations
at 3, 6 and 8 o'clock positions.' Dr. Suguitan concluded that the
findings
are compatible with the recent loss of virginity. He also opined that
the
injuries were inflicted less than five (5) days from date of
examination
and consistent with the injuries caused by insertion of a blunt object,
like a penis, into the vagina.cralaw:red
"Police Officer Ronaldo
San Diego, who investigated Maria, prepared two statements. In the
first
statement, he was not able to state that Maria was raped twice so that
Maria made handwritten insertions on the left margin. San Diego retyped
the statement to reflect the corrections."[10]
Version of the
Defense
On the other hand, appellant
presents the following version of the facts:[11]
"On November 24, 1998,
the defense commenced presentation of its evidence with the
accused-appellant,
ALBERTO GONZALES, Jr., taking the witness stand. He DENIED having raped
MARIA ANUB and recalled that at about 9:30 in the evening of January
26,
1998, his three (3) friends Josefino 'Matt['] del Mundo, Yayo Dinero
and
Jaime Reyes, ha[d] a casual drinking meet just outside his house but he
just talked to them without drinking. He saw MARIA ANUB passing by and
he asked her if she knew how to massage, to which she answered in the
affirmative
and told him of the fact that she was the one massaging her father;
that
she promised to massage him later because she would still fix her
dishes.
At about 11:30 p.m., his drinking friends left, thus, he went inside
the
house and watched x x x television with his 3-year old son, PAOLO. It
was
then when the private complainant knocked at his back door and informed
him of her intention to massage him to which he declined and told her
that
it was already late however she insisted so he allowed her to enter his
house, which was lighted. She waited while he borrowed the Omega Pain
Killer
from his next-room mother, who was still awake, thus, he told her about
the presence thereat of the private complainant. After massaging him
for
about 15 to 20 minutes, MARIA ANUB asked permission to leave, hence, he
saw her to the door but after he closed it, he noticed that she left
her
sweatshirt so he called her [and] gave it to her near the door.
Thereafter,
he switched off the television set and slept with his son.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It was already about
12:00 o'clock on January 28, 1998 when he learned from the policemen
who
went to his house that MARIA ANUB was complaining against him and since
then he was placed in detention where his 'ninang-neighbor,[']
PRISCILLA
ANDRADE visited to him and revealed to him that MARIA ANUB admitted
that
he did not [abuse] her but she was ordered by his 'KUYA' who was a
stranger
to him, to file the complaint against him.cralaw:red
"The accused testified
that while being massaged he was lying down on bed, with his T-shirt
raised
up to his neck. He drew a sketch of the place showing the relative
positions
of the houses of the private complainant, REGINO BRAVO, his sister[,]
the
Regaspi's store and his own, as well as the streets going down the
houses
and the interior of his house as EXHIBIT '4' with submarkings. He
identified
his 'GANTING SALAYSAY' as EXHIBIT '5' to 5-a'.cralaw:red
"On cross examination,
the accused explained that this [sic] mother was already bedridden for
almost two months prior to the incident; that he and 'Helen', his
sister's
housemaid, jointly took care of her; that his wife was not at the house
in [the] time of the rape; that he did not sexually molest the
complainant.
He recalled that he was about three weeks in detention cell and he
submitted
his COUNTER-AFFI[D]AVIT when PRISCILLA ANDRADE told him about the
admission
to her of MARIA ANUB that he did not rape her. He clarified that his
GANTING
SALAYSAY or EXHIBIT '5' was based on his originally handwritten account
of the incident while he was already in jail, which he gave to his
lawyer.cralaw:red
"On re-direct examination,
accused clarified that at about 11:30 p.m., of January 26, 1998, when
he
entered his room and turned on the television, his son was awakened,
hence,
both of them watched it until the private complainant came, then the
boy
slept again; that all the time, he kept the door of the room of his
bedridden
mother [open[ so he could always see her, even while the private
complainant
was massaging him."[12]
Ruling of the
Trial Court
The RTC ruled that plain
denial by appellant could not relieve him of liability for the rapes
charged.
It gave more weight and credence to the positive assertions of the
victim
that she had been raped twice on that fateful night by appellant. It
also
noted that, other than her desire to see her ravisher punished, she had
no motive whatsoever to testify falsely against him.cralaw:red
Hence, this appeal.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Issues
In his Brief, appellant
raises the following alleged errors for our consideration:
"I
The lower court
erred
in convicting the accused-appellant of two (2) counts of rape in an
Information
which alleged a single rape.
"II
The lower court
erred
in not acquitting the accused-appellant [of] the imputed two (2) counts
of rape, despite the material incons[i]stencies in private
compl[a]inant's
statements/testimony, with contradiction from her witnesses and the
requisite
resistance to the attributed rape."[14]
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is devoid
of merit.cralaw:red
First Issue:
Defective
Information
Appellant claims that
he cannot be convicted of two counts of rape, considering that the
Information
filed against him alleged a single offense.cralaw:red
We disagree. First,
the records show that four Informations were lodged against him: two
original
(both dated February 26, 1998) and two amended ones (both dated April
6,
1998). The original Informations were identically worded, but they bore
two separate numbers: Criminal Case Nos. 3514 and 3515. The amended
Informations,
both bearing these docket numbers, were similarly worded and basically
the same as the two original ones, except for the change of
complainant's
age from 15 to 16 years.cralaw:red
Second, two Orders of
the trial court, specifically those of March 19, 1998 and April 2,
1998,
clearly indicated that more than one charge of rape had been filed
against
him. The said Orders are reproduced hereunder:
"ORDER
"When these cases were
called for arraignment, accused Alberto Gonzales, Jr., after x x x the
Informations [were read to him] in a language known to him which [was]
Filipino, x x x entered a plea of Not Guilty to the offense charged.cralaw:red
"Accordingly, let a
plea of Not Guilty be entered into the records of these cases for
accused
Alberto Gonzales, Jr. who has been assisted in today's arraignment by
Atty.
Regino Garillo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In the meantime, schedule
the pre-trial of these cases on April 2, 1998 at 8:30 o'clock in the
morning.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Notify the private
complainant in this case.cralaw:red
"SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
"GIVEN IN OPEN COURT
this 19th day of March, 1998 at San Mateo, Rizal.cralaw:red
(illegible)
JOSE C. REYES, JR.cralaw:red
Judge"[15]
"ORDER
"As prayed for by Public
Prosecutor Florante R. Ramolete, he is hereby given a period of five
(5)
days from today within which to file his amended information in
connection
with these two cases, furnishing a copy thereof [to] Atty. Regino M.
Garillo,
counsel for the accused, who is likewise given the same period of time
within which to file his comment and/or opposition thereto.cralaw:red
"In the meantime, schedule
anew the pre-trial of these cases on April 22, 1998 at 8:30 o'clock in
the morning.cralaw:red
"SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
"GIVEN IN OPEN COURT
this 2nd day of April, 1998 at San Mateo, Rizal.cralaw:red
(illegible)
JOSE C. REYES, JR.cralaw:red
Judge"[16]
Third, not only was
he informed that two charges of rape had been lodged against him, he
was
also arraigned separately for each of them. Thus, he cannot claim to be
unaware that he was being charged with two counts of rape.cralaw:red
The two original Informations
were amended because of the late presentation by complainant of the
certified
true copy of her Birth Certificate issued by the National Census and
Statistics
Office. It was only on April 2, 1998, almost a month after the
prosecution
had filed the original Informations, when she furnished those copies
showing
that she was really 16, not 15, years old. Thus, to conform with the
evidence,
a Motion with Leave of Court to Amend and Admit Attached Amended
Informations
was filed by the assistant provincial prosecutor, pursuant to Section
14
of Rule 110 of Rules of Court.[17]
Fourth, appellant's
counsel did not interpose any objection to this Motion. Hence, the
lower
court granted the relief prayed for via its April 22, 1998 Order which
we reproduce hereunder:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"ORDER
"As prayed for by Public
Prosecutor Florante R. Ramolete and no objection having been interposed
by the defense counsel, Atty. Regino Garillo, and considering that the
accused will not be prejudiced, the Motion to Admit Amended
Informations
is hereby granted.cralaw:red
"Accordingly, the Amended
Information in both cases changing the age of the victim Maria Anub
from
15 to 16 years old is hereby admitted.cralaw:red
"As prayed for by the
prosecution and the defense, let the initial trial of these cases be
scheduled
on May 14, 1998 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.cralaw:red
"SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
"GIVEN IN OPEN COURT
this 22nd day of April, 1998 at San Mateo, Rizal.cralaw:red
(illegible)
JOSE C. REYES, JR.cralaw:red
Judge"[18]
Fifth, the victim clearly
testified on the two instances of rape. Appellant, through his counsel,
cross-examined her on both counts. Clearly, he was apprised that two
rape
cases had been filed against him and was thus accorded the chance to
defend
himself against both charges.cralaw:red
FISCAL FLORANTE R. RAMOLETE
"The testimony of this
witness is offered to show and to prove that [o]n the evening of
January
25, 1998 this witness was sexually abused twice by the accused in this
case in the latter's house through force and intimidation. She will
narrate
in detail how those sexual molestations were [done] to her. She will
identify
the accused in these cases, as well as her affidavit which she gave [to
the police authorities on January 28, 1998] in connection with these 2
cases and explain the discrepancy x x x.cralaw:red
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The offer is noted,
you may proceed."[19]
DIRECT EXAMINATION UPON
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT MARIA ANUB BY FISCAL RAMOLETE:
x x x x x x x x x
"FISCAL
Q On January 26, 1998
at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, where were you?
A I was in the store,
sir.cralaw:red
Q Whose store was that?
A Mama Ti, sir.cralaw:red
Q Why were you there
in the store owned by Mama Ti?
A I prepare ice candy
and deliver it to Mama Ti's store for sale, sir.cralaw:red
Q And then, what happened
next?
A I went out of the
store[;] then Kuya Jun went out of his house and then went out of the
street
and told me to go near him by waving his hand, sir.cralaw:red
Q When you said you
went out of the store and saw Kuya Jun in the store waving his hand as
if asking you to go near him[,] how far was he from you?
A From the alley up
to the wall of the Courtroom, sir.cralaw:red
([T]he prosecution and
the defense agreed that the distance [was] about 14 to 15 meters, more
or less).cralaw:red
Q You are pointing to
a certain Kuya Jun[;] do you know the full name of this Kuya Jun?
A Alberto Gonzales,
sir.cralaw:red
Q If this Alberto Gonzales,
alias Kuya Jun, is inside the Courtroom, will you be able to point to
him?
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(At this juncture, witness
is pointing to a certain person in the Courtroom [who] when asked
answered
[to] the name x x x Alberto Gonzales).cralaw:red
Q Now, when Kuya Jun
waved to you to go near him, what did you do?
A I went near him and
when I was near him, he asked me to massage him but I told him that I
will
ask first permission from Mama Ti, sir.cralaw:red
Q When you told him
that you will ask first the permission of Mama Ti, what was his
response?
A Alberto Gonzales said
huwag na because Mama Ti will get angry, sir.cralaw:red
Q So, what did you do?
A I went with him because
I was surprised and he brought me inside his house, sir.cralaw:red
Q Where is his house
located, Madam witness?
A At the lower portion
of Mama Ti's store, sir.cralaw:red
Q How far is the house
of Mr. Alberto Gonzales, alias Jun, from the house of your employer?
A Our house is located
at the lower portion of Jun's house, sir.cralaw:red
x x x x x x x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You said you went
with Kuya Jun because you were surprised then, what happened next when
you went with him?
A He brought me inside
his room and I asked him why it was dark, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what was his response
when you asked him why was his room dark?
A Ganoon lang daw po
talaga iyon, sir.cralaw:red
Q And then, what happened
next, Madam witness?
A I was brought inside
the room, sir. At first, it was lighted but he [turned] off the lights
and then I asked him why he [turned] off the lights?
Q And what was his response?
A It is really like
that sir.cralaw:red
x x x x x x x x x
Q And then, what happened
next, Madam witness, after he [turned] off the lights inside his room?
A He removed his clothes
and then gave me a bottle of omega pain killer and asked me to massage
him but not for long, sir.cralaw:red
x x x x x x x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After massaging him
for quite sometime, for a few minutes, what happened next, Madam
witness?
A He laid me [on] the
floor (hiniga niya ako sa sahig), sir.cralaw:red
Q When you said he laid
you [on] the floor, in what manner did Kuya Jun [lay] you [on] the
floor?
A He pushed me down
[to] the floor, sir.cralaw:red
Q And then, what did
he do next?
A He covered my mouth
with his hand, sir.cralaw:red
Q What hand, right or
left?
A Right hand, sir.cralaw:red
Q And then, what else
happened?
A He inserted his penis,
sir.cralaw:red
Q [Did] you have your
[clothes on] when he inserted his penis?
A No more, sir.cralaw:red
x x x x x x x x x
Q And then, what else?
A He was there lying
on top of me, sir.cralaw:red
Q And while he was there
lying on top of you, what did you do, Madam witness?
A I was moving, sir.cralaw:red
Q Why?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I want[ed] to escape,
sir.cralaw:red
Q Were you able to escape
from him?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A No, sir, because he
was on top of me and holding my hands?
Q And what happened
next when you were not able to escape from the accused because he was
holding
your hands?
A While I was lying,
I was moving, sir[;] that was done twice.cralaw:red
Q What do you mean by
that, Madam witness?
A He was holding my
hands twice, sir.cralaw:red
Q And then, what happened
next, Madam witness?
A He again inserted
his penis, sir.cralaw:red
Q How many minutes had
elapsed after he inserted his penis into your vagina for the first time?
A Five (5) minutes,
sir.cralaw:red
Q And again, Madam witness,
was he able to insert his penis into your vagina for the second time?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what did you do,
Madam witness, when he was inserting his private part into your vagina?
A I was moving, sir.cralaw:red
Q Why?
A Because he was inserting,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What was your reason
[for] moving your body when he was inserting his penis into your vagina?
A I want[ed] to stand
up, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what did you feel
when the accused was able to insert his penis into your vagina for the
second time?
A It [was] painful,
sir.cralaw:red
Q What was painful?
A My vagina, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what did you do,
Madam witness, aside from moving, if you did anything else?
A I was just moving,
sir.cralaw:red
Q And after the accused
was successful in inserting his private part into your private part,
Madam
witness, what did you do?
A I was crying, sir,
because I felt pain.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Aside from feeling
pain, why did you cry, Madam witness?
A Because it was painful,
sir.cralaw:red
Q Is that the only reason
why you cried, Madam witness?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And then, what happened
next, Madam witness?
A When he released my
hands, I was able to stand up and r[u]n immediately to the door, sir."[20]
Sixth, having already
entered his plea during his arraignment, it is now too late to object
to
the sufficiency of the Informations filed against him. Thus, the Court
held in People v. Gopio:[21]
"In any event, it is
now too late in the day to question the form or substance of the
information
because when he entered his plea at his arraignment, accused-appellant
did not object to the sufficiency of the information against him. The
rule
is that, at any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to
quash the information on the ground that it does not conform
substantially
to the prescribed form. The failure of accused-appellant to assert any
ground for a motion to quash before he pleads to the information,
either
because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same
in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds for a motion to
quash, except when the grounds are that no offense was charged, the
court
trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged, the
offense
or penalty has been extinguished, and the accused would be twice put in
jeopardy."[22]
Second Issue:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Credibility of
the Witness
Appellant likewise assails
the trial court's reliance on the credibility of the victim. He argues
that from her original statement given to the police up to her
testimony
delivered in open court, her statements were muddled and filled with
inconsistencies.
He then calls our attention to the fact that she could have easily
cried
out for help if he had truly forced her to have sex with him.cralaw:red
We are not persuaded.
First, appellant does not deny that both he and complainant were
together
that night. In fact, he admits having asked her to massage him inside
his
house. This was amply corroborated by Regino Bravo. Second, the
testimonies
of Defense Witnesses Josefino del Mundo and Pelagio Dineros that they
saw
appellant sleeping in his house that same evening did not preclude his
committing the crimes on the date mentioned.cralaw:red
As to the assessment
of the credibility of witnesses, the Court has said time and time again
that "the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter
best
undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to
observe
the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and
attitude.
Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive
on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight
and
substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted."[23]
In the present case,
the trial court found the testimony of the victim to be straightforward
and credible. It further noted that she had not been motivated by any
ill
will to fabricate such grave charges. Appellant himself testified
during
his direct examination that the victim had no ill feeling or reason to
file any false charge against him. He testified thus:
"Q So, you want to picture
[to] this Hon. Court that you did not touch this Maria Anub that
evening
of January 26, 1998?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q You were present when
Dr. Suguitan testified specifically on May 14, 1998?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q You heard him testif[y]
that the private parts of the victim sustained an abrasion among others?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q You also heard him
testify that the victim's private part sustained healing lacerations at
3 and 6 o'clock positions?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And in the same manner
that during the direct examination, you testified that this victim
ha[d]
no ill-feeling against you or to file any case against you for that
matter?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q In the same manner
that you do not know of any person who instigated Maria Anub to file
these
cases against you?
A None, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Except this Priscilla
Andrade whom you were able to talk with while you were already in jail?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q This Priscilla Andrade
is your ninang, is [she] not?
A Yes, sir, neighbor
and ninang.cralaw:red
Q And you were able
to talk to this Priscilla Andrade while these cases were [being]
investigated
by Prosecutor Gonzales in the preliminary investigation, [were you] not?
A No, sir.cralaw:red
Q When was that?
A When I was already
detained in the municipal jail, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q That's it, Mr. Witness.
[Is it] not a fact that you were picked up by the police authorities on
January 28, 1998 and incarcerated continuously up to the present?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q So you were able to
talk to Priscilla Andrade during the earlier period when you were
incarcerated?
A Three weeks after
I was detained, sir.cralaw:red
Q To be specific, Mr.
Witness, was it the time when you ha[d] already submitted your
counter-affidavit
when you were able to talk to her or prior to the submission of your
counter-affidavit?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A After I ha[d] submitted
my Ganting Salaysay, sir.cralaw:red
x x x x x x x x x.[24]
The victim's testimony
was corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses as well as by the
medico
legal officer,[25]
whose findings were summarized by the trial court as follows:
"x x x. The elastic
hymen has shallow healed lacerations at 3, 6, and 8 o'clock positions.
The lacerations being shallow means that the depth of the same is less
than one-half of the total width of the hymen. These lacerations had
been
inflicted less than five days from the time that he examined the victim
on January 28, 1998, because they are still in the healing process. The
lacerations could have been caused by the insertion of a blunt object
with
rubbing such as an [erect] male penis during sexual intercourse or a
finger."[26]
The attempt of appellant
to discredit the victim because of alleged inconsistencies on whether
her
clothes had been removed before she was held down or before she was
deflowered
are minor. He cannot "capitalize on the minor inconsistencies in the
testimony
of the complainant, even if they do exist. Such minor inconsistencies
tend
to bolster, rather than weaken, her credibility for they show that her
testimony was not contrived [or] rehearsed. Besides, [an] errorless
testimony
[cannot] be expected when complainant is recounting details of a
harrowing
experience."[27]
What is important is the vivid recollection of the victim that
appellant
sexually attacked her twice against her will.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, the insinuations
of appellant that no force was applied on the victim and that she could
have cried out for help hardly deserves consideration. It was
sufficiently
established that he had forcibly held her and threatened her.cralaw:red
We hold that appellant's
defense, which is primarily denial, cannot overcome the positive
testimony
of the victim, which was substantially corroborated by the other
prosecution
witnesses. "The rule is that the positive and categorical assertions of
witnesses generally prevail over bare denials."[28]
Such "accordance of greater probative value to evidence that is
positive
in nature than that which is negative in character is a time-honored
principle.
Hence, the negative assertions of accused-appellant cannot prevail over
the positive testimony of the complainants."[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The court a quo correctly
awarded moral damages to the victim pursuant to the Court's current
policy
that "moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without
need
of proof for it is assumed that they have suffered moral injuries
entitling
them to such award."[30]
We hold, however, that the RTC erred in not granting indemnity ex
delicto.
Pursuant to existing jurisprudence,[31]
we therefore award her the additional amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex
delicto for each count of rape.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that an additional award of
P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto for each count of rape (or a total of
P100,000)
shall be given the victim aside from the moral damages already awarded
to her by the trial court. Costs against appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Melo, J., (Chairman), Vitug,
Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Written by Judge Jose C. Reyes Jr.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 31-41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Assailed Decision, pp. 10-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Signed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Leonardo T. Gonzales.
[5]
Information, p. 1; Rollo, pp. 9-14.
[6]
Also spelled "Mangadan."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Amended Information, p. 1; Rollo, pp. 15-17.
[8]
Certificate of Arraignment; records, p. 11.
[9]
Appellee's Brief was signed by Assistant Solicitor General Carlos N.
Ortega,
Assistant Solicitor General Magdangal M. de Leon and Solicitor Irahlyn
P. Sacupayo-Lariba.
[10]
Appellee's Brief, pp. 3-7; Rollo, pp. 108-112. Citations omitted.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 58-88. Appellant's Brief was signed by Atty. Dominador L.
Maglalang
Sr.
[12]
Appellant's Brief, pp. 8-10; Rollo, pp. 65-67. Citations omitted.
[13]
This case was deemed submitted for resolution on April 10, 2001, upon
receipt
by this Court of appellee's Brief. Appellant's Brief was received by
this
Court on December 11, 2000. The filing of a Reply Brief was deemed
waived
as none had been submitted with the reglementary period.
[14]
Appellant's Brief, p. 14; Rollo, p. 71. Upper case used in the original.
[15]
Italics supplied; records, p. 10.
[16]
Italics supplied; records, p. 16.
[17]
Records, pp. 20-30.
[18]
Italics supplied; records, p. 31.
[19]
TSN, July 27, 1998, pp. 4-5.
[20]
Ibid., pp. 6-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
GR No. 133925, November 29, 2000.
[22]
Ibid., per Mendoza, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People v. Tabones, 304 SCRA 781, 791, March 17, 1999, per Panganiban, J.
[24]
TSN, November 24, 1998, pp. 26-27.
[25]
Dr. Tomas Suguitan.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Assailed Decision, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 31-32.
[27]
People v. Sagun, 303 SCRA 382, 397, February 19, 1999, per Quisumbing,
J.
[28]
People v. Chua, 297 SCRA 229, 237, October 7, 1998, per Kapunan, J.
[29]
People v. Meris, 329 SCRA 33, 46, March 28, 2000, per Kapunan, J.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
People v. Del Mundo Sr., GR No. 132065, April 3, 2001, per
Ynares-Santiago,
J.
[31]
People v. Narido, 316 SCRA 131, October 1, 1999; People v. De La
Cuesta,
304 SCRA 83, March 2, 1999; People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, July 30,
1998. |