THIRD DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
143432
April 9, 2003
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
TERENCIO FUNESTO
Y LLOSPARDAS,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:
Through a complaint filed
by Rosario Quilantang on behalf of her minor daughter, Louna Mae
Quilantang,
appellant Terencio Funesto y Llospardas was charged with the crime of
rape
in an information which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That on or about the
11th day of November, 1991, at 9:00 o’clock in the evening, more or
less,
in (sic) the residence of Rosario Quilantang y Faller located at
Barangay
Marcos,
Municipality of Magallanes, Province of Agusan de(l) Norte,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
with criminal intent, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
have carnal knowledge of one LOUNAMIE (sic) QUILANTANG, an eleven-year
old minor, against her will.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW (Article
335, Revised Penal Code)."[1]
Upon arraignment, Funesto
with the assistance of counsel entered a "not guilty" plea. Thus, trial
on the merits followed.[2]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Three witnesses were
presented by the prosecution, to wit: Louna Mae, the victim;
complainant
Rosario, the mother of the victim; and Rhodora Gliceria Monton Anino,
the
doctor who examined the victim.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The evidence for the
prosecution shows that the charge of rape occurred on November 11, 1991
in the house of the victim at JCA, Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. Louna
Mae lives in the house with her mother, Rosario, her younger sister,
Genevieve,
a baby, Junmark and appellant Funesto.[3]
The house has only one room, with Funesto sleeping inside a mosquito
net
on one side, and Louna Mae inside another mosquito net with her mother
and sister at the other side of the room.[4]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Louna Mae testified
that in the evening of November 11, 1991, she was outraged by Funesto,
while her mother was leading a prayer in the house of a neighbor and
her
sister was watching TV.[5]
She was awakened by a stabbing pain in her vagina when Funesto inserted
his penis inside it.[6]
She could not move because Funesto was on top of her, with his short
pants
and brief lowered to his knees. She recognized him because there was a
light from the lamp on the floor which illuminated the room. After he
was
done with his beastly act, he warned Louna Mae not to tell her mother
or
else he would kill all of them, including the baby.[7]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the morning of
November
12, 1991, Louna Mae was bleeding and could not stand up. She also had
fever
which ran for three (3) days. Her mother thought she had just reached
the
age of puberty and performed on her a ritual usually done on girls
reaching
puberty. She desisted from informing her mother of the outrage done on
her honor for fear that Funesto would kill them. She informed her
mother
only after Funesto was placed behind bars for another charge of rape he
allegedly committed against Genevieve, her sister. Upon learning of the
fate of Louna Mae in the hands of Funesto, Rosario immediately brought
her to the hospital where she was examined by Dr. Rhodora Gliceria
Monton
Anino, and to the police station where their statements were taken.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Anino testified
that she is a Medical Officer III of the Cabadbaran District Hospital
and
that she examined the victim, Louna Mae, on February 13, 1992.[9]
Her examination showed that the victim’s hymen was already broken and
that
the "(i)ntroitus admits 1 small finger and virginal vaginal speculum
easily."[10]
The witness explained that she inserted her small finger into the
victim’s
vagina and discovered that the finger can be admitted easily as there
was
no resistance. This procedure is used to determine if the vagina is
already
slacked. Thus, if the patient is a virgin when the finger is inserted,
resistance can be felt. In Louna Mae’s case, her vagina admitted the
finger
inserted by Dr. Anino easily, without any resistance.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
She also found the presence
of spermatozoa when she got a specimen from the cervix of the victim.
On
questions by the court regarding the life span of a spermatozoa, the
witness
answered that it is variable. She stated that the longest life span of
a spermatozoa is seventeen (17) days. Thus, she explained that in the
case
of Louna Mae, the presence of a spermatozoa in her body even after
about
three (3) months from the act charged, could be due to further sexual
intercourse,
the dates of which she could not determine and the victim could not
remember.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rosario, the mother
of Louna Mae, claimed that on November 12, 1992, she noticed her
daughter
bleeding. Thinking that the latter had reached the age of puberty, she
performed the old custom done on girls reaching the age of puberty,
like
brushing her cheek with a red flower, putting cotton on her braided
hair
and letting her jump three steps on the stairs. However, she said that
Louna Mae refused to jump because she could hardly stand. Moreover, she
had fever which incapacitated her from going to school for more than a
week. Rosario likewise declared that her daughter reported the rape
committed
by Funesto only on February 13, 1992 because she was warned by Funesto
that they would all be killed if she reported the incident.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rosario claimed tearfully
that as the natural mother of the victim, she could not describe what
she
felt when she heard about the outrage on the honor of her daughter. Her
worries allegedly cannot be compensated by money because her two
daughters
were raped by the appellant. She demanded justice for them.[14]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the prosecution
rested its case, the defense presented four (4) witnesses comprised of
appellant Funesto, Rosa Acabado, Faustino Traqueña and Jessie
Josue.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Funesto denied the charge
of rape. He alleged that in the evening of January 4, 1992, complainant
Rosario got inside the mosquito net where he was sleeping. She wanted
to
have sexual intercourse, but did not pursue her desire.[15]
He got mad because he "looked upon her as a parent."[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to Funesto,
he went to his office at the EMCO Compound, Magallanes, Agusan del
Norte,
on February 3, 1992. He wanted to see his foreman, Faustino
Traqueña,
and to claim his salary for January 3 and 4. However, the company
denied
that he is an employee or that he worked on January 3 and 4. When he
went
out of the company compound, three (3) policemen apprehended and
brought
him to the Municipal Hall of Magallanes. It was there that he learned
that
a complaint for rape was filed against him by Rosario, who confronted
him
saying, "You beast. (Y)ou cannot give anything in return. I have
allowed
you to stay in my house, but you raped my daughters."[17]
Thereafter, the police locked him up.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the night of February
4, 1992, Funesto claimed that policeman Racaza came and offered to
withdraw
the case if he (appellant) could pay P150,000.00,[19]
which offer was lowered to P80,000.00,[20]
and then to P10,000.00. Finally, Racaza told him that they were willing
to withdraw the case if no counter charges would be filed against them.[21]
There were other people who also visited him in his cell on February 4,
namely: Rosario Quilantang’s elder sister, Felicitas, and her husband,
Rosario’s eldest son, Virgilio, and his wife Lalang and their two
children.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 13, Funesto
learned about the complaint for rape, subject of the case at bar. He
said
that the first police blotter presented to him alleged November 28,
1991
as the date of the commission of the crime. He told policeman Racaza
that
he was at Barangay Agao, Butuan on that date attending the wake of his
cousin, one Belen Acabado Rosales.[23]
Racaza left and brought with him the copy of the police blotter. On
February
20, another affidavit was given to him (Funesto), this time bearing a
different
date, November 11, 1991, as the alleged date of commission of the crime
of rape.[24]
The incident was also recorded in the police blotter.[25]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Funesto alleged that
in the evening of November 11, 1991, he was working as veneer clipper
at
EMCO. He presented as proofs the certification[26]
issued by foreman Traqueña and the time sheet[27]
issued by the administration office.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his cross-examination,
Funesto stated that he owns the house where he, the complainant
Rosario,
the victims, Louna Mae and Genevieve, and Junmark live. From the said
house,
the EMCO Compound is about a kilometer away, and around ten (10)
minutes
by foot. He admitted that even during work, he sometimes goes home to
his
house from the EMCO Compound.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rosa Acabado, a former
barangay councilor, testified that on November 25, 1991, her daughter,
Belen Rosales, was brought to the Provincial Hospital at Libertad,
Butuan
City by a group of people, among them Funesto. She asked Funesto to
stay
at the hospital until November 27 as no one could watch over Belen. In
the evening of November 28, 1991, Belen died. Funesto, with other
people,
brought her cadaver to the funeral parlor. He stayed in her house at
Noli
Me Tangere Street, Agao, Butuan City, from November 29 until the burial
on December 3, 1991.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Faustino Traqueña,
the foreman of the Finishing/Recovery section of the EMCO Plywood
Corporation,
also testified for the defense. He declared that the employees of EMCO
are not allowed to leave its premises, except on emergency cases,
during
their shift time. On the 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, their workers
are
only allowed a thirty-minute break at 12:00 midnight and they stay
within
the compound. He has a table in the middle of the section where he
could
see everything but he did not tell where the workers eat during
mealtime.
He also said that the production report[31]
showed that the output of Funesto on November 11, 1991 was 132 sheets.
He opined that if Funesto got out of the work place, he could not
produce
132 sheets.[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Jessie Josue, former
barangay captain of Barangay Pigdaulan, Butuan City, corroborated the
testimony
of Rosa Acabado. She declared that Funesto went to her house in the
evening
of November 25, 1991 to borrow her tricycle to bring Belen Rosales to
the
hospital. She stayed with them until 4:00 a.m. She likewise saw him on
November 27 in the hospital and in the evening of November 28 during
the
wake of Belen. She claimed that Funesto was in the house of the
deceased
during the one-week wake. However, upon cross examination, she admitted
that while the wake lasted for nine (9) days, she was not there
everyday,
but only 3 or 4 times.[33]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court
convicted
the appellant, thus:
"WHEREFORE, the court
hereby finds accused TERENCIO FUNESTO Y LLOSPARDAS guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt for the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code and accordingly hereby sentences him to
suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, condemning and ordering said accused
to pay the victim Lounamae (sic) F. Quilantang the amount of
P100,000.00
as compensatory and moral damages and the amount of P50,000.00 to
Rosario
F. Quilantang, the mother of the victim as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accused, in the
service of his sentence shall be credited of (sic) the period of his
(sic)
preventive imprisonment he has so far undergone pursuant to RA No.
6127.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED."[34]
From this decision,
Funesto appealed and raises the lone argument that the trial court
erred
in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.[35]
He points out that the medical examination was conducted some three (3)
months after the alleged rape and dead spermatozoa was discovered in
Louna
Mae’s cervix. He contends that the sexual abuse "could have been
committed by (a) man other than the herein accused-appellant which the
court a quo failed to clarify at all."[36]
He asserts that the defense of alibi or denial when duly supported by
testimonial
and documentary evidence should be given credence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We do not agree. Funesto’s
argument entails a re-examination of the credibility of witnesses.
Well-settled
is the rule that the findings of the trial court, its conclusions
culled
from said findings and its calibration of the testimonial evidence of
the
parties are accorded great weight, if not conclusive effect, by
appellate
courts. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial
court
in monitoring and observing at close range the demeanor, deportment and
conduct of the witnesses.[37]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find no reason to
reverse the factual findings of the trial court. The court a quo found
that Louna Mae’s testimony was clear, sincere and credible and that she
had no reason to falsely charge Funesto for rape. Indeed, it is highly
inconceivable that Louna Mae, a young and innocent girl, would concoct
a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and
undergo
the ordeal, not to mention the trauma of a public trial, unless the
charge
of rape against Funesto occurred. It is more implausible for the
complainant
Rosario to use her daughter to wreak vengeance, as Funesto would want
us
to believe, especially if it will subject the latter to the
embarrassment,
trauma and stigma attendant to a rape trial. It is a natural fact
that mothers are protective of their children and they are willing to
give
up their lives to spare them from any threat or from any embarrassment,
ridicule and any taint on their reputation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, alibi and
denial are among the weakest, if not the weakest, defenses in criminal
prosecution and are practically worthless against the positive
identification
made by the rape victim.[38]
Louna Mae positively identified appellant as the culprit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Atty. Batad:
Q: How did
you recognize Terencio Funesto when the incident happened in the
evening?
A:
Because the light was bright.cralaw:red
Q: Where
was the light then that illuminated that evening (sic) that caused you
to recognize the accused?
A:
It was placed on the floor.cralaw:red
Q: What
kind of light?
A:
Light from a lamp."[39]
Furthermore, for alibi
to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (a) the presence of
appellant
at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense; and
(b)
the physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.[40]
In this case, the alibi of appellant is not airtight. The distance
between
the EMCO compound and the house of appellant, where the act of rape
occurred,
is only about one (1) kilometer, which can be negotiated in ten (10)
minutes
of walk, viz:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Pros. Gallarde:
Q: From
this house where (sic) you said you bought it (sic) from one Juaning
Doe,
how far is that (sic) to the EMCO Compound where you were then a casual
employee?
A:
More or less 1 kilometer.cralaw:red
Q: And with
that distance, Mr. Funesto, you can walk if you prefer to walk and not
ride a tricycle is only around 5 to 10 minutes, (sic) am I correct?
A:
About 10 minutes walk.cralaw:red
Q: And during
your employment, especially (during) the (sic) specific hours,
sometimes
you go home to your house from your work to (sic) EMCO Compound, am I
correct?
A:
Sometimes, sir."[41]
Thus, the trial court
correctly ruled that it was not impossible for Funesto to be at his
house
where the rape occurred at the time of its commission.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards the presence
of spermatozoa in the cervix of Louna Mae during the examination
conducted
some three months after the alleged rape, suffice it to say that
opinions
of forensic experts differ as to how long after sexual intercourse may
spermatozoa be found in the vaginal canal.[42]
The important consideration in rape is not the presence of semen or
spermatozoa,
but the penetration of the male penis into the female genitalia.[43]
A medical examination is merely corroborative in character and is not
an
essential element of rape.[44] In the case at bar, Louna Mae
categorically
testified that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, to wit:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Atty. Battad:
Q: What
time of November 11, 1991 did the accused outrage your Honor?
A:
It was in the evening.cralaw:red
Q: Now,
how did the accused outrage your honor that evening?
A:
That evening, I was sleeping(,) and (sic) I was awakened because of the
pain in my vagina because Terencio Funesto inserted something hard
inside
my vagina and I cannot move because he was on top of me and it seemed I
was deafened because of the pain in my vagina.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q: Where
was Terencio Funesto when you were awakened by the pain which caused
you
almost deafness?
A:
She (sic) was on top of me with his face towards me.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q: How long
did the accused placed (sic) himself on top of you, if you can recall?
A:
I think it was just a short time.cralaw:red
Q: Did you
know what was it that went inside your vagina that caused you
tremendous
pain?
A:
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q: What
was it, if you can identify it?
A:
His penis."[45]
(Emphasis supplied)
As for the civil liabilities
of the appellant, we modify the monetary award granted by the trial
court.
Upon the finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex
delicto
is mandatory. Moreover, Article 2219 of the Civil Code provides for
recovery
of moral damages in cases of "x x x (3) seduction, abduction, rape, or
other lascivious acts." It likewise allows the parents of the female
seduced,
abducted, raped or abused to recover moral damages.[46]
Accordingly, appellant should be made to pay the victim P50,000.00 as
civil
indemnity, and to pay the victim and her mother P50,000.00 as moral
damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch 2, finding
accused-appellant Funesto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of
rape and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua is
AFFIRMED,
with the modification that he is adjudged to pay the victim, Louna Mae,
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages to the
victim
and her mother Rosario.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Criminal Case No. 5141, Original Record, p. 1.
[2]
This is a joint trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 5141 and 5142, but what is
subject of this appeal is only the judgment of conviction in Criminal
Case
No. 5141.
[3]
TSN, Louna Mae P. Quilantang, November 4, 1992, p. 5.
[4]
TSN, Terencio L. Funesto, January 31, 1997, p. 5.
[5]
TSN, Louna Mae P. Quilantang, November 4, 1992, pp. 9-10.
[6]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 7-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 10-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, Rhodora Gliceria Monton Anino, November 3, 1992, p. 5.
[10]
Id. at p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id. at 9-10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 11-13chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
.
[13]
TSN, Rosario Faller Quilantang, November 5, 1992, pp. 4 and 7-9.
[14]
Id. at 12-13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
TSN, Terencio L. Funesto, November 11, 1996, p. 4.
[16]
Id. at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id. at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 12-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id. at 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, Terencio L. Funesto, November 12, 1996, p. 3.
[21]
Id. at 14-15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
TSN, Terencio L. Funesto, November 11, 1996, pp. 17-18.
[23]
Accused presented as evidence the death certificate of Belen Rosales
dated
July 23, 1996 marked as "Exhibit 1".
[24]
TSN, Terencio L. Funesto, November 12, 1996, pp. 2-7.
[25]
Exhibit 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Exhibit 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Exhibit 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
TSN, Terencio L. Funesto, November 12, 1996, pp. 7-11.
[29]
TSN, Terencio L. Funesto, January 24, 1997, pp. 3-13; TSN, Terencio L.
Funesto, January 29, 1997, p. 4.
[30]
TSN, Rosa Durango Acabado, March 18, 1997, pp. 3-7 and 13-17.
[31]
Exhibit 4-A.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
TSN, Faustino Busa Traqueña, May 9, 1997, pp. 5-11.
[33]
TSN, Jessie Morales Josue, June 27, 1997, pp. 2-5 and 9-10.
[34]
Rollo, pp. 49-50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Id. at 76.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Id. at 80.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
People of the Philippines vs. Ruperto Ramos y dela Cruz, G.R. No.
142577,
December 27, 2002, citing People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio
Delovino,
247 SCRA 637 (1995).
[38]
People of the Philippines vs. Amado Isla, Jr., G.R. Nos. 140211-13, May
29, 2002.
[39]
TSN, Louna Mae P. Quilantang, November 4, 1992, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People of the Philippines vs. Cenon Pagsanjan y Carlos, G.R. No.
139694,
December 27, 2002.
[41]
TSN, Terencio L. Funesto, January 24, 1997, p. 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
People of the Philippines vs. Guilbert Arcillas y Perez, G.R. No.
126817,
December 27, 2000.
[43]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
People of the Philippines vs. Rico B. Bagaua, G.R. No. 147943, December
12, 2002, citing People vs. Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 142561-62, February
15,
2002.
[45]
TSN, Louna Mae P. Quilantang, November 4, 1992, pp. 7-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
See also People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Tagun, G.R. No. 137745,
February 15, 2002 and People vs. Oarga, 259 SCRA 90 (1996). |