THIRD DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
146274
August 17, 2004
-versus-
MARIO CABALSE ALIAS
“BOLANTOY,”
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
From the July 21, 2000
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Branch 59 finding
him guilty of Rape, Appellant Mario “Bolantoy” Cabalse lodged the
present
appeal.
In her Complaint dated
September 6, 1994, private complainant Milagros E. Cañedo
(Milagros)
charged appellant as follows:
x
x x
That on or around
9:00
o’clock in the evening of the 12th day of June, 1994, inside the house
of the accused in which the undersigned complainant was a visitor in
Barangay
Media Once, City of Toledo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who was armed with a
knife,
suddenly grabbed her from behind and with his right hand holding a
piece
of cloth tightly clasped her mouth to prevent her from shouting and he
pressed the knife to her belly with his left hand threateningly telling
her that he would kill her if she would shout and then dragged her to
the
kitchen, pushed her down to the floor and while she was already flat on
her back accused pulled down her short pants and panty, forcibly spread
her legs and did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have
carnal knowledge with the undersigned complainant against her will.
x
x x[1]
Appellant pleaded not
guilty[2]
on arraignment following which trial on the merits ensued.
Milagros, her brother
Lunecito E. Canedo, and Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Hermes L. Labrador
were
presented by the prosecution.cralaw:red
Milagros, a house helper
and 28 years old[3]
at the time she testified on June 16, 1998, narrated as follows:
On June 12, 1994, at
around 8:30 in the evening, she and her younger brother Lunecito were
on
their way to the house of appellant to watch television.cralaw:red
On their way, they met
appellant, his wife Tomasa, and the spouses’ four-year old child Aloy
who
were near a hut fronting appellant’s house. After seeking permission to
watch television, all of them, except appellant’s wife, proceeded to
the
house of appellant and watched television.[4]chanrobles virtual law library
While they were watching
television, appellant sent Lunecito and Aloy on an errand to buy
cigarettes.[5]
After the Sharon Cuneta show was over, Milagros continued watching
television
as she awaited her brother.chanrobles virtual law library
When Milagros was about
to go out of the house, appellant blocked her way and closed and locked
the door. Appellant, who was standing behind her, thereupon covered her
mouth with his left hand, and with his right hand he poked a knife at
the
right side of her waist, threatening to kill her if she shouted.[6]
Appellant then dragged
her to the kitchen, removed her panty and short pants, and with his
underwear
on, exposed his penis.[7]
On appellant’s order, she spread her legs apart.[8]
As she laid down, appellant who was on top of her inserted his penis
into
her vagina and performed a pumping motion[9]
during which she felt weak and was in pain.[10]
After appellant pulled out his penis from her vagina, he hurriedly left
her in the kitchen.[11]
As she was putting back
her panty and shorts, appellant’s wife Tomasa arrived.[12]
Upon seeing her, Tomasa cursed her, saying “How dare you, you are
devils,
you are rotten people. You are having sexual intercourse, here.”[13]
Feeling insulted, she cried and left the house.[14]
On her way home, she
met her brother by the road. She did not, however, disclose the
incident
to him because she was scared, knowing that appellant had already
stabbed
a certain Raul, and is known in the place as the “worst person.”[15]
She too did not report
the incident to her mother as appellant threatened to kill her if she
did.[16]
Weeks after the incident
or on July 4, 1994, her mother was informed by her aunt (the sister of
her mother) that the wife of appellant had been spreading rumors about
it.[17]chanrobles virtual law library
Her mother thus mauled
her.[18]
She explained to her mother, however, that she was forced to have sex
with
appellant. She and her mother thus repaired to the Barangay
Captain
to file a complaint.[19]
She later submitted herself to a medical examination by Dr. Labrador of
the Toledo City Hospital and to Dr. Grace Nardo of the Southern Island
Hospital.[20]
Complainant’s brother
Lunecito corroborated Milagros’ tale that on the evening of June 12,
1994,
he accompanied her sister to watch television at the house of appellant
and that he was sent on an errand by appellant to buy cigarettes.[21]
Lunecito went on to
declare that he still had to wake up the owner of the store, hence, it
took him forty-five (45) minutes to carry out the errand.[22]
Upon his return to the
house of appellant, Tomasa who was already there[23]
was apparently angry at appellant, she uttering words like “he was not
yet closing (sic) the zipper of the pants.”[24]
Inside the house, his sister who was crying and standing at the door[25]
at once summoned him to leave the house.[26]
Milagros did not divulge
anything to him that night, but he later learned about the rape
incident
from his mother.[27]
At the witness stand,
Dr. Labrador testified that upon physical examination of Milagros, he
noted
old healed lacerations of her hymen at 6 and 9 o’clock positions
indicating
that she was no longer a virgin.[28]
Aside from the healed lacerations, he noted no injuries.[29]chanrobles virtual law library
Denying the accusation,
appellant gave the following tale:
On June 12,
1994 at 9:00 o’clock in the evening, while he, his wife and children
were
asleep, he was awakened by a woman who was uttering outside their house
“Bolantoy, Bolantoy w[a]ke up.”[30]
Looking out of the window, he saw Milagros who said “Toy, I have to
watch
your t.v.”[31]
He refused to let her in because his children were all asleep and he
had
to work the next day.[32]
In the meantime, his wife who was roused from her sleep admonished
Milagros,
saying “What’s happening with you woman, why [are] you tempt[ing] my
husband,
are you itching? [W]hy don’t you look for a bachelor [some]where?[33]
Milagros responded by uttering “You might regret Nang Masing, you might
kneel before me someday.”[34]
The following morning,
his neighbor asked him “What was done (sic) Bolantoy, you were offered
to have sex with her in your house?”[35]
It was then that he found out that earlier that morning, his wife had
been
spreading rumors that Milagros had offered to have sex with him.[36]
Sometime after the incident,
he again met Milagros who, however, made no mention of any complaint
against
him.[37]
On July 18, 1994, his
aunt having offered him a job, he left for Mindanao.cralaw:red
On September 27, 1997,
he was arrested in Davao, and it was only then that he learned that
Milagros
had filed a complaint for rape against him.[38]
His aunt, whom he requested
to go to complainant’s house to inquire why he was charged of rape,
later
informed him that the complaint would only be dropped if he agreed to
pay
One Hundred Thousand (P100,000) Pesos.[39]chanrobles virtual law library
Appellant’s wife Tomasa
also took the witness stand for the defense. She corroborated
appellant’s
account of Milagros’ going to their residence as she wanted to watch
television.
She went on to declare that she scolded Milagros.[40]
Tomasa further declared
that the next day, June 13, 1994, her neighbors asked why they were
noisy
the previous night.[41]
She found out that her neighbors including Romeo Geralla and Eustaquia
Geralla were likewise awakened by the noise created by the
incident
the previous night.[42]
Continuing, Tomasa declared
that Milagros is lecherous and was always looking for appellant
whenever
she was not around,[43]
drawing her (Tomasa) to at one time tell Milagros that “You have not
tempted
anybody so now you wanted to tempt my husband;”[44]
and that believing that the complaint for rape against appellant was
sparked
by her alleged defamatory remarks against Milagros, she did not inform
appellant, who was then in Davao, that a complaint for rape had been
filed
against him.[45]
Tomasa furthermore declared
that while appellant was in Davao, she came to know that Milagros got
pregnant
and she in fact noticed that Milagros’ stomach was big.[46]
She later heard that she (Milagros) had an abortion.[47]
Upon the instance of the mother of Milagros, she appeared before the
Barangay
Captain as it was suspected that she was the source of rumors of
Milagros’
alleged pregnancy and abortion.[48]chanrobles virtual law library
Finding for the prosecution,
the trial court convicted appellant by Decision of July 21, 2000, the
dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, this Court finds the accused MARIO CABALSE,
GUILTY,
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and hereby sentences him
to
suffer the the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to indemnify the
private
offended party, MILAGROS E. CANEDO, the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00). Costs against accused.
SO ORDERED.[49]
In his appeal,
appellant
raises the following errors of the trial court: I.
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF RAPE DESPITE THE GLARING INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONY OF
THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN GIVING DUE CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT
DESPITE
THE UNEXPLAINED DELAY OF THE LATTER IN REPORTING THE ALLEGED RAPE
INCIDENT
TO THE POLICE AUTHORITIES.[50]
This Court finds that
the prosecution has not established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt
of
appellant.cralaw:red
The medical evidence
which was credited by the trial court,[51]
taken alone, does not prove the commission of rape. By Milagros’ own
admission,
the incident complained of was not the first time that she had sexual
intercourse
with a man, she having priorly had sexual congress with her boyfriend.[52]
Medical evidence of
course is not indispensable. An accused can still be convicted of rape
on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant[53]
if it is clear and free from serious contradictions, and her
sincerity
and candor is beyond suspicion.[54]
By Milagros’ account,
after appellant took his time to engage in foreplay, his penis
penetrated
her vagina, without her putting up any resistance.cralaw:red
Q:
When you were already nude from waist below accused Cabalse licked your
thighs, am I right?
A:
Yes, Sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
And in fact he even licked your vagina, is that right?
A:
He just played with it.cralaw:red
Q:
How did he play with your vagina?
A:
By using his finger.cralaw:red
Q:
When accused licked your thigh and played with your sex organ with his
hand, you were titillated, am I right?
A:
No, Sir, I did not feel the titillation.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
But you were sexually aroused?
A:
No sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
Can you give an estimate of (sic) how long did accused lick your thigh
and played with your sex organ?
A:
I do not know, sir.cralaw:red
Q:
Did it continue for a long time?
A:
After he was satisfied in playing with my vagina he even inserted his
penis
inside my vagina.cralaw:red
Q:
When he inserted his penis into your vagina, was your thighs separated
from each other?
A:
Yes, Sir.cralaw:red
Q:
He was able to penetrate your vagina with his penis because you did not
move your hips in order to avoid being penetrated by his penis, am I
right?
A:
Yes, sir.[55]
(Underscoring supplied.)chanrobles virtual law library
Such passive act of
Milagros negates the commission of rape. For a ravished woman
would
instinctively call for help or at best flee from her lecherous captor
to
safer grounds when opportunities present themselves.[56]
When Milagros was pressed
whether she tried to ask for help, she gave conflicting answers. While
on October 13, 1998, she readily admitted not shouting for help because
a knife was poked at her.cralaw:red
COURT:
When you were raped did you shout for help?
A:
No your Honor, because a knife was poked on my side.cralaw:red
COURT:
Who poked that knife?chanrobles virtual law library
A:
Bolantoy.cralaw:red
COURT:
Did he tell you not to shout?
A:
Yes, he told me not to shout and he told me that if I shout he will
kill
me.[57]
(Underscoring supplied.)
She later changed her
testimony on May 13, 1999 and claimed that she shouted for help once.cralaw:red
Q:
Now Miss Witness, why was it that you did not shout for help.cralaw:red
A:
I shouted.cralaw:red
Q:
How many times did you shout?
A:
Only once.cralaw:red
Q:
You shouted loud?
A:
I don’t know whether it was loud or in a low voice, I did not mind but
I really shouted and he told me that if you will shout I will push this
knife to your body.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
What particular word did you utter when you shouted?
A:
I shouted for help.chanrobles virtual law library
Court:
For the Court. You shouted for help only once?
A:
Yes, your honor.cralaw:red
Court:
Did you not scream without uttering words?
A:
No, your honor, only that shout of help.[58]
(Underscoring supplied.)
Still later, when asked
for the third time on June 21, 1999 whether she shouted for help, she
reverted
to her earlier testimony that she did not shout for help.cralaw:red
Q:
And when your short and panty was pulled down or removed by the accused
he was still placing the cloth on your mouth, am I right?
A:
Not anymore, Sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
You mean to say that he threw away the cloth on your mouth?
A:
Yes, Sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
And then when there was no longer cloth covering your mouth, you
shouted,
am I correct?
A:
I struggled.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
But you did not shout?
A:
No, Sir.[59]
(Underscoring supplied.)
Given Milagros’ vacillating
version of whether she shouted for help, it is difficult to accord her
credence.chanrobles virtual law library
Even Milagros’ claim
that appellant employed a knife to intimidate her into total submission
and immobility raises nagging doubts.cralaw:red
Milagros had testified
that while she was being raped, appellant, using his left hand, pointed
a knife at the right side of her body, as he, with his right hand,
removed
her shorts and underwear.cralaw:red
Court:
So your underwear, your short pants were all removed by the accused?
A:
Yes, your honor.cralaw:red
Court:
He removed your short pants and underwear while pointing the knife at
the
right side of your body?
A::
Yes, your honor.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
Were you standing or lying down when the accused removed your short
pants
and your underwear?
A:
I was standing.cralaw:red
Court:
Since the accused was pointing the knife at your body, what hand of the
accused was holding the knife?
A:
Left hand.cralaw:red
Court:
And the accused he used his right hand in removing your short pants,
your
underwear while you were standing?
A:
Yes, your honor.[60]
(Underscoring supplied.)chanrobles virtual law library
Upon further cross-examination,
however, Milagros narrated that appellant used his right hand in
holding
the knife and his left hand in removing her shorts.cralaw:red
Q:
Your shorts were removed by accused Cabalse when you were still
standing?
A:
Yes, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
And he was using his right hand in removing your shorts?
A:
Yes, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q:
So, what happened to that knife that [he] was holding on his right hand?
A:
Still remained in his hand.cralaw:red
Q:
Do you mean to say that he removed your shorts with his right hand
while
at the same time holding the knife on the said right hand?
A:
Sorry, Sir, the knife was being held at his right hand and he used his
left hand in removing my short.[61]
(Underscoring supplied.)
The presence of a knife,
as well as how it was used by appellant, is a material fact to prove
the
element of force or intimidation, in light of the absence of any
showing
in the records that Milagros exerted effort to extricate herself from
the
hands of appellant, or at least to prevent penetration of her
vagina.
Milagros’ narration on the matter is, however, punctuated with
inconsistencies
and vagueness. It is apparent that she chose to lie prone and
unresisting.
Her claim that she struggled to resist the accused came only after
appellant’s
counsel suggested it to her during cross-examination.[62]chanrobles virtual law library
More doubts on the credibility
of Milagros’ testimony. She narrated that right after she was
sexually
assaulted, the wife of appellant walked in, saw her putting back her
panty
and shorts, and insulted her. If this account were true, human
nature
and experience would have expected her to protest to appellant’s wife
and
complain to her indignantly. She, however, did not. She
instead
cried from “embarrassment.”
In fine, Milagros’ testimony
does not pass the test of credibility.chanrobles virtual law library
This leaves it unnecessary
to still dwell on the testimony of Milagros’ brother Lunecito.
Suffice
it to state that his testimony does not even jibe with Milagros’.
For example, Milagros claimed that after she left the house of
appellant,
she met Lunecito by the road. Luncecito, upon the other hand,
claimed
that on returning to the house of appellant, his sister, who was
standing
at the door and crying, at once summoned him to leave the house.cralaw:red
Neither is it still
necessary to pass on the merits of the evidence for the defense which
is
unarguably weak. For the prosecution evidence must stand or fall
on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
defense.[63]chanrobles virtual law library
Indeed, it is the primordial
duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and
persuasion,
so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.[64]
What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with
moral certainty as to the presence of the elements constituting the
offense,
not to mention the identity of the offender.[65]
Upon the prosecution's failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the
constitutional duty of the court, lest its mind be tortured with the
thought
that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life.[66]
Unless the prosecution
overturns then the presumed innocence of an accused by competent and
credible
evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption
remains.
The prosecution having failed to discharge the onus probandi,
appellant’s
presumed innocence stands.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Branch 59 is REVERSED and
SET
ASIDE. Appellant Mario Cabalse alias “Bolantoy” is, for failure
of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
hereby
ACQUITTED of rape. He is ordered RELEASED unless he is being
detained
for some other lawful cause.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, J.,
Chairman,
and Corona, J., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
J., on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 4.
[2]
RTC Records at p. 31.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), June 16, 1998 at 2.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id. at 3-6.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id. at 7.
[6]
Id. at 8-10.
[7]
Id. at 10.
[8]
Id. at 11.
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Id. at 12.
[11]
Id. at 12-13.
[12]
Id. at 12.
[13]
Id. at 13.
[14]
Id. at 13-14.
[15]
Id. at 14-15.
[16]
Id. at 18.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
Id. at 19.
[19]
Ibid.
[20]
Id. at 19-22.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
TSN, October 14, 1999 at 6.
[22]
Id. at 6-7.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Id. at 8
[24]
Id. at 9.
[25]
Id. at 7-10
[26]
Id. at 10.
[27]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
TSN, July 26, 1999 at 4.
[29]
Id. at 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
TSN, December 16, 1999 at 6.
[31]
Id. at 4.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Id. at 8.
[33]
Ibid.
[34]
Id. at 9.
[35]
Ibid.
[36]
Ibid.
[37]
Id. at 10.
[38]
Id. at 11.
[39]
Id. at 12.chanrobles virtual law library
[40]
TSN, February 10, 2000 at 6.
[41]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[42]
Id. at 8.
[43]
Id. at 12.
[44]
Id. at 18.
[45]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[46]
Id. at 21.
[47]
Id. at 13.
[48]
Id. at 20.
[49]
Rollo at 22.
[50]
Id. at 46.
[51]
Id. at 20.chanrobles virtual law library
[52]
TSN, June 21, 1999 at 6.chanrobles virtual law library
[53]
People v. Alvario, 275 SCRA 529, 537 (1997).
[54]
People v. Benoza. 371 SCRA 165, 177-178 (2001).
[55]
TSN, June 21, 1999 at 4-5.chanrobles virtual law library
[56]
People v. Sinatao, 249 SCRA 554, 565 (1995).
[57]
TSN, October 13, 1998 at 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[58]
TSN, May 13, 1999 at 13.chanrobles virtual law library
[59]
TSN, June 21, 1999 at 3-4.
[60]
TSN, May 13, 1999 at 6-7.
[61]
TSN, June 21, 1999 at 2-3.
[62]
TSN, May 13, 1999 at 7-8.chanrobles virtual law library
[63]
People v. Obar, Jr. 253 SCRA 288, 302 (1996).
[64]
People v. Divina, 391 SCRA 430, 435 (2002).
[65]
People v. Surio, 386 SCRA 537, 545 (2002).
[66]
People v. Divina, 391 SCRA 430, 436 (2002). |