SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
148144
April 30, 2004
-versus-
FLORENCIO
CADAMPOG,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Branch 9, in Criminal
Case
No. 7823-96, finding the appellant Florencio Cadampog guilty of rape
committed
against complainant Prudencia Lasara,[2]
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay
the sum of P50,000 as moral damages and P10,000 as actual damages.
The Information filed
against the appellant reads:
That on or about the
14th day of January 1996, in the afternoon, at Sitio Himaya, Barangay
Kuya,
Municipality of Maramag, Province of Bukidnon, Philippines and within
the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused prompted
by lewd design entered the house of Prudencia Lazara and once inside,
did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, wrestle, kiss,
remove
the panty of PRUDENCIA LAZARA and accused remove also his pants and
have
sexual intercourse with the latter against her will, to the damage and
prejudice of PRUDENCIA LAZARA in such amount as may be allowed by law.cralaw:red
Contrary to and in violation
of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act
No.
7659.[3]
Upon arraignment on
April 10, 1996, the appellant, with the assistance of his counsel de
oficio,
pleaded not guilty to the charge.[4]
Trial thereafter ensued.
The Case for the
Prosecution[5]
The spouses Felipe and
Prudencia Lasara were farmers who lived in Sitio Himaya, Barangay Kuya,
Municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon. Felipe was 41, while Prudencia was
33.
They had four children, namely, seven-year-old Jimmymar, six-year-old
Jaypee,
five-year-old Gemma and one-year-old Jovilyn.[6]
At about 12:30 p.m.
on January 14, 1996, a Sunday, Felipe with his brother-in-law Paul, and
his friends Berting and Dodoy, went to the neighboring Barangay
Dagumbaan
to attend the festivities, as it was the eve of the fiesta.[7]
Prudencia was left alone in the house with her young children.cralaw:red
At around 2:30 p.m.
of the same day, Prudencia heard the voice of a man asking her two
children,
who were then playing downstairs, where she was. The children replied
that
their mother was upstairs. Momentarily, she heard footsteps going up
the
house. Suddenly, the person, who turned out to be the appellant
Florencio
Cadampog, their neighbor and her husband’s friend, rushed towards her.[8]
The appellant immediately grabbed her by the arm and hooked his other
arm
around her neck. She maneuvered to back away but the appellant started
kissing her. She wanted to shout, but relented when she noticed that
the
appellant had a sheathed bolo dangling at his waist. Nevertheless, she
struggled and vigorously resisted his advances, to no avail. The
appellant
pushed her against a wall, stripped her of her panties, causing her to
be thrown off-balance. Prudencia fell on a bench, astride and supinely
flat on her back. The appellant then unzipped his trousers, pulled out
his erect penis and inserted it into her vagina. He then made
push-and-pull
movements. Prudencia continued resisting the bestial assault on her.
The
appellant retaliated and scratched her face and neck.[9]
Prudencia managed to push the appellant away, causing him to withdraw
his
penis and ejaculate outside.[10]
The appellant’s lust deflated when his semen splattered all over
Prudencia’s
upper thigh.[11]
The appellant dressed himself and warned Prudencia to keep the incident
to herself, otherwise, he would kill her.[12]
The appellant then left.cralaw:red
Prudencia immediately
proceeded to the barangay secretary and the barangay captain, Mrs.
Raguro.
She reported the incident to them. The barangay captain told Prudencia
that there would be a settlement at 2:00 p.m, but the latter did not
agree.
She then returned home.[13]
Back home, she hid her husband’s bolo in a safe place, and thereafter,
patiently waited for her husband to return.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When Felipe arrived
home at around 11:00 p.m., Prudencia told him that the appellant had
raped
her.[15]
Felipe was so enraged that his initial reaction was to look for and
kill
the appellant, but he relented when he realized that he had no right to
take the law into his own hands.[16]
The following morning,
January 15, 1996, Prudencia reported the incident to the police[17]
and gave a sworn statement. Dr. Venus Tagarda of the Maramag District
Hospital
examined her and issued a Medical Certificate with the following
findings:
PROGNOSIS/FINDINGS
- Linear abrasions left zygomatic
- Multiple linear
abrasion
to upper part of anterior chest and neck
OPERATION
PERFORMED
- Introitus-multiparous
REMARKS - Sperm
identification: Vagina smear done -
negative for spermatozoa
slide I, slide II[18]
Dr. Tagarda testified
that there were no traces of semen found in the offended party’s vagina
due to the intervening period from the date of the rape and the
physical
examination. The linear abrasion located at the complainant’s left
cheekbone,
and the multiple abrasions on her chest and neck could have been caused
by sharp objects such as fingernails or other sharp instruments.[19]
The Case for the
Appellant[20]
The accused denied the
charge. He interposed the defense of alibi. He testified that he lived
with his wife, Liza, and their four children in Sitio Himaya, Barangay
Kuya, Municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon. They resided in a house built
on a farmland owned by Constancio Paragoso, roughly 500 meters from
where
the spouses Felipe and Prudencia Lasara lived.[21]
On January 14, 1996, the accused, along with his wife and eldest
daughter,
Lady Rose, were at the farmland’s grassland all day long, cutting cogon
grasses to be used for Paragoso’s house roofing. They started working
from
7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. without let up, except for a short lunch
break.
He chopped firewood upon returning to the house.[22]
The following day, at around 11:00 p.m., lawmen came to his house and
arrested
him. He was brought to the municipal jail and there he learned of the
charge
for the first time.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant claimed
that the charge was merely Prudencia’s concoction because he refused to
be a witness against a certain Romeo Alinas, against whom Prudencia had
contemplated filing a criminal charge for rape.[24]
The appellant recalled having a meeting with the spouses Felipe and
Prudencia
Lasara at their place days before January 14, 1994, where Prudencia
asked
him to testify in her behalf. For his refusal to do so, he ended up in
jail.[25]
The appellant’s wife,
Liza, corroborated his story, claiming that her husband was with her
and
their daughter, Lady Rose, cutting cogon grasses in Paragoso’s farmland
the whole day of January 14, 1996. Her husband never left the place.[26]
Liza recalled that after the alleged rape, she went to Prudencia, they
being close friends, and requested her to withdraw the case. Prudencia
however, refused to agree unless given P80,000.[27]
Constancio Paragoso,
a septuagenarian farmer, also corroborated the appellant’s alibi. He
testified
that he hired the accused and his wife to cut cogon grasses for the
roofing
of his house and paid them P1.00 per bundle. He claimed to be with
them.
He also vouched for the appellant, claiming that the latter was present
at the cogonal area during the whole day of January 14, 1996.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 12, 2001,
the trial court rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of rape.
The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, this court,
for the foregoing reasons, finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the crime of simple rape as defined and penalized under Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code and pursuant thereto is hereby sentenced to
the
penalty of reclusion perpetua together will all the accessory penalties
included thereunder and to pay the offended party the sum of P50,000.00
by way of moral damages and actual damages in the amount of P10,000.00.cralaw:red
By virtue of this conviction
and pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 114 of [the] 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure
the accused shall continue to be under detention even if the accused
should
appeal this decision to the proper appellate court. However, the
accused
shall be entitled to the full credit for the period he is detained
pursuant
to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code and subject to the restriction
and limitation therein imposed.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[29]
The accused, now the
appellant, contends that:
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF
RAPE
COMMITTED THROUGH FORCE AND INTIMIDATION WHEN THE INFORMATION WAS
FATALLY
DEFECTIVE.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant asserts
that the Information against him does not charge him of rape because it
does not allege one of its elements, i.e, force or intimidation. He
argues
that the Information is void. Even if the prosecution was able to prove
that he forced Prudencia to have sexual intercourse with him, he cannot
be convicted of the crime charged; otherwise, he would be deprived of
his
right to be informed of the charge against him and to prepare for his
defense.[31]
The Office of the Solicitor
General, for its part, contends that the Information is not defective;
neither is it void. It argues that although the Information does not
specifically
allege that the appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with
the
victim with the use of force, threats or intimidation; nonetheless, it
alleges that the appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with
the victim after first wrestling with her and against her will, viz:
Appellant argues that
the information is defective since it failed to allege that [the]
appellant
raped the victim with the use of force and/or intimidation (Appellant’s
Brief, p. 4).cralaw:red
Appellant’s claim is
bereft of merit.cralaw:red
Contrary to [the] appellant’s
claim, a perusal of the information shows that force was alleged
therein.cralaw:red
As stated in the information
"the above-named accused prompted by lewd design entered the house of
Prudencia
Lazara and once inside, did then and there, unlawfully and criminally
wrestle,
kiss, remove the panty of PRUDENCIA LAZARA and, accused remove also his
pants and have sexual intercourse with the latter against her will."
An information is sufficient
where it clearly states the designation of the offense by the statute
and
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. [Sta.
Rita vs. CA, 247 SCRA 484 (1995)].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
the failure of the information to state that [the] appellant raped
Prudencia
"through force and intimidation" was not a fatal omission nor did it
make
the information defective since the word "wrestle" was used in lieu of
the word "force".cralaw:red
"Force" is defined as
power, violence, or constraint exerted upon or against a person. It is
used to show that an unlawful or wrongful action is meant (Black’s Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co., Minnesota, 1979, page
644).cralaw:red
"Wrestle," on the other
hand, is to engage in a violent or determined purposive struggle to
overcome
an opposing force (Webster[‘s] Third New International Dictionary,
Massachusetts,
1993, page 2640).cralaw:red
In the case at bar,
although the word "force" was not used in the information, the
prosecution
used the word "wrestle" instead. Thus, it is respectfully submitted
that
the word "wrestle" synonymously connotes the use of force in the
commission
of the offense.cralaw:red
Moreover, the use of
the phrase "against her will" in the information also implies that the
rape was committed with force.[32]
We agree with the Office
of the Solicitor General.cralaw:red
The Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure re-enacted Section 6, Rule 110 of the old Rules,
thus:
Sec. 6. Sufficiency
of Information - A complaint or information is sufficient if it states
the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the
statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the
name
of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the
offense;
and the place where the offense was committed.cralaw:red
When an offense is committed
by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint
or information. (6a)
The Information need
not use the language of the statute in stating the acts or omissions
complained
of as constituting the offense. What is required is that the acts or
omissions
complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary
and
concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding
to know the offense charged. Thus, Rule 110, Section 9 of the Revised
Rules
of Court provides:
Sec. 9. Cause of the
accusation. – The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense
and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in
ordinary
and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the
statute
but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to
know
what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
the appellant is charged with rape through force, threats or
intimidation
under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The gravamen
of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her
consent.[33]
We have reviewed the Information[34]
and found that it contains all the elements of rape defined in Article
335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Information
against the appellant is quoted, viz:
INFORMATION
That on or about the
14th day of January 1996, in the afternoon, at Sitio Himaya, Barangay
Kuya,
Municipality of Maramag, Province of Bukidnon, Philippines and within
the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused prompted
by lewd design entered the house of Prudencia Lazara and once inside,
did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, wrestle, kiss,
remove
the panty of PRUDENCIA LAZARA and accused remove also his pants and
have
sexual intercourse with the latter against her will, to the damage and
prejudice of PRUDENCIA LAZARA in such amount as may be allowed by law.cralaw:red
Contrary to and in violation
of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act
No.
7659.[35]
Although the Information
does not allege that the appellant used force, threat or intimidation
in
having sexual intercourse with the victim, it alleges that the
appellant
"criminally wrestled" with the private complainant and succeeded in
having
carnal knowledge of her against her will. The import of such
allegations
is that the appellant used physical force and intimidation in having
carnal
knowledge of her. To wrestle is to contend by grappling with and
striving
to trip or throw down an opponent; or to combat or overcome an opposing
tendency or force, or an antagonistic person or group; or to engage in
or as if in a violent or determined purposive struggle. It applies to a
struggling for mastery by the use, mainly or solely of dexterous holds
with the hands, arms or legs.[36]
The appellant’s submission
that the Information does not sufficiently charge him of rape under
Article
335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code or that the Information is
defective
is but an afterthought. The appellant never filed a motion to quash the
Information or a motion for a bill of particulars under Rule 116,
Section
10 of the Rules of Court before his arraignment. He was arraigned,
assisted
by counsel, and after the Information was read and explained to him in
a language or dialect known to him, he entered a plea of not guilty.
There
was no complaint from the appellant, before he entered his plea, that
the
Information was defective and that he did not understand the charge
against
him. The appellant is, thus, deemed to have waived whatever objections
as to form or substance in the Information.[37]
As the Court ruled in People v. Flores:[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If the complaint against
the accused-appellant was afflicted by the vice of vagueness, his
remedy
is to file a motion for bill of particulars. The record reveals that
[the]
accused-appellant did not ask for a bill of particulars in accordance
with
section 10, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. The failure to move for
specifications
or the quashal of the information on any of the grounds provided for in
the Rules of Court deprives [the] accused of the right to object to
evidence
which could be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of
more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused
with
a definite crime. It is too late in the day for [the] accused-appellant
to raise this issue now because objections as to matters of form and
substance
in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal.[39]
Although the appellant
failed to raise, as an issue, the matter of whether the prosecution was
able to prove his guilt for the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt,
we reviewed the records to ascertain whether or not the prosecution
mustered
the requisite quantum of evidence to prove the crime charged to avert a
miscarriage of justice. It is a well-settled rule that an appeal in a
criminal
proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the
duty
of the appellate court to correct any errors as may be found in the
appealed
judgement, whether or not it is made the subject of assignment of
errors.[40]
We are convinced that, indeed, the prosecution discharged its burden.cralaw:red
The private complainant
vividly recounted before the trial court how the appellant bestially
ravished
her. She positively identified the appellant as the rouge who raped her
on January 14, 1996.[41]
She testified as follows:
PROS. CHING:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And then what did
he do when he was inside your house together with your infant baby
(sic)?
A He immediately held
me and embraced me.cralaw:red
Q And then when he embraced
you what was your position?
A He kept on kissing
me.[42]
Q Then after the accused
held your right arm and encircled his right arm on the (sic) neck, what
then did he do to you? or what did he do with (sic) your face?
A He kept on kissing
my face.[43]
Q Were you able to successfully
resist?
A I kept on moving backward
so that my face could not touch his face.cralaw:red
Q Then because you were
trying to avoid his advances on kissing you, what then immediately
happened
to you? What position did you have because of the attack?
A I was able to lean
on the wall and bench.[44]
Q In that position,
what then did he do to you?
A He removed my panty.[45]
Q Now, when he removed
your panty, did you not resist?
A I was afraid to resist
because he was carrying with him a bolo. He had a bolo.cralaw:red
Q Where was the bolo
at that precise time?
A On the side of his
body.cralaw:red
Q Did it have a scabbard?
A Yes.cralaw:red
Q And you mean the bolo
was strung around the waist of the accused Florencio Cadampog?
A Yes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Then you said your
panty was removed, what then did the accused do next?
A He unzipped the zipper
of his pants and he pulled out his penis.cralaw:red
Q When he pulled out
his penis, what did you notice? You are a married woman, you should
know.
Was it erect or not?
A Yes, it was erect.cralaw:red
Q And then after he
opened his zipper and pulled out his erect penis, what then did he do
next?
A He inserted his penis
to my vagina.[46]
COURT:
Q Did you resist his
advances?
A I resisted, that is
why he scratched my face.[47]
PROS. CHING:
Q You said that he scratched
your face. Did you suffer any injury on your face?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes.cralaw:red
Q What part of your
body was scratched?
A Here.cralaw:red
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to the
left side of her face, the neck and the chest.[48]
PROS. CHING:
Q In that position,
when he inserted his penis into your vagina, did you not resist him?
A I kept on resisting.cralaw:red
Q But he was able to
penetrate your vagina?
A Yes.cralaw:red
Q And when his penis
was already inserted into your vagina, what then did he do?
A He made a push and
pull movement of his buttocks. He made a pumping motion of his buttocks.cralaw:red
COURT:
Q How about you, what
was your reaction when he kept on pumping?
A I was afraid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Did you come to like
it?
A No, Sir.cralaw:red
PROS. CHING:
Q Now, when he had that
pumping motion at that time, the accused had sexual intercourse with
you,
what then did you do?
A I suddenly pushed
him away.cralaw:red
Q And what happened
after you pushed him away?
A He was pushed away
from me.cralaw:red
Q And what happened
to his penis when you pushed him?
A It was withdrawn from
my vagina.cralaw:red
Q When it was withdrawn
from your vagina, what happened next?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A He had an ejaculation.cralaw:red
Q How do you know that
he had an ejaculation when the penis was pulled out from your vagina?
A Because it spurted
towards my upper thigh.cralaw:red
Q Then when the penis
was pulled out and the accused had an ejaculation and spurted
spermatozoa
(sic) in your thigh, what did he do next?
A He then left our own
house.[49]
The linear abrasion
on Prudencia’s left cheekbone, and the multiple abrasions on her chest
and neck were eloquent testimonies of the force employed by the
appellant.
In rape case, the physical evidence showing use of force speaks louder
than words.[50]
It bears stressing that when the testimony of a rape victim is
consistent
with the medical findings, sufficient basis exist to warrant a
conclusion
that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been
established.[51]
It has been held that
the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual
assault
is of utmost importance as tending to establish the truth or falsity of
the charge of rape.[52]
Thus, further strengthening this Court’s conviction that the appellant
is guilty of raping Prudencia is the fact that she wasted no time in
reporting
her ordeal to the authorities. As we have held in the case of People v.
Grefiel:[53]
…[D]espite the outrage
and shame, she lost no time in reporting the incident to the barangay
captain.
In less than twelve (12) hours from the commission of the crime, she
narrated
the sordid details of her horrifying and harrowing experience in a
statement
given to the police authorities, submitted to a medical examination and
signed a criminal complaint for forcible abduction with rape against
the
accused-appellant. Not only did these acts demonstrate courage of the
highest
order, they also enhance the complainant's credibility. It has been
repeatedly
said by this Court that when a woman admits that she has been raped,
she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been
committed;
if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be
convicted
on the basis thereof[54]
Thus, the veracity of
Prudencia’s testimony cannot be doubted. In People v. Jaca,[55]
we said:
The credibility of the
victim is further strengthened by the spontaneity of her act
immediately
after the incident. We note her courage in reporting the rape,
unmindful
of what the incident could do on her reputation in their barrio. We
fully
concur with the opinion of the lower court, viz:
"The fact that, the
offended party, after the beastly attack, immediately left her house to
report the molestation against her honor, is a clear manifestation that
she was indeed raped.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Her immediate response
(reporting the incident) carries the stamp of truth. This is a natural
reaction of a virtuous woman who had just undergone sexual molestation
against her will.…"[56]
The appellant’s imputation
of ill motive on the part of the private complainant is absurd. The
appellant
alleged that he was charged with rape because of his refusal to testify
in Prudencia’s behalf against a certain Romeo Alinas, who is
Prudencia’s
alleged real rapist. This reason posited by the appellant is too
chimerical.
Prudencia does not need the appellant, much less his testimony. She
could
have charged Romeo Alinas of rape with dispatch if he, not the
appellant,
was the culprit. She did not do so.cralaw:red
Anent the appellant’s
assertion that Prudencia demanded P80,000 from his wife in
consideration
of Prudencia’s desistance from charging him with rape, the latter
offered
no evidence to prove his allegation other than the bare claim of his
wife,
Liza. Besides, the evidence shows that it was Liza who approached
Prudencia,
not the other way around.cralaw:red
The Court does not see
how Prudencia, a married woman, and mother of four children, could
demean
her womanhood, risk public censure, and expose herself to the rigors,
embarrassments
and headaches of a public trial, if her motive was other than to secure
justice. As aptly pointed out in People v. Dagami[57]
[A] married woman with
a husband and three daughters would not publicly admit that she had
been
criminally abused unless that was the truth. Similarly, it defies
reason
in this case why a mother of four would concoct a story of defloration,
allow the examination of her private parts and publicly disclose that
she
has been sexually abused if her motive were other than to fight for her
honor and bring to justice the person who defiled her. Pertinently, it
stands to reason that Visitacion would not bring herself, her family
and
her husband to embarrassment, to public scrutiny and being the talk of
the community unless what she had testified that she was raped is true.
It is settled that where there is no evidence to show any dubious
reason
or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely
against
an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony
is
worthy of full faith and credit.[58]
It bears stressing that
when it comes to the issue of credibility, the trial court judge is in
the best position to rule on the matter, considering that he has the
vantage
point of observing first hand the demeanor and deportment of the
witnesses.
In the absence of proof that the trial court had overlooked or
disregarded
arbitrarily certain facts and circumstances of significance in the
case,
as in the case at bar, its appreciation of the credibility of witnesses
will not be altered on review.cralaw:red
The appellant’s defenses
of denial and alibi deserve scant consideration, in view of Prudencia’s
positive identification of the appellant as the one who defiled her,
coupled
with Dr. Tagarde’s testimony and medical findings.cralaw:red
The appellant’s denial
of the charge against him is futile, in light of Prudencia’s positive
testimony
that he raped her on January 14, 1996. Denial is inherently a weak
defense.
It cannot prevail over positive identification, unless buttressed by
strong
evidence of non-culpability.[59]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant’s defense
of alibi must also fail. Well-settled is the rule that alibi is an
inherently
weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive identification of
the
accused by the victim.[60]
Prudencia has positively identified the appellant as the one
responsible
for the assault on her chastity.[61]
His alibi cannot, thus, exculpate him from liability.cralaw:red
In addition to the positive
identification made by Prudencia, the appellant’s alibi placed him
within
the periphery of the locus criminis. In order for the defense of alibi
to prosper, it is not enough to prove that appellant was somewhere else
when the offense was committed; it must, likewise, be demonstrated that
he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been
physically
present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time
of its commission.[62]
In People v. Bracamonte,[63]
we said –
Alibi, the plea of having
been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the
commission
of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no
mistake
about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good
defense.
But to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge, the
defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically
impossible
for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at
the
time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two
places
at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of
no exception. Where there is the least possibility of accused’s
presence
at the crime scene, the alibi will not hold water.[64]
The trial court correctly
convicted the appellant of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended
by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659[65]
reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Art. 335. When and how
rape is committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances.cralaw:red
1. By using force or
intimidation;
2. When the woman is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is
under twelve years of age or is demented.cralaw:red
The crime of rape shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
The trial court is mandated
to impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua regardless of any attendant
generic aggravating circumstance as provided for in Article 63 of the
Revised
Penal Code.cralaw:red
Nevertheless, generic
aggravating circumstances may be appreciated as basis for an award of
exemplary
damages, in line with prevailing case law.[66]
In this case, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is attendant
because
the appellant raped the victim in her house.[67]
Hence, the victim is entitled to an award of exemplary damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While the trial court
correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000, it failed to
award civil indemnity to the victim. The award of civil indemnity ex
delicto
of P50,000 to a rape victim is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[68]
Civil indemnity is distinct from and must not be denominated as moral
damages,
which are based on different jural foundations.[69]
The victim is entitled to P25,000 as exemplary damages.[70]
The trial court’s award
of P10,000 as actual damages should be deleted for lack of factual
basis.
To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual
amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon
competent
proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[71]
The Court can only grant such amount for expenses if they are supported
by receipts.[72]
IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City,
Branch 9, convicting appellant Florencio Cadampog guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. The appellant is directed to pay the victim Prudencia
Lasara
the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity; P50,000 as moral damages;
and,
P25,000 as exemplary damages. The award of P10,000 as actual damages is
deleted for lack of proof thereof.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
and Tinga, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr.
[2]
Private complainant’s surname is also spelled "Lazara" in the records.
[3]
Records, p. 14.
[4]
Id. at 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Prudencia Lasara,
Felipe
Lasara, and Dr. Venus Tagarda.
[6]
TSN, 3 October 1996, pp. 2-4 (Prudencia Lasara).
[7]
TSN, 8 October 1996, p. 37 (Felipe Lasara).
[8]
TSN, 3 October 1996, pp. 6-7 (Prudencia Lasara).
[9]
Id. at 8-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at 13.
[11]
Id. at 14.
[12]
Id. at 27.
[13]
Id. at 14-16.
[14]
Id. at 18.
[15]
Id. at 16-17.
[16]
TSN, 8 October 1996, p. 42 (Felipe Lasara).
[17]
TSN, 3 October 1996, p. 16 (Prudencia Lasara).
[18]
Records, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, 18 November 1996, pp. 51-55.
[20]
The defense presented as witnesses Florencio Cadampog, Liza Cadampog,
and
Constancio Paragoso.
[21]
TSN, 20 January 2000, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 5-6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id. at 7-8.
[24]
Id. at 9.
[25]
Id. at 10.
[26]
TSN, 9 May 2000, pp. 5-9 (Liza Cadampog).
[27]
Id. at 10.
[28]
Id. at 15-17 (Constancio Paragoso).
[29]
Records, p. 119.
[30]
Rollo, p. 64.
[31]
Id. at 70.
[32]
Brief for the Appellee, pp. 6-8.
[33]
People v. Igat, 291 SCRA 100 (1998).
[34]
Records, p. 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Ibid. (Emphasis supplied)
[36]
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged, p. 2640).
[37]
People v. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463 (1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
374 SCRA 631 (2002).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
Id. at 649.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
People v. Medina, 300 SCRA 98 (1998).
[41]
TSN, 3 October 1996, p. 4 (Prudencia Lasara).
[42]
Id. at 7-8.
[43]
Id. at 8.
[44]
Id. at 9.
[45]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
Id. at 9-10.
[47]
Id. at 10.
[48]
Id. at 11.
[49]
Id. at 12-14.
[50]
People v. Ganduma, 160 SCRA 799 (1988).
[51]
People v. Galisim, 369 SCRA 727 (2001).
[52]
People v. Lamarozza, 299 SCRA 116 (1998).
[53]
215 SCRA 596 (1992).
[54]
Id. at 609.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
229 SCRA 332 (1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
Id. at 337-338.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
G.R. No. 136397, November 11, 2003.
[58]
Id. at 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[59]
People v. Elona, 388 SCRA 547 (2002).
[60]
People v. Losano, 310 SCRA 707 (1999).
[61]
TSN, 17 August 1995, p. 3 (Aileen Marilou Generoso).
[62]
People v. Barera, 262 SCRA 63 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
257 SCRA 380 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[64]
Id. at 384.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
The crime was committed before R.A. No. 8353 took effect.
[66]
People v. Evina, G.R. No. 124830-31, June 27, 2003.
[67]
Article 14, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code.
[68]
People v. Gonzales, 385 SCRA 573 (2002).
[69]
People v. Emocling, 297 SCRA 214 (1998).
[70]
People v. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2001).
[71]
People v. Dy, 375 SCRA 15 (2002).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[72]
People v. Gutierrez, Jr., 302 SCRA 643 (1999). |