PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
153219
December 1, 2003 - versus -
EDGAR MOLLEDA Y
PONTANES
ALIAS MEDY,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28, in
Criminal
Case No. SC-7259, finding appellant Edgar Molleda y Pontanes guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the offended
party
the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 2, 1999, appellant
Edgar Molleda y Pontanes was charged with rape in an Information which
reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or
about January 25, 1999, in the municipality of Kalayaan, Province of
Laguna
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused,
with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, did then and
there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of Juana
Bernaser
Bucad against her will and consent and to her damage and prejudice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
The victim, Juana
Bernaser Bucad, has ten children by her deceased husband, Guillermo
Bucad.
At the time of the incident, she was living with her common-law
husband,
Felipe Roma.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 25, 1999,
at around 7:30 p.m., appellant Edgar "Medy" Molleda arrived at their
house
in the mountainous area of Purok 7, Longos, Kalayaan, Laguna. He told
Felipe
that a member of the New People's Army (NPA) wanted to talk to him by
the
creek some 1,000 meters away from the house. Felipe noticed a bulge in
appellant's waist. After Felipe left the house, appellant told Juana
that
he wanted to talk to her at the camote plantation 12 meters away from
their
house, but she insisted that they talk inside their house. However,
appellant
dragged her to the camote plantation. When they got there, appellant
pointed
a gun at Juana and ordered her to undress. She removed her shorts and
panties
and sat on the ground. Appellant then took off his clothes, lay on top
of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. He made thrusting
motions
that lasted for two minutes. When he was done, appellant warned Juana
not
to reveal the incident to anybody, otherwise he would kill her. He got
up, put on his short pants and briefs, and left.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, Felipe found
nobody by the creek and returned to the house. Moments later, Juana
arrived
and told him that appellant had raped her. Felipe got angry and looked
for appellant outside, but did not find him. Juana went to the house of
Marites Oco, Felipe's daughter by a previous relationship. She cried as
she recounted her ordeal. She told Marites that she felt so ashamed of
herself.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The next morning, Felipe
accompanied Juana to the police station to report the incident. She
executed
a written statement wherein she positively identified appellant as her
rapist.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Olivia Jo Ann C.
Tobias, Medical Officer III of the Provincial Health Office of Sta.
Cruz,
Laguna, conducted the examination on the victim and found the
following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vaginal exam: labia
majora gaping
Vagina admits two fingers
with ease
Hymen-old healed laceration
at 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock position
Internal exam: cervix
closed, firm, non tender
x
x x
Specimen taken for sperm
analysis-result — Negative[3]
Appellant was arrested
on January 29, 1999 and formally charged in court.cralaw:red
In his defense, appellant
denied the accusation. He claimed that at 6:00 p.m. of January 25,
1999,
he was in the house of his best friend's son, Norman Delos Reyes, at
Barangay
Longos, Kalayaan, Laguna. Norman's father had asked appellant to watch
over his children since he had to leave for Bicol that afternoon.
Appellant
stayed in Norman's house the whole night until 8:00 the following
morning.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 24, 2001,
the trial court rendered judgment, the decretal portion of which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court finds the
accused
Edgar Molleda y Pontanes guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of
the offense of rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code and as
charged
in the information and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION
PERPETUA and to pay the offended party Juana Bernaser Bucad the sum of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[4]
Hence, this appeal
based on the following assignment of errors:chanrobles virtual law library
I
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT.cralaw:red
II
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF
THE CRIME CHARGED.[5]
The appeal lacks merit.cralaw:red
Rape is essentially
an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted except in dark or
deserted
and secluded places away from prying eyes, and the crime usually
commences
solely upon the word of the offended woman herself and conviction
invariably
turns upon her credibility, as the prosecution's single witness of the
actual occurrence.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the review of rape
cases, therefore, we are guided by the following principles: (1) an
accusation
for rape can be made with facility: it is difficult to prove but more
difficult
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of
the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness
of the evidence for the defense.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The determination of
the guilt of the appellant depends primarily on the credibility of the
victim, Juana Bernaser Bucad. Her testimony alone, if credible, would
render
the appellant's conviction inevitable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It has been held in
a long line of cases that the findings of the trial court on the
credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect. It is
the
trial judge who sees the behavior and demeanor of the witness in court.
The evaluation or assessment made by the trial court acquires greater
significance
in rape cases because from the nature of the offense, the only evidence
that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is
the victim's testimony. It is settled that a person accused of rape can
be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim if the trial court
finds
said testimony to be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
the trial court found the testimony of the victim to be credible and
convincing.
After reviewing the evidence on record of the case, we see no cogent
reason
to disturb its findings. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the victim's
acts of immediately narrating the incident to her live-in partner,
reporting
it to the police authorities and undergoing medical examination bolster
her charge of rape.[9]
No woman would openly admit that she was raped and consequently subject
herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and
humiliation of a public trial, and embarrass herself with the need to
narrate
in detail the manner of its commission.[10]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's defense
of alibi cannot hold water because it failed to satisfy the
requirements
of time and place. For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only
that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that
it
was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the
time
of the alleged crime.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
it was established that the house of Norman delos Reyes, where
appellant
claimed he was at the time of commission of the crime, was just a
one-hour
walk from Juana and Felipe's house and there were jeepneys plying the
area.
Furthermore, appellant's defense of alibi cannot prevail over his
positive
identification by Juana.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant contends
that the prosecution failed to prove the element of force in the
commission
of the crime of rape. He argues that, based on the victim's narration,
it appears that she voluntarily went with him to the camote plantation
and she did not exhibit any sign of resistance when she was allegedly
ordered
to take off her clothes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While there may not
have been proof of use of force, we hold that appellant was guilty of
rape
committed through intimidation. Intimidation must be viewed in light of
the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of
the
crime and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that it produces
fear — fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of
appellant, something would happen to her at that moment or even
thereafter,
as when appellant threatened to kill her if she reported the incident.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When appellant
threatened
the victim with a gun during the sexual intercourse, intimidation, as
an
element of rape, was present. It is not necessary that force and
violence
be employed. Intimidation is sufficient, and this includes the moral
kind,
i.e., threatening the victim with a gun. When this kind of intimidation
exists and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof,
thereby
rendering resistance futile, it is unreasonable to expect her to resist
with all her might and strength.[13]
Such intimidation, in this particular case, was enough to render Juana
incapable of offering any resistance because of fear for her life.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Therefore, appellant
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape. Under Articles 266-A and
266-B
of the Revised Penal Code, where the rape was committed through force,
threat or intimidation, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. Hence,
the penalty imposed by the trial court on appellant is correct.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court was
also correct in awarding to the complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity, conformably with prevailing jurisprudence. Civil
indemnity
is automatically granted once the fact of rape had been established.
For
her shame, as well as mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched
reputation, moral shock and social humiliation which rape necessarily
brings
to the offended party, she is entitled to recover P50,000.00 as moral
damages
under Article 2219 in relation to Article 2217 of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz,
Laguna,
Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. SC-7259, finding appellant Edgar
Molleda
y Pontanes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to
suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay complainant
Juana
Bernaser Bucad the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P50,000.00
as moral damages, is AFFIRMED in toto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Panganiban, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Penned by Judge Fernando M. Paclibon, Jr.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Records, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rape Case Report, Records, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Records, p. 96, Rollo, p. 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, p. 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
People v. Domingo, 226 SCRA 156, 166 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
People v. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537, 546 (1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People v. Fabian, G.R. Nos. 148368-70, 8 July 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
People v. Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, 22 January 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
People v. Bagaua, G.R. No. 147943, 12 December 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People v. Escaño, G.R. Nos. 140218-23, 13 February 2002, citing
People v. Hinto, G.R. Nos. 138146-91, 28 February 2000.
[12]
People v. Pamor, 237 SCRA 462, 472 (1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People v. Salazar, G.R. Nos. 98121-22, 5 July 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|