FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. NOS. 153573-76 : April 15, 2005]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. WILSON SUAREZ Y VILLONES, SANTIAGO SUAREZ Y VILLONES (INDETERMINATE), RICARTE DARIA Y TENGSON (INDETERMINATE) AND NENA DARIA Y RIPOL (ACQUITTED), Accused. WILSON SUAREZ Y VILLONES, Appellant.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The undersigned 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor upon Sworn Complaint originally filed by Salome Montales in behalf of her minor daughter Jenalyn Montales accuses WILSON SUAREZ y VILLONES, SANTIAGO SUAREZ y VILLONES, RICARTE DARIA y TENGSON and NENA DARIA y RIPOL of the crime of RAPE UNDER RA 8353 ART. 266-A PAR. 1(a) AND ART. 266(b), committed as follows:On even date, Wilson, Santiago and Ricarte, were also charged with the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
That on or about the 16th day of September 2001, in the City of Marikina, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, coercion and intimidation and with lewd design, intent to cause or gratify their sexual desires or abuse and maltreat complainant JENALYN MONTALES, a minor, 14 years old, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said complainant against her will and consent which debases or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of said child as a human being.
That accused NENA DARIA, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, without having participated therein as principal or accessory, took part subsequently to its commission by then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously allowed the commission thereof in her presence without preventing them which she could have easily done but which she failed to do.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Only Wilson interposed an appeal.7 He assails Jenalyn's credibility arguing that she was not even certain whether she was kissed simultaneously or one at a time by accused-appellant, Santiago and Ricarte. He finds improbable that rape could be perpetuated in front of an audience. He also observes that Jenalyn was inconsistent as to the time she slept and when she was allegedly raped. He insists that Jenalyn should have left the house of Santiago immediately after the rape instead of waiting until 8 o'clock in the morning. For him, it was unusual for a girl who claims to have been raped to run to the comfort room without putting on her undergarments. It is also irregular that Jenalyn disclosed the ordeal to her mother ten (10) days after its alleged commission.
1) Accused Wilson Suarez y Villones is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 2001-3977-MK and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify the private complainant the amount of Php50,000.00 and another Php50,000.00 for moral damages; Criminal Case No. 2001-3978-MK for Acts of Lasciviousness against same accused is ordered DISMISSED;
2) Accused Nena Daria y Ripol is ordered ACQUITTED as accomplice in Criminal Case No. 2001-3977-MK for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
3) Accused Santiago Suarez y Villones is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Acts of Lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 2001-3979-MK and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years and Two (2) Months as minimum to Six (6) years as maximum and to pay the private complainant the amount of Php30,000.00 as moral damages; Criminal Case No. 2001-3977-MK for rape is DISMISSED against the said accused;
4) Accused RICARTE DARIA y TENGSON is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 2001-3980-Mk and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Four (4) years and Two (2) Months as minimum to Six (6) years as maximum and to pay the private complainant the amount of Php30,000.00 as moral damages; Criminal Case no. 2001-3977-MK for rape is likewise DISMISSED against said accused.
The Jailwarden of Marikina City Jail is ordered to immediately release the person of NENA DARIA y RIPOL unless validly held for some other offense.
SO ORDERED.6
When the offended party is a young and immature girl between the age of 12 to 16, as in this case, courts are inclined to give credence to her version of the incident, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the public humiliation to which she would be exposed by court trial if her accusation were untrue. Testimonies of youthful rape victims are, as a general rule, given full faith and credit, considering that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.In finding accused-appellant guilty, it is not as if the trial court relied on the victim's testimony without any critical assessment at all. The trial court gave credence to the complainant's testimony only after it has satisfied itself that the same was competent and credible as shown by the manner in which she testified and her demeanor on the witness stand.10
The testimony of the private complainant Jenalyn Montales was given in a straight forward and candid manner. She positively identified one of the accused in the person of Wilson Suarez who inserted his penis into her vagina while being laid on the floor where Wilson was also lying. She cannot shout as Wilson put his clothes in the mouth. The second incident was when she went inside the comfort room and with a knife pointed on her, Wilson succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. The defense of denial by the accused is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credence. (People vs. Sagun, 303 SCRA 382). Hence, it cannot prosper against the positive identification of the accused by the victim. The rule is that when the rape victim's testimony is straight forward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit. (People vs. Caratay, 316 SCRA 251). Further, failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the accused. (People vs. Vergel, 316 SCRA 199). The court notes that the complainant is a 14-year old and still of tender age and thus is not in a position to physically resist the acts of a man heavier and taller than her considering further that the complainant was then still under the effects of liquor.11 [Emphasis supplied]Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are generally accorded great respect by an appellate court.12 Well-settled is the rule that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. For this reason, the trial court's findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case.13
The appellants point to the unusual manner of commission of the crime, involving as it did not only the sexual assault by the man but also the participation of his wife, to discredit the complainant's testimony. Under the Revised Penal Code, however, an accused may be considered a principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a woman, provided of course a man is charged together with her. Thus, in two cases this Court convicted the woman as a principal by direct participation since it was proven that she held down the complainant in order to help her co-accused spouse consummate the offense.The prosecution need not prove aberrant sexual behavior to justify the claim that Wilson, Santiago, and Ricarte simultaneously or one after the other, kissed her. The sexual preference of the accused does not constitute an essential element of the crime of rape. All the prosecution needs to prove was carnal knowledge of the complainant by the accused against her will and without her consent.24
In People v. Villamala, the Court found the husband and wife guilty for raping their neighbor and "kumare" in this factual setting, viz. the wife visited the victim at her home on the pretext of inquiring as to the whereabouts of her husband. Once inside, she whistled for her husband and he immediately appeared at the doorstep. The wife then suddenly pinned her "kumare" to the floor. The husband forcefully removed the victim's skirt and panties, removed his shorts, placed himself on top of the victim and consummated the rape. In the more recent People v. Saba(n), the accused married couple victimized a fourteen (14) year-old epileptic who stayed at their home for treatment by the wife who was a reputed healer. On the pretext of conducting a healing session, the wife ordered the victim to lie down on the floor then pinned the victim's hands to the floor and covered her mouth while her husband removed his pants and briefs and the victim's panties and raped the young girl. These two cases show not only the possibility but the reality of rape committed by a woman together with a man.23
… private complainant's testimony of her defilement is corroborated by physical evidence of penile invasion as shown by hymenal lacerations she suffered. While we are not unmindful of this Court's pronouncement that a victim's hymenal lacerations need not necessarily prove carnal knowledge, nonetheless, Dr. Aletha Silang's findings of "positive hymenal laceration, complete with raw edges at, 10 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 8 o'clock positions" carries convincing weight as corroborative evidence in the light of the private complainant's accusation that she was sexually abused.The defense also attempted to discredit the prosecution by claiming that the charges were instigated by the victim's mother. We find this hard to believe. A mother would not subject her daughter, more so a minor, to the indignities of a rape trial just because her feelings was not reciprocated by the accused-appellant and his uncle, Salvador, who was not even presented to testify on this matter. If indeed Salome harbored ill-feelings against Salvador and the accused-appellant, then she would not have easily acceded to her daughter's request to join the company of Salvador and attend the birthday party of accused-appellant's brother. It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her to embarrassment, and even stigma, as in this case.32
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 4-5.
2 TSN, 28 January 2002, p. 51 (Jenalyn Montales).
3Id. at 53.
4 TSN, 6 February 2002, p. 11 (Michael A. Maunahan).
5 Rollo, pp. 17-72. Penned by Presiding Judge Reuben P. De la Cruz.
6 Id. at 71-72.
7Id. at 73.
8 People v. Blancaflor, G.R. No. 130586, 29 January 2004, 421 SCRA 354, 359.
9 G.R. No. 142887, 2 March 2004, 424 SCRA 164, 174-175.
10 People v. Guambor, G.R. No. 152183, 22 January 2004, 420 SCRA 677, 682.
11 Rollo, p. 68.
12Supra, note 9 at 174.
13 Supra, note 10 at 683.
14 People v. Estado, Jr., G.R. No. 150867, 5 February 2004, 422 SCRA 198, 205.
15 People v. Ballester, G.R. No. 152279, 20 January 2004, 420 SCRA 379, 384.
16Supra, note 9 at 175.
17 People v. Alberio, G.R. No. 152584, 6 July 2004.
18 TSN, 6 February 2002, pp. 19-20 (Jenalyn Montales).
19Supra, note 15 at 384.
20 G.R. NOS. 121213 & 121216-23, 13 January 2004, 419 SCRA 18.
21 G.R. No. L-41312, 29 July 1997, 78 SCRA 145.
22 377 Phil. 37 (1999).
23Supra, note 20 at 24-25.
24Id. at 25.
25 People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 744, 750.
26 TSN, 13 February 2002, p. 34 (Jenalyn Montales).
27 People v. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. NOS. 132125-26, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 450, 465.
28 People v. Intong, G.R. NOS. 145034-35, 5 February 2004, 422 SCRA 134, 139.
29Supra, note 10 at 682.
30 People v. Valdez, G.R. NOS. 133194-95 & 141539, 29 January 2004, 421 SCRA 376, 393.
31Supra, note 9 at 175.
32Supra, note 20 at 33.
33Supra, note 27 at 466.
34 People v. Guihama, G.R. No. 126113, 25 June 2003, 404 SCRA 655, 668.
35 Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code.
36 People v. Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, 21 May 2004, 429 SCRA 9, 28.
37Id. at 28-29.
QUISUMBING, J.:
Let me elucidate the grounds for my dissent in detail.
- THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
- THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.1
(1) On direct examination, Jenalyn claimed that the three accused kissed her entire body one at a time. On cross-examination, she said that the three accused kissed her all at the same time;Appellant denies Jenalyn's accusations. He also points out that it was strange that it was only on the tenth day after the alleged rape took place, and after Jenalyn's mother heard the information from their neighbor of what transpired, that Jenalyn told her mother of her ordeal. He also maintains that denial of the alleged offense by the accused should not always be frowned upon by the court, since there are occasions where the same could actually be the real and simple truth.
(2) Jenalyn alleged that Nena Daria witnessed the incident. But, it seems contrary to human experience that Daria, wife of one of the accused, would passively watch her husband have sex with another woman;
(3) Jenalyn asserted that she was molested from the time that she was intoxicated at more or less 2:00 a.m. Yet, she earlier claimed she already felt dizzy and vomited shortly after their arrival;
(4) It is not normal for a girl who has been raped to run to the comfort room without putting on her pedal pants and panty, when the lights were turned on; and
(5) Jenalyn could not have waited until the morning at around 3:00 a.m., and then go home only at 8:00 a.m. when the spouses Olaya told her to go.
Pros. Ramolete:If indeed a flashlight was beamed on Jenalyn, in our view, the flood of light would have blinded her. She would not be in a position to identify clearly the person holding the flashlight. The glare could make a person's profile indistinct. While those in front of the flashlight could be lighted clearly, those at the back would be in the dark.
Q: Did you see the face of Nena Daria there?
Witness [Jenalyn]:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Aside from watching you and the accused doing something bad to you, what else was Nena Daria doing then?
A: She was focusing her flashlight on us.
Q: Where was she then when she was focusing her flashlight on you?
A: She was at the door because there was no door and she was just there and she was not doing anything to prevent them.
Q: How sure are you that it was Nena Daria who was focusing that flashlight on you?
A: I saw her, sir.
Q: How were you able to recognize her?
A: Because she was holding the flashlight and she was focusing it on me so I recognized her.6
Pros. Ramolete:Earlier, Jenalyn stated that she had neither panty nor pants on and wore them only in the morning when they were about to leave.8 It seems rather unnatural that a girl who says she had been raped would come out of the comfort room half-naked, and would remain so in the sala with other people present for some time.
Q: After Wilson again molested you, what transpired next?
Witness [Jenalyn]:
A: After doing bad to me Wilson inserted his thumb into my vagina and twisted it in my vagina, sir.
Q: In the comfort room?
A: No more sir in the sala.7
Pros. Ramolete:However, on cross-examination, she gave a different account, thus:
Q: After Nena Daria opened the light or turned on the light, what was Wilson... what happened next?
Witness [Jenalyn]:
A: I went to the comfort room which has no door and which was only covered by plywood, sir.
Q: What were you wearing then?
A: I was not wearing pedals or panty sir.9
Atty. Larracas:Why she did not directly inform her mother soon after the alleged rape is left unexplained. It was a neighbor, one Agapito Manzano, who did. However, according to Jenalyn, the appellant had threatened Luzviminda and her, if they reported to her mother what earlier transpired. Yet, in her earlier testimony, Jenalyn said that when told about the offense, Luzviminda merely laughed at her. On this point, Jenalyn's testimony reads:
Q: Why did you not wear your panty and your pedal pants before going to the comfort room?
Witness [Jenalyn]:
A: When I went there, I was still wearing my pedal pants and panty.
Q: You mean you went to the comfort room with your panty and with your pedal pants on?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: The alleged rape was already finished at that time?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: So you were raped with pedal pants and panty on?
A: No, ma'am. All were taken off.
Q: At what point in time did you wear or put on your pants and panty?
A: When we were about to leave.10
Pros. Ramolete:As pointed out by the appellant, Jenalyn also made an inconsistent narration of how she was kissed by the three accused.12 Was she kissed in different parts of her body by them one at a time or by the three together?
Q: Who were your companions in going home?
Witness [Jenalyn]:
A: Luzviminda Olaya, Jeffrey Olaya and Jocelyn [Teraza], sir.
Q: Did you tell them what Wilson did to you on your way home?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was her reaction?
A: None, sir. They just laughed at me.
Q: Did Jeffrey hear what you told Luzviminda?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was his reaction?
A: They did not say anything, they just looked at me, sir.
Q: What about Jocelyn, what did she do?
A: Same thing, sir.
Q: Did you narrate your ordeals to your mother?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When was that?
A: September 26, 2001, sir.
Q: Why did you not report this matter to your mother the following day after you reached your home?
A: They threatened me and Luzviminda not to report the matter to my mother and my mother would kill me if she would know what happened to me, sir.11
Pros. Ramolete:But, during cross-examination she said she was still awake at 2:00 a.m.
Q: After that celebration, what time more or less did that celebration last?
Witness [Jenalyn]:
A: Up to 1:00 in the early morning.
Q: What did you do after those visitors went home?
A: I cleaned the litters.…
Q: And after cleaning the litters, what else did you do, if any?
A: I went to sleep, sir.
Q: Where?
A: At the sofa, sir.…
Q: But were you able to take your sleep?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What time more or less were you able to sleep?
A: Around 11:00 in the evening.…
Q: What time more or less did that rape incident happen?
A: 2:00 in the early morning, sir.
Q: What date?
A: September 16, 2001, sir.13
Atty. Larracas:In the same cross-examination, Jenalyn had contradictory answers as to the time her companions left.
Q: At about what time did Salvador and Marlyn Olaya go home in the early morning? Was it three o'clock?
Witness [Jenalyn]:
A: I do not know.
Q: What time?
A: I do not know.
Q: So you were still [awake] when Salvador Olaya and Marlyn Olaya went home?
A: I was still [awake].. . .
Q: At about what time did you go to sleep?
A: Two o'clock in the early morning.
Q: Was Salvador Olaya and Marlyn Olaya still in the house when you go to sleep?
A: They already left.
Q: How did you know that it was two o'clock?
A: Because they bade goodbye.14
Atty. Larracas:The alleged torn pants of Jenalyn, which were unnoticed by her mother and companions, merely added to the doubt on the details of the victim's version. Her mother, Salome Montales, testified on this score as follows:
Q: Jenalyn claimed that she was raped in the house of Santiago Suarez at that time she attended the birthday celebration of Santiago Suarez, since you were there what can you say about this claim of Jenalyn Montales?
Witness [Jeffrey]:
A: I will be surprised because I do not know of any rape that happened.
Q: Were you [awake] from two o'clock in the morning [of] September 16, 2001?
A: Yes, ma'am.15. . .
Atty. Larracas:Will you side with your relatives Mr. witness?
Pros. Ramolete:That is improper.
Atty. Larracas:That was the point, your Honor of the cross.
Pros. Ramolete:Your Honor please, I am must emphasizing..
Court:Witness may answer the question.
Witness [Jeffrey]:No, ma'am, if they really committed any wrong.
Atty. Larracas:No further question.16
Atty. Larracas:Witness Jeffrey Olaya also had doubts on the torn pants:Did you find anything unusual on your daughter on that morning?
Witness [Salome]:None yet, ma'am.. . .
Atty. Larracas:And her pants were not destroyed that morning?
Witness [Salome]:I did not notice yet.17
Atty. Larracas:The foregoing testimonies of the mother and of Jeffrey were corroborated by Jocelyn Teraza, who is not a relative of the accused,
Q: Jenalyn said that her pedal pants was destroyed and she covered the destroyed parts of her pedal pants, what can you say about this?
Witness [Jeffrey]:
A: It would be embarrassing if from Wilson Suarez' place up to our place, we would allow her to walk in that situation.
Q: So what will you do Mr. witness?
Pros. Ramolete:That will be argumentative, your Honor.
Court:Sustained. Reform the question.
Atty. Larracas:You said that it will be embarrassing, were you embarrassed?
Witness [Jeffrey]:
A: If that would be her condition, I would really be embarrassed.
Q: And was it her condition?
Court:Already answered. . .18
Court:As frequently stressed, in rape cases, the quantum of proof required is one beyond reasonable doubt, to be applied in an exacting measure, for a rape charge is easy to concoct. Thus, this Court will not condemn a person if there exists the slightest hint of reasonable doubt as to his guilt.20Considering that the testimony would just be corroborating to the testimony, why don't you try to make a stipulation, to expedite the proceedings?. . .
Atty. Larracas:Third, that Jenaly[n] Montales was not raped on that whole time that she was with Jenalyn from ten o'clock in the evening of September 15, 2001 up to six o'clock in the morning of September 16, 2001 when they left the house of Wilson Suarez;. . .
Atty. Larracas:Fifth, she will corroborate the testimony of Jeffrey Olaya that they left the house of Santiago Suarez at around six o'clock in the morning of September 21, 2001 and they did not observe any unusual on the manner of walking on the part of Jenalyn Montales and they did not observe any tear on any part of her clothing at that time; she will corroborate the testimony of Wilson Suarez as to the testimonies of Wilson Suarez, Santiago Suarez and Nena Daria as to the things that transpired during the party. That will be all. (Emphasis supplied.). . .
Court:So any comment?
Pros. Ramolete:To expedite this proceeding, of course this witness will deny all these things but on the part of the defense evidence so with those alleged statements to be made by this witness, we will have no objection, your Honor please, as collaborating testimonies.19
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, p. 82.
2 People v. Molleda, G.R. No. 153219, 1 December 2003, 417 SCRA 53, 57.
3 People v. Sodsod, G R. Nos. 141280-81, 16 June 2003, 404 SCRA 39, 53.
4 People v. Federico, GR. No. 146956, 25 July 2003, 407 SCRA 290, 296 citing People v. Bontuan, GR. Nos. 142993-94, 5 September 2002, 388 SCRA 436, 444.
5 People v. Daramay, Jr., G.R. NOS. 140235 & 142748, 9 May 2002, 382 SCRA 119, 129.
6 TSN, 28 January 2002, pp. 106-108 (Jenalyn Montales).
7 TSN, 6 February 2002, pp. 17-18 (Jenalyn Montales).
8 TSN, 13 February 2002, p. 50 (Jenalyn Montales).
9 TSN, 6 February 2002, p. 15 (Jenalyn Montales).
10 TSN, 13 February 2002, p 50 (Jenalyn Montales).
11 TSN, 6 February 2002, pp. 18-20 (Jenalyn Montales).
12 TSN, 28 January 2002, pp. 102-104 (Jenalyn Montales); TSN, 13 February 2002, p. 46 (Jenalyn Montales).
13Id. at 63-65, 80, 82-83.
14 TSN, 13 February 2002, pp. 34, 39-40 (Jenalyn Montales).
15 TSN, 12 March 2002, p. 11 (Jeffrey Olaya).
16Id. at 14.
17 TSN, 16 January 2002, pp. 56, 58 (Salome Montales).
18 TSN, 12 March 2002, p. 12 (Jeffrey Olaya).
19 TSN, 14 March 2002, pp. 3-5 (JocelynTeraza).
20 People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 134309, 17 November 2000, 345 SCRA 1, 10.
21See People v. Lou, G.R. No 146803, 14 January 2004, 419 SCRA 345, 351.
22 People v. Masalihit, G.R. No. 124329, 14 December 1998, 300 SCRA 147, 162.
23Id. at 163.
24 People v. Cunanan, No. L-17599, 24 April 1967, 19 SCRA 769, 784.
25 People v Capili, G.R. No. 130588, 8 June 2000, 333 SCRA 354, 366.