THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 216010, April 20, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY", Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
For review is the May 23, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05692 which affirmed with modifications the June 28, 2012 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, in Lingayen, Pangasinan, finding appellant Jimmy Ulanday guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
"That sometime in the evening of March 11, 2011 in Brgy. Tampac, Aguilar, Pangasinan[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, armed with a knife, with force and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag [XYZ]4 to a dark portion at the back portion of their house and thereafter removed her short pants and panty and have sexual intercourse with her, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.A warrant was issued by the Executive Judge and the appellant was arrested on August 17, 2011.5 When arraigned, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the identity of the parties; the existence of the medico-legal certificate of XYZ dated May 16, 2011 issued by Dr. Maria Gwendolyn Luna (Dr. Luna); and the existence of the certification of the entry in the police blotter of Philippine National Police (PNP), Aguilar Police Station, Pangasinan regarding the rape incident.6
Contrary to Article 266-A, par. [1] (a) of the Revised Penal Code."
"On the night of 11 March 2011, [XYZ], twenty-four (24) years old, sat beside the living room window near the main door of her family's house. She looked out the window and watched the dance party which was going on outside their house.BBB testified that on May 10, 2011, she and XYZ were summoned by CCC, their uncle, to his house. There, and in the presence of several persons namely: XYZ, BBB, CCC and appellant's nephew, Marvin Ulanday (Marvin), the appellant openly admitted that he had sexual intercourse with XYZ.8 After his confession, the appellant was mauled by the males then present.9 Thereafter, the appellant went into hiding.10
Out of nowhere, [appellant], armed with a knife, entered [XYZ's] house, pulled her out and dragged her towards the house of [her] neighbor, [AAA].
Although she does not know [appellant], [XYZ] was able to identify him because she has seen him before playing tong-its in the gambling area near [her] house.
[Appellant] brought [XYZ] at the back of [AAA's] house. No one was inside [AAA's] house and it was dark.
Once inside [AAA's] house, [appellant] immediately overpowered [XYZ]. He leaned [XYZ] against the wall and removed her pants and underwear. Thereafter, [appellant] pulled down his zipper. [Appellant] then covered [XYZ's] mouth using his left hand and pointed a knife against her face using his right hand. After, despite their standing position, [appellant] spread [XYZ's] legs, inserted his penis into her vagina and proceeded to rape [her]. During the entire assault, [appellant] poked his knife against [XYZ's] face.
After committing his dastardly act, [appellant] returned [XYZ's] pants and underwear. [XYZ] then went back home and slept.
A few months later, in May, [XYZ] got the courage to tell her mother what happened. After, [XYZ], accompanied by her mother, reported the crime committed against her to the police."7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On March 11, 2011, [appellant] was in Brgy. Kuako, Pangasinan, watching a wedding dance party when he first met [XYZ] who was [then] seated inside their house also watching tine dance party through their window. [XYZ] then called [appellant's] attention and when he approached her, they had a conversation over the window. During their conversation, [appellant] noticed that [XYZ] was not alone in the house as there are about five (5) other persons living with her. Their conversation lasted for about an hour until he was called by his cousin Eddie Ulanday to go home. He immediately slept upon arriving thereat.The appellant appealed to the CA on a sole assigned error that the trial court erred in finding that his guilt for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
[DDD], uncle[s] of [XYZ], while he was on his way to Poblacion riding his motorcycle. He was being accused by them of raping [XYZ], and when he denied having done the same, they mauled him.
Appellant vehemently denie[d] having made an admission of raping [XYZ] in the house of the latter's uncle, [CCC].14
After trial, the RTC convicted the appellant of rape in its judgment of June 28, 2012. The dispositive portion of its judgment reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryWHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Jimmy Ulanday GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay [XYZ] the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.15ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.18ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Both the trial and appellate courts upheld the credibility of XYZ and accorded credence to her testimony. As recognized in a long line of cases, a rape victim would not charge her attacker at all and thereafter exposed herself to the inevitable stigma and indignities her accusation will entail unless what she asserts is the truth for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.21 There is no showing that XYZ was impelled by improper motives to impute to the appellant such a grave and scandalous offense.
x x x x Q: When [appellant] entered the house, was that your first time to see him? A: No, your Honor. Q: So where have you met him before? A: In the gambling, your Honor. Q: So you mean, in your place near your house there's a gambling then? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: And it is usually at night time? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: What kind of game? A: Tong-its, your Honor. Q: You said you saw the [appellant] before, was he one of the participants in that tong-its game? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: How many times have you seen him before the date of the incident, many limes or whatever, many times? A: Yes, your Honor. x x x x Q: What made you say that it was the accused who enter[ed] your house and eventually rape[d] you? A: It was really he, your Honor. Q: What made you say that [it] was him when it was dark at that time? A: Because he first entered our house, your Honor. Q: When he entered your house, was there a light in your house? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: Did you see his face? A: Yes, your Honor. x x x x PROS. CATUNGAL: Your Honor, I just like to manifest that during the course of trial every time that the name of the accused is being mentioned the witness points to a person seated at the accused bench. COURT: And when asked his name. INTERPRETER: And when asked his name he responded Jimmy Ulanday. COURT: Alright. x x x x Q: What did [appellant do] when he entered your house on March 11 [2011] in the evening while you were watching this dance party? A: [Appellant] entered [our house] armed with a knife and pulled me, sir. Q: [Where] did [appellant] pull you? A: In [an unlighted area at the back of]19 the house of our neighbor, sir. x x x x Q: What did [appellant] do when he was able to pull you out? A: [Appellant] removed my pants, he removed my parity and then he covered my mouth and he poked a knife, sir. Q: When [appellant] was pulling and removing your parity and your pants, did you not shout for help? A: No, because he covered my mouth and 1 can hardly breath, sir. Q: By the way Madam witness, you said [appellant] was holding a knife, what did he do with the knife? A: [Appellant] poked [the knife] towards my face, sir. x x x x Q: Were he able to remove your panty and your pants? A: Yes, sir. Q: Did you not make any struggle against his act? A: I tried, sir. Q: But he was able to over power you? A: Yes, sir. x x x x Q: And after [removing] your panty and your pants, what did he do? x x x x A: [Appellant] inserted his penis, sir. Q: How did [appellant] inserted] his penis Madam witness? A: By spreading my legs part ways, sir. Q: Then? What was your position at [the] time the [appellant] inserted his penis in your vagina? A: Still on [the] standing position leaning on something, your Honor. Q: How about the [appellant] what was his position? A: [Appellant] was in front of me, your Honor. Q: And what did he do with his clothing? A: [Appellant] was wearing short pants, your Honor. Q: How did he insert then his penis when he was wearing a short pant? A: With a zipper, your Honor, he pulled down the zipper, your Honor. x x x x Q: So you mean he just opened the zipper and put out the penis? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: Were you able to see the penis? A: No, your Honor[,] because it was very dark then. Q: Did you feel it? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: How did you feel when the penis was inserted to your vagina? A: Painful, I felt pain, sir. Q: Was that the first time that a penis was inserted into your vagina? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: How long was the penis inserted to your vagina? A: Just a few minutes, your Honor. x x x x Q: Did you not tell any of your relative of what happened to you? A: No, because of fear, I'm afraid of [appellant], sir. Q: Why are you afraid of him Madam witness? A: [Appellant] was armed with a knife, sir. Q: Did he utter any statement to you? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: What did he say? A: That he is going to kill me, your Honor. Q: How many times did [appellant] say that? A: Once only, your Honor. Q: Was that after [appellant] raped you or before raping you? A: After he rapefd] me, your Honor. x x x x20
It would appear from the foregoing that the reasoning advanced by the defense was misplaced. The defense focused on Dr. Luna's estimate of five days old laceration completely disregarding the latter portion of her answer wherein she added "or more", in reply to the question propounded to her. The OSG was quick to point out in its brief that Dr. Luna's testimony simply means that the old lacerations were committed five (5) days or more prior to XYZ's examination.31 As such, the examining physician's declaration was actually consistent and supported XYZ's testimony that she was sexually assaulted on March 11, 2011.32
x x x x Q: Doctor you examined the victim when? A: May 16, 2011, your Honor. Q: When was she allegedly abused? A: March 11, 2011 [,] your Honor. Q: So after more or less how many days? A: Two (2) months, your Honor.28 x x x x Q: x x x [W]hat were your findings over the person of the said [XYZ]? A: My findings w[ere] centered on the an[o]genital examination and x x x on the genital area[,] they were old, healed, deep hym[e]nal laceration[s] at 4, 6 and 7 o'clock [positions], sir. Q: Relative to that word you said healed, was it freshly healed or old healed? A: It was an old laceration, sir. Q: And it ha[s] been how many months or days? A: Five (5) days or more, sir.29 x x x x Q: What does it signify] having an old healed lacerations? A: That the lacerations [could] have occurred about five (5) days or more before the examination, sir. Q: You mentioned that you were able to examine the victim after two (2) months? A: Yes, your Honor. Q: Could it be possible that she had contact before your examination? A: It is still possible, your Honor. Q: And it could still result to healed lacerations? A: Yes, your Honor.30
Endnotes:
* Additional Member per Raffled dated March 21, 2016.
1 CA rollo pp. 77-90; penned by CA Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Edwin D. Sorongon.
2 Records pp. 81-95; penned by Judge Caridad V. Galvez.
3 Id. at 1.
4 Pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real name of the rape victim will not be disclosed. Similarly, the personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise the victim's identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members will be withheld. In this connection, fictitious initials are used to represent them. Here, the rape victim is referred to as XYZ; her half-sister, BBB; her neighbour, AAA; and her uncles, CCC and DDD.
5 Records, p. 29.
6 Id. at 47.
7 CA rollo, pp. 60-61.
8 TSN, December 6, 2011, testimony of BBB, pp. 4-6.
9 Id. at 8.
10 Id.
11 Records p. 19; May 16, 2011 Medico-Legal Report issued by Dr. Luna.
12 TSN, October 25, 2011, testimony of Dr. Luna, p. 5.
13 Id. at 6.
14 CA rollo, pp. 24-25; Appellant's Brief dated April 16, 2013.
15 Records, p. 95.
16 CA rollo, p. 89.
17 Id. at 91.
18 CA rollo, pp. 22 & 25.
19 TSN, November 3, 2011, testimony of XYZ, pp. 15 & 19.
20 Id. at 5-6, 20-30, 27, 7, 9-12, 18-19.
21People v. Cabel, 347 Phil. 82, 92 (1997).
22 G.R. No. 200920, People v. Esteban, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 517, 524.
23People v. Masapol, 463 Phil. 25, 33 (2003).
24People v. Perez, 673 Phil. 373, 382 (2011).cralawred
25People v. Esperas, 461 Phil. 700, 712 (2003).
26People v. Buates, 455 Phil. 688, 698 (2003).cralawred
27People v. Saludo, 662 Phil. 738, 758-759 (2011).
28 TSN, October 25, 2011, testimony of Dr. Luna, pp. 7-8.
29 Id. at 4-5.
30 Supra note 27 at 8.
31 CA rollo, p. 73; Appellee's Brief filed by the OSG dated August 22, 2013.
32 Id.
33People v. Balonzo, 560 Phil. 244, 259-260 (2007).
34 Id. at 260.
35People v. Hashim and Pansacala, 687 Phil. 516, 526 (2012).
36People v. Villacorta, 672 Phil. 712, 721 (2011).
37 G.R. No. 196228, People v. Besmonte, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 37, 56.
38 Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 states that "[p]erson[s] convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."
39 Section II of A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC (Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties) states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x40 G.R. No. 203068, People v. Frias, September 18, 2013, 706 SCRA 156, 168.II.
In these lights, the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and
(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.
41People v. Lascano and Delabajan, 685 Phil. 236, 245 (2012).
42 Supra note 40.
43 G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.
44People v. Taguibuya, 674 Phil. 476, 483 (2011).