FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 211604, June 08, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARYL POLONIO Y TUANGCAY, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:**
The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor accuses DARYL POLONIO y TUANGCAY of the crime of Rape, defined under Article 266-A and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, committed as follows:Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty of the crime charged in the complaint.5 After the prosecution presented witnesses and formally offered documentary exhibits, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence6 on the ground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence. The accused then moved for the dismissal of the case and the RTC submitted the matter for resolution. The RTC denied the motion and scheduled the reception of evidence for the defense.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That on or about the 10th day of February 2005, in the municipality of Cervantes, province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], a sixteen (16)-year-old girl, by means of force and intimidation and against the latter's will and consent.4cralawred
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations this Court finds the accused DARYL POLONIO Y TUNGCAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and further order the accused to pay the victim [AAA] Seventy-Five Thousand pesos (P75.000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.20cralawredThe accused questioned the RTC Decision before the Court of Appeals, assigning the following errors:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Court of Appeals found that the appeal has no merit. We quote below the pertinent portions of the Court of Appeals decision:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryI.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.II.
ASSUMING, WITHOUT CONCEDING, THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT INDEED SEXUALLY MOLESTED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE INFORMATION TO PROPERLY APPRISE HIM OF HIS OFFENSE.21cralawred
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, defines Rape as an act committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (a) through force, threat or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and, (d) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.Accused-appellant adopted his arguments in his brief before the Court of Appeals as his arguments in the present petition. He mainly questions the conclusion reached by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, finding him guilty based on circumstantial evidence. He avers that the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution are not enough to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.23ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In this instance, accused-appellant admitted that he used force and violence against the victim AAA. He testified that he boxed AAA and when she fell, accused-appellant sat on her stomach and boxed her again. It has also been established that when CCC saw accused-appellant carrying AAA, the latter was unconscious and in a state of undress. It was CCC who put back AAA's shorts and underwear on her after accused-appellant threw her on the ground before he jumped over the fence to escape. Notably, AAA's underwear had bloodstains, and this was seen by POl Milagros Patil-ao at the hospital. While conducting the investigation, AAA likewise complained to POl Patil-ao about the pain she felt in her private part. The Medical Certificate executed by Dr. Licyayo also noted that AAA actually sustained a laceration in her vagina at 6 o'clock position.
The categorical narration by AAA of her encounter with accused-appellant and the physical evidence that clearly proved sexual intercourse support the conclusion that accused-appellant did, in fact, commit rape against AAA through force or intimidation. Force as an element of rape is that which is needed to overpower the resistance of the offended party and to consummate the offense. In this case, the three (3) blows to the head with a stick and several blows using his fist that caused AAA's unconsciousness definitely enabled accused-appellant to carry out his evil deed without any defense on the part of AAA.
It is of no moment that there was no witness who actually saw accused-appellant in the act of having carnal knowledge with AAA, nor that AAA was then in a state of unconsciousness. For one thing, jurisprudence abound that the crime of rape, more often than not, happens only between the assailant and the victim. Hence, a conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence which is indirect or presumptive evidence that refers to a set of facts from which the existence of the allegation sought to be proved may be inferred. The only , requirements are: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and, (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstances also need to be consistent with each other and with the theory that the accused is guilty.
In this case, it is undenied (sic) that accused-appellant committed violence against AAA by striking and boxing her several times even as the latter was already prostrate on the ground. It was also established that accused-appellant mounted AAA and that the latter was without her shorts and underwear. Accused-appellant tried to escape while carrying the half-naked AAA but eventually dropped her on the ground in his escape. It was CCC who put back her underwear and shorts. There was blood on her underwear. AAA complained to PO1 Patil-ao of pain in her vagina. Upon examination, Dr. Ronaldo Licyayo confirmed that AAA suffered a laceration at 6 o'clock position which is indicative of vaginal penetration. It is also worth stressing that after the incident, accused-appellant fled and became a fugitive until his arrest fifteen (15) days later. All these point to a conclusion of guilt on the part of accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant's denial that he merely boxed, but did not rape AAA [does] not deserve belief. Denial, much like alibi, is one of the weakest defenses as it is easy to fabricate. Pitted against the certificate issued by Dr. Licyayo, affirmative testimony given by AAA, CCC, and PO1 Patil-ao, the defense of denial put up by accused-appellant cannot stand.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated 05 March 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur is AFFIRMED.22 (Citations omitted, emphases supplied.)cralawred
Lastly, Lupac assails the absence of credible direct evidence about his having carnal knowledge of AAA because she herself, being then asleep and unconscious, could not reliably attest to his supposed deed. Consequently, he argues that the evidence against him did not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt.The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, Republic Act No. 8353, defines when and how rape is committed:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Lupac's argument hews closely to what the Court has stated in People v. Campuhan to the effect that there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt of at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female genital organ, which required some degree of penetration beyond the vulva in order to touch the labia majora or the labia minora.
The position of Lupac is bereft of merit, however, because his conviction should still stand even if direct evidence to prove penile penetration of AAA was not adduced. Direct evidence was not the only means of proving rape beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence would also be the reliable means to do so, provided that (a) there was more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences were derived were proved; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances was such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. What was essential was that the unbroken chain of the established circumstances led to no other logical conclusion except the appellant's guilt.
The following circumstances combined to establish that Lupac consummated the rape of AAA, namely: (a) when AAA went to take her afternoon nap, the only person inside the house with her was Lupac; (b) about an hour into her sleep, she woke up to find herself already stripped naked as to expose her private parts; (c) she immediately felt her body aching and her vaginal region hurting upon her regaining consciousness; (d) all doors and windows were locked from within the house, with only her and the brief-clad Lupac inside the house; (e) he exhibited a remorseful demeanor in unilaterally seeking her forgiveness (Pasensiya ka na AAA), even spontaneously explaining that he did not really intend to do "that" to her, showing his realization of the gravity of the crime he had just committed against her; (f) her spontaneous, unhesitating and immediate denunciation of the rape to Tita Terry and her mother (hindot being the term she used); and (g) the medico-legal findings about her congested vestibule within the labia minora, deep fresh bleeding laceration at 9 o'clock position in the hymen, and abraded and U-shaped posterior fourchette proved the recency of infliction of her vaginal injuries.
The fact that all her injuries x x x were confined to the posterior region area of her genitals signified the forceful penetration of her with a blunt instrument, like an erect penis. (Citations omitted, Emphasis supplied.)cralawred
Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. — Rape is Committed —The elements of the crime charged in this case are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a female, and (2) that the same was committed by using force, threat or intimidation.26ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious[.]cralawred
The observance of the witnesses' demeanor during an oral direct examination, cross-examination, and during the entire period that he or she is present during trial is indispensable especially in rape cases because it helps establish the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Trial provides judges with the opportunity to detect, consciously or unconsciously, observable cues and microexpressions that could, more than the words said and taken as a whole, suggest sincerity or betray lies and ill will. These important aspects can never be reflected or reproduced in documents and objects used as evidence.In People v. Belgar,28 the Court also affirmed the RTC and the Court of Appeals in finding the accused guilty of rape based on circumstantial evidence, as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Hence, "[t]he evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great respect to the trial court's findings," more so when the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings. (Citations omitted.)cralawred
Like the RTC and the CA, we find AAA's narration of her ordeal as credible and truthful. The assessment by the RTC on the credibility of AAA should be respected because the trial court had personally observed her demeanor while testifying. This appreciation held true because the CA affirmed the factual findings of the RTC.Thus, we deny the petition and affirm the judgment of conviction. However, we hereby modify the penalties awarded in keeping with recent jurisprudence. We hold that accused is also liable for exemplary damages even if no aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, because of the inherent bestiality of the act of rape. The Court discussed this recently in People v. Jugueta29:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
We likewise note that AAA did not hesitate or waver in her narration even during her rigorous cross examination. As such, her sole but credible testimony as the rape victim sufficed to convict the accused of his crime. It is remarkable, indeed, that there was neither allegation nor proof of any ill motive on her part or on the part of her family in accusing him of raping her.
Belgar's alibi was rightly rejected. Alibi, to prosper, must be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence. He must demonstrate not only that he was somewhere else when the crime occurred, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene when the crime was committed. But he failed to adequately support his alibi. Although he attested that on January 20, 2000, he slept in his house situated in Barangay San Miguel, Tigaon, Camarines Sur continuously from 8:00 p.m. until getting up at 5:00 a.m. of the next day, he did not dispute that his house was but two kilometers away from where the rape was committed. Both barangays were actually within the Municipality of Tigaon, rendering it not physically impossible for him to leave his house during the period that he allegedly was home in order to reach AAA's house by midnight to commit the crime.
The commission of the rape was competently established although AAA had been unconscious during the commission of the act. Proof of the commission of the crime need not always be by direct evidence, for circumstantial evidence could also sufficiently and competently establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the Court affirmed convictions for rape based on circumstantial evidence. In this connection, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the conditions set forth in Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court are shown to exist, to wit:
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
In People v. Perez, we affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape based on circumstantial evidence, there being no direct proof0 of the sexual intercourse. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of the 16-year old victim through force, intimidation and against her will. The Prosecution established that he had entered the victim's room and had covered her nose and mouth with a chemically-laced cloth, causing her to lose consciousness. Upon waking up, she felt pain In her vagina, and she then saw blood and a white substance in her vagina. Her clothes were in disarray and her underwear was in the corner of the room. He was no longer around. Nonetheless, the Court held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryConviction for rape may be based on circumstantial evidence when the victim cannot testify on the actual commission of the rape as she was rendered unconscious when the act was committed, provided that more than one circumstance is duly proved and that the totality or the unbroken chain of the circumstances proven lead to no other logical conclusion than the appellant's guilt of the crime charged. Cristina's positive identification of the appellant as the person who came to the room where she slept one early morning towards the end of May 1994, and that he covered her nose and mouth with a foul smelling handkerchief until she lost consciousness, the blood and white substance she found on her vagina which ached the following morning, her torn shorts and her panty removed, all lead to one inescapable conclusion that the appellant raped her while she was unconscious. (Citations omitted, emphases ours.)cralawred
Finally, the Civil Code of the Philippines provides, in respect to exemplary damages, thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryLikewise, for simple rape with the penalty of reclusion perpetua People v. Jugueta has increased the amount of moral damages to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00), thus we modify the award accordingly. Furthermore, the Court imposes legal interest of 6% per annum on each of the civil liabilities, reckoned from the finality of this judgment until full payment.ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, but not always, used interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant — associated with such circumstances as willfulness, " wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or
ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.cralawred
fraud or gross fraud — that intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar conduct in the future.
x x x x
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only due to the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In much the same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award. x x x. (Citations omitted.)cralawred
Endnotes:
** Per Special Order No. 2354 dated June 2, 2016.
1Rollo, pp. 2-9; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Normandie B. Pizarro concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 29-50; penned by Presiding Judge Sixto D. Diompoc.
3 The real names of the private complainant and those of her immediate family members are withheld in consonance with People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006), Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), and A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC (Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children).
4 CA rollo,p. 13.
5 Records, p. 26.
6 Id. at 167-170.
7 Id. at 176.
8 CA rollo, p. 30.
9 Id. at 31.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 32.
12 Id. at 33.
13 Id. at 34.
14 Id. at 35-36.
15 Id. at 36.
16 Id.
17 SECTION 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
18 CA rollo, pp. 37-48.
19 Id. at 49.
20 Id. at 50.
21 Id. at 60.
22Rollo, pp. 6-8.
23 CA rollo, pp. 57-71.
24People v. Belgar, G.R. No. 182794, September 8, 2014, 734 SCRA 347, 348.chanrobleslaw
25 695 Phil. 505, 514-516 (2012).
26People v. Belgar, supra note 24 at 353.
27 G.R. No. 199402, November 12, 2014, 740 SCRA 179, 190-191.
28 Supra note 24 at 357-360.
29 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.