THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 212157, September 28, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO RUSCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PEREZ, J.:
For our consideration is the Court of Appeals' Decision1 dated 29 August 2013 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01288 that affirmed the judgment of conviction of appellant Rodrigo Rusco by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, Branch 66 for rape.
Appellant was charged with rape in three Informations differing only on the dates. The identical allegations read as follow:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution presented AAA and Dr. Jeremiah Obanana (Dr. Obanana) while appellant testified for his defense.Criminal Case No. 00-1453
That on or about 12th day of August 2000, in the Municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife and with force, threat and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, did lie and succeed in having carnal knowledge of said [AAA],2 a sixteen (16) year old minor, against her will and consent.3chanrobleslawCriminal Case No. 00-1454
That on or about 16111 day of August 2000, in the Municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife and with force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, did lie and succeed in having carnal knowledge of said [AAA], a sixteen (16) year old minor, against her will and consent.4chanrobleslawCriminal Case No. 00-1455
That on or about 23rd day of July 2000, in the Municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife and with force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, did lie and succeed in having carnal knowledge of said [AAA], a sixteen (16) year old minor, against her will and consent.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the court hereby finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in the charges alleged in Crim. Case No. 00-145311 and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua, together with the accessory penalty provided by law, pay the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. The accused period of detention shall be credited fully from the sentence herein imposed.The trial court gave credit to AAA's testimony regarding the first rape incident while it found incredible her version of the second and third rape incidents.
On reasonable doubt, the accused is acquitted of the charges in Crim. Cases No. 00-1454 and 00-1453.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 6, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66 of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo in Criminal Case No. 00-1455 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION to include P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, in addition to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages awarded by the lower court, with an interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe appellate court ruled that the following circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution led to the conclusion that appellant raped AAA:
AAA's statement during the cross-examination jived with her sworn statement wherein she made the following declaration:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q: After you woke up and when you regained consciousness your shorts and panty was already removed from your body, is that correct? A: Yes, Sir. Q: And the shorts and panty was properly folded beside you when you regained consciousness? A: Yes, Sir. COURT: (to the witness) Q: Whom did you see? A: Rodrigo Rusco, Your Honor. ATTY. FRANCISCO: (to the witness) Q: When you asked by the Honorable Court and when you regained consciousness you said that Rodrigo Rusco was around, but in your direct testimony you testified that when you regained your consciousness Rodrigo Rusco was not around, why there is a discrepancy, can you explain to the court? A: When I regained my consciousness Rodrigo Rusco was already there and he pointed a knife to me and threatened me not to tell to anybody especially to my brother. Q: You want to tell the court that your direct testimony is not true? A: Yes, Sir my answer was not correct during that time because I was (sic) felt nervous.22
That, when I woke up I was already lying on the grassy area, nude/undress (sic) with Rodrigo Rusco beside me and I realized that I was raped so I immediately stand (sic) up but Rodrigo Rusco hold (sic) my hand and pointed a knife at me threatening me that if I tell anybody about what happened he will kill me and my brother XXX.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryAAA is not expected to deliver a complete and perfect recollection of the incident. Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony are generally expected, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x [T]he credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony. On the contrary, it is a recognized axiom in rape cases that inconsistencies in the victim's testimony do not detract from the vital fact that, in truth, she had been abused. Testimonial discrepancies could have been caused by the natural fickleness of the memory, which variances tend to strengthen rather than weaken credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.24chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryContrary to appellant's assertion that AAA initially testified that she did not know who boxed her, it was also clear that AAA saw appellant standing nearby and when she passed by him, he boxed her on the chest causing her to fall out of consciousness.
Although AAA became unconscious during the commission of the crime, through her testimony, the prosecution was able to competently establish the commission of rape. 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.28chanrobleslaw
Q: And while you were grazing that cow at around 6:00 o'clock in the morning of July 23, 2000, is there anything that happened? A: While I was grazing the cow, the accused was there standing, sir. Q: Then, what happened while the accused was there and you were there grazing the cow? A: When I passed by, he boxed me, sir. Q: Were you hit? A: Yes sir. Q: Where were you hit? A: On my chest, sir. Q: What happened to you after you were hit on your chest? A: I became unconscious, sir. Q: The accused Rodrigo Rusco who boxed you on your chest and you fainted, if he is in court will you please identify him? INTERPRETER: The man pointed to by the witness inside the court room whom when asked his name, he answered that he is Rodrigo Rusco. PROS. GEDUSPAN: (to the witness) Q: You said that you were boxed, what happened to you after you fell down? A: I fainted then something happened, sir. Q: When you regain consciousness, what happened? A: When I gained consciousness I was no longer wearing my shorts and my panty were removed. Q: How about your upper garment? A: My upper gannent [was] still on. Q: What happened to you after you discover (sic) that your panty and shorts were removed? A: I went home, sir Q: When you regained consciousness, were you able to know where was Rodrigo Rusco? A: No sir. Q: What did you feel? A: I felt pain on my vagina, sir. Q: What did you do after that? A: Then I went home, sir. COURT: (to the witness) Q: How about your shorts and panty, did you not look for it and wear it? A: When I gained my consciousness, Your Honor, I discovered that my panty was beside me and I wear (sic) it. PROS. GEDUSPAN: (to the witness) (sic) Q: And your vagina was aching, is it not? A: Yes sir. Q: Do (sic) you know what happened to you when your vagina was aching? A: Yes sir. Q: Why? A: I know (sic) that my vagina was aching because he raped me.27
x x x But the story of the accused that the complainant is giving sexual favor in exchange of money is difficult for the Court to believe. At sixteen (16) year old minor at that and a barrio lass, can hardly do so especially because she is living in the household of her brother. x x x. While the accused said and mentioned the name of certain Banong as the one who hinted him about the complainants vices, yet, that statement of the accused was never corroborated. Banong was never presented in Court to confirm the same. Or any other resident in Barangay Muyco, Sara, Iloilo to that effect. For such amount of One Hundred Forty Pesos (P140.00), the Court won't believe that complainant would easily accept it in exchange of sexual favor for such measly sum.31chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe penalty for rape through force, threat or intimidation under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A is reclusion perpetua. Applying People v. Jugueta,32 we find that a modification of damages is in order. Appellant shall be liable for payment of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 each. The damages awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
Endnotes:
* Additional Member per Raffle dated 26 September 2016.
1Rollo, pp. 4-17; Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
2 The real name of the victim shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and a fictitious initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006).
3 Records, p. 189.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 189-190.
6 TSN, 13 November 2001, pp. 5-15.
7 Records, pp. 190-191.
8 TSN, 13 November 2001, p. 16.
9 Records, p. 6.
10 TSN, 17 March 2004, pp. 6-18.
11 Should be Criminal Case No. 00-1455; See Clarificatory Order, records, p. 204.
12 Records, p. 198.
13Rollo, p. 17.
14 Id. at 11.
15 Id. at 24-25.
16 Id. at 29-31 and 34-46.
17 CA rollo, pp. 17-30.
18People v. Manigo, 725 Phil. 324, 327 (2014).
19People v. Patentes, 726 Phil. 590, 599 (2014).
20People v. Banzuela, 723 Phil. 797, 815 (2013) citing People v. Sapigao, Jr., 614 Phil. 589, 599 (2009).
21 CA rollo, pp. 26-27.
22 TSN, 6 November 2002, pp. 4-5.
23 Records, p. 4.
24People v. Alipio, 618 Phil. 38, 48 (2009) citing People v. Atuel, G.R. No. 106962, 3 September 1996, 261 SCRA 339, 348-349.
25cralawred People v. Velasco, 722 Phil. 243, 255 (2013).
26People v. Manicat, 722 Phil. 526 (2013).
27 TSN, 13 November 2001, pp. 5-8.
28People v. Lupac, 695 Phil. 505, 515 (2012).
29Rollo, p. 11.
30People v. Prodenciado, G.R. No. 192232, 10 December 2014, 744 SCRA 429, 450.
31 CA rollo, p. 38.
32 G.R. No. 202124, 5 April 2016.