THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 214886, April 04, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNIE CONCEPCION, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves the appeal1 from the Court of Appeals March 28, 2014 Decision,2 affirming with modification the November 29, 2011 Decision3 of Branch 34, Regional Trial Court, La Union. The Regional Trial Court found the accused, Bernie Concepcion (Concepcion), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The Regional Trial Court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered Concepcion to pay the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages.4 On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the crime of rape absorbed the crime of forcible abduction; thus, it found Concepcion guilty only of the crime of rape and imposed the same penalty of reclusion perpetua. It ordered Concepcion to pay the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.5
Informations were filed with the Regional Trial Court, La Union against accused-appellant Concepcion, charging him with serious illegal detention and two (2) counts of rape. The information for serious illegal detention was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2899. The relevant portion stated:
That on or about the 17th day of February 2001, in the Municipality of Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being a private individual did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, detain and deprive the liberty of complainant AAA and while detaining the latter inside a house, said accused forcibly and with intimidation and lewd design, have sexual intercourse with complainant twice against her will and consent, all to the damage and prejudice of said complainant and her personal liberty and security.6The informations for rape were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2900 and 2901, and read, in part:
Crim. Case No. 2900On June 4, 2002, upon arraignment in the consolidated criminal cases, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty,8 and trial ensued.
That on or about the 17th day of February 2001, at 8:00 o'clock in the evening at Brgy. Municipality of Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd design did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of said victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Crim. Case No. 2901
That on or about the 17th day of February 2001, at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon at Brgy. Municipality of Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd design did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of said victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, a judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Bernie Concepcion GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and is hereby sentenced to serve the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua.Concepcion appealed the Regional Trial Court Decision to the Court of Appeals. In his appellant's brief, he admitted detaining AAA and holding her against her will. However, he claimed that "his intention was not to detain" but "to extract an admission from his girlfriend of the fact of her being raped and ... to bring the alleged perpetrators out in the open."20 He stressed that even AAA testified that he assured her release provided that those who raped his girlfriend were presented. This was also corroborated by PO3 Oriña.21 He insisted that no evidence was presented to show any other intention than to attract attention to the alleged rape of his girlfriend.22 Absent proof that Concepcion's intent was to deprive AAA of her liberty, he should not be convicted .under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Similarly, absent. proof that he abducted AAA with lewd designs, Concepcion could not be convicted of forcible abduction under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code.23 Further, Concepcion insisted that the testimonies presented by the prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he raped AAA. It was established that at the time of the alleged rape, AAA was on her fourth day of menstruation, yet no evidence was presented showing traces of menstrual discharge on the bed sheets or on Concepcion's clothing. Moreover, while it may have been established that the coitus had occurred, Dr. Baladad could not determine the date of such occurrence24 or recall whether the lacerations she found on AAA were fresh or old.25 Finally, it was not shown that the spermatozoa found inside AAA belonged to Concepcion.26
Further, accused is hereby ordered to pay FIFTY THOUSAND (PHP 50,000.00) PESOS as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.19
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 29 November 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 34, La Union in Crim. Case Nos. 2899, 2900 & 2901 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that accused-appellant is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua; and he is ORDERED to pay the victim AAA not only the amount of Php 50,000.00 as a moral damages already awarded by the trial court, but also the amounts of Php 50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and Php 30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus interest on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.Thus, Concepcion filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals.31
SO ORDERED.30
(Indeed) (i)n resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. Further, it bears stressing that (i)n a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, as in (the present) case. No law or rule requires the corroboration of the testimony of a single witness in a rape case. Due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself.As appreciated by the Court of Appeals, AAA testified and narrated in detail how accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Upon examining the records, it became clear that AAA testified and narrated two (2) separate incidents of rape. As to the first incident, AAA testified:
In this case, accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA by inserting his penis into AAA's genitalia, and the same was accomplished through force, threat or intimidation. AAA testified that she was not able to fight back because accused-appellant's knife was pointed at her neck and that while she tried to push him, he was stronger than her. AAA described the weapon used by accused-appellant as a stainless bread knife which is about 9 inches long. AAA also testified and narrated in detail the manner on how accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her, despite her efforts of fighting back.
We also find that AAA's claim for rape was corroborated by Dr. Baladad, a Medical Officer III in the OB-Gyne Department of the Ilocos Training and Regional Medical Center, the doctor who examined her, upon the request for Physical and Medical Examination dated 18 February 2001 of Police Chief Inspector Pedro Obaldo, Jr. of the Police Station...
....
It has been repeatedly held that no woman would want to go through the process, the trouble and the humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense unless she actually has been a victim of abuse and her motive is but a response to the compelling need to seek and obtain justice. It is settled jurisprudence that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.38 (Citations omitted)
As for the second incident of rape, AAA narrated:
Q And when the accused took off your underwears, what happened next? A After he removed the panty and bra he inserted his hand (Witness demonstrating her fingers). Q Where did the accused inserted (sic) his finger? A In my vagina, sir. Q What particular part of the room [were you in] when the accused inserted his finger [into] your vagina? A On the bed, sir. .... Q When you struggled so that the finger was removed, what happened next? A That is the time he inserted his penis in ... my vagina, sir. Q Can you recall how many minutes or second[s] when he inserted his penis to ... your vagina? A It is a short time bee[ause] he notice[d] that there [was] a vehicle ... stop[ped] outside their house, sir.39
As properly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, in rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of a victim's testimony. Here, AAA's testimonies on both incidents of rape are equally credible. Considering that the judge who examined AAA found her a believable witness42 and considering further that there was nothing wanting in AAA's testimony on the second rape incident, for the same reasons outlined by the Court of Appeals in its decision, this Court finds that the evidence was sufficient to establish accused-appellant's guilt of the second rape charge.
Q And what happened after the accused ask[ed Board Member Alfred Concepcion] to leave the place? A That [was] the time that he want[ed] again to rape me, sir.40 .... Q And what happened after that? A He went on top of me, sir. Q And what happened [when he was] on top of you? A He inserted his penis to my vagina, sir. Q Was he able to penetrate your vagina? A Yes, sir. Q What did you feel when he did that? A None because I am still afraid at that time because the knife was still pointed at my neck, sir. .... Q On the 2nd time that the accused ... inserted his penis to your vagina, what then [were] you doing? A Still I was lying down, sir. Q You did not push him? A I did it but of course he [was] a male, he [was] stronger than me, Your Honor. Q You did not cry while he was raping you? A I cried, Your Honor.41
In this case, it is clear that accused-appellant forcibly abducted AAA for the purpose of raping her. It bears to stress that accused-appellant already raped AAA, and it was only after his commission of the said crime that he made demands from the police authorities for AAA's release. In fact, AAA testified that accused-appellant even placed electrical wires for the purpose of electrocuting anybody who would enter the door or the window. Hence, if it were true that accused-appellant only detained the victim to extract an admission from his girlfriend Malou [Peralta] and to bring the alleged perpetrators of the latter out in the open, he should have released AAA the moment his demands were acceded to by the police officers. It bears emphasis that accused-appellant failed to present any evidence, and the defense he is belatedly putting up now is but a last-ditched effort on his part to evade criminal liability.44 (Citation omitted)This Court disagrees.
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:Thus, the felony of slight illegal detention has four (4) elements:1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.The penalty shall be death penalty where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the commission of the offense.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
Article 268. Slight illegal detention. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.
The elements of slight illegal detention are all present here. Accused-appellant is a private individual. The Court of Appeals found that after raping AAA, accused-appellant continued to detain her and to deprive her of her liberty. It also appreciated AAA's testimony that accused-appellant placed electrical wires around the room to electrocute anyone who might attempt to enter it. He refused to release AAA even after his supposed demands were met. The detention was illegal and not attended by the circumstances that would render it serious illegal detention. Thus, this Court finds accused-appellant guilty of the crime of slight illegal detention.
- That the offender is a private individual.
- That he kidnaps or detains another, or m any other manner deprives him of his liberty.
- That the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal.
- That the crime is committed without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in Art. 267.45 (Emphasis in the original)
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 The appeal was filed under Rule 124, Section 13(c) of the Rules of Court.
2Rollo, pp. 2-22. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05721, was penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 CA rollo, pp. 52-57. The Decision, docketed as Crim. Case Nos. 2899, and 2900 and 2901, was penned by Judge Manuel R. Aquino.
4 Id. at 57.
5Rollo, pp. 18-19.
6 Id. at 3.
7 Id. at 3-4.
8 Id. at 4.
9 CA rollo, p. 74.
10 Id. at 74-75.
11 Id. at 111.
12 Id. at 75.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 99.
15 Id. at 75-76.
16 Id. at 76.
17 Id. at 53.
18 Id. at 52-57.
19 Id. at 57.
20 Id. at 42.
21 Id. at 42-43.
22 Id. at 44.
23 Id. at 43.
24 Id. at 46.
25 Id. at 47.
26 Id. at 48.
27Rollo, pp. 2-22.
28 Id. at 16-17.
29 Id. at 18.
30 Id. at 19.
31 CA rollo, pp. 147-149.
32 Id. at 152.
33Rollo, p. 1.
34 Id. at 28.
35 Id. at 30-32. People of the Philippines filed a Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Supplemental Brief.
36 Id. at 33-36. Acused-appellant filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief).
37See People v. Castel, 593 Phil. 288 (2008) (Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
38Rollo, pp. 16-17.
39 CA rollo, p. 106.
40 Id. at 108.
41 TSN, September 30, 2003, pp. 8-9.
42 RTC Records, p. 220.
43Rollo, p. 18.
44 Id.
45See People v. Pagalasan, 452 Phil. 341 (2003) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc].
46See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/april2016/202124.pdf> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].