SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 207633, December 09, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHNLIE LAGANGGA Y DUMPA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated April 16, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00940 which affirmed the January 7, 2011 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Cabadbaran City, in Criminal Case No, 2004-45 finding appellant Johnlie Lagangga y Dumpa (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
On March 9, 2004, an Information for rape under paragraph 1(a), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code was filed against appellant. The accusatory portion of said Information reads:
That on or about the 9th day of February, 2004, at dawn, at x x x Agusan del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one "AAA,"3 against her will.During his arraignment on July 12, 2004, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Soon after the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued.
Contrary to law.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On February 9, 2004 at 2:00 A.M., private complainant (AAA), and her three (3) children were sleeping inside the room of their house xxx when she was awakened by the presence of a man wearing black clothes and a mask. Mistaking him for a dog, she simply shooed him away until she suddenly felt a knife being poked at her neck. The man took off his makeshift mask that was made from a t-shirt and because of the light from the kerosene lamp, private complainant recognized him as her neighbor and appellant Johnlie Lagangga, which prompted her to shout "Oy! Johnlie ikaw man diay na! (So, Johnlie it was you)." After covering her mouth, appellant boxed her on the stomach near the epigastric region or "kuto-kuto," rendering her unconscious.Version of the Defense
When the private complainant regained consciousness at around 3:00 A.M., she saw appellant standing outside the room. He threatened her, saying: "Basig ipablater ko nimo ugma, hasig mosumbong ka, patyon ta na long ka karon. Rung mosumbong ka, patyong tamong tanan. (What if you will have me blottered tomorrow? What if you will report? I might as well kill you now, if you will report, then I will kill all of you.)"
Private complainant then noticed that her panty was gone, her private part smelled differently and that "there was the presence of mucous and probably a secretion of the male organ," concluding that she was used that night.
Private complainant's eldest son (BBB), who slept to the far right of his mother, was awakened along with his other siblings [by] the commotion and started crying. He saw appellant on top of his unconscious mother, undressing her and doing "a sort of push and pull movement or "kijo-kijo."
Despite appellant's threat, private complainant went to the house of their Purok president[,] Victoria "Baby" Mordin, to report the incident. The two then sought the help of Mordin's friend, Senior Police Officer 3 (SPO3) Paterno Magdula. SP03 Magdula later accompanied them to the Santiago Police Station where the police interviewed and took the affidavits of both Mordin and the private complainant. Private complainant's son was later fetched by [the] police from their home [and] brought to the police station, where he gave his sworn statement on the incident.5ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In sum, his testimony would prove that on February 8, 2004 at around 6:00 o'clock in the evening, he arrived home from work in the mountain of Matinggi. Nobody was home, so he left and went to the house of the Purok President, Baby Mordin[,] at [a]round 7:00 o'clock in the evening, and found out that several people had a drinking session there. He took one shot of Kulafo, an alcoholic beverage, then returned home to take his supper. Thereafter, he went to the artesian well to wash his body and saw (AAA) fetching water. (AAA) asked him if he saw her husband in the mountain and after he answered in the negative, (AAA) invited him to go to her house later. At around 10:00 o'clock that evening, he went to the house of (AAA) and waited for the latter at the sala. (AAA) came out from her room about two minutes later; they talked briefly and then had sex. There was no light in the sala, only an illumination from outside, and (AAA) undressed herself. Their sexual intercourse took only a few minutes, then he went home and slept. To his great surprise, he was arrested the following day.6ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryRuling of the Regional Trial Court
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASOABLE DOUBT.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Here, private complainant narrated a realistic account of her ordeal in a simple yet clear-cut manner. She expressed her anger and bitterness towards appellant who, by his dastardly act, ruined her and her family. Nowhere in the course of her testimony, not even in her cross examination, did it appear that she was impelled by improper motive.The absence of a medical certificate is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. "Even absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such testimony is credible. Moreover, the absence of external injuries does not negate rape. In fact, even the [presence] of spermatozoa is not an essential element of rape."12
The testimony of a witness who has no motive or reason to falsify or perjure oneself should be given credence. A virtuous woman will not, as [a] rule, admit in public that she had been raped, as she thereby blemishes her honor and compromises her future, unless she is telling the truth. It is her natural instinct to protect her honor. The testimony of a married rape victim is given full weight and credence because no married woman with a husband and children would place herself on x x x public trial for rape where she would be subjected to suspicion, morbid curiosity, malicious imputations, and close scrutiny of her personal life, not to speak of a humiliation and scandal she and her family would suffer, if she was merely concocting her charge and would not be able to prove it in court.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 23 01 dated December 1, 2015.
1 CA rollo, pp. 80-95; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren and concurred in by Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
2 Records, pp. 143-150; penned by Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr.
3 "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence And Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination, And for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women And Their Children, Providing For Protective Measures For Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, And for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children, effective November 5, 2004." People v. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 535, 538-539.
4 Records, p. 1.
5 CA rollo, pp. 60-62.
6 Id. at 28-29.
7 Id. at 25.
8People v. Resurrection, 609 Phil. 726, 733 (2009).
9Dizon v. People, 616 Phil. 498, 508 (2009).
10People v. Mateo, 588 Phil. 543, 553-554 (2008).
11 CA rollo, p. 93.
12People v. Pelagio, 594 Phil. 464, 475 (2008).
13People v. Nogpo, Jr., 603 Phil. 722, 743 (2009).
14 Id.
15 TSN, February 7, 2005, p. 12.
16 ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is committed -
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:17 ART. 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
- Through force, threat and intimidation;
- When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
- By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
- When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above is present;