THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 215790, March 12, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAURICIO CABAJAR VIBAR, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
This is an appeal from the 14 March 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05989, which affirmed the 12 December 2012 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court, xxxxxxxxxxx Camarines Norte (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 12249, finding accused-appellant Mauricio Cabajar Vibar (Vibar) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape defined and penalized under Article 266-B(l) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
That on or about 11:00 in the morning of August 4, 2002 at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Province of Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, with lewd design, motivated by bestial lust and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with AAA, 15 years old, against her will and to her damage.During his arraignment on 7 March 2005, Vibar, with the assistance of his counsel, pleaded "Not Guilty."5
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
xxxxxx patawarin mo po ako. Hindi ko po kagustuhan ang pangyayaring ito. Natakot lang po ako at ang sabi po nila Ate Arlene na laga DSWD na humahawak sa kaso mo, kapag hindi ko raw pinanindigan ang kasong isinampa nila sa yo at ikaw ay nadismiss at nakalaya, ako raw po ang ipapalit nila sa kulungan.The RTC Ruling
x x x x
xxxxxx gulong-gulo na po ang isip ko, hindi ko na po alam kung ano ang gagawin ko para makalaya ka, naisip ko na lang xxxxxx ang magpakalayo-layo na lang ako, wag po kayong malungkot sa paglayo ko, ito na lang po ang naisip kong paraan, at ito na rin po ang hiding sulat ko sa yo.
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt of accused Mauricio Vibar y Cabajar beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Rape, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility of parole and to pay offended party the following:Aggrieved, Vibar appealed before the CA.
a. P75,000.00 by way of civil indemnity;
b. P75,000.00 by way of moral damages;
c. P30,000.00 by way of exemplary damages
with interest of 6% per annum on all the aforesaid damages from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
With costs.
SO ORDERED.17
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated December 12, 2012 of the Daet, Camarines Norte RTC, Branch 40, in Criminal Case No. 12249 for Rape is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.Hence, this appeal raising the following:
SO ORDERED.18
ISSUE
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE.
More often than not, where the alleged victim survives to tell her story of sexual depredation, rape cases are solely decided based on the credibility of the testimony of the private complainant. In doing so, we have hinged on the impression that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. However, this misconception, particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage, but creates a travesty of justice.Nevertheless, when AAA's testimony is taken in a vacuum and examined devoid of any preconceptions or presumption, it stands sufficient to convict Vibar of Rape, thus:
x x x x
This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor. And while the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant in disclosing sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We, should stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a woman's dynamic role in society today; she who has over the years transformed into a strong and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights.
In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a private complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural misconception. It is important to weed out these unnecessary notions because an accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided of course, that the testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. (emphases and underscoring supplied)
AAA was straightforward and categorical in narrating how Vibar had forcibly taken her inside the house and mounted her while she was lying on the floor and then inserted his penis into her vagina. It did not matter that the penetration lasted only for a short period of time because carnal knowledge means sexual bodily connection between persons; and the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the crime of rape.27
Direct Examination FISCAL MANLAPAZ: Q: You will agree with me that it is normal xxxxxxxxxxxxxx to enter the nipa hut during that time? A: I was outside the nipa hut that time because our kitchen is outside. Q: So, what is this untoward incident that happened? A: He came and then he asked me to get his glo[v]es but I do not want to enter the house, so what he did is he forced me to enter and he almost carried me and put me on the floor. Q: When you say he forced you and almost carried you, can you describe it to me? A: He carried me up in going inside. x x x x Q: So, after he managed to carry you and laid you to the floor, what happened next? A: He removed my shorts and panty and then he opened up his zipper and place[d] himself on top of me. Q: What happened next? A: I felt something touched my vagina. Q: You just felt it? A: Yes sir. Q: What is that? A: His penis. x x x x Q: While the accused was doing all of these from the time that he grabbed you and brought you inside the house and then he opened his zipper and he mounted you and he touched your vagina, what did he say to you? A: None, sir. Q: Can you describe to us his appearance while he was on top of you? A: He was lying and he was on top of me and pressing my vagina. Q: While the accused was on top of you, what did the accused do if any? A: He was trying to insert his penis. Q: So, what movement did he make? A: (Witness is making a push and pull movement).25 Re-Direct Q: After he removed your shorts what happened next? A: He opened the zipper of his pants and laid on top of me, sir. Q: After that what else happened? A: I felt his penis touched my vagina, sir. Q: Touched only? A: It penetrated my vagina, sir. Q: For how long? A: It was for a short time only, sir. Q: And after he finished what did you notice, if any? A: I felt pain, sir. Q: You were hurt? A: Yes, sir.26
Thus, it is clear that AAA's medical report did not discount the fact that intercourse occurred even if her hymen was intact. As characterized by Dr. Alcantara, AAA's elastic hymen made it possible for an erect adult penis to penetrate her vagina without causing lacerations or rupture of the hymen.
FISCAL BOADO: Q: Doctor, in the conclusions of Dr. Jane Perpetua F. Fajardo, she states, "hymenal orifice wide (measure 2.5cm wide) as to allow complete penetration by an average sized adult Filipino organ in full erection without producing hymenal injury." What does she mean by that, can you interpret? A: Taking into consideration the shape of the hymen and as mentioned by Dr. Fajardo, as I said that the hymen is elastic and has a diameter of 2.5 cm., that means fully elastic male organ can easily visible to the examining physician. Q: So you are saying Doctor, that although the hymen is still intact it is still possible that there was sexual intercourse? I will rephrase, Your Honor. You said Doctor, that although the hymen is intact the allegations of AAA xxxxxxxxxxx the accused in this case, had intercourse with her [is] inconsistent with her testimony? A: It is possible. Q: So, it means Doctor that even though the minor in this case was a victim of sexual abuse, healed hymen can still be considered intact? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: What is the layman's term of this hymen intact but distensible? A: Elastic. x x x x Q: So, even if the incident transpired on August 4, 2002 if there is a penetration by a penis, adult penis, inside the vagina of AAA because the hymen is elastic it can no longer be determined whether there is a laceration? A: The characteristic of the hymen is elastic. If there is a penetration then the hymen will just distense and accommodate the male organ and it is possible that no laceration.30
A plain reading of Vibar's testimony immediately reveals that he miserably failed to comply with the authentication requirement set forth under the Rules. Neither was there any witness who could testify that the alleged letter was voluntarily and personally made by AAA nor was there any document from which her handwriting could have been compared. Curiously, the person who purportedly handed to Vibar AAA's letter was not presented in court to testify as to the genuineness of the document.
Cross-examination FISCAL BOADO: Q: You also presented, Mr. witness, a letter allegedly written by AAA the private complainant in this case addressed to you, is that correct? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: But you do not have any proof to substantiate your claim that this letter was really prepared by xxxxxxxxxxxxx AAA aside from your bare allegation? A: She is the one, ma'am, because no other AAA would call me xxxxx and all the contents of the letter speak [to] all the incidents involving our case, ma'am. Q: But you cannot present any documents written by AAA to prove that this penmanship belongs to AAA, is that correct? A: I do not have, ma'am. x x x x Court Q: Mr. witness, when did you receive the letter allegedly coming from AAA? A: On May 2006, Your Honor. Q: Can you not remember the date of May? A: More or less May 24, 2006, Your Honor. Q: And when you received the said alleged letter, AAA [had] already testified in court? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Who handed to you the letter? A: It was given to me by the one who visited me in jail, he said that it was given to him by AAA, Your Honor.33
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
2 Records, pp. 148-154; penned by Acting/Assisting Judge Arniel A. Dating.
3 The true name of the victim has been replaced with fictitious initials in conformity with Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances). The confidentiality of the identity of the victim is mandated by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 ("Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act"); R.A. No. 8508 ("Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998"); R.A. No. 9205 ("Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003"); R.A. No. 9262 ("Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004"); and R.A. No. 9344 ("Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006").
4 Id. at 1.
5 Id. at 24.
6 TSN, 5 July 2005, pp. 6 and 8.
7 Id. at 9-11.
8 TSN, 24 January 2006, p. 13.
9 Id. at 5-6.
10 Id. at 14.
11 TSN, 5 July 2005, pp. 12-13.
12 TSN, 24 January 2006, pp. 8-10.
13 TSN, 25 January 2011, pp. 10-11.
14 Records, pp. 137-138.
15 Id. at 136-137.
16 Id. at 142.
17 Id. at 153-154.
18Rollo, p. 10.
19People v. Salidaga, 542 Phil. 295, 301 (2007).
20People v. Celocelo, 653 Phil. 251, 261 (2010).
21People v. Albalate, Jr., 623 Phil. 437, 447 (2009).
22 Id.
23People v. Ogarte, 664 Phil. 642, 661 (2011), citing People v. Tayaban, 357 Phil. 494, 508 (1998).
24 G.R. Nos. 225642-43, January 17, 2018.
25 TSN, 5 July 2005, pp. 8-11.
26 TSN, 24 January 2006, p. 13.
27People v. Butiong, 675 Phil. 621, 630 (2011).
28People v. Relorcasa, 296-A Phil. 24, 31 (1993).
29People v. Ferrer, 415 Phil. 188, 199 (2001).
30 TSN, 25 January 2011, pp. 6-7 and 11.
31 TSN, 22 November 2012, pp. 13-15.
32Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corporation, 554 Phil. 343, 349 (2007).
33 TSN, 22 November 2012, pp. 13-15.
34People v. Dominguez, Jr., 650 Phil. 492, 519 (2010).
35 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
36 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
37 Id. at 382-383.