SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 227738, July 23, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACINTO ANDES Y LORILLA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before this Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by the accused-appellant Jacinto Andes y Lorilla (Andes) assailing the Decision2 dated September 2, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06684, which affirmed the Judgment3 dated February 13, 2014 of the BBB,4 Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 2012-0455, finding Andes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
"That on or about October 24, 2012, in the City of [BBB], Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation and armed with a bladed weapon, did then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of complaining witness, [AAA], against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.The facts, as summarized by the trial court, are as follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW."6 (Emphasis in the original)
On October 24, 2012, at around 1:00 O'Clock (sic) in the morning, at Sitio [CCC], [BBB], while the private complainant, [AAA], was sleeping with her 4 year old son, [DDD], in bed inside the room of their house, she was awakened when suddenly somebody covered her mouth, and told her not to shout and simultaneously poked a knife on her neck, saying, "don't shout, I will kill you and your son[.]"The following morning, AAA was able to tell a cousin, her mother, and later on, barangay authorities about what Andes had done to her.8 The accused was then arrested. That same evening, AAA had herself subjected to a medical examination by Dr. Zarah Charissa Magnaye Agualada (Dr. Agualada).9
While the inside of her house was then dark, she identified that person as the accused, JACINTO ANDES Y [LORILLA], through his voice and the words he uttered. She has known the accused for about 7 years because they stayed at her mother's house together with the accused as live-in partner of her mother for about 7 years. For said reason, she knew his voice.
She did not resist in doing what was commanded of her because she was thinking of the safety of her son as he could stab and kill him. She told him that she would accede to his request as long as he would not kill her son.
After undressing, the accused then placed himself on top of her body. She felt he was near her son so he moved her away. She was able to grab the handle of his knife. It was impossible for her to escape because he positioned himself near the door and her son was on her side. She was at the middle of them. The accused tried to insert his penis in her vagina but, at first, he was not able to consummate it because his penis was soft and he told her to hold and harden it. It was tried to be inserted again. That time, his penis was able to penetrate her vagina. The sexual intercourse lasted for about 30 minutes. While on top of her, he told her - "ANG SARAP NAMAN NG ANAK KO[.]"
The accused was calling her anak because he was her stepfather. She told him: "PUTA KA!" "[I]f you treat me as your daughter, you will not do this to me." He told her that: "Even [EEE], I already did this to her because I am the one who send (sic) her to school and I have the right to do it." [EEE] is his 18 year old daughter. After telling her about it, he was just on top of her using her, his penis inside her vagina.
The accused rested on her side for a while for about 10 to 15. minutes. He told her that he wanted to have sex with her for a second time. He then put his body again on top of her and told her to lie on her stomach ("pinadapa") on the bed. Again he told her that "My daughter is so delicious." [W]hile he was saying that, his penis was inside her vagina. He was on top of her (witness was demonstrating by holding her back). She told him "Do not call me your daughter." She reiterated that the penis of the accused was again able to penetrate her vagina that lasted again for another 30 minutes. After the second time that the accused had sexual intercourse with her, he rested beside her and after uttering further some words, he already left.7 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JACINTO ANDES y LORILLA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE, defined and penalized under Article 266-A-(l)(a) in relation to Art. 266-B, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole, and to pay the victim, [AAA], the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.The RTC found AAA's identification of Andes sufficient, even if it was done only through his voice. It likewise held that Andes' defense of denial could not prevail over the positive identification by AAA. Lastly, the RTC found AAA's testimony spontaneous and credible after it had observed the demeanors of both AAA and Andes on the witness stand.
SO ORDERED.12 (Emphasis in the original)
For Andes, the above testimony was an admission by AAA that force or intimidation was absent during the time the rape was supposedly committed.
"Q: So, when he started attacking you, he was no longer poking the knife to your neck? A: When he was already on top of me, ma'am? Q: Yes. When he was already on top of you, he was no longer poking a knife to you? A: No more, ma'am[.] Q: And then, when he told you [to] touch his penis the first time around, there was no weapon poked on your neck? A: No more, ma'am. Q: And the whole time, for the whole 30 minutes, there was no weapon poked on your neck? A: None, ma'am. Q: So, after he rested for 10 to 15 minutes, as again, the alleged attacker raped you[,] as you claimed again for 30 minutes. Now during those 30 minutes, the second time around, was there a bladed weapon poked on you[r] neck or any party (sic) of your body? A: None, ma'm. But I am thinking that maybe he was still holding the weapon. I am not sure because it was dark.25 (Emphasis, italics and underscoring in the original)
In fact, this Court sees that the close proximity of her son, who shared the same bed where she was abused, may have actually forced private complainant to silently endure the rape. As a mother, private complainant's primary instinct is to protect her child. She knows that accused-appellant brought a knife and the latter threatened to kill her son if she would not give in to his bestial desires. Since she admittedly did not know where the knife was placed by accused-appellant during the entire time she was being abused and the room was pitch-dark, private complainant was understandably apprehensive that one wrong move from her might jeopardize her 4-year old son's life.29Andes also questions AAA's post-rape attitude as not being "that of a true rape victim."30 Citing AAA's testimony the day after the alleged rape that she texted her cousin stating only that "Kuya, [Andes] entered our house last night,"31 Andes made an inference that the said testimony supposedly reveals that what he did the night before was merely "peeping" again on her, but that it was not rape.32 Andes argues that AAA was so upset about a "peeping" incident that she decided to file this case to get back at him.
In the morning following the rape incident, private complainant immediately went to her mother's house. [FFF], her adoptive mother, was there but she was not able to approach her because accused-appellant was still around. Upon seeing her, [FFF] asked her to cook breakfast and she obliged while waiting for accused-appellant to leave. She could not however, contain her feelings so she borrowed the cellphone of [EEE], accused-appellant's daughter. She sent a text message to one of her cousins that she has a big problem but she does not know how to tell her mother and her husband. She told this cousin that "Kuya Cinto entered our house last night." The cousin asked where is her husband (sic) and she replied that he is in Manila with their daughter. The cousin told her that she should immediately inform her mother of her predicament. She then returned the cellphone to [EEE] but her cousin sent a text message to [EEE]. Left with no choice, private complainant told [EEE] what happened. x x x34 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Andes' issue that it was unnatural for a rape victim to only say that the assailant "entered [the] house" could therefore simply be explained by the fact that the victim was overwhelmed or confused by her emotions. It bears stressing that not all rape victims react the same way.35 Not every victim of a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectation of mankind.36 There is, unfortunately for Andes, no typical reaction or norm of behavior that ensue forthwith or later from victims of rape.37 Andes was thus unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience38 - which is rape.
x x x. Medical findings or proof of injuries, virginity, or an allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not essential in a prosecution for rape. This is so because from the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is, as in the cases at bar, the complainant's testimony.43 (Emphasis supplied)Andes was convicted not because the lower courts relied on the medical findings, but because both courts found AAA's testimony to be sincere and believable. Andes' conviction rests on the credibility of AAA's testimony, and not on the findings of the examining physician.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO | |
Division Clerk of Court | |
By: | |
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON | |
Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 See Notice of Appeal dated October 5, 2015, rollo, pp. 15-16.
2Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 36-46. Penned by Presiding Judge Bernhard B. Beltran.
4 The name of the city is replaced with fictitious initials pursuant to Supreme Court (SC) Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated July 27, 2015.
5 The name of the victim is replaced with fictitious initials pursuant to SC Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated July 27, 2015.
6 CA rollo, p. 36.
7 Id. at 36-37.
8 Id. at 37.
9 Id. at 38.
10 Id.
11 RTC Judgment, id.
12 CA rollo, p. 46.
13Rollo, p. 5.
14 Id. at 4.
15 Id. at 5.
16 Id. at 6.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 8.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 9.
21 Id.
22People v. Soronio, 281 Phil. 820, 824 (1991).
23People v. Alemania, 440 Phil. 297, 304-305 (2002).
24 CA rollo, pp. 30-31.
25 Id.
26People v. Fabian, 453 Phil. 328, 337 (2003).
27 Id.
28 CA rollo, p. 30.
29Rollo, p. 10.
30 CA rollo, p. 32.
31 Id.; italics in the original.
32 Id.
33Rollo, p. 11.
34 Id. at 12.
35People v. Soriano, 560 Phil. 415, 420 (2007).
36People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, 315 (1996).
37People v. Deleverio, 352 Phil. 382, 400 (1998).
38People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 779 (2014).
39 Brief for the Accused-Appellant, CA rollo, p. 33.
40 Id.
41People v. Campos, 394 Phil. 868, 872 (2000).
42 379 Phil. 903 (2000).
43 Id. at 913-914.
44 Brief for the Accused-Appellant, CA rollo, p. 33.
45People v. Piosang, 710 Phil. 519, 527 (2013).
46People v. Desalisa, 451 Phil. 869, 876 (2003).
47 RTC Judgment, CA rollo, p. 38.
48 CA Decision, rollo, pp. 11-12.
49 RTC Judgment, CA rollo, p. 38.
50 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
51People v. Arcillas, 692 Phil. 40, 54 (2012).