PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FREDERICK ALMEDA Y DE GUIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Almeda

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Frederick Almeda, a criminal appeal from a conviction for simple rape. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of a woman, whom the Court calls AAA to protect her identity, through force and intimidation, on the night of July 13, 2001, in Pangil, Laguna. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it restates the elements of simple rape under the Revised Penal Code, it collects the settled rules on credibility of witnesses and on the difference between an affidavit and testimony in open court, and it shows how the Court corrects the damages awarded below when the Information charges simple rape but the use of a deadly weapon is proven only at trial.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of Siniloan, Laguna, Branch 33, and, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. After pre-trial and trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision on June 17, 2009, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 75,000 pesos as moral damages, 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages, and the costs of suit. The accused filed a Notice of Appeal, which the trial court gave due course. The appeal went up to the Supreme Court, with the Office of the Solicitor General filing the brief for the People. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction, with modifications on the damages.

Facts

At about ten in the evening of July 13, 2001, AAA was sleeping in her house in Barangay Balian, Pangil, Laguna, together with her two children, aged two and three. She woke up when her two-year old child stirred. A few minutes later, the accused broke into the house wearing only his basketball shorts. He poked a knife at AAA and warned her not to move as he undressed her. She tried to struggle but could not prevail. Having undressed her, the accused went on top of her and had carnal knowledge of her while pointing his knife at her.

AAA was able to break free by pushing him, and she ran to the house of her neighbor, Virginia Carabido, about fifteen meters away. She knocked hard on the door, rousing Virginia from sleep. When Virginia opened the door, she saw AAA standing before her stark naked. Virginia let her in and gave her clothes. AAA revealed that she had been debased by the accused. Virginia sought the help of her uncle in getting the children who were still in AAA's house, and they did so.

The prosecution presented the medical certificate issued by the attending physician and the sworn statements of AAA and Virginia. The accused and his brother Abraham testified for the defense. The accused claimed that on that night he was sleeping in his own house, about one hundred fifty meters away from AAA's house, because he was afflicted with the flu. He said he did not leave the house and woke up at five thirty in the morning. He was arrested on July 23, 2001. The defense also presented a letter, supposedly written by AAA, expressing willingness to withdraw the complaint, which Cristeta Baldavia, AAA's godmother, had delivered to the accused's brother.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused despite the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the private complainant and her witness.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in awarding 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages, plus the costs of suit.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines when and how rape is committed:

Article 266-A. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a. Through force, threat or intimidation.

This is the provision under which the Information charged the accused, and its paragraph 1, subparagraph a, supplies the elements the prosecution had to prove.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code fixes the penalties:

Article 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. When the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

This provision supports the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed below, and its deadly weapon clause explains why exemplary damages may be awarded even though the Information charged only simple rape.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of simple rape under paragraph 1, subparagraph a, of Article 266-A are, first, that a male offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and second, that such carnal knowledge was committed through force, threat, or intimidation. Both were established beyond reasonable doubt. AAA positively identified the accused as her assailant, and the trial court found that she narrated the details of the sexual assault in a forthright and direct manner, with nothing in her account contrary to human experience. Absent any showing of ill motive, she is a credible witness, for when she says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.

On the alleged inconsistencies, the Court held that the trial judge's evaluation of the testimony of witnesses is accorded the highest respect because of his unique position in directly observing their demeanor, and that the reviewing court is generally bound by his findings absent a substantial reason to reverse them. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus Conde:

There is an inconsistency if what the witness has disclosed in his affidavit is contrary to what he disclosed in his testimony in court, but not when what he has stated in open court are but details or additional facts not mentioned in the affidavit.

The Court added that affidavits, being taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate, and are generally inferior to testimony given in open court. Whether Virginia was able to relieve herself was a trivial matter that could not impair her credibility, and any gap in her identification of the accused did not weaken the case because AAA herself positively identified him. AAA's statement on cross-examination that the accused went on top of her and nothing more happened had to be read in its entirety, since on re-direct she reiterated that he inserted his private part into hers. A rape victim cannot be expected to note every detail of a harrowing experience, least of all the ejaculation of her attacker, and tends to block the trauma out of her mind. The Court also rejected the argument that it is contrary to human experience for a rapist known to the victim to commit the crime without concealing his face, since a man overcome by inordinate sexual urge is not deterred by time, place, or circumstance, and a person with criminal intent cannot be expected to act with logic because his act is itself irrational. Non-flight does not per se prove innocence. The letter supposedly written by AAA was given no evidentiary weight because its authenticity was never proven. Finally, the defenses of denial and alibi are inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive and credible testimony, and alibi does not prosper where the accused failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene, his own house being only one hundred fifty meters away, and where it was established mainly by himself and his relatives.

On the second issue, the accused offered no argument, but the Court corrected the awards nonetheless. Civil indemnity was reduced from 75,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos because the accused was charged with simple rape, the Information not having alleged the circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon. That circumstance, however, was proven during trial and may be appreciated to justify the award of exemplary damages. The total damages awarded were made subject to interest of six percent per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the elements of simple rape under paragraph 1, subparagraph a, of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code are carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, and that such carnal knowledge was committed through force, threat, or intimidation. Second, the findings of the trial judge on the credibility of witnesses are accorded the highest respect, because of his unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, and are generally binding on the reviewing court. Third, an inconsistency between an affidavit and testimony in open court exists only when the affidavit states something contrary to the testimony, not when the testimony supplies details or additional facts omitted from the affidavit, since affidavits taken ex parte are almost always incomplete and inferior to testimony in court. Fourth, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses; alibi requires proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity, and it cannot prosper when established mainly by the accused and his relatives. Fifth, civil indemnity for simple rape is 50,000 pesos, and where the use of a deadly weapon is proven at trial although not alleged in the Information, it cannot raise the penalty but may justify exemplary damages. Sixth, the damages awarded bear interest of six percent per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the conviction of the accused for simple rape, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, was affirmed, subject to the modification that civil indemnity was reduced to 50,000 pesos and all damages were made to bear interest of six percent per annum from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.

Remember This

Remember the line that when a rape victim says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, and that an affidavit is inferior to testimony in open court. Examiners use this case on the credibility of witnesses, on the rule that alibi must show physical impossibility, and on the rule that a deadly weapon proven but not alleged in the Information cannot raise the penalty but can support exemplary damages.