PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JIMMY ULANDAY @ “SAROY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Ulanday versus People

The Case

This is Ulanday versus People, a criminal appeal from a judgment of conviction for rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Jimmy Ulanday, also known as Saroy, for having carnal knowledge of a twenty-four-year-old woman, identified in the record only as XYZ, at knife point in the evening of the eleventh of March, 2011, in Aguilar, Pangasinan. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a compact restatement of the settled principles on the credibility of a rape victim, including the rule that there is no standard behavioral response to a sexual assault. Second, it illustrates how the use of a deadly weapon, though not a generic aggravating circumstance, raises the penalty for rape and justifies an award of exemplary damages.

Procedural History

The accused was charged by Information filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69, on the twenty-third of June, 2011. Upon arraignment, with the assistance of counsel de officio, he entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on the twenty-eighth of June, 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and another fifty thousand pesos as moral damages.

Aggrieved, the accused timely filed his Notice of Appeal on the twelfth of July, 2012. The appeal was elevated to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the judgment of conviction and the penalties and civil liabilities imposed.

Facts

On the night of the eleventh of March, 2011, XYZ, then twenty-four years old, sat beside the living room window of her family's house, watching a dance party going on outside. The accused, armed with a knife, entered the house, pulled her out, and dragged her toward the back of a neighbor's house. Although she did not know him personally, she recognized him because she had seen him before playing cards near her house. The back of the neighbor's house was dark and empty.

There the accused overpowered her, leaned her against the wall, and removed her pants and underwear. He covered her mouth with his left hand and poked a knife at her face with his right. He then inserted his penis into her vagina while they stood, spreading her legs apart, and poked the knife at her face throughout the assault. Afterwards, he returned her clothes, and she went home and slept. It was only in May that she reported the crime to the police, accompanied by her mother.

The accused denied the charge. He claimed that on that night he had merely conversed with XYZ through her window for about an hour before going home to sleep, and that a week later he was accosted and mauled by her uncles, who accused him of rape. The trial court found XYZ's testimony positive, straightforward, and consistent, brushed aside the inconsistencies as trivial, and rejected the defenses of denial and alibi as self-serving and uncorroborated.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding the guilt of the accused proven beyond reasonable doubt, in light of the alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainant's testimony.
• Whether or not the accused is liable for the penalties and civil liabilities imposed, including the proper award of damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 8353, provides:

Article 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: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation.

This provision defines the offense and supplies its two essential elements, which the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:

Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever 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 raises the penalty where a deadly weapon is used, and it is the basis for the award of exemplary damages in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the conviction. It began with the three settled principles that guide the review of rape cases: an accusation of rape is easy to make but difficult to prove and even more difficult for the innocent accused to disprove; because only two persons are usually involved, the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and the prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own merits. From these principles follows the rule that the credibility of the complaining victim is the single most important issue, and that the trial court's findings on credibility are entitled to great weight and respect, absent some fact of weight that the lower court overlooked or misappreciated.

The Court held that the inconsistency as to whether the door through which she was dragged was in the living room or the kitchen concerned a minor and inconsequential matter that did not impair the integrity of the prosecution's evidence. Far from discrediting her, such inconsistency was a badge of veracity, for rape victims are not expected to make an errorless recollection of a humiliating and painful incident. Her failure to see the knife during the rape was explained by the darkness of the scene, while she saw the knife when he entered her well-lit house. The absence of injury did not help the accused, because the use of a weapon is by itself strongly suggestive of force or intimidation, and poking a knife at the victim is sufficient to bring her into submission.

Nor did her failure to shout for help, her going home and sleeping afterwards, and her delay in reporting destroy her credibility. The Court stressed that there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or frightful experience, and that delay in reporting is not fatal where it is explained by the perpetrator's threats, as it was here. As to the medical evidence, the Court held that the physician's estimate that the lacerations were about five days old or more was consistent with the rape, and that in any event the date of the assault, the presence or absence of laceration, and the medical examination are not essential elements of rape. The victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.

Finally, the defenses of denial and alibi failed. Denial is intrinsically weak and must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability, while alibi requires proof that the accused was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Since both his residence and the scene of the crime were in the same barangay, physical impossibility was not shown.

On the second issue, the Court held that the elements of rape were duly established: that the perpetrator had carnal knowledge of a woman, and that it was committed by using force, threat, or intimidation. Under Article 266-B, the use of a deadly weapon raises the penalty to reclusion perpetua to death, and applying Article 63, with no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the lesser indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. The Court, however, declared the accused ineligible for parole under Republic Act Number 9346. It affirmed the awards of fifty thousand pesos each as civil indemnity and moral damages, and added thirty thousand pesos as exemplary damages because a deadly weapon was used, alleged in the Information, and proved at trial. All monetary awards were made to earn interest at six percent per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, in rape prosecutions the credibility of the complaining victim is the single most important issue, and the trial court's findings on credibility are binding on appeal absent a fact of weight that was overlooked or misappreciated. Second, minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, such as the exact location of a door, do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence and may even be badges of veracity. Third, there is no standard behavioral response to a sexual assault; a victim's failure to shout, her calm conduct afterwards, and her delay in reporting do not destroy her credibility, especially where the delay is explained by threats from the perpetrator. Fourth, the date of the assault, the presence or absence of laceration, and the medical examination are not essential elements of rape, and the victim's credible testimony alone suffices to convict. Fifth, under Article 266-B, the use of a deadly weapon in rape raises the penalty to reclusion perpetua to death and justifies exemplary damages, provided it is alleged in the Information and proved at trial.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the judgment of conviction with modification, declaring the accused ineligible for parole, ordering him to pay thirty thousand pesos in exemplary damages, and imposing six percent interest per annum on all awarded damages from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

Remember This

The one line worth memorizing is that there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or frightful experience, so a rape victim's conduct after the assault cannot be the measure of her credibility. Examiners like to use this case on the credibility of rape victims, on the sufficiency of the victim's lone testimony, and on the effect of a deadly weapon on the penalty and on exemplary damages.