THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ADONIS CABALES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
LOPEZ, J.:
The Facts:
On March 22, 2005, appellant was charged with Rape, in an Information,[3] which alleged –
That on or about January 16, 2005, in Panabo City, Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, employing force, threats and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AAA, a 13 year old minor, without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
At the arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.[4] Thereafter, the case was tried on the merits.
The evidence for the prosecution consisting of the testimonies of AAA and her mother BBB is summarized, thus:
On January 16, 2005, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, AAA, who was then thirteen (13) years old was sleeping inside the bedroom of their house at barangay Waterfall, Panabo City. AAA was alone at that time since her father went to Likanan while her mother was in the house of appellant helping his wife who just gave birth. Her siblings was also not around as they were at the house of her grandparents. AAA’s house is two houses away from appellant. While she was sleeping, AAA was awakened when appellant, who is her uncle, kissed her on the face. She immediately stood up and tried to push appellant away, but appellant held her, pointed a knife at her neck and told her not to move or shout. Appellant then removed her jogging pants and her panty. She tried to wriggle, appellant managed to remove her jogging pants and panty using his free hand while the other was holding the knife pointed at her neck. Thereafter, appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and did a push and pull movement for about ten (10) minutes. She felt pain inside her vagina and pleaded for him to have pity on her. She was unable to shout for help because he covered her mouth with short pants. After he was done, appellant dressed himself and told her not to tell anybody.
AAA added that the January 16, 2005 incident was not the first because she had a prior sexual intercourse with the appellant sometime in November 2004. She did not tell anybody at that time because appellant threatened to kill her family if she told them about it.
On January 17, 2005, AAA submitted herself to a medical examination conducted by Dr. Elvie Prieto-Jabines of the Davao Regional Hospital. The findings of the medical examination reveals that there was a healed notching at 7:00 o’clock position in AAA’s genitalia.[5] Dr. Jabines concluded that the medical examination is suggestive of chronic penetrating injury with acute component.
BBB, AAA’s mother also testified that on January 16, 2005 from 12:00 noon until 4:00 in the afternoon, she was at the house of appellant helping the wife of the latter to take a bath since she had just given birth. She saw appellant there at around 2:00 in the afternoon and came back at 4:00 p.m. They were looking for him at that time because he was supposed to tend to their store but he was no longer around. The house of appellant was around sixty meters away from their house.
The defense on the other hand presented appellant and Tessie Cañones, thus:
On January 16, 2005, appellant was just at their house attending to his wife who just delivered a baby. With him at that time was Tessie Cañones, the midwife who assisted her wife. The mother of AAA arrived at around 11:30 in the morning and stayed until 2:30 in the afternoon. He denied leaving the house as he was preparing lunch and tending their store from 12 noon until nighttime of that day.
Cañones corroborated that on January 16, 2005, she was at the house of appellant at around 10:00 in the morning to help appellant’s wife. At around 11:00, BBB arrived and joined them for lunch. She added that after taking their lunch, she saw appellant went inside their room together with his wife. While they were sleeping, Cañones was just outside the bedroom because she requested Melinda’s sister to pluck her white hair. She saw appellant woke up at about 2:30 or 3:00 in the afternoon and went back to their store. She did not see appellant left the house. Cañones left appellant’s house at around 5:00 in the afternoon.
After due proceedings, the court a quo rendered the assailed Decision on March 27, 2012, thus:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Adonis Cabales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape defined under Art. 266-A and penalized under 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua together with the accessory penalties attached thereto. In addition, he is ordered to pay complainant, AAA, civil indemnity in the amount of Php75,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of Php75,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In the service of his sentence, accused is entitled to the full time he has undergone preventive imprisonment, if any pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Accused shall serve his sentence at the Davao Farm and Penal Colony, B.E. Dujali, Davao del Norte.
SO ORDERED.[6]
In ruling for the conviction of the appellant, the court a quo held:
After so evaluating the parties’ respective accounts, the Court finds the story given by the private complainant as the one bearing the hallmark of truth and hence, entitled to full faith and credence.
There is nothing in her account that would engender serious doubt or suspicion that she was relating something other than the truth. Her story is by itself credible and easy to believe. After all, the rape of a 13-year old minor alone in her house by one who is residing just 60 meters away is not a tale difficult to believe. To be sure, many rape happened in far unlikely circumstances.
Neither is her story undermined by sinister motive that could impel one to fabricate. The desire of her mother to ease out the accused from where they were living, aside from not being clearly and sufficiently established, can hardly be considered as such. Indeed, who is the mother willing to subject her daughter to the ordeal of a rape trial for such a reason?
Given the obtaining circumstances, the story of the complainant that she was sexually abused by the accused in the afternoon of 22 March 2005 will therefore have to be taken at its face value. In this particular instance, force and intimidation attended the sexual congress because accused committed the act by first pointing a fan knife at the complainant. This sufficiently constitute (sic) force and intimidation under the rule that it is not necessary that it be so great and of such character as could not be resisted as what is required is that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.
And this tale of rape holds true notwithstanding the denial and alibi put up by the accused. Being inherently weak, accused labors under the burden of proving theses defenses by clear and convincing evidences. Unfortunately for him, he has not done so in this case.
His claim that he was just at his house when the alleged rape happened is effectively debunked by Mercy Semine, mother of the victim and whom he acknowledge (sic) to be present at his house, who stated that he went out of the house between 2-4 p.m. of that day. Although he presented the midwife to corroborate his story, the testimony of the latter is however peppered with inconsistencies – flip flopping on whether accused was at the store or bedroom at that time and if she was able to actually see him – rendering it totally unreliable.
All things considered, accused is therefore guilty of the charge.[7]
Hence, the instant appeal.
Assignment of Errors:
In his Appellant’s Brief, appellant ascribes the sole assignment of error:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[8]
The Court’s Ruling:
The appeal is without merit.
Elements of Rape established
beyond reasonable doubt
The essential issue is whether or not all the elements of the crime of Rape have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides:
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:
- Through force, threat, or intimidation;
- When the offended party is deprived of reason or 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 be present.
xxx
For the successful prosecution of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be established: (1) That the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) That such act was accomplished through force, threat or intimidation.[9]
In ruling for the prosecution, the court a quo took note of the demeanor of AAA and found her testimony to be credible. AAA’s testimony proved the elements of carnal knowledge accomplished through force, threat or intimidation. Her testimony likewise established the fact that she was abused by appellant, who is her uncle, in a clear, detailed and categorical manner when she recounted that –
| Q: |
Miss Witness are you AAA, the private complainant who filed this case?
|
| A: |
Yes, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
Do you know the person by the name Adonis Cabales?
|
| A: |
Yes, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
If Adonis Cabales is in Court, will you please point at him?
|
| A: |
Yes, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
Please point at him?
|
| A: |
(The witness is pointing to a person sitting at the accused’s bench and when asked about his name he answered that he is Adonis Cabales.)
|
| Q: |
How are you related to the accused?
|
| A: |
He is my uncle, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
How did he become your uncle?
|
| A: |
His wife is the sister of my mother, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
Why did you file a case against him?
|
| A: |
Because he raped me, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
When did this happen?
|
| A: |
January 16, 2005, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
Where did it happen?
|
| A: |
In our house, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
Where is your house located?
|
| A: |
At Barangay Waterfall, Panabo City, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
At what time did this happen?
|
| A: |
At 3:00 p.m., ma’am.
|
| Q: |
Where were you at that time?
|
| A: |
At the bedroom in our house, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
What were you doing then?
|
| A: |
I was sleeping, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
By the way, how old are you when this incident happened?
|
| A: |
Thirteen (13) years old, ma’am.
|
| xxx | |
| Q: |
Go back to your statement that you were asleep, while you were sleeping inside the bedroom, who came to your room?
|
| A: |
Adonis Cabales, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
Why do you know that he went inside to your room when you were sleeping at that time?
|
| A: |
Because when he entered inside the bedroom, ma’am, he kissed me and when I opened my eyes it was his face that I saw, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
When you saw him what did you do?
|
| A: |
I stood up and I tried to push him, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
What happened to him?
|
| A: |
He then held my hand, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
What else did he do, if any?
|
| A: |
He told me not to move, to talk and not to shout, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
What did you do next?
|
| A: |
I just cried, ma’am, because I was so afraid.
|
| Q: |
After that what did the accused do next?
|
| A: |
He removed my jogging pants and my panty, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
You said that he kissed you where did he kiss you?
|
| A: |
He kissed me in my face, ma’am.
|
| xxx | |
| Q: |
How did you react when he removed your garments?
|
| A: |
I tried to wriggle my body, ma’am, but he is too big.
|
| Q: |
What did he do next?
|
| A: |
He also removed his pants and brief, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
While he was undressing himself, what did you do?
|
| A: |
While he was undressing himself, ma’am, he only using (sic) one hand and the other hand is holding the knife pointing at my neck, ma’am.
|
| xxx | |
| Q: |
What kind of knife did he use?
|
| A: |
A fan knife, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
How long is this knife, in your own estimate?
|
| A: |
(The witness is showing by the motion of his (sic) which is about six (6) inches long.)
|
| Q: |
After he undressed you what did the accused do to you?
|
| A: |
He inserted his penis into my vagina, ma’am.
|
| xxx | |
| Q: |
When he inserted his penis into your vagina, how do you feel?
|
| A: |
It is painful, ma’am.
|
| Q: |
Where did you feel pain?
|
| A: | Inside my vagina, ma’am. |
| Q: | What did you tell him when he inserted his penis into your vagina? |
| A: | I said to him, “Please do not do it Uncle, have pity on me.” |
| Q: | What was the answer? |
| A: | Nothing, ma’am. |
| xxx | |
| Q: | After he inserted his penis into your vagina, what reaction did he perform? |
| A: | He did a push and pull motion, ma’am. |
| Q: | For how long was he in pushes (sic) and pull motion? |
| A: | About ten (10) minutes, ma’am. |
| Q: | Why did you not shout for help? |
| A: | He covered my mouth with the short pants, ma’am. |
| xxx | |
| Q: | After ten minutes, what did the accused do next? |
| A: | He dressed himself and went away, ma’am.[10] |
The foregoing clearly illustrated a vivid account on how appellant raped AAA. The rule is that when an alleged victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on that basis.[11]
The fact of rape was also demonstrated by the findings of by Dr. Elvie Prieto-Jabines when he declared that there was a healed notching at 7:00 o’clock position in AAA’s genitalia[12] and her conclusion that the medical examination is suggestive of chronic penetrating injury with acute component. These medical findings, together with the testimonies of AAA are more than adequate to refute the argument of the appellant that there was no clear evidence of AAA’s rape and that he was responsible for ravishing her.
The Court affords great respect and even
finality to the trial court’s assessment of
the credibility of witnesses
Appellant however assails the credibility of AAA’s testimony. In assailing the credibility of AAA, appellant states that he has only two hands, hence, it was impossible for him to remove AAA’s jogging pants and panties with such ease using only his one hand because the other hand was allegedly holding a knife.
We are not persuaded.
Contrary to the claim of appellant, We find that it is not impossible for appellant to undress while holding his victim and a fan knife at the same time. In People v. Dizon,[13] the Supreme Court explained that countless cases of rape have been committed in a similar fashion. We quote the pertinent portions of two such cases:
“x x x When she saw her father naked, she got scared and did not move. Because of her refusal, her father poked a three-cantos knife at her neck and he undressed her by pulling down her skirt and her panty until they were removed from her body. Her father then told her to sit up and when she did, he pulled her t-shirt off her head. She cried and her father threatened to kill her if her cries will be heard by others.”[14]
“x x x The accused awakened Mergena upon arriving from a drinking session with his brothers, pointed a knife at her and ordered her to stand up. When she refused to obey, he pulled her up. He removed his short pants, then with a knife still pointed at her, removed her skirt and made her lie down. He removed her panty and his underwear, separated her thighs and inserted his penis into her vagina while fondling her breast. This entire time his left hand was holding the knife.”[15]
Moreover, the Supreme Court has often reiterated the jurisprudential principle of affording great respect and even finality to the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses. In People vs. De Guzman,[16] the Supreme Court reiterated the settled doctrine that –
“Considering that the persons present during a rape are usually only the offender and the offended, the core of the questions raised is the credibility of the witnesses. It is doctrinally settled in this regard that such issue is to be resolved primarily by the trial court because it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Accordingly, its findings are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case.”
On the other hand, appellant interposes the defense of denial and alibi, relying on the testimony of Cañones to corroborate his claim that at the time of the rape, he was just inside their house with his wife. Such fact, even if true did not eliminate the possibility that appellant committed the offense. Notably, appellant’s house was just two houses away from AAA’s house. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that alibi is a weak defense and is viewed with disfavor by the courts, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove.[17] Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law. In order for alibi to prosper, appellant must prove that, first, he was somewhere else during the commission of the crime, and, second, that it was impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene.[18] The defense fell short of meeting this burden.
The Court finds that the trial Court committed no error in rendering the assailed Decision and finds no reason to disturb its findings on the credibility of AAA.
Penalty and Damages
The court a quo correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on appellant.
We however reduce the award of damages imposed by the court a quo. As this case is not attended with any aggravating or qualifying circumstance, the indemnity should properly be fixed at Php50,000.00 only.[19] The award of Php75,000.00 as moral damages is likewise reduced to Php50,000.00 in accord with prevailing jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has consistently awarded the amount of Php 50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim in a rape case. This amount is automatically granted without need of further proof, other than the commission of the crime. It is assumed that the offended party has suffered moral injuries entitling her to the award of such damages.[20]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated the March 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Panabo City finding Adonis Cabales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the victim, AAA, the following: (a) Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and (b) Php50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Camello, J., Ch., and Inting, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p. 81.
[2] To conform with the requirements of Section 44, R.A. 9262, or otherwise known as The Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 and concurrent with the ruling in the case of People v. Cabalquinto, the real name of the child victim and the immediate members of her family are not disclosed for their protection.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Records, p. 34.
[5] Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “A’, p. 1.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Rollo, p. 12.
[9] People v. Atadero, G.R. No. 183455, 10 October 2010.
[10] TSN, September 16, 2010, pp. 4-12.
[11] People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 167503,August 20, 2008.
[12] Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “A’, p. 1.
[13] G.R. No. 134802, October 26, 2001.
[14] People vs. Caballes, G.R. No. 102723-24, June 19, 1997.
[15] People vs. Leoterio, G.R. No. 119405-06, November 21, 1996.
[16] G.R. No. 124368. June 8, 2000.
[17] People v. Ganzan, G.R. No. 193509, April 11, 2012.
[18] Ibid.
[19] People v. Segovia, G.R. No. 138974, September 19, 2002.
[20] Ibid.