THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ADONIS CABALES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Cabales

The Case

This is People versus Cabales, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Adonis Cabales for having carnal knowledge of a thirteen-year-old girl, identified in the record only as AAA, by force, threat, and intimidation, while armed with a fan knife. The case matters to the reviewee for three reasons: it restates the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended, it shows how the Court treats the credibility of a child victim and the defenses of denial and alibi, and it corrects the amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages where no aggravating or qualifying circumstance attended the crime.

Procedural History

Cabales was charged by Information with rape before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Panabo City. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried on the merits. The trial court rendered its Decision on March 27, 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape defined under Article 266-A and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, ordered him to pay AAA 75,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 75,000 pesos as moral damages, and credited him with any preventive imprisonment. Cabales appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as his sole error that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

On January 16, 2005, at around three o'clock in the afternoon, AAA, then thirteen years old, was sleeping alone in the bedroom of her family home in Barangay Waterfall, Panabo City. Her father was away in Likanan, her mother was at the house of Cabales helping his wife who had just given birth, and her siblings were at their grandparents' house. Cabales, AAA's uncle by marriage, lived two houses away, about sixty meters from her home.

AAA was awakened when Cabales kissed her on the face. She stood up and tried to push him away, but he held her, pointed a fan knife at her neck, and told her not to move or shout. With one hand holding the knife at her neck, he removed her jogging pants and her panty. He then inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement for about ten minutes. She felt pain inside her vagina and pleaded, "Please do not do it Uncle, have pity on me." She could not shout because he covered her mouth with short pants. Afterwards he dressed himself and told her not to tell anybody. She also testified that this was not the first time, as a prior sexual intercourse had occurred sometime in November 2004, which she kept secret because he threatened to kill her family.

The next day, January 17, 2005, AAA submitted to a medical examination at the Davao Regional Hospital. The physician found a healed notching at the seven o'clock position in her genitalia and concluded that the findings were suggestive of chronic penetrating injury with an acute component. The defense presented Cabales, who claimed he was at his own house attending to his wife and tending their store that day, and the midwife Tessie Cañones, who corroborated his presence at home but whose testimony the trial court found peppered with inconsistencies.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the testimony of AAA is credible, given the appellant's claim that it was physically impossible for him to remove her garments while holding a knife with one hand.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi can overcome the evidence of the prosecution.
• Whether or not the trial court imposed the correct penalty and the correct amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, 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: 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.

This provision supplies the elements the Court requires the prosecution to establish: carnal knowledge of a woman, accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of rape were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court laid down the elements in this wise:

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.

The Court found that AAA's testimony established both elements in a clear, detailed, and categorical manner, recounting how Cabales kissed her, held her, pointed a fan knife at her neck, removed her garments, and inserted his penis into her vagina for about ten minutes while she pleaded for pity. The Court applied the rule 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. The medical findings of a healed notching and chronic penetrating injury with an acute component, together with her testimony, were more than adequate to refute the appellant's argument.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of physical impossibility. It held that it is not impossible for an appellant to undress while holding his victim and a fan knife at the same time, citing prior decisions where rape was committed in a similar fashion, including one where the entire time the offender's left hand was holding the knife. The Court also reiterated the settled doctrine of affording great respect and even finality to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. It found no showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied any fact of weight and substance.

On the third issue, the Court held that denial and alibi did not eliminate the possibility that Cabales committed the offense, especially since his house was just two houses away from AAA's house. Alibi is a weak defense, viewed with disfavor by the courts because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. To prosper, the appellant must prove that he was somewhere else during the commission of the crime and that it was impossible for him to be anywhere within the vicinity of the crime scene. The defense fell short of that burden.

On the fourth issue, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua but reduced the damages. As the case was not attended with any aggravating or qualifying circumstance, the civil indemnity was properly fixed at 50,000 pesos only, and the moral damages were likewise reduced to 50,000 pesos in accord with prevailing jurisprudence. Moral damages in that amount are automatically granted without need of further proof other than the commission of the crime, it being assumed that the offended party suffered moral injuries.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, for rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, the prosecution must prove carnal knowledge of a woman and that the act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. Second, when a victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was inflicted on her, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on that basis alone. Third, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance. Fourth, alibi is a weak defense that must be supported by clear and convincing proof that the accused was elsewhere and that it was impossible for him to be at the scene. Fifth, where no aggravating or qualifying circumstance attends the rape, civil indemnity is 50,000 pesos and moral damages are 50,000 pesos, the latter granted without need of further proof beyond the commission of the crime.

Disposition

The appeal was denied. The Court affirmed the conviction and the penalty of reclusion perpetua with modification, ordering Cabales to pay AAA 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages.

Remember This

Remember the line that a rape victim's credible testimony, saying she was violated, is by itself sufficient to convict. Examiners use this case to test the elements of rape under Article 266-A, the deference given to the trial court's credibility findings, the weakness of alibi, and the correct amounts of damages absent any aggravating or qualifying circumstance.