PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODOLFO BLEN Y PALULAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Blen

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Rodolfo Blen, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of a woman identified only as AAA, a person with mental and physical disability, by means of force and intimidation, and with the qualifying circumstance that he knew of her disability. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: it shows how the Court treats the testimony of a mentally deficient victim, and it restates that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot overcome a positive identification.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 70, and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision on the first of February 2013, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and ordering him to pay fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and fifty thousand pesos as moral damages. Aggrieved, the accused interposed an appeal, assigning a single error: that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty despite the prosecution's failure to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it in the decision now before us.

Facts

On the morning of the third of August 2009, in Taguig City, AAA went out to buy coffee from a store beside their house. While she was buying coffee, the accused pulled her hand. She was not able to fight back. He took her to his bedroom, removed her shorts, and had sexual intercourse with her. She demonstrated how he opened her legs and placed his hands on her mouth. She felt pain because it was her first time. Afterwards, the accused warned her not to tell her sisters or he would kill her, and gave her twenty pesos. She then went home.

The family learned of the incident because BBB, the twelve year old granddaughter of AAA, had seen them. That same morning, BBB went out to buy coffee from the accused's store, knocked, and got no answer. She peeped through a hole and saw the accused and AAA on top of each other, having sex, with the accused forcing AAA. She peeped for about a minute until her mother called her, and she told her mother to go to the store. The accused and AAA came out, and AAA was screaming at that time.

For his part, the accused testified that AAA is his neighbor, that on that morning he was with his wife arranging vegetables, and that nothing unusual transpired. He claimed AAA came to his house to ask for coffee, rice and viand, and that while she was sipping coffee he left to fetch water to take a bath. When he returned, he saw AAA inside their bedroom searching for something, and she was startled and scared when she saw him. He was arrested that afternoon by the barangay tanod, and he claimed the charge was filed to extort money from him, although his account of the amount demanded was contradictory.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape despite the prosecution's alleged failure to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim.
• Whether or not the mental disability and emotional disorder of the victim destroy her competence and credibility as a witness.
• Whether or not the failure of the child witness to shout at the accused during the rape affects her credibility.
• Whether or not a medical examination is indispensable for a conviction of rape.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 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; x x x d) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious.

This is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted, and it supplies the elements of force and intimidation and of the victim's deprivation of reason.

Article 266-B of the same Code provides:

Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. x x x 10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

This is the qualifying circumstance alleged in the information and applied by the trial court, which the Supreme Court affirmed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal is not meritorious. The accused merely reiterated his defenses of denial and alibi, and questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Court was not persuaded.

On the second issue, the Court held that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim. It quoted its own ruling:

Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim, who in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the appellant who sexually molested her.

The Court noted that AAA positively identified the accused in open court, pointing to him as the man who had sexual intercourse with her, who pulled down her pants, and who opened her legs.

On the third issue, the Court held that the victim's mental disability and emotional disorders do not destroy her credibility. It quoted with approval:

It bears emphasis that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused. Moreover, it is settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.

The Court found that AAA clearly described how she was forced to have sexual intercourse, how the accused removed her shorts, opened her legs, placed his hand on her mouth, and inserted his penis into her vagina.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the workings of a human mind are unpredictable, that people react differently, and that there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident. Bearing in mind BBB's young age, she was obviously shocked, which prevented her from saying or doing anything, and her failure to shout should not be taken against her.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that a medical examination is not indispensable for a conviction of rape, quoting:

a medical examination is not necessary as it is merely corroborative. As we mentioned before, the fact of rape in this case was satisfactorily established by the testimony of AAA alone.

The Court was convinced that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of AAA and BBB.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim who convincingly identified the accused. Second, the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses are upheld where they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently; their condition lends greater credence to their testimony rather than undermining it. Third, when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped, and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict. Fourth, there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident, so a witness's failure to shout does not affect credibility. Fifth, a medical examination is merely corroborative and is not indispensable for a conviction of rape. These rules tie directly to Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, under which force or intimidation and the offender's knowledge of the victim's mental disability are the operative elements and qualifying circumstance.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 70, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.

Remember This

Memorize this line: denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim. Examiners like to use this case to test the credibility of mentally deficient rape victims and the rule that a medical examination is not indispensable for a rape conviction.