PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO ALBALATE, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PERLAS-BERNABE, E., J:
“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, this Court hereby finds accused Reynaldo Albalate, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE both in Criminal Case No. 3169-C and Criminal Case No. 3170-C and hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA in both cases and to pay the private offended party Marivic Pulong the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity plus the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages in each case.
The accused is to be credited of his preventive imprisonment if proper and any pursuant to the provision of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 6127 and E.O. 214.
SO ORDERED.”
Culled from the testimony of private complainant Marivic Pulong y Celo, the circumstances surrounding the subject rape are as follows:
On Nov. 21, 1998, she was raped two (2) times by accused-appellant, who is her uncle, in her grandmother’s house in San Andres, Lopez, Quezon. In the first rape which occurred at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning, accused-appellant was armed with an ice pick[2]. When accused-appellant undressed her, she resisted (“nagpapalag po ako”)[3]. Thereafter, he placed himself on top of her, and, while kissing her, inserted his penis in her private part which caused her pain as that was her first sexual experience[4]. Accused-appellant threatened that if she will tell anybody, he will kill her[5].
Her cousin, Ruel Celo, whom she earlier instructed to tend the carabao, witnessed the first rape when he returned to the house and immediately, reported to her Ate Roselyn[6]. On the other hand, the second time she was raped by accused-appellant was in the evening of the same day. Before the rape, accused-appellant just boxed her.[7]
Consequently, accused-appellant was indicted of the crime of Rape on two (2) counts under separate Informations which read:
Criminal Case No. 3169-C:
“That on or about the evening of the 21st day of November, 1998, at Barangay San Andres, Municipality of Lopez, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, an uncle and a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree of one Marivic Pulong, with lewd design, by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of said Marivic Pulong, a minor, 12 years of age, against her will.
Contrary to law.”[8]
Criminal Case No. 3170-C:
“That on or about the 21st of November, 1998, at around 8:00 o’clock in the morning, at Barangay San Andres, Municipality of Lopez, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, an uncle and a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree of one Marivic Pulong, armed with an ice pick, with lewd design, by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Marivic Pulong, a minor, 12 years of age, against her will.
Contrary to law.”[9]
Accused-appellant was arraigned on Sept. 28, 1999 and, with the assistance of Atty. Arnelo Mesa, pleaded Not Guilty to the crime charged under the two (2) afore-quoted Informations.[10]
In his testimony before the RTC, the accused-appellant denied any knowledge of the charges against him[11] and alleged that he did not rape the private complainant. He attributed the filing of these cases to the fact that private complainant Marivic’s parents were mad at him on account of the “sharing of copras”.[12] He further narrated that when they were young, Marivic’s father, who is his half-brother, being the son of his mother by her second marriage, was always striking him so he learned to fight back[13] and on one occasion, the former chased and boxed him, causing him to fall to the ground. In response, he hacked Marivic’s father.[14] During those times, however, no case was filed in court because their parents settled their case.[15]
While he was entertaining some anger against Marivic’s father (Julio) because he would like to have an equal share with him in the farm they are tilling, nevertheless, he did not turn his anger upon Marivic and rape her.[16]
Defense witness Florentina Escleto corroborated accused-appellant’s defense of denial, claiming that on November 21, 1998, accused-appellant was with her and her family helping them make copras.[17] She claimed that accused-appellant arrived in their place on Nov. 18, 1998, left only at the end of November, 1998 and did not leave the house nor the Barangay in the morning and in the evening of November 21, 1998[18]. She claimed to have no relation to accused-appellant, the latter being only their helper.[19]
Notably, accused-appellant, in his testimony before the RTC, did not raise the defense of alibi or that he was not at the alleged scene of the crime on the date and time of the alleged occurrence thereof.
After due proceedings, the RTC of Calauag, Quezon, rendered the assailed judgment of conviction dated July 24, 2002. Dissatisfied, accused-appellant filed the instant appeal, with the records initially forwarded to the Supreme Court because the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua. Subsequently, however, by virtue of the Decision rendered in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Efren Mateo y Garcia[20] which modified the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure by allowing an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals of cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the records of this case were transferred to the Court per resolution dated Sept. 29, 2004 of the First Division of the Honorable Supreme Court.
In the instant appeal, accused-appellant raised the following lone assignment of error, to wit :
“THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF TWO (2) COUNTS OF RAPE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”[21]
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Well settled is the rule that positive identification of the accused when categorical and consistent and without any ill-motive on her part prevails over alibi and denial which are negative and self-serving, and undeserving of weight in law.[22]
In the case at bar, records show that in convicting accused-appellant, the RTC gave no merit to the latter’s defense of denial and alibi in view of his (accused-appellant’s) positive identification by private complainant Marivic, made in a straightforward and categorical manner[23]. As no evil motive to give false testimony could be attributable to private complainant Marivic, accused-appellant attempted to impeach her credibility by pointing to the alleged animosity between him and Marivic’s father over their respective shares in the farm. Accused-appellant would like to create the impression that Marivic was used by her father in concocting a story of her defloration by way of retaliation against him with whom he (father) has quarreled through the years and who accused-appellant acknowledged in open court to have hacked[24]. This is, however, a weak defense which even the Honorable Supreme Court has refused to dignify pursuant to the doctrine that “no member of the victim’s family would subject the victim to the stigma and embarrassment concomitant with a rape trial, if he or she is not motivated by an honest desire to have the malefactor punished”.[25] Likewise, in the case of People vs. Abala26, the Supreme Court considered it highly unnatural for a parent to use his/her own offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will further expose her to shame and dishonor.
That the testimony of the examining physician that there was no laceration as the hymen was intact and that the possibility of rape is far[27] contradicted Marivic’s claim of rape is erroneous. It is axiomatic that expert testimony is unnecessary, as it is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.[28] As such, a medical examination is not indispensable for the successful prosecution of the crime of rape.[29] Corollary thereto, the Supreme Court has ruled that even without a medical examination, the accused may still be convicted of rape as long as the testimony of the complainant meets the test of credibility and resolutely points to the accused as the author of the crime, as in this case.
Consequently, the fact that the examining physician’s testimony may have failed to bolster complainant Marivic’s claim that she was raped is of no moment. In a prosecution for rape, the complainant’s credibility becomes the single most important issue[30] and her lone testimony is enough to sustain conviction[31]. Thus, on the basis of the established facts in these cases, the Court affirms the RTC’s finding of the credibility of the private complainant’s testimony considering that no evidence has been adduced by the accused-appellant to show any dubious reason or improper motive why she should falsely testify against the accused-appellant or implicate him in a serious offense.[32] Settled is the rule that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature are credible.[33]
Neither is the prosecution’s failure to present Ruel Celo, who allegedly witnessed one occasion of complainant Marivic’s rape, in court as a witness to corroborate Marivic’s testimony fatal to the latter’s cause. On this score, the Supreme Court has ruled that the non-presentation of certain witnesses by the prosecution is not a sufficient plausible defense[34], particularly in these cases where the testimony of complainant Marivic has been sustained as credible, convincing and free from serious contradictions, and thus, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient anchor for accused-appellant’s conviction for rape.[35]
Considering the foregoing disquisition, the Court resolves to uphold the herein assailed Decision finding accused-appellant guilty of two (2) counts of rape as charged.
With respect to the propriety of the penalty imposed, the Court agrees with the finding of the RTC that there is no concurrence of the aggravating circumstances of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the accused-appellant which would warrant the imposition of the death penalty[36]. Hence, accused-appellant was properly meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. 3169-C. On the other hand, the Court noted that the rape under Criminal Case No. 3170-C was committed with the use of an ice pick, which is a deadly weapon. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon x x x, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death”. In relation thereto, Article 63 of the same Code prescribes that when a penalty is composed of two (2) indivisible penalties, and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, as in this case, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Accordingly, no reversible error was likewise committed by the RTC in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua against accused-appellant in the latter case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated July 24, 2002 of the RTC of Calauag, Quezon, Branch 63, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Salazar-Fernando, and Abdulwahid, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, Vol. I., pp. 209-225.
[2] TSN, November 9, 2000, p. 6.
[3] Ibid., p. 8.
[4] Ibid., p. 17.
[5] Ibid., p. 6.
[6] Ibid., p. 12.
[7] Ibid., p. 17.
[8] Records, Vol. 1., pp. 2-3.
[9] Records, Vol. II, pp. 2-3.
[10] Records, Vol. I, p. 43.
[11] TSN, January 29, 2002, pp. 4 and 6.
[12] Ibid., p. 4.
[13] Ibid., pp. 5, 9.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., p. 9.
[16] Ibid., p. 10.
[17] TSN, April 23, 2003, p. 3.
[18] Ibid., p. 4.
[19] Ibid., p. 7.
[20] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, promulgated on July 7, 2004.
[21] Rollo, p. 65.
[22] People vs. Vallespin, 391 SCRA 213.
[23] RTC Decision, Records, Vol. I, p. 220.
[24] TSN, January 29, 2002, p. 5.
[25] People vs. Ponsica, 384 SCRA 32.
[26] 385 SCRA 54.
[27] TSN, July 31, 2001, pp. 4-5.
[28] People vs. Sinoro, 401 SCRA 371.
[29] See People vs. Umbana, 402 SCRA 415; People vs. Pillas, 411 SCRA 468; and People vs. Pascia, 416 SCRA 548.
[30] People vs. Dalisay, 408 SCRA 375.
[31] People vs. Sodsod, 404 SCRA 39.
[32] People vs. Dagamo, 402 SCRA 133.
[33] People vs. Pillas, supra.
[34] People vs. Villarama, 397 SCRA 306.
[35] People vs. Nequia, 412 SCRA 628.
[36] RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 40.