PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO GOOL Y CALIGAGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
INTING, S.B., J.:
The Information[2] in Criminal Case No. Q-10-162276 reads:
“That on or about the 22nd day of December, 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, being then the stepfather of minor AAA[3], taking advantage of his moral ascendancy and authority over the latter and by means of force and intimidation, with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one “AAA”, 12 years of age, a minor, against her will and without her consent, which act debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of said [AAA], as a human being, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.“
THE FACTS
Evidence for the Prosecution:
On December 22, 2009, at about 11:30 a.m., twelve (12) year-old private complainant AAA, her mother BBB[4], and the latter’s live-in partner, Rolando Gool, herein accused-appellant, were all at their house in Brgy. Pag-asa, Quezon City. While BBB is doing the laundry, AAA told her if she can go to sleep as she felt sleepy. BBB responded that AAA can go, hence AAA went inside the house. There she saw accused-appellant cooking. When AAA entered the room, accused-appellant followed her and said , “Pahipo naman.” When AAA refused, accused-appellant left. Thinking that accused-appellant will not come back anymore, AAA lay on the bed and covered herself with a blanket. Suddenly, AAA felt accused-appellant pulling her feet and removing her shorts and underwear. He held her hands and inserted his penis into her vagina. While accused-appellant was ejaculating, BBB entered the room and saw him with his shorts unzipped. He was kneeling on the bed and holding his penis with his hand. On the other hand, AAA was naked from the waist down and about to put on her underwear and shorts. Stunned by what she saw, BBB slapped and hit accused-appellant and demanded that he leave.
At about 6:00 p.m. of said date, AAA and BBB went to the police station to report the incident. AAA was thereafter subjected to a medico-legal examination. Later, after receiving the complaint of AAA and BBB, police operatives arrested accused-appellant.
Dr. Jericho Cordero, who conducted the medico-legal examination on AAA, found the presence of a deep healed hymenal laceration at 8 o’clock position caused by insertion of a blunt object or instrument.
Inside the courtroom, AAA identified accused-appellant as her rapist. In her testimony, AAA narrated that for a number of times before the rape incident on December 22, 2009, accused-appellant already raped her. The first time was sometime in October 2009 and on twenty-four (24) other occasions thereafter. When asked why she did not report her traumatic ordeal to anyone, AAA stated that she was not able to do so because she was threatened by accused-appellant that if she did, BBB would order her to leave the house. She likewise stated that she did not have any ill motive against accused-appellant for her to maliciously charge him with rape.
Evidence for the Defense:
Accused-appellant denied having raped AAA. He countered that on December 22, 2009, he was at home together with AAA and BBB. When he talked to AAA about her failing grade in one of her subjects and the need to retake it, the latter cried and told him not to tell her mother about it. It was at this instance that BBB arrived and asked him what was going on. He did not answer and waited for AAA to tell the matter to BBB. AAA suddenly uttered, “Magtatapat na po ako.” BBB immediately asked,“Bakit ano nangyayari (sic) dito, ni-rape ka ba ng daddy mo?” AAA replied in the affirmative. Thereafter, BBB demanded him to leave.
The next day, accused-appellant received a text message from BBB telling him to return to their house. Thinking that AAA already told BBB about her grades,he went back to their house. Thereat, he was arrested by police operatives.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT
On July 31, 2013, the trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as charged. It gave more weight to AAA’s demeanor and direct, positive and clear testimony as against accused-appellant’s self-serving testimony. Thus, the trial court disposed of the case as follows, viz:
“IN VIEW WHEREOF, accused Rolando Gool y Caligagan is found GUILTY of the crime of Rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
The accused is further ordered to pay private complainant the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) as moral damages and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php25,000.00) as exemplary damages. No costs.
The period of the accused’s preventive detention shall be credited in the service of his sentence.
SO ORDERED.”
Aggrieved, accused-appellant interposed the present appeal.
THE APPEAL
In his Brief,[5] accused-appellant raises a single assignment of error, to wit:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Simply, accused-appellant submits that AAA’s narration as to the circumstances surrounding the alleged rape was incredible as it defies logic and runs counter to the ordinary course of human experience. He argues that although AAA may have been too young to realize what had happened to her, for someone who had allegedly experienced something horrendous and against her will, her conduct on the fateful day of December 22, 2009 should have somehow shown that she was traumatized by the previous supposed harrowing experiences and at least, should have tried to avoid the sexual advances of the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant further argues that it is disconcerting that AAA did not even bother to run to her mother after accused-appellant uttered “pahipo naman”. Or, she could have shouted for help while accused-appellant was fulfilling his bestial desires.
Accused-appellant further claims innocence of the crime charged by advancing an inconsistency between the physical evidence of rape and Dr. Cordero’s testimony.
In all, he contends that is was quite highly improbable that he committed the crime charged against him. He thus claims that he is entitled to an acquittal because the prosecution failed to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the crime attributed to him.
THIS COURT’S RULING
After a careful review of the records of this case, We are satisfied that the prosecution’s evidence established the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
It has been ruled that [i]n reviewing the evidence in rape cases, the following considerations should be made: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[6] Nonetheless, it is also worth noting that rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or secrecy; thus, it is most often only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of forced coitus.[7]
In the case at bar, accused-appellant is charged with the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code .
Pertinently, the elements of rape under Art. 266-A of the Code are the following: (1) that the offender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) that such act is accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.
Notably, the prosecution has sufficiently established the existence of the three (3) foregoing elements.
Firstly, there is no question that accused-appellant is a man.
Secondly, it is no dispute that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA. When AAA was called to the witness stand, she gave a detailed narration of the incidents that transpired in the morning of December 22, 2009. She was candid and straightforward when she testified that accused-appellant raped her on December 22, 2009.
“Q What happen in December 22, 2009?
A At that time my mother was doing a laundry and I was with her, and when I felt sleepy, I told her that I want sleep and she said okay and so I left her and I enter (sic) the bedroom.
Q What time was that?
A Around 11:30 to 11:35, ma’am.
Q In the morning or in the evening?
A Morning ma’am.
Q So, what happen (sic) when you enter (sic) the bedroom to sleep, whose bedroom did you enter at that time?
A Actually, we have only one room, ma’am.
Q What happen (sic) after you entered that bedroom?
A He followed me into the room and he said “pahipo naman”.
Q What does pahipo naman mean? How did you understand pahipo naman?
Court:
Who is that he?
A Rolando Gool, po.
Court:
So, Rolando Gool followed you inside the room then he said pahipo naman?
A Yes your honor
Q If Rolando Gool is in the courtroom, can you identify him?
A Yes ma’am
Q There are three men sitting at the back can you point Rolando Gool?
A (witness pointing to a man wearing a yellow t.shirt who were (sic) ask (sic) and answered by the name Rolando Gool)
Q So, he asked you pahipo naman? What is pahipo naman mean?
A He said that he wanted to touch my vagina but I don’t (sic) let him
Q Was that the first time that Rolando Gool asked that question “pahipo naman”?
A No ma’am
Q When was the first (time) that Rolando Gool asked you that question?
A About year 2000, ma’am
Q What happen (sic) in October 2010 when Rolando Gool asked you when (sic) the question “Pahipo naman?”
A Of course, I did not agree ma’am
Q Were (sic) going back to December 22, 2009, after he asked you “pahipo naman and you did not agree, what happen (sic) next?
A He left the room, ma’am.
Q And then what happen (sic) next?
A I felt he will not comeback so, I lay down on the bed and I already covered the blanket, ma’am.
Q And when you covered your self with a blanket, what happen (sic) next?
A Bumalik na po siya tapos para lang pinigilan lang niya akong makagalaw para hindi ako makapalag pero napalag naman po ako.
COURT:
When you return to the bedroom, you were rape him?
A Not yet, your honor, Hinidi po ako pumayag kasi hindi po ako pumalag dahil malakas po siya.Q When you say (sic) a while ago that “hindi ka na nakapalag” what did the accused do for you not to be able to escape him?
A Nakakaganuuon po naman yung mga kamay, bale hawak niya po, tapos iyun sinimulan na niya yung sex/
Q You stated a while ago that you starting (sic) having sex?
A Yes ma’am
Q How old are (sic) you then in December 2009?
A I am 12 years old, ma’am
Q And you know the meaning of sex?
A Kasi po ano, pakikipagtalik, hindi po siya maexplain.
Q How did he do, if you did (sic) not able to escape (sic) him. What did you do?
A Iyun nga po sinumalan na niya po ipasok yung kanyang ari po sa ari ko. (he started inserting his penis inside my vagina ma’am)
Q What were you wearing when he be (sic) able to enter his penis into your vagina?
A Shorts and underwear, ma’am
Q What did he do with those you’re wearing?
A Bilis bilis niya pong hinila na para matanggal eh kasi po hawak niya nga po yung kamay ko. ( he immediate (sic) pull (sic) them down because he was holding my hands)
Q You stated a while ago that he inserted his penis inside your vagina, was that the first time that he did that?
A No ma’am
Q When was the first time that he did that?
A October 2009, ma’am
Q After October 2009 when was the second time that he did that to you?
A December 2009, ma’m
Q This December 22, 2009?
A No ma’am
Q Do you remember the date?
A December 5, 2009, ma’am
Q The third time?
A The following day, ma’am
Q December 6, 2009?
A Yes ma’am”[8]
Verily, the aforequoted testimony of AAA highly establishes the fact of rape. Add to this is the pronouncement of the High Court that [t]estimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[9]
More to that, considering her young age, it would have been highly improbable for AAA to fabricate a charge so humiliating to her and her family, had she not been truly subjected to the painful experience of sexual abuse. We likewise consider the fact that it is hard to believe that a mother, like BBB here, would sacrifice her own daughter and present her to be the subject of a public trial if she, in fact, has not been motivated by an honest desire to have the culprit punished. It is quite unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment and even stigma.[10]
Thirdly and lastly, it was also established that accused-appellant employed threat, force and intimidation to satisfy his lust. AAA candidly testified that accused-appellant threatened that if she reports the incident to BBB, BBB will order her to leave the house. Thus:
Q However, there is only one case filed against him, not count of three filed against him. Why did you not report the matter that’s being done to you by the accused, to your mother or any authority?
A Kasi po tinatakot niya po ako (he was threatening me ma’am)
Q How was he threatening you?
A Sinasabi po niya kakpag nagsumbong ako kay mommy ado day po ang papaalisin ni mommy sa bahay. (if I weill tell my mother about the incident, my mother will let me out of the house)[11]
Undoubtedly, the thought of being sent away from the house by one’s own mother and with nowhere else in mind to go for shelter, is sufficient to bring a woman into submission. Having said that, that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will is well established.
However, despite the presence of overwhelming evidence working against his defense, accused-appellant still claims innocence of the offense filed against him. He contends that the physical evidence of rape, i.e., the deep healed hymenal laceration on AAA’s private part is inconsistent with Dr. Cordero’s testimony. Dr. Cordero testified that when he examined AAA on December 22, 2009, he found a deep healed hymenal laceration at 8 o’clock position on AAA’s private part. However, on cross examination, he mentioned that if the sexual intercourse happened on the same day he examined the victim, then the finding is not a healed laceration but rather a fresh or active laceration. This inconsistency, according to accused-appellant, disproved that a rape incident occurred on December 22, 2009.
Accused-appellant’s position deserves no merit.
At first glance, there seems to be an inconsistency. The truth however is that there really is none. Interestingly, Dr. Cordero’s medico-legal report revealing a finding of deep healed hymenal lacerations all the more strongly supports AAA’s testimony that accused-appellant raped her not only on December 22, 2009 but several times before. As testified to by AAA, she was raped for the first time sometime in October 2009 and twenty-four (24) other occasions thereafter. Such being the case, this explains the finding of deep healed hymenal laceration on AAA’s private part when she was examined on December 22, 2009, the date of the commission of the offense charged against accused-appellant.
At any rate, even assuming arguendo that there is an inconsistency, medico-legal findings in rape cases, while corroborative of the fact of rape, are not indispensable to an accused’s conviction. What is crucial in a rape case is the positive testimony of the victim that she was raped by the accused. Here, AAA categorically testified that accused-appellant raped her not only on December 22, 2009 but several times before.
And so, the trial court correctly found accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape.
Now, to the penalty and damages.
Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A is punishable by reclusion perpetua. The trial court therefore correctly imposed the penalty.
On the damages, while We affirm the award of civil indemnity and moral damages, each in the amount of P50,000.00, We increase the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00 in conformity with prevailing jurisprudence.[12] In addition, We further subject the indemnity and damages awarded to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid in conformity with current policy.[13]
WHEREFORE, the judgment of Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106, dated July 31, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that this Court hereby increases the award of exemplary damages to P30,000.00 and further imposes interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded in this case from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Jr., (Chairperson), and Lopez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 34-50.
[2] Records, p. 1, dated September 30, 2002.
[3] This Court withheld the victim’s real name and personal circumstances and those of the victim’s immediate family or household members per People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006.
[4] See supra note 3.
[5] Rollo, Brief for the Accused-Appellant, pp. 25-36, filed November 28, 2013.
[6] People v. Apattad, G.R. No. 193188, August 10, 2011.
[7] People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010, citing People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 185389, July 7, 2009.
[8] TSN, February 3, 2011, pp. 6-10.
[9] People v. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 192239, June 5, 2013; People v. Sobusa, G.R. No. 181083. January 21, 2010.
[10] People v. Castiollo, G.R. No. 186533, August 9, 2010.
[11] TSN, February 3, 2011, p10.
[12] People v. Cabungan , G.R. No. 189355, January 23, 2013; People v. Rante, G.R. No. 184809, March 29, 2010; People v. Dalisay, G. R. No. 188106, November 15, 2009; People v. Peralta, G. R. No. 187531, October 16, 2009.
[13] People v. Veloso, G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013.