G.R. No. 101631. June 08, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO IBAY Y MACEDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PUNO, J.:
On September 5, 1989, private complainant DONNA VILLANUEVA executed
a Sworn Statement[1]
against appellant ROMEO MACEDA IBAY, accusing him of rape. Soon after, the police authorities arrested
appellant and put him in jail.[2]
In an Information, dated September 13, 1989, he was charged with rape, viz.:
“That on or about the 14th day of August, 1989, in the
Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
design, and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one Donna E. Villanueva,
a girl below 12 years old, against her will and consent.”
The case was docketed as Crim. Case No. 1048, and assigned to the
RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, Br. 77.[3]
After appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge against him on September 29,
1989,[4]
trial ensued. The prosecution presented
four witnesses, namely: private complainant,
DONNA VILLANUEVA;[5]
her mother, SUSAN EUSEBIO[6]
and, half sister, JOCELYN CONSTANTINO;[7]
and DR. EMMANUEL L. ARAÑAS.[8]
On the other hand, the following witnesses testified for the defense: appellant ROMEO MACEDA IBAY;[9]
his employer, LEONARDO CAHATOL,[10]
and his fellow construction worker, LORENZO ASPIRAS.[11]
After trial, the lower court convicted appellant. The dispositive portion of the impugned
Decision, dated August 2, 1991, reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Romeo Ibay, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the victim, Donna Villanueva, the sum of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).
“SO ORDERED.”
Thus, this appeal.
The records show that private complainant is the eldest of five
children.[12]
She was born on January 7, 1978,[13]
and was eleven (11) years, seven (7) months, and seven (7) days old on August
14, 1989, the day she was raped. She
lives in Daang Hari, Rodriguez, Rizal with her mother, stepfather,
half-sisters, and half-brothers. Their
house is located several meters from a nipa hut owned by a certain Mang
Rufing. In 1989, the hut was occupied
by several persons, among them appellant Romeo Ibay.[14]
According to private complainant, at around four o’clock in the
afternoon of August 14, 1989, she was fetching water from the artesian well
about twenty-one (21) meters from their house, and about two (2) meters from
Mang Rufing’s hut.[15]
She was called by appellant who was near the door of the hut.[16]
When she approached him,[17]
appellant grabbed her arm, and forcefully pulled her inside the empty hut. There, he removed her short pants and made
her lie down.[18]
She did not resist or shout because he threatened to kill her if she did.[19]
He shed off his own short pants and without much ado mounted her. He continued to intimidate her with threats
of harm. She cried and begged him to
stop because he was hurting her. He
refused even if she tried to push him off her with her bare hands.[20]
About a minute after appellant bestraddled private complainant,
he succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. Pain punctured the private complainant.[21]
During the copulation, appellant rocked back and forth — “Umuuga po
siya,” according to private complainant.[22]
A little later, she felt something streaming which she described as “‘yong tila
ihi” or like urine come out of appellant.[23]
When he dismounted her, she saw blood coming from her private part.[24]
Before leaving, he warned her to keep her mouth shut or face death.[25]
Private complainant took appellant’s threat to heart, and for
nearly three weeks, remained silent.[26]
She decided to break her silence due to another incident that happened on
September 3, 1989. In the afternoon of
that day, private complainant was fetching water from the artesian well near
Mang Rufing’s hut. Appellant appeared
and again tried to drag her inside the hut. Luckily, she was able to escape. She ran to her house, but did not inform her mother, Susan Eusebio,
about the incident.[27]
Private complainant’s sister, Jocelyn Constantino, however, witnessed what
happened and reported to their mother.[28]
Private complainant confirmed Jocelyn’s story. She also revealed to her mother her defloration on August 14, 1989.[29]
Susan Eusebio cried a river when she discovered the dastardly
abuse perpetrated by appellant on her daughter.[30]
Dark thoughts and emotions crossed her mind. She wanted to kill appellant but banished the thought for the sake of
her other children.[31]
She hesitated in reporting to the police, fearful of the humiliation their
family would experience.[32]
She trembled at the thought that if people found out about the rape, they would
tease private complainant.[33]
That night, Susan informed her husband, Joselito Constantino, about the
molestation. Jolted, Joselito wanted to
confront appellant, but was dissuaded by Susan.[34]
Thenceforth, private complainant braced herself and decided to
seek justice. On September 5, 1989, she
went to the police authorities at the Municipal Hall of Rodriguez, Rizal with
her mother. There, she gave a written
statement about her sexual abuse on August 14, 1989.[35]
Accompanied by her mother and her uncle,[36]
she proceeded to Camp Crame, and underwent a medical examination conducted by
Dr. Emmanuel L. Arañas.[37]
The doctor’s findings are embodied in MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT NO. M-1735-89 (Exh.
“B”). It reads as follows:
“CASE: Alleged
Rape SUSPECT/S: “BOBBY”
VICTIM/S: VILLANUEVA, Donna
BIRTHDAY: 07 January 1978
TIME AND DATE RECEIVED: 1400H, 05 September 1989
REQUESTING PARTY/UNIT: Stn Comdr, Rodriguez Pol Stn, Rizal
INP, Rodriguez, Rizal
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Person of Donna Villanueva, about 11 years
old and a resident of Daang Hari, St., Brgy Manggahan, Rodriguez, Rizal.
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY
EXAMINATION:
To determine physical signs of sexual abuse.
F I N D I N G S:
GENERAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female
subject. Breasts are conical with
pinkish brown areola and nipples from which no secretion could be pressed
out. Abdomen is flat and soft.
GENITAL:
There is lanugo type growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated
with the pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same is disclosed an
elastic, fleshy-type hymen with shallow, healed lacerations at 2 and 8 and
deep, healed laceration at 5 o’clock. External vaginal orifice offers strong resistance to the introduction of
the examining index finger and the virgin-sized vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is narrow with xxx
rogosities. Cervix is normal in size,
color and consistency.
C O N C L U S I O N:
Subject is in non-virgin state physically. There are no external signs of recent
application of any form of trauma.
REMARKS:
Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gram-negative
diplocicci and for spermatozoa.
TIME AND DATE COMPLETED: 1515h, 05 September 1989
EXAMINED BY:
(sgd.)
EMMANUEL L.
ARAÑAS, MD
Medico-Legal
Officer
APPROVED:
(sgd.)
BIENVENIDO G. TORRES
Major, MC (PC)
OIC, Med-Legal Br.
NOTED:
(sgd.)
PAULINO B. SILAN
Colonel PC (BSC)
Commanding Officer”
(Exh. “B”;
Original Records, p. 53.)
Appellant denied the charge against him and shields himself with
the defense of alibi. He testified that
his permanent residence is in Tramo, Pasig, Metro Manila. He stayed at Mang Rufing’s hut from July,
1989 until he was arrested in September, 1989.[38]
At that time, he was vacationing with his sister,[39]
and was working as a plumber for Leonardo Cahatol.[40]
Appellant alleged that on August 14, 1989, he was at work, helping construct a
deep well in Green Heights Subdivision in Marikina, Metro Manila. He said he returned home from work at seven
or eight o’clock at night.[41]
Appellant’s alibi was corroborated by his employer and
co-worker. His employer, Leonardo
Cahatol, confirmed that he and four helpers, among them appellant, started
working on a deep-well drilling project in Green Heights Subdivision, Fairlane,
Marikina on August 12, 1989. The job took
a week, during which he and his helpers worked daily from eight or nine o’clock
in the morning, to nine or eleven o’clock in the evening. Leonardo recalled that on August 14, 1989,
they spent the day drilling and quit working at ten or eleven o’clock in the
evening.[42]
Similarly, Lorenzo Aspiras testified that they worked on said deep-well project
for five or six days, from August 13, 1989. He also related that on August 14, 1989, they worked from eight o’clock
in the morning until seven o’clock in the evening.[43]
In this forum, appellant now insists that the
“(p)rosecution’s evidence is deficient to sustain a verdict of conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.”[44]
Denouncing private complainant’s story as “doubtful”[45]
he argues that: her claim that she did
not scream for help nor offer any resistance other than to try and push
appellant off her does not jibe “with common knowledge and experience of
mankind;”[46]
her “seeming nonchalant behavior”[47]
in not reporting her molestation to her mother until twenty days after its
occurrence must “engender suspicion that the charge of rape x x x was
untrue and fabricated;”[48]
“(i)t certainly raises quizzical eyebrows”[49]
that private complainant offered no able explanation why none of the other
occupants of Mang Rufing’s hut were there when the rape took place; and private
complainant contradicted herself when she first narrated that when appellant
was removing her shorts, he warned her not to shout (TSN of October 26, 1989),
then also testified that he threatened to kill her (TSN of November 14, 1989).
Appellant likewise attacks the credibility of private
complainant’s mother, Susan Eusebio. He
contends: “it does not rhyme with reason that an outraged mother would
hesitate for two (2) days after knowledge of the rape whether to take action
against the appellant, on the pretext that she was ashamed that other people
might tease her daughter.”[50]
Finally, appellant argues that the medico-legal findings,
especially the opinion that there were no signs or trauma on the external area
of the vagina of private complainant, negate the commission of rape.[51]
We affirm appellant’s conviction.
On the whole, the trial court did not err in weighing the
evidence of the parties. We find no
cogent reason to depart from the oft-repeated general rule that findings of
fact of trial courts, particularly with respect to the credibility of witnesses
who personally appeared and testified before them, must be given great weight
and should not be disturbed by appellate courts. The purported loopholes, inconsistencies and improbabilities in
private complainant’s testimony alluded to by appellant do not exist in the
most part. And, where they do, the
testimonial imperfections hardly relate to facts material to the commission of
statutory rape.
Firstly, that private complainant merely cried and tried to push
appellant off her cannot cancel her credibility. Behavioral psychology teaches us that different people react to
similar situations dissimilarly. Most
women would resist a sexual assault with a wild struggle. Others become virtually catatonic because of
the mental shock they experience. Yet,
it can never be successfully argued that the latter are any less sexual victims
than the former. As we have held in an
earlier case:
“xxx The fact that there was no struggle or outcry from the
offended party is immaterial in the rape of a child below twelve years of
age. There could still be a conviction
despite the absence of force and intimidation because the law presumes that the
victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her
own.”[52]
Secondly, this court has repeatedly held that delay in reporting
a rape incident due to death threats cannot be counted against the victim.[53]
This rule applies with more force to the case at bench, where complainant was
only eleven (11) years old when she was violently initiated into
womanhood. It is not unlikely that a
girl of such tender age would be intimidated into silence by the mildest threat
against her life. A young girl, unlike
a mature woman, cannot be expected to have the courage and intelligence to
immediately report a sexual assault committed against her especially when a
death threat hangs over her head.[54]
To her simple, unsophisticated mind, appellant’s threat was not an idle one as
shown by her following testimony:
“Q. Before
(appellant) left, did he tell you anything?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. What
was that he told you?
“A. He
told me not to tell it to anybody, sir, because if I will do it, he will kill
me.
“Q. And,
what did you experience or feel when you heard the threats of the accused to
you?
“A. I was afraid, sir.
“Q. Why
were you afraid?
“A. Because he might really do it, sir.”
(TSN of October 26,
1989, pp. 7-8.)
(Emphasis supplied.)
Thirdly, contrary to the contention of appellant, private
complainant did not have the burden of proof to explain why Mang Rufing’s hut
was empty at the time the rape occurred. Her testimony that none of the other occupants of the hut were there at
that time, need not be accompanied by any explanation. She merely stated a fact and the allegation
was undisputed by appellant who failed to contradict private complainant
on her testimony.
Fourthly, as correctly contended by the Office of the Solicitor
General in its brief:
“As regards the cited ‘contradiction’ in Donna’s testimony,
suffice it to state that this claim is x x x gratuitous x x x since there was
actually no inconsistency in Donna’s testimony to speak of. On the contrary, her testimonies on October
26, 1989 and November 14, 1989 as cited by appellant, compliment
each other as they pertain to a single idea, that is, for Donna ‘not to shout.’
Thus:
Donna’s Testimony on October 26, 1989
‘Q. And
what did the accused tell you during that time that his penis was inserted into
your vagina?
A. He was telling me not to shout, sir.’
(p.
7, t.s.n.)
x x x
x
Donna’s
Testimony on November 14, 1989
‘Q. Why
did you not shout when he was removing your shorts?
A. Because he was threatening me that he will
kill me whenever I will shout, sir.’
(p.
12, t.s.n.)”[55]
Appellant cannot exculpate himself by riding on minor
inconsistencies in private complainant’s testimony. Errorless testimonies cannot be expected especially when a
witness is recounting details of a harrowing experience.[56]
Private complainant’s testimony deserves the badge of credence as it is free
from substantial self-contradictions.[57]
Given when she was eleven (11) years old, no improper motive can be ascribed to
her other than her sincere desire to tell the truth and tell it all.
Appellant’s characterization of Susan Eusebio, private
respondent’s mother, as an incredible witness is equally not persuasive. She rationally explained why she waited for
two days before she reported the rape to the police. She considered the humiliation they would suffer, and the teasing
that would torture the eleven year-old private complainant if people
discovered about the rape. This prudent
posture is understandable for rape stigmatizes the victim worse than the
perpetrator. In the present as in the
past, our culture puts premium in purity and virginity as virtues. A non-virgin, even if deflowered against her
will, is often times treated, albeit secretly, with unkind scowl and scorn in
our society. It was not unreasonable
for Susan to protect her young child from society’s tart tongues.
Appellant’s reliance on the medico-legal report is
misplaced. In the first place, there
was no categorical statement made by Dr. Arañas that the results of his
physical examination on private complainant do not support the occurrence of
rape on August 14, 1989. In the second
place, for rape to be committed, it is not necessary that there be marks of
physical violence present on the victim’s body.[58]
The case at bench involves the crime of statutory rape under
Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code. In this offense, only two elements need to be established: that the accused had sexual intercourse with
the offended party; and that the latter was below twelve years of age at the
time of the coitus. The evidence
presented proved that appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with
private respondent on August 14, 1989, when she was only eleven years old. His defenses of denial and alibi cannot
prevail over private complainant’s positive identification of him as her
rapist. She testified during direct
examination, viz.:
“xxx xxx xxx”
“Q. Now,
while you were fetching water near the hut of Rufing, what happened?
“A. Romeo
Ibay saw me while I was fetching water, and he called me, sir.
“Q. If
this Romeo Ibay is in the courtroom, will you be able to identify him?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. Please
point to this Romeo Ibay.
“A. He
is there, sir.
(Witness
pointing to a person who answered to the name of ROMEO IBAY)
“Q. When
this Romeo Ibay called you, what did you do?
“A. I
approached him, sir.
“Q. When
you approached Romeo Ibay, what happened?
“A. He
held my arm and pulled me inside the hut, sir.
“Q. And
whose hut are your referring to?
“A. At
the hut of Rufing, sir.
“Q. Were
you dragged inside the hut of Rufing?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. Were
there other persons inside that hut of Rufing when you were dragged there by
Romeo Ibay?
“A. None,
sir.
“Q. While
you were inside the hut of that Rufing, what happened?
“A. He
removed my short pants, sir, and he let me lie down, sir.
“Q. And
what happened after you were made to lie down by the accused?
“A. He
also removed his short pants and then he lay on me, sir.
“Q. And
when he lay unto you, what happened?
“A. I
was crying then and I told him that I was feeling pain, but he did not stop,
sir.
“Q. Why
did you feel pain at that time?
“A. Because
I really felt pain, sir.
“Q. What
was the accused doing to you that caused pain?
“A. He
inserted his organ to my organ, sir.
“Q. When
you said his organ, you are referring to the penis of the accused?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. And
when you were referring to your organ, you were referring to your vagina?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. Now,
specifically, what was the accused doing when he inserted his penis to your
vagina?
“A. He
lay on top of me, sir.
“xxx xxx xxx”
(TSN of October 26, 1989, pp. 4-6.)
When examined further by the trial court
judge, private complainant was unwavering:
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q. So,
after he (referring to appellant) removed your shorts, what else happened?
“A. He
lay me down, sir.
“Q. After
that, what happened next?
“A. He
lay on top of me, sir.
“Q. What
was Romeo Ibay wearing at that time?
“A. He
was wearing a t-shirt and short pants, sir.
“Q. Did
Romeo Ibay remove his t-shirt and his short pants before he lay on top of you?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. How
about your dress? When he lay on top of
you, was it still on top of your body?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. What
was your dress then?
“A. A
striped t-shirt, sir.
“Q. Romeo
Ibay did not remove your t-shirt?
“A. No,
sir.
“Q. What
did he do after lying on top of you?
“A. He
inserted his organ to my organ, sir.
“Q. He
was able to insert his organ immediately when he lay on top of you?
“A. No,
sir.
“xxx xxx xxx”
“Q. From
the moment he lay on top of you, how many minutes elapsed before Romeo Ibay was
able to insert his organ into your organ?
“A. One (1) minute, sir.
“Q. If
your estimate is correct, then Romeo Ibay was able to insert his organ into
your organ without too much force.
“A. It
took him a little bit longer before he was able to insert his organ into my
organ, sir.
“Q. What
did you feel when he was inserting his organ into your organ?
“A. I
felt pain, sir.
“Q. Did
you notice any blood in your organ after he inserted his organ into your organ?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. When
did you notice it?
“A. After
that, sir.
“Q. How
many times did he insert his private organ into your organ?
“A. Only
once, sir.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q. For
how many minutes did Romeo Ibay lie on top of you?
“A. Three
(3) minutes, sir.
“Q. Did you notice anything come out from the
organ of Romeo Ibay after three (3) minutes or during the three (3) minutes
when he was on top of you?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. What
thing did you see?
“A. ‘Yong
tila ihi ho.
“Q. Describe
that thing that you saw or noticed that came out from the organ of Romeo Ibay?
“A. I
just felt it, sir but, I did not see it.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q. Do
you know the meaning of the word nilabasan?
“A. No,
sir.
“Q. You
said that he lay on top of you. What
was the accused doing when he lay on top of you, when you were lying and his
body was on top of you?
“A. Umuuga
po siya.
“xxx xxx xxx
(TSN of November 14, 1989, pp. 12-19.)
Finally, this court is revolted by the obscene manner by which
private respondent was snatched from the cradle of youth and innocence, and
increases the award of damages in her favor from Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).
IN VIEW
WHEREOF, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the conviction of appellant
ROMEO MACEDA IBAY is AFFIRMED. The
Decision, dated August 2, 1991, of the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, Br. 77 in Crim.
Case No. 1048 is hereby MODIFIED by increasing the award of damages to Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). Costs
against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
[1]
Exhibit “A”.
[2]
TSN of March 27, 1990, p. 9.
[3]
Presided by Judge Francisco C. Rodriguez, Jr..
[4]
Original Records, p. 5.
[5]
She testified on October 26, 1987 and November 14, 1989.
[6]
She testified on November 28, 1989.
[7]
She testified on November 28, 1989.
[8]
He testified on January 9, 1990.
[9]
He testified on March 27, 1990.
[10]
He testified on July 4, 1990.
[11]
He testified on June 5, 1990.
[12]
See TSN of October 26, 1989, pp. 16-17. TSN of November 28, 1989, p. 17. Private complainant is the daughter of Susan Eusebio by her first
husband. Susan’s four other children —
private complainant’s siblings — are by her second husband, Joselito
Constantino.
[13]
Exhibit “C”.
[14]
TSN of October 26, 1987, p. 26.
[15]
TSN of November 14, 1989, p. 10. Private complainant testified that only she and her siblings were in
their house in the afternoon of August 14, 1989. Her mother, Susan Eusebio testified that, around the time of the
rape, she was out of their house, buying their viand for that evening (TSN of
November 28, 1989, p. 19.)
[16]
Ibid., at p. 40; TSN of October 26, 1989, pp. 4, 20.
[17]
TSN of October 26, 1989, pp. 5, 20; TSN of November 14, 1989, p. 41.
[18]
TSN of October 26, 1989, pp. 5-6, 21-22; TSN of November 14, 1989, pp. 11-12.
[19]
TSN of November 14, 1989, p. 12.
[20]
TSN of October 26, 1989, pp. 6, 22; TSN of November 14, 1989, pp. 13-14, 19-20.
[21]
TSN of November 14, 1989, pp. 14-15.
[22]
Ibid, at p. 18.
[23]
Id., at p. 17.
[24]
Id., pp. 15-18.
[25]
TSN of October 26, 1989, p. 7.
[26]
Ibid., at p. 23; TSN of November 14, 1989, pp. 18-19.
[27]
TSN of October 26, 1989, pp. 8-9.
[28]
Ibid., at p. 10.
[29]
Id., at p. 11.
[30]
Id., at 12.
[31]
TSN of November 28, 1989, p. 12.
[32]
Ibid., at p. 14.
[33]
Id., at p. 23.
[34]
Id., at p. 24.
[35]
Id., at p. 14; TSN of October 26, 1989, pp. 12-13.
[36]
TSN of November 28, 1989, p. 25.
[37]
Ibid., at p. 14.
[38]
TSN of March 27, 1990, pp. 3, 12.
[39]
Ibid..
[40]
Id., at p. 12.
[41]
Id., at pp. 17-18.
[42]
See TSN of July 24, 1990.
[43]
See TSN of June 5, 1990.
[44]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 6; Rollo, p. 38.
[45]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 7; Rollo, p. 39.
[46]
Appellant’s Brief, 9; Rollo, p. 41.
[47]
Ibid..
[48]
Id..
[49]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 11, Rollo, p. 43.
[50]
Ibid..
[51]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 12; Rollo, p. 44.
[52]
People vs. Bacani, 181 SCRA 393, 399-400 (1990).
[53]
See People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316 (1990); People vs.
Oydoc, 123 SCRA 250 (1983);
[54]
See People vs. Olivar, 215 SCRA 759 (1992).
[55]
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, pp. 15-16; Rollo, pp. 80-81.
[56]
People vs. Paciente, 210 SCRA 86 (1992).
[57]
See People vs. Cabodac, 208 SCRA 787 (1992).
[58]
People vs. Feliciano, 195 SCRA 19 (1991); People vs. Soronio, 204
SCRA 741 (1991).