G.R. No. 101844. November 18, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENEDICTO CRUZ Y MACALALAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
The accused-appellant Benedicto M. Cruz questions the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, Pasig, Metro Manila
which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with
rape and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Twelve
(12) Years of prision, mayor, maximum
to Seventeen (17) Years of reclusion temporal medium, and to
indemnify the victim in the sum
of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for
moral damages and One Thousand
One Hundred Twenty Pesos (P1,120.00)
for the value of the property which was
taken.
The appeal was originally raised
to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment
of conviction but modified the
penalty. Appellant Cruz was found guilty
of two (2) crimes: First for rape, where he was sentenced to
reclusion perpetua, and second for robbery, where he
was sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of Six (6) Months and One (1)
Day of prision correccional
as minimum to Six (6) Years and One (1)
Day of prision mayor as maximum.
Following the rule found in
Section 13, paragraph 2 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court and the
precedents set in People v. Daniel (86
SCRA 511 [1978]), People v. Ramos (88
SCRA 486 [1979]) and People v. Traya (89 SCRA 274 [1979]) that when the
penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher is imposed in a case, the Court
of Appeals after discussing the evidence and the law involved, shall render
judgment imposing the penalty, refrain from entering judgment and forthwith
certify the case and elevate the entire records thereof to the Supreme Court
for review.
The decision of the Court of Appeals reads as follows:
“Accused Benedicto M.
Cruz (Benedicto
for brevity) appeals from the Decision dated February 5, 1990 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, at Pasig, Metro
Manila, convicting him of the crime of Robbery with Rape defined and penalized under Article 293 in relation
to Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 767.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 13, 1989,
Benedicto was accused of the crime of Robbery with
Rape in an Information reading as follows:
That on or about the
31st of January, 1989 in the
municipality of Marikina, Metro Manila, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with the
intent of gain and by means of violence and intimidation, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and
carry away the following items, to wit:
|
1. 2. 3. |
450.00 120.00 P1,120.00 |
with the total amount of P1,120.00, belonging to one Ana Esconde
y Omogowog, to the damage and prejudice of the said Ana Esconde y Omogowog in the
aforesaid amount of P1,120.00; that on the
occasion of the said robbery, the accused by means of violence and (sic) wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge upon the
person of said Ana Esconde y Omogowog against her will.
Contrary to law. (p. 1, Record)’
On February 5, 1990,
the trial court convicted Benedicto of the crime
charged in the above information. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision reads as follows:
‘WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court finds the accused Benedicto
M. Cruz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with rape defined and
punished under Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2, Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by PD No. 767 without any mitigating nor
aggravating circumstance attendant
thereto and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentences him to
suffer imprisonment from TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision
mayor, maximum to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS of reclusion temporal medium, to
indemnify the victim Ana Esconde, P10,000.00 as moral
damages, and to pay the sum of P1,120.00 value of the property taken, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay the cost.
SO ORDERED. (pp. 7-8, RTC Decision, x x x)’
Hence, this appeal wherein Benedicto assigned the following errors:
‘I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED WHEN IT CONVICTED THE
ACCUSED OF ROBBERY WITH RAPE, WHEN ACTUALLY THERE WAS NEITHER RAPE, NOR
ROBBERY.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED WHEN IT BELIEVED THE
COMPLAINANT THAT THE RAPE WAS CONSUMMATED INSIDE THE COMFORT ROOM WHEN THE PLACE AND THE POSITIONS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS TOLD BY THE COMPLAINANT, THE SEXUAL ACT COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN PHYSICALLY DONE.
III
THE COURT A QUO ERRED WHEN IT SAID THAT THE TAKING OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTIES
WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEFENSE.
IV
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN QUOTING MANY
UNFACTUAL FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH GIVES DOUBTS AS TO ITS HONEST AND ACCURATE
EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE TO IT.’
The issues raised in the
above assignment of errors boil down to whether or not, under the facts and circumstances established by
the evidence, Benedicto is guilty of the Special
Complex Crime of Robbery with Rape, a joint discussion of these assignment of
errors is warranted.
An accusation for rape can easily be made because the nature of the
crime is such that its veracity is difficult to prove or disprove. In such an
offense where it is usually only the accused and his victim who can testify as
to its occurrence, conviction or acquittal hinges almost solely upon the
credibility of the witnesses (see People v. Lucas, G. R. No. 80102, January 22, 1990).
The Supreme Court was more emphatic on this in People v. David
(G.R. No. 72355-59, Sept. 15, 1989):
‘Ang kasalanang panggagahasa ay totoong mahirap patunayan sapagkat ang karaniwang nakakaalam lamang nito ay ang pinagsamantalahan
at ang nagsamantala. Samakatuwid, hindi maasahan
na mayroon pang ibang makapagpapahayag ng pangyayari. Hindi pangkaraniwan
na ang
salang ito ay nagaganap ng may saksi. Sa ganitong dahilan
ang hukuman ay umaasa sa katapatan
ng pahayag ng nagsusumbong at tinitimbang ito laban sa
pagtanggi o pagpapasinungaling ng inuusig. (see People v. Barranco, G.R. No. 58847, August 31, 1989).’
In the case at bar, the court a quo found ‘no room to doubt the
credibility of the complainant and her version of the incident.’ It expressed in its assailed Decision that Ana’s
testimony is ‘positive and sufficient to justify a conviction.’
We concur with the trial court’s deduction not only because it was
in a better position to observe
the witnesses’ demeanor, and manner of testifying so much so that its findings
on the credibility of the witnesses are entitled to great weight (see People v.
Patola, 141 SCRA 401), but also because after
scrutinizing and evaluating the testimony
of the complaining witness as transcribed in the transcript of
stenographic notes, We find her firm and straightforward in her answers to
the incisive interrogations of the defense.
This, despite the fact that she was observed by the defense to be visibly pregnant at the time they grilled her on stand. Her testimony is clear and cohesive, free from any serious
contradictions. She was unwavering in her
identification of Benedicto as her
defiler, to wit:
‘On January 28, 1989,
she got married in Bicol
(TSN, August 30, 1989, p. 3). After
spending two days there, she and her spouse, together with her
sixteen year old nephew, returned to Manila
on January 31, 1989. It is her nephew’s first time to come to Manila. He still does not know how to speak Tagalog. They
reached the city at around 9:00 o’clock A.M.
of the same day (p. 9). Upon their arrival in their two-storey
apartment, her husband went to work, leaving her and her nephew in their
apartment. After her husband left their
apartment, she locked its main door (p. 20.).
In the afternoon of the same day,
her nephew was sleeping in a room located at the upper floor of their
apartment. Her nephew was at that time sick (p. 20) with flu (p. 6). At around 5:00
o’clock P.M. of the same day, she was inside their comfort room, ‘dumudumi‘ (p. 3).
The comfort room was then
closed (p. 16). All of a sudden, Benedicto barged inside of the comfort room and thereafter
closed the door (p. 17)_. At that time, she had just finished ‘dumudumi‘ (p. 4) and had just stood up with her maong shorts and her panty down below her knees (p.
18). On top, she was wearing a blouse (p. 7).
She was not able to pull up her panty and maong
shorts (p. 6) because she was
caught aback. Because the main door of
their apartment was locked (p. 3), she suspected that Benedicto
climbed thru the kitchen (where one can
also gain entry to their apartment).
Thereafter, Benedicto choked her (p. 3). She was able to shout for ‘saklolo‘ many times but Benedicto
slapped her (pp. 5 & 10), causing her mouth to bleed (p. 10). And then Benedicto
pushed her, causing her to fall to the ground of the comfort room (p.
5). Her head fell near the side of the
closed door of the comfort room and her feet beside the ‘inodoro‘
(p. 19). At that time, her panty and maong shorts were still down her knees (pp. 18 & 6) but
her bra and blouse were still on (p. 21) and she has not washed herself yet (p.
18). Despite that, Benedicto
‘put down’ his short and brief (p. 6) and suddenly laid on top of her
(pp. 5 & 18). She felt his private
part entered her private part.
After a few minutes (p. 7), he
stood up. He saw her watch with a
leatherette bracelet and tried to grab it (p. 9). This pained her arms (p. 9) because she was reclining then
(p. 10), so she just removed her
watch and gave it to Benedicto (p. 9). Unsatisfied, he grabbed her necklace, hurting
her neck (p. 9). He also asked for her
money. For fear that he might harm her, she got her One Hundred Twenty (P120.00) Pesos from her
pocket (p. 7) and gave it to him (p. 9).
Thereafter, he went out of the comfort room and threatened her not to tell her husband about the incident otherwise he will kill her (p. 7). When Benedicto left the
place where he is standing outside of the comfort room, she immediately put on
her panty and her shorts and went out of the comfort room. She found her nephew sitting downstairs (p.
5). She also saw Benedicto
passed beside her husband who had just arrived
and
did not know what had happened to her.
Her husband saw Benedicto (p. 9) but only after the incident. When her husband came near her, she related
to her husband that she was raped and her money and jewelries were taken (p. 10). Her husband immediately chased Benedicto. This
created a commotion which attracted the attention of their neighbors. She learned from them (their neighbors) that
they did not help her because they thought that she and her husband were just quarreling (p.
9). She also learned from her nephew
that the latter, who was then upstairs at the
beginning of the incident, went down to the ground floor when he heard heir
shout. But her nephew did not do anything, thinking that she and her
husband were only quarreling (p. 20),
and besides, he was sick with flu
at that time. Also, her nephew just came from the province
and does not know how to speak Tagalog (p. 5).
She claims that she does not know Benedicto
before the incident happened but she testified having seen him passing by
their apartment (p. 8).
She and her husband reported the matter to the police immediately
after the incident on the same day (pp. 10 & 12). After she narrated
everything to the police (Exh. “C”, Prosecution),
Pat. Celso Cruz of the Marikina
Police asked her to just come back
because there was nobody who would investigate her case. At any rate, she was told to proceed to the Eulogio
Rodriguez, Sr. Memorial Hospital, District Health Office II, at Marikina, Metro Manila, for medical examination. She heed the advice and on the same day, she went to E. Rodriguez Hospital. She arrived there at 7:00 o’clock in
the evening. There, she only complained about the parts of her
body where she
was slapped and choked (p. 3).
She did not relate to the examining doctor that she was raped because she was
told by Pat. Celso Cruz that they do
not examine
rape victims at E. Rodriguez Hospital (p. 14). She was advised by the police to go instead to the Camp Crame
for examination (p. 14). The E. Rodriguez Hospital issued her a Medical Certificate some days later, reading as follows:
“This is to certify that ANA ESCONDE Female, 24 years, of D. Bakal, Sto. Niño, Marikina, Metro Manila
examined/treated in this hospital from/on January 31, 1989 x x x (sic) for the following:
Hematoma 3 cm, x 3 cm. right sygomatic area Hematoma, 0.5 cm.
x 0.5 cm. lateral aspect right upper lip.
Erythema, 4 cm. linear, anterior neck,
left. xxx”
(p. 111, Records)
Following the advice of Pat. Celso Cruz, she went to Camp Crame
on the same day. They arrived at Camp Crame late that night (p. 3). Unfortunately, no doctor was around (p. 3),
so they were told to come back the next day. The following day, she was subjected to a
laboratory examination at the Camp Crame. They also examined her private parts (p.
3). After several days, she was issued a
Medico Legal Report (p. 3) (Exh. “B”, Prosecution),
reading as follows:
GENITAL AND EXTRAGENITAL:
“Fairly developed, fairly nourished and
coherent female subject. Breasts
are hemispherical with dark brown areola and nipples from which no secretion
could be pressed out. Abdomen is flat
and soft.”
There is abundant growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are
full, convex and gaping with the pinkish red, hypertrophied labia minor preventing in between. On separating the same are disclosed an
abraded posterior forchette and an elastic,
fleshy-type hymen with shallow, healed laceration at 7 and deep healed
lacerations at 3, 6 and o’clock.
External vaginal orifice offers slight resistance to the introduction
of’ the examining index finger and the virgin-sized vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix
is normal in size, color and consistency with moderate amount of whitish, mucold secretion.
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 positive for extracellular gram-negative
diplococci but negative for spermatozoa.
TIME AND DATE COMPLETED: 1120H, 07 February 1989″ (p. 114, Records)
She went back to the Police Station on February 3, 1989.
Ana’s testimony on her injuries on her face and neck, caused when Benedicto choked and slapped her and when Benedicto abruptly grabbed her necklace, was confirmed on
stand by Dr.
Jose Rey Raquepo, the
resident physician who examined her at the E. Rodriguez Hospital. Dr. Raquepo
identified the above Medical Certificate he issued and declared in open court that:
At around 7:30 PM on January 31,
1989 (TSN, Sept. 20, 1989, p. 7), he treated Ana’s injuries on her face
and neck (p. 8). He explained that the
first and second entry (Hematoma) in the above
certificate is ‘pasa‘ which may have been caused by a
blunt object, like a wood,
stone, steel or an open fist; while the third entry (Erythema)
is ‘namula‘ which may have been caused by a blunt or
may have been caused by choking or by scratching the skin by finger
nails.
Dr. Desiderio Moraleda,
the physician at the PC Crime Laboratory at Camp
Crame, Quezon City, who examined Ana on February 1, 1989
also testified and he explained the method he used in arriving at his findings
embodied in the above Medical Report he
issued to Ana:
He inserted a speculum in Ana’s vagina. He found that Ana’s internal as well as the
external organ were already altered because the ‘labia mejora
is already creeping hypertrophied labia minora‘. Also ‘the hymen shows deep insertion of the
vagina speculum and an index finger
offers only slight resistance.’ Thus, his conclusion in the above Medical Report that: ‘subject is in non-virgin state
physically’ (TSN, Oct. 31, 1989, p. 2).
He explained further that the hymen is a fleshy membrane that hangs and
partially covers the opening of vaginal canal. The insertion
of any object to the vaginal canal will or may lacerate this membrane. The laceration of the hymen is usually caused
by sexual intercourse. The examination
of Ana’s hymen, however, showed that there were shallow healed laceration at 7 and deep healed lacerations at 3, 6 and 9 o’clock position. These
are like the face of the clock, 3, 6 and 9 o’clock. His finding is that Ana’s laceration has
already recuperated, and usually laceration healed in two weeks time. But he is quick in adding that if a woman has
already lost her virginity by previous sexual intercourse, succeeding intercourse cannot produce new
laceration.
He also explained that the entry under remarks in the medico legal
report: ‘vaginal and peri-urethral smears are
positive for extracellular gram-negative diploccoci but negative for spermatozoa’, means that Ana is negative for
spermatozoa of a male germ cell but is positive of extracellular
bacteria (‘extracellular gram-negative diploccoci‘). This bacteria is the one that cause gonorrhea (sic), usually
introduced by sexual intercourse of an
infected partner. Very rarely could this bacteria be transmitted or caused by using dirty water
because it cannot exist long outside of the vagina. Usually, in order to be infected with
gonorrhea (sic), the bacteria should be inside the cell. In Ana’s case, there is no infection yet
because the bacteria is still
outside her cell. He is quick to
emphasize that the absence of spermatozoa does not necessarily mean that there
was no sexual intercourse because there are cases of rape of women where the
rapist could not have ejaculated.
The entry which says that ‘there is no external
signs of any form of trauma’ means that there is no injury in the whole
body at the time of their examination.
But again he emphasized that this does not necessarily mean that before
he examined Ana, she sustained no injuries. It
really depends on the gravity of the injury. There are injuries which can only cause the
reddening of the face. These injuries could disappear the following day.
Pat. Celso Cruz also confirmed on stand
that:
At the date of the incident,
Ana came to their station. He advised
Ana to go to the E. Rodriguez Hospital
and Camp Crame for medical examination because he
noticed that she has injuries (TSN, Sept. 11, 1989, p. 11). He took Ana’s statement three (3) days after
(p. 12) the date of the incident.’
Ana’s husband, Jimenez Esconde,
substantiated Ana’s testimony specially on the events
that transpired immediately after the rape. He declared that:
“They rent a small apartment (TSN, August 16, 1989, pp. 8-9) consisting of two (2) floors
(p. 9).
One can enter their apartment thru its front door located at its
ground floor and by passing thru the kitchen
at the back of their apartment, by using a stand (p. 10). Their ground floor has no window (p. 10). In this floor, their comfort room can be
found. Their comfort room measures about
1 1/2 by two (2) meters. At the upper
floor of their apartment, there are two (2) rooms (p. 9).
At about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of January 31, 1989 the day
of the subject incident, he went home from his upholstery shop (p. 3). Upon reaching the main entrance of their
apartment, he pushed their main door. It
was locked (p. 4), so he went around their house (p. 10) and entered their apartment by passing through their kitchen
going to the second floor. When he was already near the door of their room. at the second floor (p. 4), he saw Benedicto, then attired in shorts and blue t-shirt (p. 7),
facing the opened door (p. 6) of their comfort room (p. 5) and pointing his
finger and talking to ‘somebody’
inside the comfort room. He hid
himself. But from his place where he was
at that time, he cannot see the
inner portion of the comfort room (p. 6).
He heard Benedicto to have said to that
‘somebody’ in the comfort room ‘Ikaw huwag kang magsusumbong
sa asawa mo, papatayin kita.’ (p. 4). When he heard Benedicto
uttered those words, he went out from where he is hiding (p. 16). Benedicto saw him
and passed beside him, and told him: ‘Ikaw, may atraso sa
akin’. He did not do anything as he was
caught aback by Benedicto’s statement. He was thinking about what his ‘atraso‘ is (p. 5). Benedicto at that time had left by passing thru the kitchen (the same way he entered
their apartment) (p. 20). When Benedicto left, he saw his wife came out from the comfort
room (p. 17). Her mouth was
bleeding. He came near her and asked her
what happened. She related that she was
abused: ‘Pinagsamantalahan daw
po siya‘ (p. 5). Upon
hearing that, he immediately chased Benedicto but he
was not able to catch him because ‘he was already at a far distance’ (p. 6).
When placed on stand, accused Benedicto
claims that:
Ana is his neighbor (TSN, Nov. 10, 1989, p. 3) and his sweetheart
(p. 2) since December 8, 1988. On the
date of the incident on January 31, 1989, he happened to pass by Ana’s
apartment in going home from a day’s heavy driving of a passenger
tricycle. At Ana’s apartment door, he saw Ana standing. Ana called her. He came near her. She invited him to come inside their
house. When he acceded and he entered
Ana’s apartment, Ana closed the door of the apartment. She asked him to sit in the long sofa located
at the ground floor of their apartment.
Thereafter, she sat beside him and ‘nilalandi po ako.’ She is ‘trying to embrace me and caress me’
(p. 4). then they kissed each other (p. 3). Suddenly, he felt that someone is walking upstairs (p. 4). So he
asked her if there are people upstairs.
She answered ‘yes’ (p. 3). Ana’s
nephew went downstairs (p. 5), but immediately returned to the second floor of the apartment. Ana saw this opportunity,
she invited him inside the comfort room (p. 5).
He followed her, but he
stopped in front of the door, outside the comfort room. Ana, once inside the comfort room, undressed
herself naked and beckoned him to come in (p. 7). At that position, Ana’s husband arrived (pp.
3-6). This happened at about 7:00
o’clock P.M. He saw Ana’s husband peeped
into the window the comfort room from outside the apartment (p. 3) and saw his wife naked. Ana’s husband ‘asked’ her wife why there was other people in their house. But Ana did not reply. He was about
to leave the comfort room when all of a sudden, Ana’s husband slapped her (p.
4) twice inside the comfort room (pp. 6-7).
Ana has already put on her short and blouse at that time (p. 7). Seeing this, he stepped out of the house but her husband chased him with a pointed object (p. 4). So he ran fast as he could.
Thereafter the owner of the apartment which Ana and her husband are
renting had him apprehended (p. 4).
But on cross examination, he
declared that:
At the time that Ana’s husband peeped into the comfort room’s
window, seeing her wife naked, he (Benedicto) was
still there in front of the comfort room.
He was about to leave then (p. 10).
But Ana’s husband proceeded first in changing his clothes (p. 8), after
which, he (Ana’s husband) went to confront Ana and slapped her (p. 7).
He also claims that he courted Ana.
He was able to win her heart on December 8, 1988 (p. 11). Although they kept their relationship secret,
they were seeing each other at the ‘perya‘.
At the time of the incident,
he knew that Ana was already married (p. 11).
Benedicto’s testimony was corroborated by
his sur-rebuttal witness Pampillo
Adona, thus:
He know (sic) Benedicto
because he is his long time friend (TSN, January 9, 1990, p. 7) and his
co-driver — ‘karelyebo‘ in the passenger tricycle he
is driving (p 3). He recounted having
met Ana in the ‘perya‘ in Marikina
(p. 3) on December 9, 1988. When he saw
Ana at the ‘perya‘ she and Benedicto
were then ‘holding hands’. In fact, Benedicto introduced Ana to him (witness) as his (Benedicto’s) girlfriend (pp. 4-5). He claims seeing them again last December 30,
1988 about to ride a ‘perryswheel‘ in the ‘perya‘ (p.
5). This time, he saw Benedicto placed his arm on the shoulder of Ana while
riding the ‘perryswheel‘ (p. 6). But he had not seen them together anymore in January 1989 (p. 8) and that
he has no knowledge if they still have a ‘relationship’ on that date.
But Ana, as a rebuttal witness of the
prosecution, disputed Benedicto’s allegations in the latter’s testimony and insists
that:
When her husband arrived, he did not lift a finger or say anything
to her because her husband at that time did not know that she was raped and
robbed (TSN, December 11, 1989, p. 2).
She categorically denied any relationship with Benedicto. She insists that she does not know him. But her husband does (p. 2). Before the incident, she claims that she has
never met this Benedicto (p. 3). She categorically denied having allowed Benedicto entry to their apartment (p. 5).
There is nothing incredible in
Ana’s story. There was no
evidence of her insincerity. Neither is there any evidence of
motive for her to falsely testify against Benedicto. On the contrary, considering the inbred
modesty and antipathy of Filipino women to air things that affect their
honor, it is not normal for a
Filipina like Ana to publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and
ravished, expose herself to the scandal, embarrassment and humiliation of a
public trial wherein she would not only admit but also narrate the violation of her person unless that is the
truth. It is her natural instinct to
protect her honor (see People v. Dinola, G.R. No.
54567, March. 22, 1990). This
ratiocination finds support in the case at bar where the victim, Ana, at the
time of the rape, had been married for only two (2) days. Given that condition, it is just inconsistent
with human experience that after she had voluntarily married her husband for
only two (2) days, would commit, as what Benedicto
feigns, an adulterous act that early and right inside their conjugal abode,
unless Ana is a nympho, which has’ not been
established by the evidence and is negated by Benedicto
himself when he testified that he spent time in courting Ana after she allegedly agreed to his love proposal.
In rape cases, the conduct of the woman immediately following the
alleged assault is of utmost importance.
Here, the fact that Ana immediately reported the incident to the police and had her body
examined by a doctor negates
fabrication or prevarication. Ana’s willingness to face police
investigators and to submit to a physical examination is a mute eloquent
testimony of the truth of her charge against Benedicto.
It is not Ana’s but Benedicto’s testimony which
rings with implausibility. His
declarations that: after Ana’s husband
peeped thru the window of the comfort room and seeing her naked, he (Ana’s husband) proceeded first in changing his. clothes in their
room before confronting Ana why she is naked in the presence of a man inside
their apartment (TSN, November 9, 1989, pp. 3-4, TSN, Nov. 10, 1989, pp. 6-7
& 10) is incredible. It’s not Filipino custom this way. This
testimony is just beyond persuasion.
Benedicto’s argument that coition would
be impossible in a small comfort room measuring two (2) meters by one and a
half (1 1/2) meter (see Jimenez Esconde’s testimony)
is undeserving of consideration.
Jurisprudence attests to the fact that Rape has been committed in many
different places including places which to many would
appear to be unlikely and high risk places for sexual embraces. (People v. Ratanan, G.R. No. 48382, Feb.
28, 1990). It can be committed in
a five (5) meter room with five (5) people inside (People v. Detuya, 154 SCRA 410) or in the front seat of a jeep
(People v. Ison, 173 SCRA 118), or on a pathway
twenty (20) meters away from a
beauty contest in progress (People v. Gamboa, 145
SCRA 289 [1986] or on the roadside at high noon (People v. Lopez, 141 SCRA 385
[1986] or inside a washroom adjoining a house (People v. Jones, 137 SCRA 166
[1985] or on a ‘pilapil‘ where people usually pass by (People v. Aragon, 138 SCRA 166 [1985]).
It may be uncomfortable having coitus in a such small room but it certainly is
not impossible. Besides, it was not shown although the trial court may have
observed, that either Ana or Benedicto is too
big to make coition in the said room an imposibility. Man, once overcome by bestial desires,
chooses not the time, the place, the occasion, nor even the person (see People
v. Aragon, G.R. No. 51736, Aug. 4, 1988).
Benedicto, insisting on his innocence,
capitalizes on the absence of
spermatozoa on Ana as borne-out by the
Medical Report. This can not be given weight. What is determinative of rape is not the emission of semen but penetration of the female sexual organ
(see People v. Cruz, G. R.
69251, Sept.
13, 1989). In
fact, complete or total penetration of Ana’s private organ is not
necessary to consummate the crime of rape. The slightest penetration will suffice. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential for the offense of
consummated rape. It is enough that
there is proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia of the
pudendum. It is not necessary to show to
what extent penetration of the woman’s body has been made. It is enough if the woman’s body is entered,
(see People v. Bacani y Poliosco,
G.R. No. 77854, Jan. 24, 1990).
We concur with the trial court when it concluded that there was no
lover relationship between Benedicto and Ana. If ever they have been lovers, it has not
been satisfactorily established that the relationship continued after the
marriage of Ana and up to the
date of the incident.
IS THE COITION AGAINST ANA’S
WILL?
It must be recalled that when Benedicto
barged inside the comfort room, she has just stood up after she ‘dumumi‘. In fact she has not washed herself yet, and
her panty and short were still down below her knees. Anybody in her position would be dumbfounded. At any rate she shouted ‘saklolo‘
many times, but he choked her and then slapped her, then pushed her to the
ground, her head hitting the stone wall of
the comfort room. Then Benedicto put down his shorts and lay on top of her.
The working of human mind when placed under such emotional stress is unpredictable. In this given situation, some may shout, some
may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility as what happened to
Ana. To Ana’s mind at that point in
time, Benedicto is determined to do whatever he intends to do. Fear of further injuries simply pinned her
mind, overpowering and stifling
any attempt to resist the sexual assault.
Ana may have failed to successfully resist the accused’s
advances at the actual time of the sexual assault itself but such is not a manifestation
of consent, but rather an indication
of involuntary submission (see People v. Aquino, G.R.
84913-15, June 5, 1990. Anyway, force or
intimidation itself is sufficent for a woman not to
put up any resistance. Not only a firearm can
produce intimidation. Intimidation is
addressed to the mind. (see People v. Corales, G.R. No.
76922, Feb. 21, 1990).
Lastly, the trial court’s observation is worthy of reiteration:
“‘The defense of the accused smacks of artificiality, is vague
and inconclusive. The robbery charge which the prosecution proved but the accused did not deny
argue against the defense interposed in the rape charge. A lover does not rob the object of his love
and affection.'”
THE CRIME
The trial court in the dispositive portion
of its assailed Decision found Benedicto guilty of
the crime of Robbery with Rape as defined under Art. 293 in
relation to paragraph 2, Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by PD 767, as follows:
Art. 293. – Who are guilty of robbery. – Any person who, with
intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means
of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything
shall be guilty of robbery.
Art. 294 – Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
– Penalties. – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of any person shall suffer:
xxx xxx xxx
2. The penalty of reclusion
temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua, when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion
of such robbery any of the physical
injuries penalized in subdivision I of Article 263 shall have been inflicted;
Provided, however, that when the robbery
accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
to death (As amended by PD No 767).
xxx xxx xxx
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its medium period in other cases.
(xxx)
The penalty imposed is not in accordance with the aforecited provisions of the law.
The immediately aforequoted provision of
law on special complex crime of Robbery with Rape employs the clause ‘when the
robbery shall have been accompanied with rape.’ In other words, to be liable
under the said provision of law the offender must have the intent to take the
personal property belonging to another with intent to gain and such intent
must precede the rape (p. 601, Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code by J. Luis B. Reyes, 11th Ed., see
also People v. Atanacio, G.R. No. L-11844, Nov. 29,
1960; People v. Elizaga, 86 Phil. 364; People v. Glore, 87 Phil. 736; People v. Tolentino,
G.R. No. 59097, Sept. 20, 1988; – applying Robbery with Homicide by analogy;
see also People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 503).
In the case at bar,
the Rape was Benedicto’s primary objective and his
taking away Ana’s personal properties against her will was only an
afterthought. Therefore, there is no special
complex crime of Robbery with Rape under Art. 48 of the
Revised Penal Code. Neither is
Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code on Complex Crime applicable because Benedicto’s act of raping Ana and thereafter taking her
money and jewelries do not constitute a single act (but separate acts)
constituting two (2) or more
grave or less grave felonies or it cannot be said that the crime of Rape is a
necessary means to commit the crime of Robbery or vice-versa.
What Benedicto committed are two (2)
separate crimes of Robbery and Rape under the aforequoted
Art. 293, and Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code
reading to wit:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
xxx xxx xxx
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
THE PENALTY
In U.S.
v. Padalit (1 Phil. 426) where the accused was
charged of Robbery with Homicide (also a
special complex crime), the Supreme Court infers that he may be convicted of any one of
them. In People v. Dinola
(183 SCRA 496), the accused was charged and convicted of the crime of Robbery
with Rape but the Supreme Court modified the judgment of the lower court by
sentencing the accused to two distinct crimes of Robbery and Rape on account of
its findings that the original design of the accused was to commit Rape but the
accused after committing Rape also committed Robbery because the opportunity
presented itself.
The crime of Rape is punished by Reclusion Perpetua
(see Art. 335, above), thus, the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103 as amended) is not applicable (see
People v. Amores, 58 SCRA 510). He should be punished by Reclusion Perpetua for the crime of rape.
Benedicto has also committed Robbery and
must be punished by prision correccional
in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period (see Art. 294, Nov. 5). Here, the
Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.
Thus, Benedicto should be penalized with an Indeterminate penalty within
the range of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
medium period of four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2)
months as minimum and within the range of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8)
years of prision correccional
in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
1) Benedicto M. Cruz is found guilty of RAPE and is sentenced
to Reclusion Perpetua under Art. 27
of the Revised Penal Code.
2) Benedicto M. Cruz is also found guilty of the separate
crime of ROBBERY and is sentenced to the Indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional
as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as maximum.
The Division Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to desist from
entering judgment (see Revised Internal Rules of this Court, Sec. 5, Rule 11)
and after the lapse of the period for filing a motion for reconsideration, is
ordered to elevate this case and its complete records to the Supreme Court for
review in accordance with Rule 124, Sec. 13 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
SO ORDERED.” (Court of Appeals’
Decision, pp. 1-8)
We have examined the records of this case, read and evaluated the
evidence including the transcripts of the stenographic notes of the witnesses
for the prosecution and for the defense, deliberated on the arguments raised on
appeal and agree completely with the findings and conclusions of the Court of
Appeals. The decision of the appellate
court is accordingly adopted in toto.
The crime was committed with a certain degree of perversity
considering that the victim of rape had been married only three (3) days before
the incident. The usual indemnity of
Thirty Thousand Pesos which we impose in rape cases is therefore increased to
Forty Thousand Pesos.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED as to both penalties for rape and robbery with a MODIFICATION in the
crime of rape that the appellant is ordered to indemnify Ana Esconde y Omogowog in the amount
of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00) in addition to
the TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) moral damages and ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
TWENTY PESOS (P1,120.00) value of the property taken as imposed by the trial
court and sustained by the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Bidin,
Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.