G.R. No. 104954. December 13, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIO FABRO Y ARQUIZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PUNO, J.:
On April 24, 1992, the Court of Appeals[1]
affirmed the conviction of appellant MARIO FABRO Y ARQUIZA for the rape
of private complainant, REBECCA SEGUANCIA. He now seeks his acquittal on the ground that the prosecution
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the Information, the prosecution detailed the commission of the
rape by appellant, as follows:
“That on or about the 14th day of May, 1989, in Tamat,
barangay Trenchera, municipality of Tayug, province of Pangasinan, New Republic
of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused (appellant herein), by means of force and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Rebecca P. Sequancia against her
will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.”
At the time of the incident, private
complainant was working for Reyval Lopez as
one of his five full-time, live-in maids. Among her co-workers was Janet Fabro, appellant’s wife. Appellant previously worked for Lopez, but
was no longer in his employ when the alleged rape took place.
As private complainant[2]
related it, her sad story began at around nine o’clock in the evening of May
14, 1989, when Lopez sent her to buy band-aids at a nearby store. Unable to make the purchase, she proceeded
to the Alicia store located within the premises of the Tayug public market.[3]
On her way, she passed an Ihaw-Ihaw restaurant where she saw appellant. Without uttering a word, he started to trail
her. She asked him to stop following
her, but her words fell on deaf ears.[4]
Finding the Alicia store already closed, private complainant
headed back home to Lopez’s house. Appellant suggested they go to his cousin to buy band-aid. She ignored him. Suddenly, he grabbed her left hand and dragged her for about
eight (8) to ten (10) meters to a dark, deserted area. He kissed her on the lips.[5]
She struggled,[6]
somehow managing to bite his hand. She
tried to escape, but he was able to grab and pull her back. He wrapped his hands around her neck, as if
to strangle her. It was then that she
lost consciousness. She could not
remember how long she passed out.[7]
It took a gunshot of unknown origin to rouse private complainant
back to consciousness. She found
herself lying on the ground with appellant by her side, zipping up his pants.[8]
Her back and private parts hurt, and she discovered sticky matter on her sexual
organ. She also realized that her pants
were no longer on her. She silently
located and put them back on.[9]
Appellant fled when a good samaritan, one Jeffrey Cabrales, arrived.[10]
Private respondent, accompanied by Cabrales, reached Lopez’s
residence at around ten o’clock that same night.[11]
Immediately and tearfully,[12]she
reported to Lopez her violation by appellant.[13] That
same night, Lopez brought her to the police station, where she filed her
complaint.[14]
They proceeded to the Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital (EDPH) where she
underwent a physical and internal examination conducted by Dr. Leo Gerardo[15]
which yielded the following results:
“MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE
“May 16, 1989
Date
“83853 – 165
Record
Number
“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
According to the hospital REBECCA SEGUANCIA of Brgy.
Toketec Tayug, Pangasinan was examined/treated in this hospital on May
15, 1989 with the following findings and/or diagnosis:
= Linear Abrasion, 5 cm. Anterior Aspect of (1) Elbow.
= Speculum/I.E. Findings:
–
Vaginal orifice admits one finger with resistance
–
Nulliparous introitus.
–
Contussions at the lateral aspect (one at each side) of
the labia minora
–
No fresh hymenal lacerations
–
No vaginal lacerations.
= Vaginal smear for presence of spermatozoa requested. (see attached result).
“REMARKS: patient would need medical attendance and/or incapacitation for xxxx
days barring complications.
(sgd)
LEO GERARDO BAUTISTA,
M.D.,
Attending physician
Lic. No. 61044“[16]
The vaginal smear showed private
complainant was negative for spermatozoa (Exh. 2). The following day, she returned to the police station and gave
her formal statement and surrendered the denim pants and orange t-shirt she
wore during the attack.[17]
The 21-year-old appellant offered a different version of what
transpired on that fateful night of May 14, 1989. According to him, he was visiting his wife at Lopez’s store when
private complainant dropped by. She
asked him to accompany her to the public market. He was initially reluctant. Nonetheless, he accommodated the request
when his wife told him to go.[18]
On their way to the market, appellant and private complainant
took the road leading to the Ihaw-ihaw restaurant. When they got to the market, she told him “to go home
because we have no more to buy.”[19]
Instead, he proposed they go to his Ninong
Jesus Divia. She
agreed. On their way, he kissed and
started to undress her. She did not
stop him, and even responded to his amorous advances by embracing him.[20]
Appellant felt that private complainant was willing to completely give herself
to him. They did not, however,
consummate their love-making. They
merely spent the night kissing each other.[21]
Appellant affirmed that a gunshot was fired that night while he
was lying with private complainant on the ground. Upon hearing the shot, they stood up, and she looked for her
slippers. It was then that Jeffrey
Cabrales appeared and accompanied private complainant home. Appellant also went home.[22]
On cross-examination, appellant admitted that, after he was
charged with rape, he sent a letter to Lopez and his common-law wife, asking
for their forgiveness. The letter reads
as follows:
“Dear Kuyang & Manang,
“Una ay hayaan niyo munang batiin ko kayo ng magandang
umaga o hapon po sa inyo, at sana’y datnan kayo ng sulat kong ito na nasa
mabuting kalagayan.
“Kuyang & Manang, hindi ko po alam kong paano ko
sisimulan ang sulat ko sa inyo. Alam ko
po na ako’y nagkasala sa inyo, at alam ko rin pong hindi lang basta-basta
kasalanan. Ito’y halos wala ng
kapatawaran. Ngunit nandito po ako
ngayon sapagkat tinanggap ko naman ang aking pagkakasala — sa katunayang ito
ay hindi ko naman tinalikuran o tinakbuhan
bagkos ay hinintay ko po ang araw ng paghatol o pagkuha nila sa aking at taas
puso’t walang pagtutol na sumunod dahil alam kong ito ang nararapat. Sa kasalukuyan ay heto na ako, nagtitiis
subalit walang halong pagdaramdam. At
sa totoo lang po Kuyang & Manang, alam nang Diyos kung paano ko pinagsisisihan ito sa maniwala po kayo o
hindi. Talaga pong hindi ko alam. Wala po talaga ako sa sariling pag-iisip o
katauhan kung bakit at pa’no ko nagawa yon. Sila o siya pang
itinuturing ko na mga kapatid Ialo na sa inyo Kuyang & Manang na kahit noon
pa ay nararamdaman ko ng kayo ang makapagbabago sa akin at heto nga po
tinatanggap ko ang parusa. Naririto po
ako nagtitiis alang-alang sa kapatawaran. Nagpapasalamat po ako ng taos sa aking puso sa ginawa ninyong ito sa
akin sapagkat iminulat niyo ako sa aking mga kasalanan at itinuro sa tiyak na
pagbabago. Nagbabago ako nang dahil sa
inyo kayat Kuyang & Manang maraming-maraming salamat po sa inyo. Alam ko pong hindi kayo maniniwala ngunit
alam ng Diyos at balang araw ito ay mapapatunayan niyo rin kaya’t
nagmamalik-tuhod po ako sa inyo na sana po ay patawarin niyo na po ako sa aking
nagawang kasalanan.
“Kuyang & Manang bigyan niyo pa po ako ng isa pang
pagkakataon upang kami’y magbagong buhay. Alam ko po Kuyang may pamilya ka rin at mga anak at naranasan niyo na
rin po kong paano ang hirap at sakit ng mawalay sa kanila. Matiis niyo po kaya Kuyang ang ganito Ialo
na’t nasa maselang kalagayan ang asawa mo? Higit malapit na pong manganak, matiis mo kayang wala ka sa tabi
niya? Nasisiyahan po ba kayong mawasak
ang isang pamilya Ialo na sa oras na kailangang-kailangang ka nila kaya’t
luluhod po ako sa inyong harapan kung iyon and paraan upang mapatunayan ang
aking pagsisisi at pagbabago. Nasa inyo
ang buhay ko. Pati na rin ang aking
kalayaan ay nakasalalay po sa inyo. Kaya’t Kuyang & Manang sa ikatatahimik, ikabubuo at ikabubuti ng
isang pamilyang hawak mo, nagsusumamo po ako sa inyo na sana po ihulog mo na
rin po sa amin ang inyong awa at habag alang-alang sa ikakalaya at sa
ikakatiwasay nito. Kaya’t
maraming-maraming salamat sa inyong mag-asawa alang-alang sa magiging anak ko
at pamilya. Huwag niyo na rin po sanang
ipagkait ang isinasamba ko sa inyo lalung-lalo na ngayon higit nila akong
kailangan dahil malapit na pong manganak ang asawa ko. Alang-alang po sa kanila luluhod at gagapang
po ako sa harap ninyo kung iyon ang ibig niyo, makamit ko lamang ang pagpatawad
niyo alang-alang sa pamilya ko. Gagawin
ko ang lahat ipapangako ko po sa inyo dahil alam ko rin pong napamahal na sa
inyo ang asawa ko. Kumusta na rin po
yong dalawang bata si Marc at Kim, Sana naman malayo na sila ngayon sa mga
sakit.
“Sa inyo po ang aking buhay at kalayaang nakasalalay sa
aking pamilya. Nagsisisi na po ako
ngayon at naririto isinasamba at hinihingi ang pagpapatawad niyo ng dahil sa
inyo nagbago ako. Kaya’t
maraming-maraming salamat po sa inyo Kuyang & Manang.
Lubos na Gumagalang at
humihingi ng tawad
Mario A. Fabro“
He explained that he wrote the letter to his
former employers because he was being charged with a crime he did not commit.[23]
He also denied any romantic relationship between him and private
complainant. Allegedly, they were mere
friends.[24]
After trial, the RTC of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 52,[25] convicted appellant for the crime
of rape, thus:
“In resume, the Court hereby finds accused Mario Fabro y
Arquiza, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, and hereby sentences accused to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period, from 17
years, 4 months – 1 day to 20 years, but considering the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, hereby imposes the penalty of Prision Mayor – 10 years, 1 day to 20
years Reclusion Temporal as maximum. Finally, accused is hereby ordered to pay the complainant Rebecca
Seguancia the sum of P20,000.00 as moral damages with cost de oficio.
“Accused being detained for failure to post his bail bond at
the provincial jail in Lingayen, Pangasinan from the time of arrest on August
17, 1989 up to the rendition of the decision, is entitled to a preventive
imprisonment of 1 year, 4 months and 22 days to be credited to him and
deductible from his principal penalty.
“SO ORDERED.”
On April 24, 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s
conviction, but modified the trial court’s judgment by imposing instead the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Appellant now forwards the following —
“ASSIGNMENT
OF ERRORS
“I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED (APPELLANT) MARIO FABRO Y
ARQUIZA DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THAT HE COMMITTED
ACTS CONSTITUTING THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST HIM.
“II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT.
“III
“THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN INCREASING THE PENALTY OF ACCUSED (APPELLANT) TO RECLUSION PERPETUA FROM THAT
IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT WHICH IS AN INDETERMINATE PRISON TERM OF 10 YEARS
AND 1 DAY OF PRISION MAYOR AS
MINIMUM TO 20 YEARS OF RECLUSION
TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM.”
We cannot exculpate appellant. The evidence proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
To establish rape under Article 335(1) of the Revised Penal Code,
two elements must be shown: that the
accused had carnal knowledge of the offended party; and that coitus was done through the use of force or
intimidation. This the prosecution was
able to do in the case at bench.
The use of force by appellant on private complainant on the night
of May 14, 1989 was set forth clearly in
her testimony. She said that
he grabbed his hand and dragged her for about ten (10) meters. When he struggled with him, he held her by
the neck, choked her, and caused her to faint. Even appellant admitted private complainant’s unconsciousness in his
direct examination, thus:
“x x x
x x x x x x
“Atty. Ferrer ?
“Q : When
she (referring to private complainant) testified, she stated that you strangled
her by her neck and when you did that, she lost consciousness. What can you say about that?
“A : No
sir, I did not do that.
“Q : Likewise,
when she lost consciousness, that is when
you unset her pants. What can you say
about that?
“A : Yes,
sir.
“Q : You
mean to tell us that when she lost consciousness, that is the time you
unset her pants? Is that what you mean?
“Prosecutor
Bince –
Leading, your Honor.
“Court –
Reform your question.
“Atty. Ferrer ?
“Q : At
what point and time did you unset the zipper of complainant Rebecca? Is it during the time she was unconscious
or during the time she was conscious?
“Witness –
“A : When she was still conscious, sir.
“x x x
x x x x x
x”[26]
Also, Reyval Lopez testified that when
private complainant arrived home that night, her hair was in disarray and there
were bruises on her arms.[27]
Further, her medical examination revealed that she had a linear abrasion on the
anterior aspect of her left elbow. All these establish the force and physical violence exerted on
private complainant by
appellant.
Appellant, however, argues that the fact of sexual intercourse
was insufficiently established by the prosecution. He pounds on private complainant’s failure to give direct
testimony on the matter, as well as the result of her physical
examination. We are not persuaded.
As we held in the case of People v. Palapal, 114 SCRA 783 (1982) —
“It is but to be expected that if the sexual assault was
committed against the victim while the latter was in a state of
unconsciousness, she would not be able to testify on the actual act of sexual
intercourse. It is precisely when the
sexual intercourse is performed when the victim is unconscious that the act
constitutes the statutory offense of rape (e)specially when, as in the instant
case, the loss of consciousness was the result of appellant’s act of
violence. xxx”
We likewise ruled
in the recent case of People v. San Pedro, 193 SCRA 384 (1993), viz.:
“xxx Of course, an unconscious woman will not know who is
raping her. If the defense theory were
to be adopted, then it would be impossible to convict any person who rapes an
unconscious woman, except only where a third person witnesses the crime. Henceforth, the clever rapist would simply knock his potential
victim out of her senses before actually raping her, to be later immunized from
conviction for insufficient identity.
“In a situation like this, the identity of the rapist is
determined by the events preceding or following the victim’s loss of
consciousness. xxx“
In the same vein, a woman raped while
unconscious will not be able to narrate to the court her defloration during
that state. Nonetheless, her violation
may be proved indirectly by other evidence.
In the case at bench, private complainant struggled with
appellant until she fainted. When she
came to, she was aching, naked from the waist down, and lying next to appellant
who was zipping up his pants. She found
her t-shirt soiled, and upon the nest of her maidenhood lay sticky matter. All these stand as mute testimony to her
wicked fate at the hands of appellant while she was unconscious.
Furthermore, the results of private complainant’s physical examination
does not negate the commission of rape. While the doctor found no vaginal or hymenal laceration or spermatozoa
in her private parts, appellant’s acquittal does not follow. It is settled that neither complete
penetration[28]
nor ejaculation[29]
is necessary to constitute
rape. What is essential is that there
be penetration of the female organ, no matter how slight.[30]
In the case at bench, as correctly found by the Court of Appeals,
the “medico-legal findings showed contusions on each side of the labia
minora which shows that an object was forced into the vaginal
orifice.”[31]
The fact of such incomplete penetration may be culled, as well, from the
testimony of appellant, when he declared to the court during direct examination
that:
“x x x x
x x x x x
“Q : When she (referring to private complainant)
opened everything according to you, what do you mean by that?
“A : That she will give, sir.
“Q : What is that?
“A : That she will give herself to me, sir.
“Q : Did she do that to you?
“A : Yes, sir.
“Q : What did you do next when she surrendered
her freedom to you?
“A : I used her, sir.
“Court –
Continue.
“Atty. Ferrer ?
“Q : You said you used her, what do you mean by
used her?
“A : That it will not enter, sir.
“x
x x x x x x x x”[32]
By his own admission, appellant
“used” private complainant, but “it will not
enter.”[33]
Stated otherwise, he had coitus with
private complainant, but his sexual organ would not enter hers
completely.
Clearly, appellant had sexual intercourse with private complainant
through the use of force. He was, thus,
correctly convicted of rape by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
In addition, we note the ranting letter appellant wrote to Reyval
Lopez and his common-law wife showing his guilt. Most telling is that line where he writes, “Wala po talaga ako sa sariling pag-iisip o katauhan kung bakit at pa’no ko nagawa
‘yon. Sila o siya pang itinuturing ko na mga kapatid xxx.” (I was not in my right mind that I
did that to him/her or they who I consider siblings.) In his testimony,
appellant admitted that private complainant was his barkada, his friend, and that
he looked up to her like a sister. Clearly, he was writing about the dastardly deed he committed against
her. Indeed, he could not offer any other
sensible explanation for his letter.
Finally, the Court of Appeals
was correct in modifying the penalty imposed on appellant by the trial
court. As early as 1974,[34]
this Court has held that for offenses on which the law prescribes the single, indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua, it is the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised
Penal Code,[35]
and not the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[36]
which applies.[37]
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, “the crime of rape shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua.”
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant appeal is DISMISSED
and the Decision, dated April 24, 1992, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 11030 convicting appellant MARIO FABRO Y ARGUIZA and sentencing him
to reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
[1]
Through its Tenth Division, composed of Associate Justices Fidel P. Purisima,
Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, and Consuelo Yñares-Santiago.
[2]
Private complainant stood as sole
eyewitness to the rape. When she
testified in May, 1990, she was seventeen (17) years old, single, and a resident of Brgy. Toketec, Tayug,
Pangasinan. She was then
unemployed. Her mother, Lolita
Sequancia, Pfc. Hermelito Diaz, and Reyval Lopez corroborated her testimony.
[3]
TSN of May 10, 1990, p. 3.
[4]
Ibid., at p. 4.
[5]
Id., at p. 5.
[6]
Id., at p. 6.
[7]
Id.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id., at p. 6.
[10]
TSN of May 10, 1990, pp. 6-7.
[11]
TSN of April 18, 1990, p. 10.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
TSN of May 10, 1990, p. 7.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Testified on April 18, 1990.
[16]
Original Records, p. 9.
[17]
Id., at p. 8; TSN of May 17, 1990, pp. 6-8.
[18]
TSN of August 15, 1990, p. 11.
[19]
Ibid., at p. 12.
[20]
Id., at pp. 13-14.
[21]
Id., at p. 15.
[22]
Id., at pp. 16-17.
[23]
TSN of October 25, 1990, p. 6.
[24]
TSN of August 15, 1990, p. 19.
[25]
Presided by Executive Judge Pedro C. Cacho. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. T-1009.
[26]
TSN of August 15, 1990, pp. 14-15.
[27]
TSN of April 18, 1990, p. 10.
[28]
See People v. Castro, 196 SCRA 679 (1991); People v.
Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557 (1991).
[29]
See People vs. Dabon, 216 SCRA 656 (1992); People vs. Pomentel,
216 SCRA 375 (1992); People v. Generalao, Jr., 213 SCRA 380 (1992);
People v. Yambao, 193 SCRA 571 (1991); People v. Banayo, 195 SCRA
543 (1991).
[30]
See People v. Castillo, 197 SCRA 657 (1991) People v.
Tongson, 194 SCRA 257 (1991); People v. Genores, 193 SCRA 263 (1991).
[31]
Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated April 24, 1992, p. 5.
[32]
TSN of August 15, 1990, p. 15.
[33]
The phrase “to use,” when taken in the context of amorous activities,
has a sexual connotation. It is a
colloquial euphemism for sexual intercourse.
[34]
In People v. Amores, 58 SCRA 505 (1974).
[35]
It provides: “In all cases in which the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission
of the deed.”
[36]
Act No. 4103, as amended, December 5, 1933.
[37]
See also People v.
Rebulado, 206 SCRA 763 (1992); People v.
Cruz, 203 SCRA 682 (1991); and People v. Galang, 174 SCRA 454 (1989).