G.R. No. 107235. March 02, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LADISLAO ABO Y DE ALDAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Accused Ladislao Abo y de
Alday appeals from the decision of Branch 58 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Lucena City in Criminal Case No. 86-439,[1]
promulgated on 27 August 1992, finding him guilty of the crime of rape and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay the offended party, Adelia
Velasco de Chavez, the amount of P25,000.00 as indemnity, and to pay the costs.[2]
The information in Criminal Case No. 86-439, which the Provincial
Fiscal of Quezon filed on 15 August 1986, reads as follows:
“The undersigned, accuses Ladislao Abo y de Alday (prisoner),
upon complaint filed by the offended party, of the crime of rape, committed as
follows:
That on or about the 13th day of May 1986, at Barangay San Agustin,
Municipality of Tiaong, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd design, by
means of force, threat, physical violence and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Adelia Velasco
de Chavez, against her will.”[3]
The judgment of conviction is based on the evidence for the
prosecution as developed from the testimonies of Adelia Velasco de Chavez,
barangay captain Armando Barcelona, and Dr. Vicente Umali. The trial court summarized the evidence
thus:
“From the evidence thus presented, the Court finds that in the
early afternoon of May 13, 1986 Adelia Velasco de Chavez, a married woman, was
talking [sic] on her way home to Barangay San Jose, Tiaong, Quezon coming from
Barangay Lalig of the same town. When
she was near the boundary of Barangay San Agustin and Barangay San Jose, a man
whom she later identified as herein accused, LADISLAO ABO, stopped (‘hinarang’)
her and raped her. As she was walking,
accused came from behind her and held her by the neck and forcibly dragged her
to the bushes. She struggled but
accused boxed her and she was hit on the right portion of her face, right chin
and on the abdomen. Accused then
removed her hanging pants and her panty and succeeded in inserting his organ
inside the organ of Adelia de Chavez. To prevent accused from inserting his organ Adelia de Chavez tried
putting her two legs close together but accused put his knee on the inside of
her thighs and he was able to separate her legs and he then put himself on top
of her and with her legs separated he succeeded to insert his organ inside the
organ of Adelia de Chavez. While he was
doing this, accused told Adelia de Chavez, ‘pagbigyan mo ako kung hindi papatayin
kita’. The place where this incident
took place had coconut trees and banana trees. While it was not so forested, a person lying down could not be
seen. The nearest house to the place is
about half a kilometer away. After
satisfying himself, accused got up and as Adelia de Chavez tried to get up
accused kicked her at the side of her right thigh and told her he will kill
her. As accused put on his shorts and
moved a little away from her and turned his back on her, Adelia de Chavez was
able to stand up, put on her pants, without bothering to put on her panty, and
ran away shouting. After running four
to ten meters, she saw a person on a bike and asked for help. As the person she met is not known to her
they parted ways when the accused was already gone and she proceeded to the
house of Arsenio Arias nearby to ask for help. As Arsenio Arias was out at the time, Adelia de Chavez told the wife of
Arsenio Arias that she was raped. When
summoned, Arsenio Arias talked to Adelia de Chavez and she described her
assaillant [sic] to him as being well-built, tall and dark, round face with a
scar on the right side of the face.
When medically examined shortly after by Dr. Vicente Umali, the
Rural Health doctor of the municipality of Tiaong, Adelia de Chavez was found
to have suffered a contusion with slight swelling on the right temporal region,
slight contusion with hematoma on the anterior aspect of the neck, and a
superficial linear abrasion 1 cm. long at the inferior border of the lower
right mandible. As Adelia de Chavez is
a married woman with three children, internal examination did not reveal
significant information about sexual assault. The vaginal canal is lax and easily admits two fingers. Sarseanginous fluid was noted filling up the
vaginal canal at the vicinity of the cervical opening, which may or may not be
semen. No fresh bleeding or laceration
was noted.
While she was being sexually assaulted, Adelia de Chavez was able
to take a good look at her assaillant [sic]. It was early afternoon and the visibility was good being broad daylight. While she then did not know his name she
could recognize him if she will see him again. The following day she saw the assaillant [sic] again. She was then with her sister-in-law on their
way to an ‘albularyo’ (quack doctor) in Barangay San Jose when she saw him at
the ricefield. It was to him that her
sister-in-law asked about the way to the ‘albularyo’. Adelia de Chavez told her sister-in-law that the person she talked
with was the one who raped her. They
forthwith returned home and Adelia de Chavez told her husband, Raymundo de
Chavez, about seeing the person who raped her. A policeman was fetched and they, with the policeman, proceeded to the
place where the assaillant [sic] was seen and they brought him to the police
station at the poblacion where Adelia de Chavez formally pointed to accused
Ladislao Abo as the person who raped her. Having been identified and apprehended, Adelia de Chavez signed and
filed a sworn complaint for rape against accused Ladislao Abo.”[4]
The accused, on the other hand, raised the defense of alibi,
which was supported by the testimonies of Reynaldo Catibog[5] and
Florencio Abo;[6]
tried to cast doubts on his identification by the offended party, through the
testimonies of Arsenio Arias,[7]
Ernesto Dimaculangan,[8] Raul
Umali,[9]
and Patrolman Felino Noguera;[10] and
sought to prove ulterior motives on Adelia’s part by claiming that there was
bad blood between him and her family because of a controversy concerning the
irrigation of their ricefields and their political differences. The alleged ill motive was testified to by
Florencio Abo, brother of the accused.[11]
In regard to his
defense of alibi, the accused testified that he was working at a farm in San
Jose, Tiaong, Quezon, in the afternoon of 13 May 1986, together with Erickson del
Mundo, Reynaldo Catibog, and Florencio Abo. He went to the farm between 12 noon and 1:00 p.m. and left for home at
past 5:00 p.m. He never left the farm
before 5:00 p.m. When he reached his
house, his wife informed him that somebody was raped and that the victim was in
the house of Arsenio Arias. He changed
his clothes, returned the shovel he had borrowed from Ernesto Sandoval, and
proceeded to the house of Arsenio Arias to see the rape victim. On the way, he met the group of Andres de
Chavez and his brothers-in-law. Andres
informed him that his daughter-in-law, Adelia de Chavez, was raped and that
they were on their way to the poblacion. He recognized Adelia de Chavez, who was then with the group standing
beside Andres and who looked at him but did not show any reaction. After the meeting, he went home.
The following day, as he was working on the farm, he saw Avelina
de Chavez and her daughter. Avelina
asked him the way to the place of Eric and he showed her the way. About noon, his sister told him that he was
being charged with rape, so he went home. The police went to his house to bring him to the station, but he told
them that he would just change his clothes after which he would follow them to
the police headquarters. Then he went
to his uncle, Lauro Abo, who accompanied him to the police headquarters with
Patrolman Miguel Abo, now deceased. At
the police headquarters, he talked with Raymundo de Chavez, husband of Adelia
de Chavez, who told him, “Ikaw
pala, dinagdagan mo pa ang galit ng aming pamilya.” He was then brought to the
investigation room with the spouses Raymundo and Adelia de Chavez where, in the
presence of Patrolman Noguera and Patrolman Castillo, Adelia de Chavez pointed
to him as the one who had raped her. He
was investigated in the presence of Lauro Abo, a barangay councilman, and
Patrolman Miguel Abo.[12]
Arsenio Arias testified that the offended party described the
rapist to him as being well-built, tall, dark, and round faced with a 1-inch
long scar on the right side. When he
was about to go and look for the man so described, Ernesto Dimaculangan arrived
and he (Arsenio) asked the offended party if the rapist was as big as Ernesto
Dimaculangan to which she answered that the rapist was bigger.[13]
In convicting the accused, the trial court debunked his claim
that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by ill will and that the
identification of the accused was questionable:
“Right after, at the earliest opportunity, Adelia de Chavez
fled from her assaillant [sic] and reported and sought the help of the first
person she saw, a passing person whose name she does not know riding on a
bike. After the assaillant [sic] had
gone away, she went to the nearest house, the house of Arsenio Arias, and
reported the incident and at the same time sought their help in apprehending
the assaillant [sic]. No motive could
therefore be ascribed to the complainant in prosecuting the accused other than
being aggrieved by the sexual assault against her committed by the accused.
. . . .
While being raped, in broad daylight being in the early afternoon,
complainant was able to take a good look at her attacker. While she did not know his name, she could
recognize him if she will see him again. Indeed she recognized him when she saw him again the following day. That same day, consequent to her report to
her husband, her attacker was brought to the police station of Tiaong, Quezon
and there she formally pointed to the accused as the person who raped
her.”[14]
As to the alleged scar and the height of
the accused compared to Ernesto Dimaculangan, the trial court said:
“Viewing the evidence in this case in its entirety, such
inaccuracy of description is taken as mere minor inconsistencies insufficient
to discredit the victim’s claim that it is accused who raped her. The fact is that the victim had taken a good
look at her attacker and readily recognized him when she saw him again the next
day.
The Court very well considers that a woman who had just been
subjected to such a traumatic experience of being sexually assaulted,
especially where the evidence of the force used against her was visibly
reflected by the contusions, hematoma and abrasions on her face and neck, could
not be expected to give a more elaborate and detailed description of her
attacker. Most certainly, a woman being
sexually assaulted could not be in a position to accurately measure the height
of her attacker.”[15]
Unable to accept the judgment, the accused appealed. He ascribes to the trial court the
commission of the following errors:
“I. IN
FINDING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF
RAPE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM IS NOT
ONLY UNCORROBORATED BUT IS INCONSISTENT WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND BEHAVIOR;
II. IN VIEWING THE INACCURACY OF THE
DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY THE ALLEGED VICTIM AS A ‘MERE MINOR INCONSISTENCY’
INSUFFICIENT TO DISCREDIT THE ALLEGED VICTIM’S CLAIM THAT IT WAS DEFENDANT WHO
RAPED HER;
III. IN NOT BELIEVING THE
TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT AS CORROBORATED BY HIS WITNESSES; AND
IV. IN OBVIOUSLY RELYING ON THE INHERENT WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE
RAISED, I.E. ALIBI, THAN ON THE SUPPOSED STRENGTH (OR LACK OF IT) OF THE
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN CONVICTING THE DEFENDANT APPELLANT.”[16]
We are, once more, called upon to consider the following
well-entrenched principles in rape cases:
1. An accusation for rape can be made with
facility: it is difficult to prove but
more difficult for the person accused, 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.[17]
We have carefully examined the records of this case and have
assiduously gone over the testimonies of the witnesses. We are satisfied that the prosecution’s
evidence established the guilt of the accused with moral certainty. Hence, the assigned errors cannot be
accorded acceptance.
The first assigned error has no legal and factual basis. The law does not require that the testimony
of a single witness must be corroborated except where expressly mandated.[18]
The weight and sufficiency of evidence is determined not by the number of the
witnesses presented but by the credibility, nature, and quality of the
testimony. It is settled that the
testimony of a lone prosecution witness, if credible and positive, is
sufficient for conviction.[19]
Contrary to the accused’s claim, we do not find the conduct of
the victim to be “inconsistent with human experience and behavior.”
What she did before, during, and after she was raped was in accord with human
experience and behavior. She resisted
with all the strength she could to prevent the rape, pleaded for mercy, and
yielded to his lust only after she was threatened with death.[20]
Thereafter, she ran away, shouted for help, and, in the house of Arsenio Arias,
narrated the incident to Arias’ wife. Later, she submitted herself to an examination of her private parts by
Dr. Umali and reported the incident to the police authorities. After she again saw the accused the
following day, she confided to her sister-in-law that he was the rapist and
when they reached their house, she told her husband about it. They immediately reported the matter to a
policeman who then brought the accused to the police station where she
spontaneously pointed to him as the rapist.[21]
There is nothing in the second assigned error which would
discredit the testimony of the victim. We find no substantial inaccuracy in her testimony describing the
accused as having a scar on his face and agree with the trial court that the inaccuracy
is on a minor point. It must be
stressed that the victim did not personally know the accused. Nevertheless, as stated above, there was
spontaneity in her recognition of the accused as her rapist. She did not, as well, hesitate to point to
him as the rapist at the police station. The accused admitted this fact when he testified in court. But he did not testify that he protested the
accusation or that he immediately told the policeman present that the
accusation was false. That accusation,
if untrue, naturally called for a denial. Then too, he further testified on direct examination that he was
confronted by the victim’s husband, Raymundo de Chavez, at the police station:
“Q What was your conversation all
about at the police headquarters with Raymundo de Chavez?
A He told me that ‘ikaw
pala, dinagdagan mo pa ang galit ng aming pamilya.’ You have added anger to my
family.”
Yet the accused did not immediately deny
that he raped Raymundo’s wife. He
feebly answered thus:
“Q And
what did you say to Raymundo Chavez?
A I asked him, what
make [sic] him angry to me.
Q What was the answer
of Raymundo de Chavez?
A He did not speak,
ma’am.”[22]
This, again, was an occasion that naturally called for an
immediate denial from the accused if indeed he was not the rapist. Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides:
“An act or declaration made in the presence and within the
hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or
declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and
when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against
him.”
It was also established that in the afternoon of 14 May 1986, the victim was investigated by
Patrolman Felino Noguera of the Police Force of Tiaong, Quezon. The investigation was reduced to writing in
the form of a sworn statement.[23]
Question No. 15 thereof and the victim’s answer
thereto read as follows:
“T: Ano ang mga palatandaang nakapagpatibay sa
iyo na ito ngang si Ladislao Abo ang siyang gumahasa sa iyo?
Sagot: Dahilan po sa kanyang kulay at
hugis ng mukha na may kaunting pilat sa kanang bahagi ng mukha, malalim ang
kanyang baba na parang may guhit, ang kanyang boses ay kilalang-kilala ko at
isa pa dahil alas 3:00 lamang ng hapon, humigit-kulang nuon, ay tandang-tanda
ko ang mukha niya pati na ang katawan niyang medyo maskulado.”[24]
Clearly, therefore, the victim’s positive identification of the
accused is beyond dispute. The accused
attempted to cast doubt thereon, through the testimonies of his witnesses,
Arsenio Arias, Raul Umali, and Ernesto Dimaculangan. Arias testified that the victim described the rapist as
“well-built, tall and dark,” with “a round face, with a scar on
the face,” and that when he asked her if the rapist was as big as Ernesto
Dimaculangan who was near, she answered that the rapist was bigger. Thereupon, defense counsel requested the
court that Ernesto and the accused be required to stand beside each other,
which was granted. Then the said
counsel and the court made the following observations:
“ATTY. CASCO:
In height, accused
Ladislao Abo is shorter than Ernesto Dimaculangan and the body built of
Ladislao Abo is smaller than that of Ernesto Dimaculangan.
COURT:
The Court observes Dimaculangan
is very slightly taller but of broader shoulder.”[25]
Ernesto Dimaculangan was presented by the defense to corroborate
the testimony of Arsenio Arias that in the house of Arsenio Arias, the victim made a comparison between him and the
accused.[26]
On rebuttal, the victim testified that she does not know Ernesto
Dimaculangan and that she was not able to talk to Arsenio Arias in his house
after she was raped.[27]
From the foregoing, it is clear that the alleged inconsistency
made by the victim in describing the accused was based not on what she
testified to in court, but on what the defense witnesses claimed was said by
the victim after the incident. This
involves the credibility of the witnesses rather than the accuracy of her
testimony as to the description. The
trial court was in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility of the
witnesses, having personally heard them when they testified and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying. It
is doctrinally entrenched that the evaluation of the testimony of witnesses by
the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect because it is
the trial court that has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand
and detect if they are telling the truth or lying through their teeth. This assessment is binding upon the
appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached
arbitrarily.[28]
The trial court gave full faith and
credit to the victim’s testimony and disregarded the claim of the accused’s
witnesses. We find no cogent reason to
disregard such assessment.
Even granting that the victim described the accused to Arsenio
Arias, the fact that the accused has no scar and is shorter and smaller than
Ernesto Dimaculangan does not disprove her identification of the accused. A scar need not be permanent; an appearance
of one could even be made as a cover-up in order to confuse witnesses. The accused did not testify that he never
had a scar on his face. Also, if indeed
she made a comparison between the accused and Ernesto Dimaculangan and she did
declare that the former is taller than the latter, her imprecision is
understandable since Ernesto is only “very slightly taller” than the
accused. As a matter of fact, the presiding
Judge and the counsel for the accused had differing observations on the height
of the accused and Ernesto although they were made to stand beside each other
in court. In short, the inconsistency
between what she testified to in court and what she purportedly communicated to
Arsenio Arias is on matters which even educated persons under normal conditions
and with greater opportunity to make the observation might differ.
In any event, the scar and the height of the accused were not the
victim’s sole basis in identifying the accused. No less than Patrolman Felino Noguera, whom the defense presented
as a witness, admitted that he saw the line on the chin of the accused which
the victim described to him. Thus:
“ATTY. CASCO:
x x x
Q What
can you say about his physical feature, as you have observed?
x x x
WITNESS:
None, mam, As I have observed him, he is normal and I was look [sic] for the scar or line on his face, mam.
ATTY. CASCO:
Q Did
you find it?
A I
cannot see any scar and the line was located as described, on the chin, mam.
ATTY. CASCO:
May we manifest your
Honor that the line on the face, as pointed by the witness is a ‘cliff chin’
[sic].”[29]
More than anything else, the accused, through his own witness,
Ernesto Dimaculangan, put to naught all his protestations and arguments against
the identification made by the victim. Said witness candidly admitted on cross-examination that the rapist —
who is the accused — brought him to court, thus:
“Q Who asked you to testify in this
case?
A None,
sir, nobody asked me to testify
in this case.
Q How
did you come to know during the previous hearing that this case is scheduled
for hearing?
A The rapist went to our house and asked
me to go with him here, sir.
Q Who
was that person?
A Ladislao Abo,
sir.
Q And
it was Ladislao Abo who shouldered your expenses and means?
A We alternately paid
for food and transportation, sir.”[30]
In an attempt to repair the harm caused
by this damaging admission, counsel for the accused suggested on redirect
examination a possible rectification, but, unfortunately, he failed because
Ernesto just laughed and made an unresponsive answer. Thus:
“ATTY. CASCO:
A few re-direct, your
Honor.
Q You said on cross examination
that the person who told you that there will be a hearing last time was the
rapist, what do you mean by that?
FISCAL BUSTONERA:
We will make it on
record that the witness is laughing and cannot answer the question profounded
[sic] by defense counsel, Your Honor.
WITNESS:
A I
also spent for myself, madam.”[31]
The prosecution established beyond doubt that the person who
attacked Adelia Velasco de Chavez had carnal knowledge of her forcibly and
against her will. Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code provides in part as follows:
“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;”
Adelia positively identified the accused as her rapist. The third and fourth assigned errors,
therefore, need not be discussed thoroughly. It may, however, be
pointed out that the third assigned error involves a question of credibility of
the witnesses for the defense. It is,
as earlier discussed, an issue that is principally
addressed to the trial court which had the opportunity to observe their
deportment, demeanor, and manner of testifying and whose judgment thereon is
entitled to the highest degree of respect.
As to the accused’s alibi, we have ruled time and again that it
is a weak defense for it is easy to concoct and fabricate; it cannot prevail
over and is worthless in the face of the positive identification of the
accused.[32]
The affirmance of the challenged decision is thus inevitable,
except as to the indemnity which should be increased from P25,000.00 to
P50,000.00, considering that the victim is a married woman with three children.
WHEREFORE, except as above modified with respect to the indemnity, the Decision of Branch 58 of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City in Criminal Case No.
86-439 is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the accused-appellant LADISLAO ABO Y ALDAY
in this instance.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman),
Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
[1]
Original Records (OR), 545-559; Rollo, 19-32. Per Judge Ludovico C. Lopez.
[2]
Id., 559; Id., 32.
[3]
OR, 2; Rollo, 5.
[4]
OR, 552-555; Rollo, 25-28.
[5]
TSN, 29 October 1991, 2-4.
[6]
TSN, 21 January 1992, 5-8.
[7]
TSN, 17 January 1991, 2-14.
[8]
TSN, 24 January 1991, 3-6.
[9]
TSN, 23 May 1991, 2-4.
[10]
TSN, 4 July 1991, 4-9.
[11]
TSN, 21 January 1992, op.
cit., 11-14.
[12]
TSN, 22 January 1991, 18-28.
[13]
TSN, 17 January 1991, 3-9.
[14]
OR, 556-557.
[15]
OR, 557-558.
[16]
Brief for Appellant, 1; Rollo, 67.
[17]
People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707 [1991]; People vs. Tismo,
204 SCRA 535 [1991]; People vs. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992]; People vs.
Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 [1992].
[18]
See Article 114 (Treason), Revised Penal Code, which provides for the
two-witness rule. A similar rule applied
to subversion cases until the Anti-Subversion Act (R.A. No. 1700) was repealed
by R.A. No. 7636.
[19]
People vs. Francisco, 213 SCRA 746 [1992].
[20]
TSN, 28 September 1989, 6-9.
[21]
Id., 11-14.
[22]
TSN, 22 January 1991, 27-28.
[23]
Exhibits “1” and “C”; OR, 536-538.
[24]
Exhibit “1-D.”
[25]
TSN, 17 January 1991, 10.
[26]
TSN, 24 January 1991, 4-6.
[27]
TSN, 20 February 1992, 2-3.
[28]
People vs. Santito, 201 SCRA 87 [1991]; People vs. Garcia, 209
SCRA 164 [1992].
[29]
TSN, 4 July 1991, 8-9.
[30]
TSN, 24 January 1991, 6 (emphases supplied).
[31]
TSN, 24 January 1991, 9.
[32]
People vs. Lee, 204 SCRA 900 [1991]; People vs. Buka, 205 SCRA
567 [1992]; People vs. Florida, 214 SCRA 227 [1992].