THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CANDELARIO IBALANG ALIAS “TATA,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Ibalang

The Case

This is People versus Ibalang, a criminal appeal from a conviction for two counts of rape. The accused, Candelario Ibalang, whom the record also calls Tata, was charged with raping his stepdaughter, Leizel Morales, on two successive days in June 1990. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats minor inconsistencies in a child complainant's testimony, and second, it shows the weight given to the testimony of a young rape victim when no motive to fabricate has been shown.

Procedural History

Two criminal cases for rape were filed against Candelario Ibalang upon the complaint of Leizel Morales in the Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the two cases were jointly heard. On November 5, 1992, the trial court rendered its decision, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua on two counts with all the accessory penalties of the law, and ordering him to pay Leizel Morales 100,000 pesos in moral damages for the two crimes. The accused then brought the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, assigning as errors the trial court's reliance on the complainant's testimony and its failure to acquit him on reasonable doubt.

Facts

Candelario Ibalang was the second husband of Rosita Loyong. Leizel Morales was Rosita's daughter by her previous marriage to Victor Morales, who had died. Before the incidents in question, Leizel lived in the same house with the accused in Araibo, Pantukan, Davao del Norte, together with her siblings and their mother.

On the night of June 23, 1990, while Leizel and her siblings were asleep and their mother was away in Lupon, the accused removed Leizel's panties and inserted his penis into her vagina. She tried to resist, but he was stronger than she was, and her vagina bled. The following morning, June 24, 1990, the accused sent the other children to take a bath. While Leizel was washing the dishes, he ordered her to fetch his short pants. When she entered the room, he grabbed and embraced her. She pleaded, "Ayaw, Pa," meaning "Pa, don't," but he did not heed her. He removed her panties, made her lie on the floor, placed himself on top of her, and again inserted his penis into her vagina. She resisted and pleaded that it was painful, but he only ordered her to keep quiet.

Leizel reported the matter to her aunt, Baby Morales, who accompanied her to the barangay captain and later to the house of her uncle Remegio Morales in Lupon. The three then proceeded to the provincial hospital in Mati, where she was examined on June 26, 1990. The physician found a hymenal laceration at the seven o'clock position and hyperemia at the inner surface of the labia minora on the right side, adjacent to the laceration, and testified that the laceration was still fresh and about two to three days old. On July 4, 1990, Leizel gave a sworn statement at the Pantukan Police Station narrating both incidents. For his part, the accused denied the accusation and claimed he first learned of the rape charge only after he was arrested and brought to the barangay captain's office.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of the complainant despite alleged contradictions and improbabilities.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It applies the settled evidentiary rule on the credibility of witnesses, which the Court restated through Justice Ricardo Francisco and quoted in its own opinion:

Well settled is the rule that inconsistencies and contradictions which are minor, trivial and inconsequential cannot impair, and on the contrary, serve to strengthen the credibility of the witness.

This rule bears directly on the accused's first assignment of error, because the alleged contradictions concerned only the time of the second rape as reported to the physician and the place where the mother was at the time of the incident.

The Court also relied on the companion rule on affidavits, quoted in the same passage:

In addition, whenever an inconsistency exists between a statement in the affidavit of a witness and her testimony in open court, the latter commands greater weight.

This disposes of the discrepancy between Leizel's affidavit and her testimony in court regarding her mother's whereabouts.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complainant's testimony was clear, candid, straightforward, and consistent. She recounted both in her affidavit and in her testimony how she was raped on June 23 and 24, 1990, inside their house in Araibo, Pantukan, the first time in the evening while she was sleeping with her siblings, and the second time the following morning after the accused asked her to bring him his short pants while the other children were taking a bath. As to the physician's account that Leizel said the second rape happened at midnight rather than in the morning, the Court found it entirely possible that the physician either did not understand or forgot what the complainant had told her. What mattered was that the complainant was consistent in her affidavit and in court. The discrepancy about whether her mother was in Mati or in Lupon concerned a minor matter that did not affect her credibility, and the Court applied the rule that minor inconsistencies are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood, and that testimony in open court prevails over the affidavit.

The Court likewise rejected the claim of improbability. It was not unnatural for the accused to send the other children away the better to consummate his deed, and as the Court put it, lust can be no respecter of either time or place. Nor was the push and pull motion impossible, for that was precisely why Leizel suffered lacerations in her hymen and injuries to her vagina which caused it to bleed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the testimonies of rape victims who are young and of tender age are credible, especially if they are without any motive to testify falsely against the accused. No motive was shown why the complainant should falsely accuse her stepfather, who sent her and her siblings to school. Even if her aunt and uncle disliked the accused, that alone would not make the complainant's testimony suspect, for no blood relative could be so foolish as to expose his niece to public disgrace merely to spite someone. The medical examination confirmed that Leizel was raped, and it was inconceivable for a child of tender years to falsely accuse her stepfather, whom she called Papa and on whom she depended for support, of such a grievous offense.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, minor, trivial, and inconsequential inconsistencies do not impair credibility; they strengthen it, as badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood. Second, when an affidavit conflicts with testimony in open court, the testimony in open court commands greater weight. Third, the testimony of a young rape victim is credible, especially where no motive to testify falsely against the accused is shown. Fourth, the physical findings of fresh hymenal lacerations corroborate the complainant's account and confirm that rape was committed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in full, upholding the conviction of Candelario Ibalang for two counts of rape and the award of 100,000 pesos in moral damages.

Remember This

Memorize this line: minor inconsistencies are badges of truth, and the testimony in open court prevails over the affidavit. Examiners use this case to test credibility of child complainants, the treatment of discrepancies between affidavit and testimony, and the sufficiency of medical corroboration in rape prosecutions.