PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. BERNARDO CORTEZANO AND JOEL CORTEZANO, APPELLANTS.

People versus Cortezano

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted two brothers, Bernardo Cortezano and Joel Cortezano, for the rape of their seven-year-old niece, a child referred to in the record as AAA. The trial court convicted both brothers of rape in two criminal cases and sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua for each count. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the settled rules on credibility of child witnesses, the weight of alibi against positive identification, the sufficiency of healed hymenal lacerations as corroboration, and the effect of conspiracy on the penalty. It is a study in how the Supreme Court reviews findings of fact that rest on the demeanor of a child on the witness stand.

Procedural History

Two separate informations for rape were filed against the brothers before the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur, Libmanan, Branch 56. On arraignment both accused entered a plea of not guilty, and the two cases were tried jointly. After trial, the trial court rendered a decision convicting both accused of the crimes charged, sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua in both criminal cases, and ordering each to pay moral damages and exemplary damages in each case, plus the costs of suit. From that decision, the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction but modified the award of damages.

Facts

Sometime in March 1990, the mother of AAA took a leave of absence from her part-time job in Quezon City to spend a vacation with her three children. She brought them to the house of her parents-in-law in a barangay in Camarines Sur, where the Cortezano brothers also lived. The Cortezano residence stood on an isolated patch of land, far from neighbors. By mid-April of 1990, the mother returned to Caloocan City, leaving her children in the care of their grandparents.

Early in the afternoon of May 6, 1990, Joel and Bernardo ordered AAA to sleep in their parents' room. She protested that it was hot there, but Joel threatened to whip her, so she obeyed. She awoke to find her uncles holding her hands and feet as they undressed her. They wet her vagina with their saliva. Joel then mounted her while Bernardo stood by the window as a lookout, and after Joel dismounted, Bernardo took his turn while Joel kept watch. A young cousin, Boyet Orcine, came upon them, and the brothers ordered him to do the same to the child under threat of harm. The brothers then threatened to kill AAA and her family if she told anyone. After that first incident, the brothers subjected her to sexual abuse daily, always with the same threat.

On June 10, 1990, the brothers again ordered AAA into their parents' room and again took turns raping her, with one standing guard while the other abused her. The next day, her mother arrived and brought the children back to Caloocan City. The child felt pain in her lower abdomen and numbness on the left side of her body. The abuse came to light only in May 1994, when Boyet Orcine told the mother what had happened in 1990. The mother asked AAA, who confirmed that her uncles had raped her. A medico-legal examination at the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame found deep healed lacerations of the hymen at the three, seven, and nine o'clock positions. The brothers denied the charges and interposed alibi, Joel claiming he was confined at the Philippine General Hospital in Manila during the period, and Bernardo claiming he was working in a distant barangay. Hospital records presented on rebuttal showed that Joel was never confined at the hospital in 1990 and had consulted only as an outpatient.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of the child victim AAA is credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused for rape.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim.
• Whether or not the absence of fresh hymenal lacerations, the examination having been conducted three years after the abuse, negates the commission of rape.
• Whether or not conspiracy was established, and whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed for each count.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines and punishes the crime of rape. The trial court convicted the accused under this provision, and the Supreme Court reviewed the conviction against its terms:

Article 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; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

This provision supplies the elements of the crime and the single indivisible penalty that the Court applied to each count.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal was without merit and sustained the trial court's assessment of AAA's credibility. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of trial courts, which can weigh testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct, and attitude at the trial. The Court noted that AAA remained consistent, firm, and undisturbed throughout a lengthy and rigid cross-examination, and that her tears and statements were not contrived but borne out of a genuine feeling of bitterness. The Court held that minor lapses in her testimony related to trivial matters and did not affect her credibility, and that the victim's act of crying during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the defense of alibi. The Court held that alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim, who had no motive to falsely accuse her own uncles. The hospital records presented on rebuttal directly contradicted Joel's claim of confinement, showing that he was never confined at the Philippine General Hospital in 1990.

On the third issue, the Court held that the absence of fresh hymenal lacerations did not negate rape. The medico-legal findings of deep healed lacerations corroborated the victim's testimony, the examination having been conducted three years after the abuse. The Court held that a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.

On the fourth issue, the Court found that the accused acted in conspiracy, as shown by their concerted acts of taking turns abusing the child while one stood guard. Conspiracy having been established, the Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.

Doctrine

The credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court, which can observe the demeanor of the declarant on the witness stand, and appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court unless it is clearly shown that the latter had overlooked or disregarded facts and circumstances of significance. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim. The absence of fresh hymenal lacerations does not negate rape, for a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of the crime. When conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and the penalty prescribed by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which is reclusion perpetua, is imposed for each count.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Bernardo Cortezano and Joel Cortezano for rape in both criminal cases and imposed reclusion perpetua for each count, but modified the award of damages.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, and that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the victim. Examiners use this case to test the rules on credibility of child witnesses, the weight of alibi, and the sufficiency of healed lacerations as corroboration.