PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUDY CORTES Y CABALLERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Cortes

The Case

People versus Cortes is a criminal case for rape, decided by the Supreme Court in January 2000. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Rudy Cortes y Caballero for having carnal knowledge of Analiza Germina y Banculo, a seventeen-year-old girl, by means of violence and intimidation and while armed with a knife. The trial court convicted him and imposed death, and the case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review. It matters for two reasons: it is a compact lesson on how the Court weighs a rape victim's testimony against alibi, and it is a precise lesson on the rules of aggravating circumstances and the correct penalty when the Information fails to allege relationship.

Procedural History

The Information was filed on January 16, 1996 before the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Branch 46. After trial, on April 28, 1997, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and imposing the supreme penalty of death, with an award of 50,000 pesos as moral damages and costs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The accused, through his brief, assigned two errors: that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and that it erred in ordering him to pay 50,000 pesos as moral damages and to pay the costs.

Facts

Analiza Germina, seventeen years old, was the lone occupant of her parents' house at Sitio Balik-Balik, Poblacion, Baleno, Masbate, because she was studying at the nearby Baleno High School. Her parents were staying in another house in Barangay Batuila. At around midnight, she was suddenly awakened by a heavy weight pressing down upon her. The house was lighted, and she recognized her attacker, Rudy Cortes, her brother-in-law. He pointed a knife at her throat and covered her mouth with a handkerchief.

Despite her struggle, the accused succeeded in removing her underpants. With one hand poking the knife near her throat and the other holding her hand, he positioned his legs over hers and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina, and she felt pain. After consummating the crime, he warned her to keep the incident to herself or he would kill her, wielding the knife to signify the threat.

Only on November 12, 1995 did Analiza gather enough courage to report the incident to her mother, and on November 17, 1995 she was brought to Dra. Marilou A. Hernandez for medical examination. The medical report noted a healed hymenal laceration at the six o'clock position, and the vagina admitted two fingers with ease. The accused interposed alibi, claiming he was in his own house in Sog-ong, Baleno, Masbate that night, a version corroborated by his wife Elsa Cortes, who also confirmed a misunderstanding between her and Analiza over the victim's boyfriend.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the accused to indemnify the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos as moral damages and to pay the costs.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides on the penalty for rape with a deadly weapon:

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

This is the provision that fixes the range of the penalty, from reclusion perpetua to death, once the use of a deadly weapon is established.

Article 335, as amended, also provides on the death penalty and the qualifying circumstances of relationship:

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity of affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.

This is the provision the Court invokes to explain why relationship, a special aggravating circumstance, must be alleged in the Information before it can be appreciated.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides the rules for applying indivisible penalties:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

This is the rule the Court applies once it discards the aggravating circumstances found by the trial court, leaving none to modify the penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. It held that the trial court's evaluation of a witness's testimony is accorded the highest respect, because the trial court had the direct opportunity to observe the witness's facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice. The victim testified in a straightforward and direct manner on the material facts, and even on cross-examination her testimony remained firm. Her account was reinforced by the medical findings that the healed laceration could have been caused by sexual intercourse. Against this, the defense of alibi is inherently weak and easily contrived; the accused had to prove with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place and approximate time of the crime, and he failed. His house was approximately three kilometers from the scene, a distance that could be negotiated in less than an hour's hike. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony and clear identification by the prosecution witness.

The Court also rejected the argument that it was improbable for the accused to have been on top of the victim for one long hour. Inconsistencies on minor details do not affect the substance of a young victim's testimony, and the length of time was merely an error in approximation. The Court stressed that lust is no respecter of time and place, and that there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. Neither did the delay in reporting the assault work against the victim, because a rape victim's action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason, and the threat on her life cowed her into silence for more than a month. Nor did the Court credit the supposed ill motive, observing that no woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration and subject herself to a public trial unless motivated solely by the desire to vindicate her honor.

On the penalty, the Court held that the trial court correctly found that the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon, making the penalty reclusion perpetua to death. But of the aggravating circumstances considered below, nocturnity could not be appreciated because the evidence did not convincingly show that nighttime was purposely sought. Relationship could not be appreciated because, as a special aggravating circumstance, it must be specifically alleged in the Information, and the prosecution failed to state there that the accused was the victim's brother-in-law, a relative by affinity within the second civil degree. On dwelling, no affirmative ruling was reached. With no modifying circumstance remaining, the lesser penalty must be imposed. On the second issue, the Court held that under prevailing jurisprudence the victim is entitled to an indemnity ex delicto of 50,000 pesos, in addition to the 50,000 pesos moral damages awarded by the trial court.

Doctrine

First, alibi is inherently weak and easily contrived; it cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a prosecution witness and the clear identification of the accused, and it fails unless the accused proves with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place and approximate time of the crime.

Second, inconsistencies in the testimony of a young and immature rape victim on minor details, such as the precise length of time, do not affect the substance of her declaration, her veracity, and the weight of her testimony.

Third, delay in reporting a rape in the face of threats of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim, because her action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason.

Fourth, relationship, as a special aggravating circumstance under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, must be specifically alleged in the Information before it can be appreciated to raise the penalty.

Fifth, where the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and no aggravating circumstance attends the crime, the lesser penalty is imposed under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, and the victim is entitled to an indemnity ex delicto of 50,000 pesos apart from moral damages.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction for rape but modified the penalty, imposing reclusion perpetua instead of death, and sentenced the accused to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as indemnity ex delicto in addition to 50,000 pesos moral damages, with costs against him.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: relationship, as a special aggravating circumstance in rape, must be specifically alleged in the Information, and absent any modifying circumstance the lesser indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed. Examiners like to use this case on the requirements for appreciating relationship and on the correct penalty and damages when the Information omits it.