G.R. No. 134679. August 08, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BERNALDO DOCDOC Y AUDITOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PUNO, J.:
Trial Court of Manila, Branch XVIII, finding him guilty of rape and
sentencing him to suffer, inter alia, the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Information charged him thus:
“That on or about the 5th day of December, 1997, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and violence, have
carnal knowledge with MARILOU ALBIT Y QUEREZ, by then and there suddenly
embracing her, lying her on the sofa, kissing her on the lips, neck and
breast, putting (sic) down her panty and kissing her vagina, spreading
her legs, covering her mouth with his hand and thereafter inserting his
penis into her vagina and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of (sic)
her, against her will and consent.“Contrary to law.”[1]
After the accused pled not guilty, trial ensued.
The facts:[2] The crime
scene is the ground floor of a two-story house located at #1107 P.
Guevarra Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. The complainant, nineteen-year old
MARILOU “Malou” ALBIT, was originally from Bohol. She came to Manila in
September, 1997 and stayed in the house of her sister Baby and her
brother-in-law RICARDO “Ricky” ROSATASI as their househelp. Accused
BERNALDO DOCDOC worked in the same company as Ricky. They have known
each other for two (2) years prior to that fateful incident.
On December 5, 1997, at about 7:30 p.m., Ricky was in his house
watching a basketball game on TV when the accused arrived. He invited
the accused to join him. The accused suggested that it would be better
if they had some liquor while watching TV. The accused left and, after a
few minutes, returned with a bottle of Tanduay Rhum which they consumed
while watching TV. When the game ended at about 10:00 p.m., the
accused decided to leave. Ricky awakened Malou and asked her to open
the door for the accused and lock it behind him. Malou did as she was
told. The accused went downstairs, with Malou in tow. Ricky continued
to watch TV.[3]
Before the accused and Malou reached the front door, the accused
asked if he could buy cold water from the adjoining store in the first
floor. Malou acceded and opened the door leading to the store. The
accused followed her inside, turned off the light and approached her.
Malou asked the accused why he turned off the light but the accused did
not reply. Instead, he held her hands behind her back and covered her
mouth with his other hand. He embraced and kissed her, putting his
tongue in her mouth. This lasted for about ten (10) minutes. The
accused then pushed her down on the sofa, with both her hands pinned
behind her back. As the sofa was short, Malou’s head and feet were
dangling as she lay there. The accused then went on top of her and
kissed her mouth and neck for about five (5) minutes. Using his mouth,
he raised her shirt and bra and started kissing and caressing her
breasts for about four (4) minutes. With his left hand, the accused
pulled Malou’s pajama pants and underwear down to her thighs. The
accused then reversed his position such that his face was on top of
Malou’s private part and his organ was on top of Malou’s face. The
accused kissed her private part for about five (5) minutes after which
he turned around again and resumed his original position on top of
Malou. He then placed his knees between her legs and forced them apart.
He inserted his organ into hers and did the pumping motion for about
twenty (20) minutes. Malou felt severe pain and struggled to free
herself but her strength was no match to that of the accused. Neither
could she shout as the accused covered her mouth with his left hand
during the whole time they were in the room, even when the accused
reversed his position on top of her. The sexual assault lasted for
about thirty (30) minutes. After the accused satisfied his lust, he
warned Malou that he would kill her should she tell Ricky about the
incident. She cried due to intense pain and shock.[4]
Meanwhile, Ricky noticed that Malou had not returned. Neither
did he hear the opening and closing of the front door downstairs. He
called out to Malou thrice but got no response. Puzzled, he proceeded
downstairs and looked around the house. He tried to open the door of
the store but found it locked. He got the key and opened it. When he
turned on the light, he saw Malou seated on the sofa, crying, with her
pajama pants down to her thighs. The accused was standing beside the
sofa, panting, with his pants unzipped. When Ricky asked what happened,
the accused replied that he was unable to restrain his emotions. When
he turned to Malou, she denied that the accused was her boyfriend and
claimed that the accused raped her. Ricky then called up a friend in
their office, Francis, and asked for his advice. Francis suggested that
they call the police authorities. After an hour, the policemen arrived
and arrested the accused. Ricky and Malou followed at the police
station where they gave their statements. Malou was also brought to the
NBI for examination.[5] DR. VALENTIN BERNALES, the NBI medico-legal officer who examined Malou, found two (2) superficial lacerations on her hymen.[6]
The 29-year old accused, BERNALDO DOCDOC, admitted having carnal
knowledge with Malou but insisted that it was consensual. He first met
Malou in Ricky’s house in September, 1997. Ricky told him about Malou’s
arrival from the province and the accused requested that he be
introduced to her. The following day, Ricky accompanied him to his
house where he met Malou and her mother. He instantly developed an
interest in Malou as she seemed kind. Towards the last week of
September, he again saw her at the drugstore where he winked at her and
she smiled at him.
On December 4, 1997, at about 7:30 p.m., he again saw Malou, with
her sister Baby and Ricky at the Central Market in Manila. They
invited him to watch a movie with them. He accepted their invitation.
Inside the theater, he sat beside Malou and courted her. Malou promised
that she would answer his proposal the next day. They held each
other’s arm inside the moviehouse.[7]
The following day, December 5, 1997, at about 7:30 p.m., he went
to Ricky’s house to see Malou as she promised to accept his proposal
that day. Malou opened the door for him. Minutes later, Ricky arrived
and saw them at the kitchen on the ground floor. Ricky inquired about
the purpose of his visit. He asked Ricky if he could court Malou but
got no reply. Instead, Ricky proceeded to the second floor. When they
were left alone, Malou told him that she accepts his proposal and that
he shall be her first boyfriend. He kissed Malou and they embraced each
other. Malou then invited him to go upstairs.
When they reached the second floor, they saw Ricky seated on the
sofa watching television. Ricky invited him to join him. After a
while, Ricky requested him to buy liquor. He did as he was told. When
they finished drinking at about 10:00 p.m., he told Ricky that he was
leaving and requested him to wake up Malou so she could open the door
for him. Ricky agreed. When Ricky awakened Malou, Baby got mad for
Ricky could have easily let the accused out himself instead of waking up
Malou. Ricky, however, replied that he was too drunk to do it.[8]
The accused proceeded downstairs, followed by Malou. When they
reached the front door, he pointed to a door at the side and asked Malou
what it was. When she said it was a room, he asked her to go inside
with him. She acceded.[9]
Once inside, they sat on a small sofa and hugged each other. It
did not end there. The accused then pulled Malou’s pajama pants and
underwear down to her knees and raised her shirt and bra. He licked her
breast and private part for about five (5) minutes. Malou then asked
if he would be true to her should she give herself to him. In response,
he promised to marry her. The accused was only able to partially
insert his organ into hers as she pleaded with him to stop for she was
afraid she would get pregnant. He withdrew and ejaculated outside her.
Some of his semen fell on her lower abdomen, some spilled on her pajama
pants and others on the floor. He pulled up Malou’s pajama pants and
underwear and they sat on the sofa. Thus, he did not employ any force
or intimidation during his sexual congress with Malou as their act was
completely consensual. Malou never shouted for help.[10]
They were seated on the sofa when Ricky came into the room and asked them what happened. Malou replied: “Nakuha ako.”
When Ricky confronted him, the accused assured Ricky that he would
marry Malou. Ricky warned that Malou’s parents would kill her if they
learned what happened. Ricky then called up their officemate, Francis,
to ask for advice. Francis suggested that Ricky put the accused behind
bars as he already had a live-in partner. Ricky followed his advice and
requested Francis to call the police authorities.[11]
JESSICA DOCDOC, the sister of the accused, was presented to
corroborate his story. She was an appraiser at the Max Trading Company
where the accused and Ricky also worked. She and the accused also lived
and slept in said office which was only a few blocks away from Ricky’s
house. On December 4, 1997, at about 7:30 p.m., she was at the ground
floor of their office. The accused was outside, sitting on a concrete
fence when Baby, Malou and Ricky passed by. After a while, she saw the
three leave with the accused. She went up to the office and turned in
for the night. It was already 10:00 p.m. when the accused returned.
When she asked him where he had been, the accused said he watched a
movie with the three.[12]
After the accused was charged with rape, Jessica called up their
mother in the province and informed her about it. On December 18, 1997,
Jessica, her mother and her uncle talked to Malou’s family about the
case. Malou’s mother demanded P400,000.00 in exchange for their
dropping the rape charge. When they said that they didn’t have that
much money, Malou’s mother reduced her demand to P200,000.00. They
still could not afford the amount. The negotiations failed as Malou’s
mother did not agree to further reduce her demand.[13]
After trial, the lower court rendered the impugned Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused, Bernaldo Docdoc y
Auditor, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and he is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the
accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the costs. On the civil
liability of the accused, he is further ordered to pay the private
complainant, Marilou Albit, moral and nominal damages in the respective
sums (of) P200,000.00 and P50,000.00 with interest thereon at the legal
rate from the date of filing of this action until fully paid.“SO ORDERED.”[14]
In his Brief, the appellant insists that the trial court erred in
giving credence to Malou’s testimony and in not acquitting him based on
the presumption of innocence in his favor.
We acquit the appellant.
In People vs. Medel,[15] we stressed that:
“It is our ruling case law that the testimony of the offended party
in crimes against chastity should not be received with precipitate
credulity for the charge can be easily concocted. We exercise the
greatest degree of care and caution before giving full faith and credit
to the testimony of complainant. We have not hesitated to reverse
judgments of conviction when there are strong indications pointing to
the possibility that the rape charges are false. Nor have we sustained
convictions when the complainant’s conduct towards her alleged offender
runs counter to human nature or appears uncharacteristic of a victim of
such an abominable act.”
In rape cases, an accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of
the complaining witness provided her testimony is credible, natural,
convincing and consistent with human nature.[16]
Hence, the complainant’s credibility becomes the single most important
issue. In the case at bar, Malou’s account of the rape incident does
not inspire credence as it does not jibe with the ordinary course of
things.
First. There was nothing in the records to
suggest that Malou tried to put up even the least resistance to
appellant’s advances. Her brother-in-law Ricky was at the second floor
of the house, merely 1.5 meters above the room where she was allegedly
molested. It was so close that Ricky became suspicious when he did not
hear the opening and closing of the front door downstairs. We find
incredible Malou’s claim that she tried to shout a couple of times but
the appellant’s hand covered her mouth during the entire period she was
raped. This allegation does not inspire belief as it goes against her
detailed narration of the alleged rape incident. Malou claimed that
after turning off the light, the appellant approached her. From that
moment on, she already sensed a danger to her honor. The appellant then
held her hands behind her back and covered her mouth. Then he kissed
her for about ten (10) minutes, putting his tongue into her mouth. At
this point, we note that the appellant had removed his hand over Malou’s
mouth. She could have easily bitten the appellant’s tongue, shouted or
otherwise made noise to attract attention. Malou then recounted that
the appellant laid her down on the sofa and went on top of her. He
kissed her mouth and neck for about five (5) minutes. At this point,
she had another opportunity to shout for help. Then, using his mouth,
the appellant allegedly raised her shirt and bra. While kissing and
caressing her breast for about four (4) minutes, he pulled down her
pajama pants and underwear. The appellant then reversed his position on
top of Malou, assumed the “69” position and kissed her organ.
Thereafter, he returned to his original position and inserted his organ
into hers. Malou would now have this Court believe that during all this
time, the appellant’s hand covered her mouth, preventing her from
shouting for help. However, based on Malou’s account, it would take
superb acrobatic skill for the appellant to have carried out such an
elaborate sexual act on an unwilling victim, without removing his hand
over her mouth. Malou’s claim simply goes against human experience.
Second. Malou gave a detailed account of the
rape incident and was able to clock the precise minutes of every alleged
act of molestation by the appellant. We find it unnatural for an
unwilling victim, whose mind would have been focused on how to extricate
herself from the clutches of her attacker, to recall every elaborate
sex act with such precision.
Third. There is an absence of physical evidence
to corroborate Malou’s claim of resistance. Verily, the law does not
impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance where force
was used on her. However, in the case at bar, where Malou’s narration
of the rape incident is open to doubt and does not jibe with human
experience, physical evidence of bruises or scratches on her face or
arms which were allegedly pinned behind her back would have spoken
louder than words.[17] Said evidence is lacking here.
We agree with the appellant’s observation that Malou is no longer
a child of tender years. She was nineteen (19) years old, on the
threshold of womanhood, at the time of the alleged rape. Feeble
resistance or the absence of a struggle or outcry may be overlooked if
the victim were a minor.[18]
In the case at bar, a more vigorous resistance to the assault on her
honor is to be expected, particularly since the appellant is unarmed at
the time of the alleged assault. Moreover, physical resistance need not
be proved only when threats and intimidation were employed and the
victim submitted to the sex act because of fear.[19] None of these circumstances were satisfactorily shown to be attendant in the case at bar.
Fourth. The doctrine that no barrio lass would
allow herself to be subjected to the humiliation of a trial if her
charge is a sham does not hold true in the case at bar. For one, we
note that rural girls who come to Manila for the first time, usually to
work as househelp, are very gullible and prone to be easily seduced by
men they meet in the city. Malou clearly appears to be one of them.
Her heart was easily won over by the appellant, the first man who showed
a romantic interest in her. That fateful night, she willingly
submitted to the appellant’s sexual advances after she made the
appellant promise that he shall be true to her. However, as per the
appellant’s account, when he was about to consummate the sex act, Malou
entertained second thoughts and asked him to desist as she was afraid of
getting pregnant. Hence, the appellant was unable to fully insert his
organ into hers, contrary to Malou’s claim that the appellant did the
pumping motion for about twenty (20) minutes. The appellant’s claim is
supported by the medico-legal finding that Malou suffered mere
superficial lacerations in her hymen.[20]
Finally, it is not difficult to discern why
Malou would turn around and cry rape after voluntarily giving in to a
moment of passion. Malou panicked when Ricky caught her and the
appellant in an uncompromising position; more so when Ricky commented
that Malou’s parents would kill her once they learn about her act of
indiscretion. At that point, the only way Malou could save face was to
claim that the appellant forced himself on her. To add another sting to
her pride is the revelation that the appellant, who moments earlier
promised to be true to her, already had a live-in partner. Given this
scenario, it is not improbable that Malou was impelled by improper
motive to fabricate a tale of defloration against the appellant.
In sum, we find that Malou’s testimony failed to meet the test of
credibility. The appellant cannot be convicted on the basis thereof.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision convicting the
appellant BERNALDO DOCDOC y AUDITOR of the crime of rape is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The appellant is ACQUITTED and his immediate release is
ordered unless he is held for some other crime. The Director of the
Bureau of Prisons shall, within five (5) days from receipt hereof,
report to this Court his compliance herewith.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Original Records, p. 1.
[2] As culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Marilou Albit and Ricardo Rosatasi.
[3] March 6, 1998 TSN, pp. 3-10.
[4] February 25, 1998 TSN, pp. 6-17; March 6, 1998 TSN, pp. 41, 44-46.
[5] March 6, 1998 TSN, pp. 10-11, 13-21; February 25 TSN, pp. 22-24.
[6] February 27, 1998 TSN, pp. 3 & 8.
[7] April 3, 1998 TSN, pp. 3-12.
[8] Id., pp. 13-20.
[9] Id., pp. 20-21.
[10] Id., pp. 21-24, 27-28.
[11] Id., pp. 24-27.
[12] May 7, 1998 TSN, pp. 3-10.
[13] Id., pp. 7-10.
[14] Rollo, at pp. 46-47.
[15] 286 SCRA 567, 582 (1998).
[16] People v Ignacio,
294 SCRA 542 (1998); People vs. Estrera, 285 SCRA 372 (1998); People vs.
Gallo, 284 SCRA 590 (1998); People vs. Pasayan, 261 SCRA 558 (1996).
[17] People vs. Estrera, supra; People vs. Obar, Jr., supra.
[18] People vs. Clopino, 290 SCRA 432 (1998); People vs. Salazar, 258 SCRA 55 (1996); People vs. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658 (1996).
[19] People vs. Bartolome 296 SCRA 615 (1998).
[20] Testimony of Dr. Valentin Bernales, NBI medico-legal officer, February 27, 1998 TSN, pp. 3 & 8.