PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARMAN AROFO AND GASPAR FORTALIZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Arofo

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Arman Arofo and Gaspar Fortaliza, a criminal appeal from a conviction for two counts of rape committed against Glenda Mantuhak. The case matters to the reviewee because it gathers in one decision the rules that examiners test again and again: the credibility of a rape victim's positive testimony against denial and alibi, the effect of conspiracy on criminal liability, the rule that qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information, and the mandatory award of indemnity and moral damages even when the trial court forgets them.

Procedural History

An information for rape was filed against Arman Arofo and Gaspar Fortaliza before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Mandaue City. On arraignment each entered a plea of not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. In its decision of 4 December 1996, the trial court found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua for each count. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, filing a joint appellants' brief assigning errors against the crediting of the prosecution witnesses, the sufficiency of the evidence, the refusal to acquit, and the penalty imposed. The Office of the Solicitor General filed the appellee's brief, agreeing on the conviction but pressing the failure of the trial court to award civil indemnity.

Facts

At past eight o'clock in the evening of 1 March 1989, Glenda Mantuhak, then a twenty-year-old student, was walking home from school along the road in Danlag, Consolacion, Cebu. She met Arman Arofo and Gaspar Fortaliza, who greeted her. After she had walked some three hundred meters, the two suddenly appeared behind her. Gaspar boxed her, Arman covered her mouth, and despite her screams and struggle they carried her behind a banana tree in a plantation.

There Arman tore her underwear with a knife. Gaspar lay on top of her and told Arman to move away and watch for passersby. When a cargo truck and a motorcycle passed, the two dragged her to a stringbean plantation, where Gaspar's gun and Arman's knife were poked at her. The two then dragged her to a coconut plantation, where Gaspar succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina but ejaculated outside. When Arman came near for his turn, Gaspar told him to desist because her brothers were nearby. As they walked on, Arman suddenly pushed her to the ground, forced his penis into her mouth, and then consummated the act. At a squash plantation, Gaspar told her to listen to the radio the next day because he would kill Arman, kissed her on the cheek, and told her to leave.

Past midnight, unfamiliar with the place, Glenda sought help from the occupants of a house, who brought her to the barangay chairman and then home, where she narrated her ordeal to her parents. On 2 March 1989 she was examined at the Southern Islands Hospital. The physician found abrasions, contusions, multiple hymenal lacerations, and the presence of spermatozoa. She executed a sworn statement the next day and a supplement three days later identifying both men. For their defense, Arman relied on alibi, claiming he was in class from half past five to half past nine that evening, corroborated by four teachers and a classmate. Gaspar claimed he was watching a movie with his family at about eight o'clock that evening, corroborated by his wife, brother, and mother.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite the alleged inconsistencies between Glenda's testimony and her sworn statements.
• Whether or not the evidence for the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the accused should be acquitted on the strength of their denial and alibi.
• Whether or not each of the accused was correctly sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, and whether or not indemnity and moral damages should be awarded.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335, third paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code, as then in force, provides:

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 penalty, and the Court holds that the circumstance of two or more persons, being alleged, calls for its application.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

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: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

This is the provision that reduces the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death down to reclusion perpetua, since no modifying circumstance was proved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the alleged inconsistencies are not irreconcilable with, nor material to, the fact of rape. Inconsistency between two statements of a witness is determined not by individual words and phrases alone but by the whole impression of what has been said. Both sworn statements contained Glenda's clear declaration that she recognized her abusers by their built, face, and voice, and the illumination from a nearby house and passing vehicles allowed her to see their faces. Whether Gaspar had pimples or a rough face is inconsequential, since the sand on the ground could have caused the rough appearance. Nor is it necessary that the name of the accused be stated in an affidavit, for victims cannot always identify their assailants by name.

On the second issue, the Court relies on the settled rule that no woman would openly admit she was raped and subject herself to examination of her private parts, the trauma of a public trial, and the embarrassment of narrating the details if she had not been raped. Glenda narrated clearly and spontaneously with a richness of detail only one telling the truth could give, and no sinister motive to falsely implicate the accused was shown.

On the third issue, the Court holds that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and self-serving negative evidence, which cannot prevail over categorical testimony that rings of truth. As between a categorical testimony on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails.

On the fourth issue, the Court holds that if conspiracy is established, each defendant is responsible not only for the rape committed by him personally but also for the rape committed by the others, because each cooperated in the consummation of the rape committed by the others. An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy may consist in actively participating in the actual commission of the crime, in lending moral assistance by being present at the scene, or in exerting moral ascendancy. Here Arman stood as look-out while Gaspar abused the victim and warned him of the presence of her brothers, while Gaspar did nothing to prevent Arman from consummating his act. On the penalty, although the use of a deadly weapon was proved, it cannot be taken into account because it was not alleged in the information; it is the circumstance that the rapes were committed by two persons that calls for the higher penalty, and since no modifying circumstance was proved, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. Finally, the trial court erred in not awarding indemnity and moral damages, which are mandatory upon a finding of rape, moral damages being automatically awarded without need of pleading or proof.

Doctrine

• A rape victim's positive, spontaneous, and detailed testimony prevails over denial and alibi, which are inherently weak and self-serving negative evidence.
• Inconsistencies between a witness's testimony and her sworn statements are weighed by the whole impression of the evidence, not by isolated words, and are immaterial where they do not touch the fact of rape.
• Conspiracy makes each conspirator liable for the rapes committed by the others, since each cooperated in the consummation of the crime; the look-out who warns of approaching persons performs an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• Under Article 335, third paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code, rape committed by two or more persons carries reclusion perpetua to death, but a qualifying circumstance not alleged in the information cannot be taken into account; absent any modifying circumstance, Article 63 lowers the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
• Indemnity and moral damages are mandatory upon a finding of rape, moral damages being awarded automatically without need of pleading or proof.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of both accused for two counts of rape and the sentence of reclusion perpetua for each count, modifying the judgment to order them to pay the victim, solidarily, 50,000 pesos as indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages for each of the two counts, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize this line: if conspiracy is established, each defendant is liable not only for the rape he committed personally but also for the rape committed by the others. Examiners use this case for the rule that a qualifying circumstance not alleged in the information cannot affect the penalty, and for the mandatory award of indemnity and moral damages in rape.