PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. JEANBO “JEANBO” MUROS, EDGAR MAZO @ “EGAY” (AT LARGE), PETER DOE AND RICHARD DOE, ACCUSED.

People versus Muros

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Jeanbo Muros, a criminal appeal from a conviction for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The accused was charged, together with companions, with taking a young laundrywoman by force from the streets of Romblon and violating her against her will. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold: it shows how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court, and it announces the rule that forcible abduction is absorbed in rape when the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim.

Procedural History

The Information for forcible abduction with rape was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81. An order of arrest issued in March 1990, but the case was archived in May 1990 because the accused was out of jurisdiction. It was reinstated in February 1997 after the warrant was returned showing he was detained at the Manila City Jail on another charge, of which he was later acquitted. He was arraigned in March 1999 and pleaded not guilty; the Information was later amended to implead another accused, who remained at large. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision in October 1999 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of forcible abduction with rape, imposing reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, and archiving the case against the accused at large. He appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which resolved the appeal on the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

At about nine in the evening of January 21, 1990, Regina Rocha, then nineteen years old and a laundrywoman, went to the plaza in the poblacion of Romblon with a companion to watch an amateur singing contest. Her companion left early, but Regina stayed to watch the contest to its end. On her way back to her employer's house, she was waylaid by the accused, who held her right wrist, covered her mouth, and dragged her to a dilapidated house where two other men were waiting.

Over her resistance, the accused removed her clothing and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. His companions then took turns abusing her, one restraining her while the other violated her, until about five in the morning of the following day, when she was allowed to leave. The vicinity was already slightly bright with the morning sun, and she was able to take a good look at her assailants at close range.

That same morning, her employer noticed her to be pale, nervous, and unusually silent, and Regina recounted her ordeal. She was brought to the Romblon District Hospital, where the doctor found fresh hymenal lacerations. She executed a sworn statement, on the strength of which the complaint was filed. The accused interposed alibi, claiming he was working in Manila at the time, and suggested that the charge was fabricated at the instance of the employer's family because of a feud. The trial court rejected these defenses and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, considering his challenge to the victim's identification of him.
• Whether or not the victim's failure to make an outcry and her allegedly weak resistance negate the commission of rape.
• Whether or not the discrepancies between the victim's sworn statement and her testimony in open court destroy her credibility.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi and the claim of fabricated charges overcome the prosecution's evidence.
• Whether or not the accused may be convicted of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, or of rape alone.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as cited in the decision, defines and penalizes rape:

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.

This is the provision under which the accused was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. The victim positively and categorically identified the accused, testifying that she saw his face at about five in the morning when the light was slightly bright, at a distance of about a meter and a half. The Court reiterated the well-entrenched rule that findings of fact of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and significance, because trial courts have the distinct advantage of having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure to shout for help does not negate rape, since intimidation may be so overpowering as to prevent an outcry. The accused tightly held the victim and covered her mouth in a dark, isolated place, and he was much stronger than she was. On the required resistance, the Court laid down the test:

The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.

On the third issue, the Court held that affidavits are generally inferior to testimony given in open court, being ex parte and often prepared by others, and that a few inconsistent remarks will not necessarily dent the credibility of a rape victim, who cannot be expected to be errorless in recounting a harrowing experience.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the alibi. The accused's mother could not determine his exact whereabouts on the day of the crime, and the testimony of the other witness could not fix the date with certainty. Testimonies of close kin are suspect and cannot prevail over that of the complaining witness. The claim of fabrication was too shallow to merit consideration, as the victim remained steadfast throughout her testimony.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the accused can only be convicted of rape, because forcible abduction is absorbed in rape when the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim. From the facts, the Court found that he abducted the victim for the purpose of having carnal knowledge with her.

Doctrine

First, findings of fact and credibility assessments of the trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of overlooked or misapplied facts. Second, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance; where resistance would be futile, offering none does not amount to consent. Third, affidavits are inferior to testimony in open court, and minor inconsistencies do not destroy a rape victim's credibility. Fourth, alibi and the imputation of a revenge motive cannot prevail over the positive identification and steadfast testimony of the complainant. Fifth, forcible abduction is absorbed in rape when the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim, so the accused is convicted of rape alone under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the trial court, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as moral damages in addition to the 50,000 pesos civil indemnity awarded below.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: forcible abduction is absorbed in rape when the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim. Examiners use this case to test the absorption rule and the doctrine that the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.