G.R. No. 146276. November 21, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO C. DUROHOM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision,[1] dated
September 28, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Misamis Oriental,
Cagayan de Oro City, finding accused-appellant Antonio C. Durohom guilty of
rape under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
8353, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalty and to indemnify
complainant Liezel Villaceran in the amount of P50,000.00 as
compensatory damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P40,000.00
as exemplary damages.
The information alleged —
That on or about the 28th day of July, 1999 at about 6:30 in the
evening, more or less, at a grassy vacant lot of Chavez Subdivision, Poblacion,
Villanueva, Misamis Oriental, Republic of the Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of
force, threat and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously ha[ve] carnal knowledge with the offended party, Liezel Villaceran,
against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Republic Act No. 8353.[2]
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the
crime charged, whereupon trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented five witnesses: complainant Liezel
Villaceran, Flores Villaceran, PO3 Eduardo Pagaling, Dr. Diana Marie L. Casiño
and Marciana Tan Galon. Their
testimonies are to the following effect:
At about 6:30 o’clock in the evening of July 28, 1999,
complainant Liezel Villaceran, then 19 years of age, was sent by her aunt,
Flores Villaceran, to buy bread at the Ticos Bakery located near the plaza in
the municipality of Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. After coming from the bakery, she hailed a trisikad across the street,
but, before she could board the vehicle, accused-appellant Antonio Durohom, driving
another trisikad, came along and
offered to take her home. As it was
raining hard, Liezel accepted his offer. She was the only passenger on the trisikad.
Liezel asked to be taken in front of the Mindanao Oriental
Builders, Inc. (MOBI) building. Accused-appellant
drove his vehicle fast and then stopped to get a screwdriver. When he resumed driving, accused-appellant,
instead of going towards MOBI building, went to the opposite direction
downhill. He held the screwdriver to
Liezel’s neck and covered her mouth with his right hand. The trisikad
coasted along until it stopped in a grassy area. Accused-appellant then dragged Liezel towards the grassy area and
raped her. Liezel shouted for help, but
nobody could hear her because of the rain and the distance of the neighboring
houses, which were 100 to 200 meters away from the grassy area. Then, her hands and feet were bound and her
mouth gagged. She was later able to free
herself and to run home.
Narrating her ordeal, Liezel testified:
Q Liezel, can you recall
where you were on July 28, 1999 at about 6:30 o’clock in the evening?
A I was requested by my
aunt to buy bread.
Q And what is the name of
your aunt?
A Flores Villaceran.
. . . .
Q Where [were] you residing
on July 28, 1999?
A I was residing at my
aunt.
Q Why were you not living
with your parents?
A My aunt is single and
besides she is very sick and I live with her.
Q How long were you living
[with] your aunt from July 28, 1999?
A More than one year.
. . . .
Q You said that you were
sent by your aunt to buy bread, where did you buy bread?
A Ticos bakery.
Q What municipality?
A Villanueva, Misamis
Oriental.
Q What time was that when
you b[ought] bread?
A 6:30 o’clock more or
less in the evening.
Q Were you able to buy
bread?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened after you
bought bread, what did you do if any?
A I was waiting for a
tri-sikad for me to go home.
Q This tri-sikad, only the
legs used or motor?
A Motorized.
. . . .
Q Were you able to get a
ride on a tri-sikad?
A I called a tri-sikad
which is across the street but this driver (pointing to the accused) forced me
to ride on his tri-sikad.
Q By the way, you were
pointing to this person as the driver, why are you very angry at him?
A Because he was the one
who raped me (the witness is crying and angry towards the accused).
. . . .
Q And what exactly did he
tell you why he forced you?
A He kept on saying “come
on, come on, ride on my tri-sikad.”
Q And the weather at that
time, was it raining?
A It was only slight rain.
Q Later the rain become strong?
A Yes, sir, when the rain
became … heavy … that is why I was forced to ride [o]n his tri-sikad.
Q By the way, did you know
this accused before July 28, 1999?
A No, sir, that was the
only time that I recognized or [saw] his face.
Q When for the first time
did you know his [name]?
A At the police [station].
Q Where?
A At Villanueva.
Q What is the name?
A Antonio Durohom.
Q So you boarded the
motorized [vehicle] of the accused?
A He asked me where I was living
and I told him that I was going in front of the MOBI, Mindanao Oriental
Builders, Inc.
Q You were going to alight
in front of the MOBI?
A Yes, sir.
COURT: (to the witness)
Q Were you alone at the
motorela or there was another person when you boarded the motorized sikad?
A Only myself.
PROS. B. APEPE: (continuing)
Q You said that when you
boarded the tri-sikad you told him that you are going to the MOBI and after
that he sped very fast, was that what you said?
A Yes, sir, that is true.
Q What else happened?
A He sped fast and he
stopped in front of the Releta Machine Shop.
Q What did he do when he
stopped?
A He got a screw driver,
then he started the engine and ran fast.
Q What about the screw
driver, where was it when he started to run fast?
A He was holding [it] in
his hand.
Q So after that what
happened next? Where did the motorela
go?
A He proceeded to a
downhill portion.
Q Was that towards the
direction of MOBI?
A No, sir.
Q So what happened after
that when you said that you were going downhill in an area that is very dark?
A He told me that is not
the destination that I am going to go but he was pointing a screw driver on my
neck and covered my mouth.
Q By the way, where did you
sit down?
A At the front seat.
Q Side of the driver?
A Yes, sir.
Q So at the time that he
held you by the neck and the other hand pointing the screw driver the tri-sikad
was still running?
A The tri-sikad was free
wheeling because of the downward hill.
Q What about the rain, was
it still raining?
A Raining hard.
Q You said it was very
dark?
A Yes, sir.
Q No light whatsoever?
A None.
Q At the time that you
boarded the tri-sikad of the accused in front of the bakery, were there lights?
A Yes, sir, very lighted,
it was near the plaza.
Q Was there light in the
plaza?
A Yes, sir.
Q At the time, you could
recognize the accused at the time that you boarded the motorized tri-sikad in
front of the bakery?
A I can still recall his
face because he kept on forcing me to ride in his motorela and I was forced
because the motorela that I am supposed to ride on the other side was blocked
by the traffic aide and so I have to look at his face again because he kept on
telling me to ride and I was constrained to take his [tri-sikad] because it was
already raining very hard.
Q Again you said you
stopped at Releta Machine Shop, was there a light?
A There was.
Q What kind of light?
A I am not sure.
Q Again it was very bright?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened after you
said that he held you by your neck and was also pointing the screw driver, what
happened after that?
A He dragged me towards a
dark portion where there are many sunflowers.
Q The rain was very hard?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened when you
were dragged to the sunflowers?
A I want to free myself
but he choked me and pushed me to the ground.
Q And because he pushed you
to the ground you fel[l] to the ground, what happened after you were forced to
the ground?
A I fell to the wet
ground.
Q Were you facing up or
facing down to the ground?
A Facing up.
Q What happened after you fell
to the ground face up?
A He rode on my stomach,
choked my neck and he removed all my clothing.
Q What were you wearing
that time?
A Blouse maroon and short
pants, he removed my blouse and bra.
Q Next what did he remove?
A My shorts and panty.
Q What was his position
when he was removing all your clothing?
A He mounted me, kissed my
lips and sucked my nipple.
COURT:
Place on record that the witness is crying.
Q He kissed your lips,
sucked your nipple at this time you [we]re completely naked?
A I was naked.
Q What happened after that,
what else did he do?
A He made a push and pull
motion.
Q When you said that he
made a push and pull motion, what do you mean exactly by that?
A He forced his penis
[into] my vagina.
Q Did he succeed in
penetrating your vagina?
A I fe[lt] pain, I do not
know, I just fe[lt] pain inside my vagina.
Q Did it take him sometime
to make that push and pull movement, the duration of this act of making a push
and pull movement?
A I cannot estimate
because I was so afraid.
Q So after that, what else
happened?
A He moved me to a dry
area and again he kissed my lips and sucked my breast.
Q And by kissing your lips
and sucking your breast, what else did he do?
A He again made a push and
pull motion.
Q Then what did you feel?
A The same I felt pain.
Q During all these times
that this accused forced you, you did not shout?
A I shouted for help but I
cannot be heard because it was raining and the neighbors are very far.
Q By the way, are there
houses nearby?
A Atty. Musni.
Q How far is that house of
Atty. Musni from where you are sitting now?
A Approximately 100
meters.
Q That is the nearest
house?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you know [whether]
the house of Atty. Musni was occupied?
A Most of the time that
house is unoccupied.
Q Is that the only house
near the place where you were raped?
A There is another house
but already abandoned.
Q Again how far is that
house to the place where you were raped?
A Around 200 meters.
Q Again he raped you for
the second time, which was longer the first or the second intercourse?
A The first.
Q And after that what else
happened?
A While he was still
mounting me and doing push and pull [movements], I tried to lean my shoulder
and that was the time I pushed him and I was able to run away but he was able to
catch me and choked me again and he said “so you will escape, I am going to
kill you.”
Q When he was able to catch
you, what else happened?
A He transferred me to the
place where there w[ere] sunflowers and he was looking for the bread which was
placed inside the plastic bag. He threw
the bread and tied my mouth [with] the plastic bag.
Q What else happened after
that?
A After he tied my mouth
with the use of the plastic bag, he got all my clothing and then my blo[use]
and my underwear. He used my blouse to
tie my hands.
Q Your hands were at your
front or back?
A At the back.
Q And after that, what else
did he do?
A He tied my feet with the
use of my panty and bra.
Q At the time that he was
tying your hands and feet, what was your position?
A I was sitting down in
the water.
Q Rain water?
A Yes, sir.
Q So after tying your hands
and your feet and also tying your mouth, what else did he do?
A He got my short pants
and placed [it] on my head and tie[d] it and he again kissed my lips and sucked
my nipple.
Q You mean your short pants
was placed on your face and tied it?
A Yes, sir.
Q What about you breathing
when your short pants was already around your face, what did you feel about
your breathing?
A I still had a normal
breathing.
Q After that what happened?
A He left me and he rode
on his tri-sikad and left me behind.
Q After he left, what did
you do?
A I tried to remove all
the things that were tied and I was able to untie myself and I decided to go to
the municipal hall but I saw him near the school at the highway so I went home.
COURT: (to the witness)
Q Since you saw him near
the school, how far is that from the municipal hall?
A Quite far.
PROS. B. APEPE: (continuing)
Q You said you proceeded to
your auntie’s house, when you ran to your auntie’s house, what were you
wearing?
A I was wearing my
clothing without the panty.
Q You used the same dress
that you used without any panty and bra?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you arrived at
your auntie’s house, what happened?
A I opened our door and
pushed the door and I tried to rest on the door and that was the time my auntie
saw me and I told her I was raped.[3]
Liezel was going to report the incident that same day, but she
was prevented from doing so because she saw accused-appellant on her way to the
municipal hall. She arrived at her
aunt’s home at around 8 o’clock in the evening, wet, dirty and with her clothes
turned inside out. After being told of
the whole incident, her aunt wanted to report the matter to the police, but Liezel
begged her not to do so. She was afraid her father would scold her if he
learned of the incident. She was also
afraid of being the subject of gossip among the townspeople.[4]
The following day, July 29, 1999, was the town fiesta. As Liezel watched the parade pass by her
aunt’s house, she saw trisikads in
it, one of which was the one accused-appellant had driven when he raped
her. The vehicle was being driven by
another person.[5]
A few days later, Liezel and her aunt saw a hilot, Marciana Galon, who found healed abrasions on Liezel’s
back. Liezel was also running a
fever. When the hilot asked if she had been punished by her parents for something
she did, Liezel broke down and told her what had happened to her.[6]
Liezel’s reluctance in reporting the incident to the authorities
gradually gave way to anger and outrage as she kept seeing accused-appellant in
the town plaza and even in church. He
was brazenly showing himself to her. On
September 13, 1999, Liezel attended mass with a friend and the latter’s
mother. After the mass,
accused-appellant walked in front of her and made her look as if she liked what
he did to her. Unable to contain her
anger, Liezel shouted at him, “You
devil, you keep on following me.” Urged by friends who by then had learned of
her misfortune, she finally agreed to report the matter to the police. At the municipal hall, she pointed to
accused-appellant, who had been taken there by members of the Civilian
Volunteer Organization, as her assailant.[7] PO3
Eduardo Pagaling took Liezel’s sworn statement (Exh. B) and entered the
incident in the police blotter (Exh. C).[8] The
next day, September 14, 1999, Liezel was taken to the Villanueva Municipal
Health Office where she was examined by Dr. Diana Marie L. Casiño. Dr. Casiño
issued the following report (Exh. A) on Liezel:
Findings:
General Appearance; Fairly developed, fairly nourished female,
coherent, conscious, in no distress, ambulatory
Genital Examination;
– No healed physical injuries in genital area
– Healed hymenal lacerations at 3 & 9 o’clock position
– Admits finger with no resistance
Remarks; Subject is in a non-virg[i]n state[9]
On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the prosecution rested
its case. The defense then presented as
its witnesses accused-appellant Antonio Durohom and his friend Genesis Mejares.
Accused-appellant denied the allegations against him. He admitted that he had been a driver of a trisikad owned by Dennis Gonzales from
1998 until his arrest. He said that on
July 28, 1999, the eve of the town fiesta, he stopped and parked the trisikad near the Petron gas station
because of heavy rain. He and his
friends, Tata Mejares, Junior Abejaron and Dodong Salbino, had drinks in a
nearby store, consuming eight bottles of “Red Horse” beer. Accused-appellant himself consumed two
bottles. From 5:45 o’clock in the
afternoon until 7:45 o’clock in the evening, accused-appellant claimed, he was
with his friends at the parking area, going home afterwards with Mejares. The following day, July 29, 1999, he said he
drove his trisikad until late in the
evening. Accused-appellant maintained
that he had simply been mistaken for someone else.[10]
Accused-appellant’s testimony was corroborated by his friend,
Tata Mejares, who is also a fellow member of the Philippine Benevolence
Christian Movement.[11]
On September 28, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision[12]
finding accused-appellant guilty and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused ANTONIO DUROHOM y CATIIL GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape punishable under the Revised Penal Code, Article 266-A, as
amended by Republic Act 8353, there being two generic aggravating circumstances
and without a mitigating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA, together with its
accessory penalty. He is further
directed to pay the victim the sum ofP50,000.00 as compensatory
damages,P50,000.00 as moral damages, andP40,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
SO ORDERED.[13]
Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant assails the judgment of
conviction. He contends that the trial
court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape.[14]
We find the appeal to be without merit. In deciding rape cases,
this Court has been guided by three principles, to wit: (1) an accusation for
rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove, but more difficult
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime in which only two persons are usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
(3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense.[15]
An accused in a rape case may be convicted on the basis of the victim’s
testimony alone, but such testimony must be credible, natural, convincing and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[16]
In this case, we find the testimony of complainant to be credible.
Despite rigorous cross-examination, complainant Liezel Villaceran
remained steadfast in her claim that accused-appellant raped her. Several times during her testimony, she
broke down and cried as she recounted what she had gone through in the hands of
accused-appellant, indicating that she was telling the truth.[17]
Liezel would not have remained consistent throughout her entire testimony in
the face of intense and lengthy interrogation had she merely made up her story.[18]
Her claim that she was raped is corroborated by the medical
findings of the presence of hymenal lacerations.[19] The
medical report, which showed that Liezel had healed hymenal lacerations at the
3 and 9 o’clock positions, proves that, at least one month prior to her
examination, she had been raped.
Against the prosecution evidence, the flimsy defense of
accused-appellant Antonio Durohom cannot be given credit. It is settled that denial cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the accused.[20] In
the case at bar, complainant Liezel pointed to accused-appellant as the person
who had raped her. She may not have known accused-appellant, but she had seen
his face. Complainant first saw
accused-appellant when the latter came along offering her a ride in the evening
of July 28, 1999. She watched him alight from his vehicle when he stopped to
get a screwdriver. Finally,
accused-appellant did not bother to hide his face from Liezel when he raped
her. After the rape, she saw
accused-appellant in town as he brazenly went about his way as if to brag that
she had liked what he had done to her. There can be no doubt that complainant had every opportunity to view and
remember the physical features of accused-appellant. It is thus not surprising that complainant had no difficulty in
identifying accused-appellant at the municipal hall after the latter had been
taken into custody.
Moreover, it has not been shown that complainant had any motive
to fabricate a serious charge against accused-appellant. He and complainant did not know each other
prior to the incident. Time and time
again we have held that the testimony of a rape victim as to who had abused her
is credible where she has no motive to falsely testify against the accused.[21]
On the other hand, we have also held that alibi cannot prevail
over the positive identification by the complainant of the accused as the
person who had raped her. To justify an
acquittal based on alibi, the accused must establish by clear and convincing
evidence that he was in another place at the time of the commission of the
offense, and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene when
the crime was committed.[22]
This, accused-appellant failed to do.
Accused-appellant also points out a discrepancy between an entry in
the police blotter and the testimony of the complainant. He makes much of the fact that PO3 Pagaling
entered in the police blotter September 14, 1999, instead of September 13,
1999, as the date when the sworn statement of complainant Liezel was taken.
His contention deserves scant consideration. A few discrepancies and inconsistencies in
the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details which do not touch upon
the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility.[23]
It must also be remembered that entries in a police blotter, though regularly
done in the course of the performance of official duty, are not conclusive
proof of the truth of such entries for they are often incomplete and
inaccurate. They, therefore, should not
be given undue significance or probative value as to the facts stated
therein. Blotter entries are merely
prima facie proofs of the facts stated therein.[24]
Simple rape is punished under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Although aggravating
circumstances, consisting of the use of a weapon (screwdriver) and of a motor
vehicle (trisikad), were proven, the
trial court correctly disregarded them because Art. 63 of the Revised Penal
Code provides that in all cases in which the penalty imposed is a single
indivisible penalty, that penalty shall be applied regardless of the presence
of mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime. Moreover, these aggravating circumstances
cannot be considered in fixing the penalty, although they were proven, because
they were not alleged in the information. By virtue of its amendment effective December 1, 2000, Rule 110, §§8 and
9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now provide that aggravating as
well as qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information, otherwise
they cannot be considered against the accused even if they were proven during
the trial. Being favorable to
accused-appellant, this rule, as amended, should be applied retroactively to
this case.
Although the aggravating circumstances in question cannot be
appreciated for the purpose of fixing a heavier penalty in this case, they can,
however, be considered as bases for an award of exemplary damages. Evidence proving these circumstances forms
part of the actual commission of the crime and justifies an award of exemplary
damages under Art. 2230[25] of
the Civil Code of the Philippines even when the said aggravating circumstances
were not alleged in the information.[26] The
trial court therefore correctly awarded exemplary damages in favor of
complainant. However, the amount should
be reduced to the current level of P20,000.00 as fixed in recent case
law.[27]
With respect to the other awards for damages, we hold that the trial court
correctly ordered accused-appellant to pay complainant P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages.[28]
WHEREFORE, the
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de
Oro City, finding accused-appellant Antonio C. Durohom guilty of the crime of
rape punishable under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8353, is AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the award for exemplary damages is reduced to P20,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.
[1]
Per Judge Edgardo T. Lloren.
[2]
Rollo, p. 7; Records, p. 2.
[3]
TSN (Liezel Villaceran), pp. 13-27, June 9, 2000.
[4] Id., pp. 26-27; TSN (Flores Villaceran), pp. 5-7, June 16, 2000.
[5]
TSN (Liezel Villaceran), pp. 27-28, June 9, 2000.
[6]
TSN (Marciana Tan Galon), pp. 34-37, July 14, 2000.
[7]
TSN (Liezel Villaceran), pp. 30-33, June 9, 2000.
[8]
TSN (PO3 Eduardo Pagaling), pp. 19-20, June 16, 2000.
[9]
Records, pp. 10, 78.
[10]
TSN (Antonio Durohom), pp. 4-13, July 21, 2000.
[11]
TSN (Genesis Mejares), pp. 51-56, Sept. 8, 2000.
[12]
Decision, pp. 1-15; Rollo, pp. 15-29;
Records, pp. 166-179.
[13] Id., p. 15; id., p. 29; id., p. 179.
[14]
Brief for the Accused-Appellant, p. 6; Rollo,
p. 59.
[15]
People v.
Padilla, G.R. No. 145460, July 3, 2002 citing
People v. Barela, G.R. Nos. 145163-65, June 5, 2002.
[16]
People v. Padilla, supra citing People v. Barela, supra; People
v. Bayona, 327 SCRA 190 (2000).
[17] See People
v. Matugas, G.R. Nos. 139698-726,
February 20, 2002.
[18]
People v. Sancha, 324 SCRA 663 (2000); People v. Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998).
[19]
People v.
Escaño, G.R. Nos. 140218-23, Feb. 13, 2002.
[20] E.g., People v. De la Torre, 272 SCRA 615 (1997); People v. Guamos, 241 SCRA 528 (1995).
[21] See People v. Dela Torre, 272 SCRA 615 (1997).
[22]
People v. Diopita, 346 SCRA 794 (2000).
[23]
People v. Barera, 262 SCRA 63 (1996).
[24]
People v. Ulgasan, 335 SCRA 441 (2000) citing People v. Paragua,
257 SCRA 118 (1996); People v.
Igdanes, 272 SCRA 113 (1997).
[25]
Art. 2230 of the Civil Code provides that “In criminal offenses, exemplary damages
as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to
the offended party.”
[26]
People v. Mitra, 328 SCRA 774 (2000).
[27]
People v. Mendi, 352 SCRA 23 (2001); People v.
Liban, 345 SCRA 453 (2000).
[28]
People v. Nubla, 358 SCRA 735 (2001).