THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSEFINO G. SELFAISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Selfaison

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Josefino Selfaison and three companions for the complex crime of robbery with rape, committed against two young women who had boarded the passenger truck that Selfaison was driving. The trial court convicted Selfaison of robbery with rape and his three co-accused of rape, and all four appealed. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one decision, the settled rules on the weight of the victim's lone testimony in rape, the sufficiency of medical findings even without spermatozoa, the treatment of alibi against positive identification, the effect of minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony, and the propriety of an indeterminate penalty where aggravating circumstances attend the crime.

Procedural History

The two complainants first filed separate complaints for robbery with rape in the Justice of the Peace Court of Nabas, which conducted the preliminary investigation and issued warrants of arrest. After the records were elevated to the Court of First Instance of Capiz, the provincial fiscal filed the corresponding informations, and on motion of the defense the cases were consolidated under one amended information. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Capiz found Josefino Selfaison guilty of robbery with rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with an order to indemnify the complainants and to pay a share of the costs. It found Nemesio Dalisay, Domingo Ureta and Bernardo Bautista guilty of rape and sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years of prision mayor to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, plus proportionate costs. The four convicted accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, but because of the penalty imposed, that court certified the case to the Supreme Court, which decided it on appeal.

Facts

On the sixth of April, 1954, Angelina Maghibon, nineteen years old, and Angelita Sinag, sixteen, both of Nabas, Capiz, boarded a ship bound for Capiz, carrying their savings from three years of work as housemaids in Manila. On the afternoon of the following day they arrived at the port of New Washington, where they met an old acquaintance, Josefino Selfaison, and boarded the passenger truck he was driving toward Nabas. At barrio Ondoy he stopped at his house and returned with four men who rode on top of the truck. When the girls asked to be taken to their respective barrios, Selfaison demanded an additional fare of five pesos each; they paid, and he saw them draw the money from bundles of bills hidden in their garments.

Near ten o'clock that evening the truck reached the poblacion of Nabas, where Arsenio Amacio boarded. After discharging the other lady passengers, Selfaison turned the truck back toward Ondoy. The girls protested, but he drove fast, saying he had to get something from his house. At an isolated and mountainous place he suddenly stopped. The men forced the girls down. Angelita was pinned to the ground by Reynaldo Bautista and Domingo Ureta while Amrafil Dalisay held her leg, and Selfaison had intercourse with her; he then took her remaining two hundred pesos and slapped her. The others took turns raping her. Angelina suffered the same ordeal at the hands of Nemesio Dalisay, Arsenio Amacio, Bernardo Bautista and finally Selfaison, who afterwards took her money amounting to one hundred five pesos.

Selfaison then demanded the key to Angelita's trunk; when she refused, he broke it open with a stone and took dress materials, biscuits and oranges. He drove the girls back to Nabas and threatened them with death if they spoke. The next morning Angelita reported the incident. A constabulary officer brought the girls to the municipal building, where they identified Selfaison, who was heard to say that the devil must have entered his head. Medical examinations showed recent laceration of the hymen and contusions on Angelina, and slight laceration on Angelita. The accused set up alibi, which the trial court discredited, and they were convicted.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite their defense of alibi and their claim that the complainants could not have identified them in the excitement of the moment.
• Whether or not rape was established despite the absence of spermatozoa in the medical examinations.
• Whether or not the complainants' testimony, uncorroborated and marked by minor inconsistencies, can sustain a conviction for rape.
• Whether or not the warrants of arrest were illegally issued because no amended complaints were actually filed after the justice of the peace court granted the motion to correct the names of the accused.
• Whether or not the accused were deprived of their right to preliminary investigation.
• Whether or not the penalties imposed, including the award of indemnity, were in accordance with law.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, provides:

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have been inflicted.

This is the provision under which Selfaison was convicted of the complex crime of robbery with rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by the offended parties, who knew Selfaison from a previous ride and who constantly saw the conductor and the washing during the whole trip, and who had ample opportunity to scrutinize the faces of their attackers during the carnal acts. It rejected the argument that the excitement of the moment prevented identification, observing that it is a natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to know the identity of their assailants, and that the manner in which the crime was committed creates a lasting impression.

On the second issue, the Court held that the absence of spermatozoa does not mean that no rape occurred, since the very authority cited by the defense states that such absence does not necessarily mean that the girl has not had sexual intercourse. It stressed that in the crime of rape the slightest penetration is enough, and that the recent lacerations and contusions sufficiently show that the copulative act was performed by force and violence. It added that a medical examination is not even necessary, and that it is not improbable that the complainants washed themselves to avoid conception.

On the third issue, the Court held that in crimes of rape the sole testimony of the offended party is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and that the alleged inconsistencies existed only in minor details and, far from detracting from credibility, tended to bolster the probative value of the testimony.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the failure to file amended complaints anew was not a reversible error, since no substantial right of the accused was prejudiced and there was never any doubt as to who were meant to be accused.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that nothing affirmatively appeared on the record that no preliminary investigation had been had, that it is presumed the inferior court proceeded in accordance with law, and that at any rate the accused waived the right by filing bonds and proceeding to trial without previously claiming its absence.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the crime committed by Selfaison is robbery with rape, and considering the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity, use of a motor vehicle and superior force, the penalty of reclusion perpetua plus restitution is in accordance with law. As to the other appellants, there being no showing that they took part or conspired in the robbery, they were correctly convicted of rape, and the indeterminate penalty imposed on them should likewise be affirmed. Following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the Court further sentenced all the appellants to indemnify, jointly and severally, each of the complainants in the sum of five thousand pesos.

Doctrine

First, alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the offended parties, especially where the victims had ample opportunity to scrutinize their assailants. Second, in rape the slightest penetration is enough, and the absence of spermatozoa does not negate the crime; recent lacerations and contusions, together with the evidence adduced, sufficiently show that the copulative act was performed by force and violence. Third, in crimes of rape the sole testimony of the offended party is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and minor inconsistencies in her testimony, far from destroying credibility, tend to bolster its probative value. Fourth, the failure to file amended complaints anew after a motion to correct the names of the accused is granted is not a reversible error where no substantial right of the accused is prejudiced. Fifth, the right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived where the accused files a bond and proceeds to trial without previously claiming that no preliminary investigation was had. Sixth, under Article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with rape carries the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, and where aggravating circumstances attend the crime without any mitigating circumstance to offset them, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is in accordance with law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction in all respects, with the modification that all the appellants were additionally ordered to indemnify, jointly and severally, each of the complainants in the sum of five thousand pesos, with costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that in rape the sole testimony of the offended party suffices, the slightest penetration is enough, and the absence of spermatozoa does not negate the crime. Examiners like to use this case on the sufficiency of the victim's lone testimony, on alibi against positive identification, and on the penalty for robbery with rape under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.