G.R. No. 147943. December 12, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICO B. BAGAUA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
in Criminal Case No. 646-T, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the private complainant AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The information reads:
That on or about May 31, 1997, in the Municipality of Piat,
Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused Rico B. Bagaua with lewd design and by the use
of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously hold the breast, embrace, kiss held the private parts and
have sexual intercourse with the offended party AAA against
her will.Contrary to law.[2]
When arraigned on January 13, 1998, accused-appellant entered a
negative plea. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered the
appealed judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, the court finds the
guilt of the accused Rico B. Bagaua of the crime of rape defined and
penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code to have been
duly established beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He is further sentenced
to pay the private complainant AAA the amount of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity ex-delicto plus the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages.SO ORDERED.[3]
The prosecution established the following facts:
On May 31,
1997 at around 9:00 in the morning, private complainant and her 5-year
old son, xxxxxxxxxxx, went to their farm about 200 meters away from
their house at Sta. Barbara, Piat, Cagayan to gather camote tops. On
their way to the farm, accused-appellant appeared and grabbed private
complainant from behind. He turned her around and embraced her. Private
complainant fought back but accused-appellant was too strong for her. He
hit her stomach causing her to fall on the ground. He undressed then
lay on top of her and removed her shorts and panties. He inserted his
penis into her vagina. She struggled but to no avail. All the while her
son was on the side shouting. After he satisfied his lust,
accused-appellant ran away. Private complainant likewise ran towards the
house of barangay captain Ramon Soriano and reported the incident. That
same day, she underwent medical and physical examination.
Dr.
Cecille C. Paragua, a resident physician at Nuestra Señora de Piat
District Hospital, reported the following results:
- Erythema at 3:00 o’clock position
- Hymenal Laceration at 3:00, 5:00-8:00 & 11:00 o’clock
position, old - Vaginal Smear (+) sperm.[4]
In his defense, accused-appellant admits that he embraced and
kissed the private complainant but denies having carnal knowledge of
her. He recalled that on May 31, 1997, at around 9:00 in the morning, he
saw her and xxxxxxxxxxx, her son, walking near the river bank. He
approached her and tried to embrace and kiss her but she resisted. He
then noticed that xxxxxxxxxxx was crying, so he stopped and went home. Later
that day, he was surprised when one of the barangay councilmen went to
their house and informed his father that AAA had charged him
with rape.
In his Brief, accused-appellant raises the following
assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
FACT THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT ON THE
BASIS OF THE INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS OF THE WITNESSES
FOR THE PROSECUTION.
Rape is a serious offense with grave consequences both for the
appellant and the complainant, hence the review of a judgment of
conviction for rape must be done with utmost care.[5] In reviewing rape cases, we are guided with
three settled principles, namely: (a) An accusation for rape can be made
with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
accused, though innocent, to disprove the same; (b) In view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution; and (c) 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.[6]
Challenging the evidence of the prosecution,
accused-appellant claims that although he embraced and kissed the
private complainant he did not have carnal knowledge of her. He further
contends that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt for
failure of the prosecution to prove the element of force or
intimidation. He argued that the trial court erred in basing its
judgment on the contradictory and inconsistent testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. Moreover, a careful reading of the testimony of xxxxxxxxxxx shows that there was no force employed upon the private
complainant. Private complainant’s testimony that she was hit on her
stomach by accused-appellant does not appear in her affidavit. Lastly,
the trial court’s finding that he was armed with a bolo is not supported
by the evidence on record.
Accused-appellant’s arguments entail a
re-examination of the credibility of the witnesses. The task of
determining the truth between the conflicting claims belongs to the
trial court, which had the unique opportunity to meet the witnesses face
to face and observe their demeanor on the stand. Hence, great reliance
is placed by appellate courts on the assessment made by the trial court
on the credibility of the witnesses.[7]
We find no reason to depart from the findings of facts of the trial
court.
The trial court found that the private complainant’s
testimony was clear, sincere, positive and credible,[8] and that she had no reason to falsely charge
accused-appellant of rape.[9]
She testified as follows:
PROS. REYES: Q. In the morning of May 31, 1997 at about 9:00
o’clock, where were you?A. We went to pick camote tops. Q. Who was your companion? A. My five (5) year old son named xxxxxxxxxxx. Q. You mean, your son is five (5) years old? A. Seven (7) years old now, sir. He was five (5) years old
then.Q. While gathering camote tops, where was your son? A. He was inside, sir. Q. And while gathering camote tops, what happened? A. Rico Bagaua suddenly appeared near us. Q. What did this Rico Bagaua do when he suddenly appeared? A. He embraced me, sir. Q. What part of your body did Rico Bagaua grab? A. Left side of my body, sir. Q. What particular part of your body? A. He took hold of my left back. Q. And what else did he do? A. He boxed me, sir. Q. What part of your body was boxed? A. My stomach, sir. Q. When Rico Bagaua grabbed you, what did you do? A. I fought back, sir. Q. Will you demonstrate how you fought back Rico Bagaua? A. We grappled with each other. Q. After that? A. When we were grappling, he warned me not to tell what
happened to my husband or else he will kill me and my son.Q. What was your position when he removed you short pant and
your panty?A. I fell on the ground and I was lying on my back. Q. All the while when this Rico Bagaua was doing this, what
was your son doing?A. He was shouting, sir. Q. When he was removing your shorts and your panty, what did
you do?A. I struggled, sir. Q. What happened next? A. He raped me. Q. What did you feel when Rico Bagaua was on the act of raping
you?A. I felt the penetration.[10]
The ordeal of the private complainant in the hands of
accused-appellant was rendered even more revolting since it was done in
the presence of her 5-year old son. xxxxxxxxxxx testified as follows:
Q. Do you remember one time your mother brought you
along when she went to gather camote tops?A. Yes, sir. Q. Does she usually bring you along when she gathers camote
tops?A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember one time when your mother brought you to
gather camote tops something happened?A. Yes, sir. Q. What was that something which happened? A. When we were going out of the cornfield, that’s the time
Rico Bagaua suddenly appeared.Q. Can you still remember what your mother was doing when Rico
Bagaua suddenly appeared?A. Yes, sir. Q. What was your mother doing at that time? A. She was picking-up camote tops, sir. Q. How about you, what were you doing at that time? A. I was playing, sir. Q.
tops and you were playing, Rico Bagaua suddenly appeared you said. When
Rico Bagaua appeared, what did he do if you still remember?A. He was walking in the cornfields, sir. Q. What did he do? A. He went towards where we were, sir. Q. Did Rico Bagaua do anything to your mother? ATTY. DARAN: May we object on that, your Honor. Very Leading. COURT: The Court motu-propio allowed leading questions
considering the tender age of the witness.ATTY. DARAN: Anyway the question was already answered. He told that Rico
Bagaua was just walking in the cornfields.COURT: Witness may answer. A. He went on top of my mother, sir. PROS. REYES: Q. Before he went on top of your mother, can you remember what
did he do?A. He removed the short pants of my mother, sir. Q. Did you see Rico Bagaua box your mother? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did he box your mother? A. Her stomach (The witness pointing his mid-section.) Q. And when Rico Bagaua boxed your mother what did your mother
do?A. She lost consciousness, sir. Q. Did you see the buttocks of Rico Bagaua? A. Yes, Sir. Q. What did he do with his buttocks? A. His buttocks was moving, sir.[11]
As against the foregoing testimonies, accused-appellant only raised
the defense of denial. It is well-settled that denial, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative
self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. Between the
positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses and the negative
averments of the accused, the former indisputably deserve more credence
and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight. Thus, the categorical
statements of the prosecution witnesses must prevail over the bare
denials of accused-appellant.[12]
The alleged inconsistencies cited by accused-appellant between the
testimonies of private complainant and her son are really minor in
character and insufficient to cast doubt on the said witnesses’
credibility. Worth noting is the fact that xxxxxxxxxxx was five years
old when the incident happened and seven years old when he testified in
court. Considering xxxxxxxxxxx’s tender age and the trauma he went through
after witnessing the sexual assault on her mother, he cannot be expected
to recall every detail of the incident.[13] In any event, we have time and again said that a few
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses
referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the central
fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses.
Instead of weakening their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to
strengthen their credibility because they discount the possibility of
their being rehearsed.[14]
As regards the alleged inconsistencies between private complainant’s
testimony and her sworn statement, we held in People v. Villadares[15] that these inconsistencies do
not impair the witness’ credibility as affidavits are taken ex parte
and are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack of or absence of
searching inquiries by the investigating officer.
Losing no time,
private complainant reported the incident to the barangay captain and
the police authorities; submitted herself to physical and medical
examination; and pursued zealously the case against the
accused-appellant. Settled is the rule that no woman would openly admit
that she was raped and consequently subject herself to an examination of
her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public
trial, and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in detail how she
was raped, if she was not raped at all.[16] Equally settled is the principle that when a woman says
that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape has been inflicted on her.[17]
Accused-appellant also contends that the findings
of the medical doctor who examined the private complainant do not prove
that there was rape. To be sure, a medical examination, standing alone,
is not sufficient to prove nor disprove the fact of rape[18] because it is merely
corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[19] Contrary to
accused-appellant’s contention, Dr. Cecille C. Paragua’s medical
findings corroborated private complainant’s claim that she was sexually
violated by accused-appellant. When the testimony of a rape victim is
consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant
a conclusion that essential requisites of carnal knowledge has thereby
been established.[20]
Finally, we agree with the accused-appellant that the trial court’s
finding that he was armed with a bolo was not supported by evidence on
record. Nevertheless, his conviction of the crime charged still stands
as the prosecution has sufficiently established his guilt with moral
certainty.
Anent the award of damages, the trial court correctly
awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as
moral damages. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact
of rape; it is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral
damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by
the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[21]
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan,
Branch 11, in Criminal Case No. 646-T, finding accused-appellant Rico
Bagaua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay the private complainant AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, is AFFIRMED. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Vitug,
and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., on official leave.
[1] Penned by Judge Orlando
D. Beltran.
[2] Rollo, p. 6.
[3] Rollo, p. 16.
[4] Records, p. 3.
[5] People v. Somodio,
G.R. Nos. 134139-40, February 15, 2002.
[6] People v. Ollamina,
G.R. No. 133185, February 6, 2002.
[7] People v. Bartolome,
G.R. No. 138365, April 16, 2002.
[8] Record, p. 94.
[9] Ibid.
[10] TSN, March 2, 1999,
pp. 3-5.
[11] TSN, April 14,
1999, pp. 3-8.
[12] People v. Baroy,
G.R. Nos. 137520-22, May 9, 2002.
[13] People v. Balano,
355 SCRA 627, 638 [2001].
[14] People v. Givera,
349 SCRA 513, 530 [2001].
[15] 354 SCRA 86, 96
[2001].
[16] People v. Arofo,
G.R. No. 139433, April 11, 2002.
[17] People v. Villaruel,
G.R. No. 135401, March 6, 2002.
[18] People v. Sandoval,
348 SCRA 476, 486 [2000].
[19] People v.
Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 142561-62, February 15, 2002.
[20] See note 1, supra.
[21] People v.
Padrigone, G.R. No. 137664, May 9, 2002.