PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VAL DELOS REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Delos Reyes

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Val Delos Reyes for three counts of rape committed against a young woman on a single afternoon and evening in December 1994 in Tabaco, Albay. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of the complainant by force and intimidation, after she was rendered almost unconscious by being forced to drink beer. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it is a working illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of a rape victim, the weight of minor inconsistencies between her sworn statement and her testimony in open court, and the corroborative value of medical findings. Second, it shows how the Court corrects the penalty and the damages even while affirming a conviction, applying the law that abolished the death penalty.

Procedural History

Three informations for rape were filed against Delos Reyes and his co-accused Donel Go. The cases were raffled to two branches of the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco City, Albay, and were later consolidated in one branch. Delos Reyes was at large at the time, so only Go was arraigned. Go jumped bail and was tried in absentia, and the trial court convicted him of two counts of rape. The cases against Delos Reyes were archived, and were revived after he was apprehended in August 1997. He pleaded not guilty to all three charges. The cases were then transferred to a branch designated as a special court for heinous crimes.

In its joint judgment of February 1999, the trial court found Delos Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua in each case. His motion for reconsideration was denied, and his appeal reached the Court of Appeals. On the first review, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution witnesses had merely affirmed their testimonies given in the earlier trial of Go, and that this violated the accused's constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. The Court vacated the judgment, set aside the exhibits, and remanded the cases for a rehearing of the testimonies of the complainant, her mother, her sister, and the examining physician.

After the rehearing, the trial court rendered a new joint decision in June 2005, again convicting Delos Reyes of three counts of rape, this time imposing the death penalty in each case and awarding fifty thousand pesos as damages for each count. Delos Reyes appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction in December 2006 but reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua pursuant to the law abolishing the death penalty, while maintaining the award of civil indemnity and granting moral damages of fifty thousand pesos. His appeal then reached the Supreme Court for final review.

Facts

On December 22, 1994, at around four o'clock in the afternoon, the complainant, referred to in the record as AAA, was asked by her sister to deliver baptismal pictures to Donel Go, a godfather at the christening. She rode a tricycle, dropped her sister at the bus terminal, and proceeded to Go's house in San Roque, Tabaco City. She found Go by the roadside talking to a man later introduced to her as Val Delos Reyes. A sudden downpour came, and on Go's invitation she took shelter inside his house. She noticed that nobody else was there, and when she tried to leave despite the rain, Go forcibly pulled her back.

Delos Reyes then joined them carrying two bottles of beer. He poured the beer and both men urged AAA to drink. When she refused, Delos Reyes pinched her nose while Go forced her mouth open, and they succeeded in pouring beer into her mouth. She soon felt weak and dizzy and suspected the beer had been laced with something. Delos Reyes then brought her to a construction site near the house, made her lie on some lumber, undressed her, squeezed her neck when she shouted for help, bit her breast and neck, and raped her. Go later arrived and helped dress her, and she was brought inside the bedroom, where Go raped her while Delos Reyes restrained her hands and pressed her neck. After Go was done, Delos Reyes raped her a second time while Go held her hands and neck. She fell unconscious, and when she regained consciousness she was already dressed. The two men brought her home on a tricycle and warned her not to tell anyone, threatening to kill her.

Too weak and frightened to speak, AAA stayed in bed for two days. On December 24, 1994, she noticed hematomas, contusions, and bruises on her body, a bloodied panty with the garter detached, and a broken wristwatch. When her mother confronted her about her strange behavior, she disclosed her ordeal. They went to the police station, had the incident entered in the barangay blotter, and had her medically examined. The physician found healed hymenal lacerations and concluded that physical virginity had been lost. The defense presented the accused himself and several witnesses, including a meteorologist who testified that there were only intermittent rains that day, and the accused claimed that AAA had asked him to marry her after being beaten by her sister. The trial court convicted him, and the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the conviction despite the alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's evidence.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the conviction of the accused for an offense not charged in the complaint.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not giving weight to the evidence of the defense.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines and penalizes rape, and provides:

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 charged and convicted, and the Court measured the evidence against its elements of carnal knowledge through force and intimidation.

Republic Act Number 9346, which abolished the death penalty, provides:

Section 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of reclusion temporal, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

This is the law the Court of Appeals applied when it reduced the death penalty to reclusion perpetua, and which the Supreme Court sustained.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. It held that where a decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the trial court's observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, absent facts or circumstances of material weight that the lower court overlooked or misappreciated. The Court found the testimony of AAA on the elements of rape, committed on three separate occasions through force and intimidation after she was rendered almost unconscious, to be clear, categorical, and positive. It stressed that a candid narration by a rape victim deserves credence, particularly where no ill motive is attributed to her that would make her testify falsely, for no woman in her right mind would admit to having been raped and subject herself and her family to humiliation unless the charges are true.

On the alleged inconsistencies between her sworn statement and her testimony in court, the Court held that these referred only to minor details and collateral matters and did not affect the substance of her declarations. It noted that more than ten years had elapsed from the incident to her last testimony, and that an affidavit, being taken ex parte, is almost always incomplete and inaccurate and is generally inferior to testimony given in open court, which is subject to cross-examination. The Court also found the forensic evidence of old hymenal lacerations corroborative of her claim, and rejected the suggestion that the bite marks indicated sexual foreplay rather than force. It likewise found it hard to reconcile the defense claim that Go and AAA were sweethearts with the claim that she demanded that the accused marry her, and quoted with affirmation the trial court's observation that a woman of good repute would not be linked so swiftly to two men she barely knew.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the conviction for the offense charged, as the informations alleged carnal knowledge through force and intimidation and rendering the complainant almost unconscious by forcing her to drink beer, which are the very elements established by the evidence.

On the third issue, the Court declined to give weight to the defense evidence, finding no reason to deviate from the general rule on credibility and no ill motive on the part of the complainant that would taint her testimony.

Doctrine

First, when a conviction hinges on the credibility of witnesses, the trial court's findings are accorded great respect and finality, unless the records show material facts the lower court overlooked that would alter the result. Second, a candid and positive testimony of a rape victim on the elements of the crime deserves credence, especially where no ill motive is shown, for no woman would knowingly and falsely expose herself and her family to the shame of a rape prosecution. Third, inconsistencies between a sworn statement and testimony in open court that refer only to minor details and collateral matters do not impair credibility, because an affidavit taken ex parte is almost always incomplete and inferior to testimony tested by cross-examination. Fourth, medical findings of hymenal lacerations corroborate a claim of sexual assault. Fifth, under Republic Act Number 9346, the death penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua where the law violated uses the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code, as in rape under Article 335.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting Val Delos Reyes of three counts of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count, with the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages sustained.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a candid narration by a rape victim deserves credence, and minor inconsistencies between her affidavit and her testimony in open court do not destroy her credibility. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy of evidence between an ex parte affidavit and testimony in open court, the weight given to a rape victim's testimony, and the application of Republic Act Number 9346 in reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua.