PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JOSE HENRY ROBLES y NUDO, Appellant.

People versus Robles

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Jose Henry Robles, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape. The accused was charged in fifty-four separate informations with raping his fourteen-year-old niece, identified in the record only as AAA, on each day from the first until the twenty-seventh of August 2002. The trial court convicted him of only one count, the rape committed on the first of August, and acquitted him of the remaining fifty-three. The case matters for the bar candidate because it gathers in one decision the settled rules on credibility in rape prosecutions: the weight given to the testimony of a child victim, the treatment of minor inconsistencies, the weakness of denial and alibi, and the effect of an acquittal on the other counts.

Procedural History

Fifty-four informations for qualified rape were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. The accused pleaded not guilty to all of them. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, in a decision dated the twenty-seventh of September 2004, convicted him of one count of simple rape and acquitted him of the other fifty-three charges on reasonable doubt. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning two errors that were both factual in nature: that the trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the private complainant, and that it gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction. The accused then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, which decided the appeal on the twenty-eighth of March 2008.

Facts

On the twenty-ninth of July 2002, AAA went to stay in the house of the accused because her own family home in Floodway, Pasig City was flooded. The accused is her uncle, the brother of her mother. His wife was working abroad, and he lived with his ten-year-old son and a housekeeper. AAA slept in one of the two rooms upstairs together with the accused and his son.

AAA testified that she was first raped on the first of August 2002. At around five o'clock in the afternoon, while she was resting after school, the accused entered the room wearing only his briefs, woke her, and asked her to have sex with him. When she refused and sat up in fear, he pulled her down, undressed her, and threatened to maul her. He showed her a thirty-eight caliber pistol and placed it at her side as he had intercourse with her. She cried in pain but could not resist or shout. Afterward, he told her not to tell anyone. She locked herself in the bathroom and took a bath, feeling pain and noticing blood. She testified that the accused had sexual intercourse with her every day from that first rape until the twenty-seventh of August 2002, threatening to kill her and her mother, and watching her on her way to and from school.

The rapes came to light when a relative who had stayed briefly in the house noticed that the accused treated AAA as his wife, confronted her, and was told of the rapes. The news reached AAA's mother, who confirmed it from AAA herself and sought help from the Department of Social Welfare and Development. By then the accused had already been arrested on similar complaints filed by three of his other nieces. A medico-legal examination showed a non-virgin physical state. The defense presented only the accused, who denied the charges, claimed that AAA never stayed in his house, and set up alibi and denial.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the complainant AAA.
• Whether or not the accused was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the rape committed on the first of August 2002 despite the alleged weakness of the prosecution's evidence.
• Whether or not the accused's acquittal of the other fifty-three charges of rape entitles him to acquittal on the single count on which he was convicted.
• Whether or not AAA is entitled to exemplary damages in addition to civil indemnity and moral damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.

This provision supplies the penalty and the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship, which the trial court held was not proven because the birth certificate of AAA was never offered in evidence, so that only simple rape was established and reclusion perpetua was imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no cogent reason to disturb the finding of guilt. The task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court, which forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies before it, and positive testimony prevails over negative testimony. The Court restated the three settled principles in the prosecution of rape: that an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even more difficult to disprove; that the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with utmost caution; and that the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. Applying these, the Court found AAA's testimony clear and candid, and held that if a complainant's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the sole basis thereof. It recalled the rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the accused's reliance on minor inconsistencies, namely AAA's confusion as to whether the rape occurred in the morning or the afternoon and her failure to mention the gun in her sworn statement. Minor inconsistencies in rape cases will not necessarily derail the testimony of the offended party, because rape victims cannot be expected to be errorless in recounting the details of a harrowing experience, and such inconsistencies in fact tend to bolster the testimony. Against this, the accused offered only denial and alibi, which are self-serving and inherently weak, and he failed to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime.

On the third issue, the Court held that the acquittal on the other fifty-three charges did not benefit the accused on the single count. As the Court of Appeals observed, if not for double jeopardy the accused could have been convicted of more than one rape, but the trial court's judgment did not negate the presence of sexual acts; it merely found that only the first instance was attended by intimidation. The acquittal on the succeeding charges rested on a different ratio and could not apply to the first charge.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that in addition to the fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and another fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, AAA is entitled to twenty-five thousand pesos as exemplary damages, because relationship in this case justifies the award.

Doctrine

A conviction for rape may rest solely on the credible testimony of the complainant, and the testimony of a child victim is given full weight and credit. When a woman, more so a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. Minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony do not destroy credibility but tend to bolster it, for a rape victim cannot be expected to be errorless in recounting a harrowing experience. Denial and alibi are inherently weak, self-serving defenses that cannot prevail over positive identification, especially where the accused fails to prove the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis. An acquittal on some counts of rape does not entitle the accused to acquittal on a count where the qualifying circumstance of Article 266-B was not proven but the elements of simple rape were established beyond reasonable doubt.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and the accused was ordered to pay AAA an additional twenty-five thousand pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

Memorize the line that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. Examiners use this case to test credibility rules in rape prosecutions, the treatment of minor inconsistencies, the weakness of denial and alibi, and the rule that an acquittal on some counts does not bar conviction on another count where the elements of simple rape are proven.