PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, GILBERT MALLARI y TAYAG, Appellant.

People versus Mallari

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Gilbert Mallari y Tayag for the crime of rape, committed, as the prosecution charged, by forcibly taking the complainant aboard a motor vehicle and having sexual intercourse with her against her will. The accused admitted the sexual act but insisted that it was voluntary. The case matters for the Bar candidate because it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals on appeal, and of the penalties and damages that follow a conviction for simple rape.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 25. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with an order to pay the complainant fifty thousand pesos as moral damages and to pay the costs of suit.

The accused elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the findings and the ruling of the trial court, modifying only the award of damages by adding civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos. The case then reached the Supreme Court on appeal, and the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Facts

On or about the twenty-eighth of August, 1994, the complainant was walking alone along Barlin Street in Naga City. The accused, using a motor vehicle, took her and carried her away against her will.

Once he had her in his possession, the accused employed force, violence, intimidation and threats, and used a bladed weapon, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. The complainant testified that she feared the accused because he was armed with a fan knife, and that he kept threatening to kill her and to chop up her cadaver if she did not obey him. For these reasons she offered no resistance, and the accused succeeded in carrying out his design.

For his defense, the accused asserted that the complainant voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse with him. The trial court rejected this defense and found the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, should be disturbed on appeal.
• Whether or not the accused is liable for civil indemnity and moral damages, and in what amounts.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, defines rape and fixes its penalty, and it is the provision under which the trial court convicted the accused:

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. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

This provision bears on the case because the conviction rests on the first circumstance, the use of force or intimidation, and because it supplies the penalty of reclusion perpetua that the courts imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt. The records were replete with evidence, and the Court found no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

On the second issue, the Court declined to review the factual findings of the lower courts. The trial court had credited the testimony of the complainant, who explained that she feared the accused because he was armed with a fan knife and because he threatened to kill her and to chop up her cadaver if she disobeyed. Her failure to resist was therefore not consent, and the defense of voluntary sexual intercourse was rejected.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the award of fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, following the modification already made by the Court of Appeals.

Doctrine

First, rape is committed when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman by using force or intimidation, and it is punished by reclusion perpetua. Second, the findings of fact of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and are not disturbed on appeal absent a showing of facts or circumstances the lower courts overlooked. Third, a victim's failure to offer resistance does not amount to consent where it proceeds from fear created by a deadly weapon and by threats to her life. Fourth, a conviction for simple rape carries reclusion perpetua, together with civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos and moral damages of fifty thousand pesos.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding the accused guilty of simple rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the complainant fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, with costs against him.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that fear induced by a bladed weapon and by threats to kill is intimidation, and the absence of resistance is not consent. Examiners use this case to test the deference given to the factual findings of the trial court and the correct award of civil indemnity and moral damages in a conviction for simple rape.