PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICHARD SULIMA Y GALLANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Sulima

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Richard Sulima y Gallano for the crime of rape committed against a fourteen-year-old girl, referred to in the decision as AAA, by means of force and intimidation. The accused denied the charge and set up alibi, and the case turns almost entirely on the credibility of the young complainant's testimony. It matters to the reviewee because it gathers, in one decision, the Court's settled rules on how rape charges are reviewed, on the unimportance of resistance, on the wide range of reactions of rape victims, and on the weakness of denial and alibi against a positive identification.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 260. Upon arraignment, assisted by counsel de oficio, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial court rendered its decision on 1 February 2006, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the victim 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages.

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. In his brief, he assigned two errors: that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him when his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the contradictory evidence of the prosecution. On 16 January 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming the trial court in toto. The accused then filed a notice of appeal, and the Court of Appeals forwarded the records to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs; the Office of the Solicitor General complied, while the accused filed a manifestation adopting his appellant's brief as his supplemental brief. The case thus reached the Supreme Court by appeal.

Facts

On Christmas Day in 1999, AAA, then fourteen years old, was outside her house with her father and older sister when the accused arrived, introduced himself, and invited her father for a drink. Her father first declined, but accepted when told that other friends were also invited. AAA had thus seen the accused before the incident.

At around midnight of 13 January 2000, AAA was asleep inside their house with her younger siblings, aged one, three, five, and seven. Her father was in the hospital attending to her mother, who was about to give birth. AAA was awakened by the weight of a person on top of her. The man threatened to kill her if she shouted, so out of fear she did not shout. He undressed her and succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. After a moment he stood up and again inserted his penis into her vagina, again threatening to kill her if she did not submit. He then stood up and went out of the house. AAA vividly recognized him as the accused because of the light coming from the post outside their house.

When her father arrived at around three o'clock in the morning of 14 January 2000, AAA told him she had been raped by the accused. They immediately went out to look for him but did not find him. On the evening of 14 January 2000, AAA and her father reported the matter to a barangay tanod, who accompanied them to the barangay hall, where the barangay chairman took AAA's statements. On their way home they saw the accused in a gambling house; he was fetched and brought to the barangay hall, where AAA identified him. On 15 January 2000, the accused was brought to the police station, and AAA executed a sworn statement identifying him. She was then examined at the national police crime laboratory. The medico-legal report noted contusions on her right arm and a shallow fresh laceration of the hymen, with smears positive for spermatozoa, and concluded that the findings were compatible with recent sexual intercourse. For the defense, a neighbor testified, and the accused denied the charge and claimed alibi, saying he was resting at home on the night in question.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, given his challenge to the credibility of the victim's testimony.
• Whether or not the victim's failure to resist or to shout, and her conduct after the rape, render her testimony incredible.
• Whether or not the alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, and its supposed conflict with her father's testimony and the medical report, destroy her credibility.
• Whether or not the defenses of denial and alibi can prevail over the positive identification by the victim.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime and its modes:

Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. Rape is committed: 1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat or intimidation.

The charge against the accused rests on carnal knowledge through force, threat, or intimidation, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code fixes the penalty:

Article 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

This is the penalty imposed by both lower courts and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It began with the three guiding principles in the review of rape cases: that an accusation of rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, and is more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; that the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and that the prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own merits. It added that no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule unless she had truly been a victim. The primordial consideration is the credibility of the complainant's testimony. The Court gave great weight to the trial court's assessment of credibility, since the trial court heard the witnesses and observed their deportment, and found no reason to disturb the finding that AAA's testimony was positive, straightforward, and truthful, with the details of the incident given without flourish and innuendo.

On the second issue, the Court held that the victim's failure to offer resistance was of no moment. Resistance is not an element of rape and need not be established by the prosecution, and the failure to shout or to offer tenacious resistance does not make the sexual congress voluntary, because rape victims have no uniform reaction. AAA was cowed into submission by the threat to kill her, and at fourteen years of age such a threat was sufficient to produce fear. Her failure to wake her young siblings was understandable, since the children were incapable of protecting her and their safety might be endangered. As to her conduct after the crime, the Court held that there is no standard form of behavior anticipated of a rape victim, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult.

On the third issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies were illusory. The supposed contradiction on whether her father came from work or from the hospital pertained to a matter extraneous to the crime of rape and did not detract from the fact that AAA had been sexually defiled. The Court also quoted the appellate court's explanation that a witness may contradict himself on the circumstances of an act after a long series of questions on cross-examination, especially where the questions are leading.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim. For alibi to prosper, it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis, and here the accused admitted that his residence was just thirty houses away from that of AAA. The Court also noted that his defenses ran counter to his own argument that the sex was consensual. It affirmed the award of 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, which is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and 50,000 pesos as moral damages, which need no showing of the trauma suffered.

Doctrine

First, in reviewing rape cases the Court is guided by three principles: an accusation of rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, and is more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and the prosecution's evidence must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Second, when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, and the primordial consideration is the credibility of her testimony. Third, resistance is not an element of rape under Article 266-A, and the failure to shout or to resist does not make the sexual congress voluntary, since rape victims have no uniform reaction. Fourth, there is no standard form of behavior for a rape victim after her defilement. Fifth, denial and alibi are inherently weak and cannot prevail over a positive identification, and alibi prospers only where it is sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis. Sixth, civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape, and moral damages are awarded without need of proof of the suffering.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos as moral damages.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that resistance is not an element of rape, and that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Examiners use this case to test the review of rape convictions on credibility, the irrelevance of the victim's lack of resistance and post-crime behavior, and the weakness of denial and alibi against positive identification.