G.R. No. 240421. November 16, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LORETO TALMESA Y BAGAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
INTING, J.:
dated April 26, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
01666-MIN. The assailed CA Decision affirmed the Decision[3] dated January 17, 2017 of Branch 26, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Surallah, South Cotabato finding Loreto Talmesa y
Bagan (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8353.[4]
The Antecedents
This case stemmed from an Information[5] filed before the RTC charging accused-appellant with Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, to wit:
That on or about the 21st day of December 2011, at around 10:30 o’clock in the evening, in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Province of South Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and violence,
have carnal knowledge of the herein victim, [AAA],[6] then seventeen (17) years old, against her will and without her consent.CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
Accused-appellant, with the assistance of his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.[8] Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses the following: (1) AAA, the
minor victim; (2) BBB, AAA’s uncle; (3) Police Officer III Ronald
Garcia, the investigator assigned to the case; and (4) Dr. Mila G.
Quinton, MD (Dr. Quinton), the physician who examined AAA after the rape
incident.[9]
AAA was 17 years old at the time of the rape incident. Accused-appellant and AAA reside in the same barangay. AAA is very familiar with accused-appellant because she would see him every time she goes to work.[10]
According to AAA, on December 21, 2011, at around 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., she was at the shed of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
waiting for her father to fetch her. Accused-appellant asked AAA who
she was waiting for; she replied that she was waiting for her father.
Accused-appellant then left. As AAA’s father did not arrive and it was
already 10:30 p.m., AAA decided to go home. While she was walking on her
way home, a person suddenly covered her mouth and pulled her from
behind. She immediately turned to see the person and saw
accused-appellant’s face through the light coming from her cellphone
that she held above her head. While accused-appellant was holding her,
AAA struggled to free herself. Accused-appellant dragged her towards the
middle of the rice field. As accused-appellant was much bigger, AAA
struggled to free herself from accused-appellant, causing her to fall.
While she was lying on the muddy ground, accused-appellant sat on her
knees and repeatedly punched her on the face and lower parts of her
body. AAA tried to evade the blows by covering her face, but she could
not do anything.[11]
Thereafter, accused-appellant forcibly removed AAA’s pants and
underwear and tried to kiss her. AAA evaded accused-appellant’s
attempts and pushed his head away from her. Accused-appellant, who was
naked at that time, spread AAA’s legs and inserted a part of his penis
into her vagina. AAA kept on kicking accused-appellant causing his penis
to be removed from her vagina. This enraged accused-appellant. He
punched her on her stomach, abdomen, head, and neck several times. AAA
retaliated by biting accused-appellant’s hand. She also shouted for
help. Accused-appellant punched her again on the head and abdomen until
she nearly lost consciousness. Then, AAA heard a motorcycle approaching
the rice field making accused-appellant to run away from the scene. AAA
slowly crawled her way out from the muddy rice field towards the road
and asked for help. Upon reaching the road, AAA saw the motorcycle. She
waved her hand and shouted for help. The persons on board the motorcycle
saw her and helped her. BBB was one of the three persons on board the
motorcycle. After asking AAA what happened to her, BBB gave his shawl to
her to cover the lower part of her naked body. In no time, BBB brought
AAA to the police station and thereafter to the hospital for treatment.[12]
Dr. Quinton, the attending physician of AAA, testified that on December
22, 2011, AAA was brought to the hospital shivering, wearing a blouse,
but no lower clothes. When she examined AAA, she found the following:
(1) multiple abrasions in AAA’s neck and face; (2) contusion on the
upper lip; (3) hemorrhages on both eyes; (4) contused abrasion on her
upper labia minora; and (4) fresh lacerated wound in the hymen.[13]
For his part, accused-appellant denied the allegations against him. He
claimed that at around 6:00 p.m. of December 21, 2011, after having
dinner with his wife and one Jose Regidor, he drank half a bottle of
Tanduay and went to sleep at 9:00 that evening. At around 6:00 a.m. the
following day, while drinking his coffee, four police officers
approached and asked him whether he noticed something odd the previous
night. Accused-appellant told them that the dogs were barking that night
The police officers invited him to the police station to get his
statements. He agreed and freely went with the police officers. However,
he was instead brought to a hospital where he was presented before AAA
who was asked whether he was the one who raped her. AAA just looked at
him and sat down. AAA did not point to him as the one who raped her. The
police officers told accused-appellant to board the patrol car and that
they would go home. However, he was not brought home, but to the police
station where one of the police officers pushed him inside the jail.
Upon the instruction of a police officer, the detainees inside mauled
him.[14]
The RTC Ruling
In the Decision[15]
dated January 17, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined in paragraph 1(a),
Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended. The RTC sentenced him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
On April 26, 2018, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling.
Hence, the instant appeal.
The parties adopted their respective Appellant’s and Appellee’s Briefs
filed before the CA as their respective Supplemental Briefs before the
Court. [16]
In his appeal, accused-appellant raised the following grounds questioning his conviction before the lower courts:
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
Well settled is the rule that the
matter of ascribing substance to the testimonies of witnesses is best
discharged by the trial court, and the appellate courts will not
generally disturb the findings of the trial court in this respect.[17]
Findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which
involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, if not
finality by the appellate court, when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported
conclusions can be gathered from such findings.[18]
The reason is quite simple: the trial judge is in a better position to
ascertain the conflicting testimonies of witnesses after having heard
them and observed their deportment and mode of testifying during the
trial.[19] The task of taking on the issue of credibility is a function properly lodged with the trial court.[20] Thus, generally, the Court will not reexamine or reevaluate evidence that had been analyzed and ruled upon by the trial court.
After a judicious perusal of the records of the instant appeal, the
Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the uniform factual
findings of the RTC and the CA. The Court affirms accused-appellant’s
conviction.
|
All the elements of the crime of rape are present.
|
Accused-appellant is indicted for rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, which provides as follows:
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. – Rape is committed —
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
x x x
Under paragraph 1(a), Article 266-A, the elements of rape are: (1)
that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such
act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.[21] Here, the prosecution had established beyond moral certainty these elements.
AAA categorically asserted that accused-appellant inserted part of his penis into her vagina.[22]
Evidence further reveals that accused-appellant employed force to
satisfy his lust as evinced by the following: AAA vividly recalled that
accused-appellant dragged her towards the middle of the rice field[23] and while she was on the ground, accused-appellant punched her on her face, head, neck, abdomen, and lower parts of her body.[24]
Her statements were corroborated by the medical findings of Dr.
Quinton, who testified that AAA suffered multiple abrasions on her face
and neck; contusions on her upper lip, nose and left cheek; and
conjunctival hemorrhage in both eyes.[25]
|
The identity of accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
|
AAA positively identified accused-appellant as her assailant; thus:
Direct Examination by Fiscal Jesse S. Villegas:
cell phone to your testimony that you were able to recognize the
identity of the person?
shed and I was raising my cell phone on top of my head, and the light of
that cell phone illuminated him, that is why I was able to recognize
him.
Cross-Examination by Atty. Fermin D. Ondoy:
|
The credibility of the private complainant as a witness.
|
Accused-appellant seeks to demolish AAA’s testimony by claiming
that her testimony is full of inconsistencies. He insists that AAA could
not have turned her face towards him and see his face because she
herself stated that the perpetrator tightly grabbed her from behind so
that she could not move. Accused-appellant further contends that AAA
mentioned in her sworn statement that the perpetrator allegedly made a
push and pull movement. However, AAA failed to state this act during the
direct examination. Thus, according to accused-appellant, AAA’s
statements are incredible.
The Court is not convinced.
There are no material
inconsistencies in AAA’s statements. While AAA may not have been able to
move her entire body when accused-appellant dragged her to the rice
field, it is not impossible for her to turn her head and see
accused-appellant’s face. As testified by AAA, she was able to see
accused-appellant’s face through the light from her cellphone when she
turned her head while being dragged by accused-appellant to the rice
field.[31]
Moreover, it
is inconsequential that AAA did not mention during the direct
examination that accused-appellant made push and pull movements. What is
material is that AAA categotically testified that accused-appellant was
able to forcibly insert part of his penis into her vagina.
Certainly, the claimed inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony are not of a
nature that would impair AAA’s credibility as a witness. They do not
touch upon the elements of the crime of Rape. They are minor details
which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime and cannot be
considered grounds for accused-appellant’s acquittal.
Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies are expected in a rape victim’s testimony.[32] Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail.[33]
Such an offense is not analogous to a person’s achievement or
accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is
something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon
the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and
subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be
expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the
traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone.[34]
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, found AAA’s testimony credible. The
Court finds no reason to rule otherwise considering that AAA’s narration
is clear, spontaneous, and straightforward.
Furthermore,
testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for when a
woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect
all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.[35] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[36]
No young woman would admit that she was raped, make public the offense
and allow the examination of het private parts, undergo the troubles and
humiliation of a public trial and endure the ordeal of testifying to
all the gory details, if she had not in fact been raped.[37]
|
Accused-appellant’s assertion of unlawful arrest.
|
Accused-appellant argues that his warrantless arrest when he was brought to the hospital by the police officers is illegal.
The Court is not persuaded.
Records show that the police officers merely invited accused-appellant to go with them and that he voluntarily agreed.[38]
This was corroborated by accused-appellant’s wife, who testified that
accused-appellant freely went with the police officers to the police
station.[39]
Also, even in gratia argumenti that the arrest was illegal, the objection to the illegality of the arrest has already been waived. In Lapi v. People[40] the Court said:
The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a
warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he
enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. We have also
ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of
his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information
against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest
affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured
when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. We
have also held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of an
accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such
arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.[41]
In the case at bench, accused-appellant went into arraignment,
pleaded not guilty, and actively participated in the trial. He only
raised the issue of the validity of his arrest before the CA. He never
questioned the legality of his arrest before the arraignment. He is,
therefore, deemed to have waived any alleged irregularity in his arrest
when he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court through his
counsel-assisted plea during his arraignment.
Penalty and damages.
The RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with paragraph 1 (a), Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, as amended.
However, to conform with jurisprudence, the Court increases the amount of civil indemnity to P75,000.00.[42] The Court further awards to AAA moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00.[43]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 26, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01666- MIN is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant Loreto Talmesa y Bagan is ORDERED
to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages,
and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The amount of damages awarded shall
earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ., concur.
* Spelled as Talmeza in some parts of the Records.
[1] See Notice of Appeal dated May 16, 2018, rollo, pp. 17-18.
[2] Id. at 3-16;
penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices
Romulo V. Borja and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
[3] CA rollo, PP- 52-62; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Lorenzo F. Balo.
[4] The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
[5] Records, p. 1-2.
[6] The identity of the
victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as
well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be
withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, “An Act Providing for
Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation
and For Other Purposes;” RA 9262, “An Act Defining Violence Against
Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures Or Victims,
Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and For Other Purposes;” Section 40 of
Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the “Rule on Violence
against Women and Their Children,” effective November 15, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto,
533 Phil. 703 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015
dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the
Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions,
Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal
Circumstances.
[7] Records, p. 1.
[8] See Order dated September 12, 2012 Branch 26, Regional Trial Court, Surallah, South Cotabato in Criminal Case No. 5799-N, id. at 22.
[9] CA rollo, p. 53.
[10] Id. at 54-55.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 55: rollo, p. 5.
[13] See Medical Certificate dated December 23, 2011, records, p. 10.
[14] CA rollo, pp. 56-57.
[15] Id. at 52-62.
[16] Rollo, pp. 24-26, 28-29.
[17] Estrella v. People, G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020.
[18] People v. Aspa, Jr., G.R. No. 229507, August 6, 2018, 876 SCRA 330, 338, citing People v. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 290 (2007).
[19] Id., citing People v. Villamin, 625 Phil. 698, 713 (2010).
[20] Estrella v. People, supra note 17, citing People v. Villamin, id.
[21] People v. CCC, G.R. No. 231925, November 19, 2018.
[22] TSN, July 2, 2014, p. 35
[23] Id. at 30.
[24] Id. at 31 and 36.
[25] TSN, February 19, 2014, p. 6.
[26] TSN, July 2, 2014, p. 26.
[27] Id. at 38-39.
[28] Id. at 40.
[29] Id. at 45-46.
[30] Id. at 53.
[31] Id. at 44-46.
[32] People v. Agalot, 826 Phil. 541, 559 (2018).
[33] Id.
[34] People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 774 (2014), citing People v. Saludo, 662 Phil. 738, 753 (2011).
[35] People v. ABC, G.R. No. 244835, December 11, 2019, citing People v. Alberca, 810 Phil. 896, 906 (2017).
[36] People v. Deliola, 794 Phil. 194, 208 (2016), citing People v. Suarez, 750 Phil. 858, 869 (2015).
[37] Id., citing People v. Nical, 754 Phil. 357, 369 (2015).
[38] TSN, October 30, 2014, p. 13.
[39] TSN, November 6, 2014, p. 12-13.
[40] G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
[41] Id., citing People v. Alunday, 586 Phil. 120, 133 (2008).
[42] People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 826 (2016).
[43] Id.