PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO ALVAREZ Y SORIANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Alvarez

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Reynaldo Alvarez y Soriano, a criminal appeal from a judgment of conviction for rape. The accused was found guilty of having carnal knowledge of Rosie Pascual, a thirteen-year-old elementary pupil, by means of force, threats and intimidation, and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The case matters to the reviewee for three reasons: it teaches that a conviction for rape may rest on the lone testimony of the complaining witness, it explains that the force required in rape is relative and need not be overpowering, and it shows how the Court treats the belated revelation of a young victim's ordeal.

Procedural History

Rosie Pascual, assisted by her father Jose Pascual, filed a verified complaint, and an information for rape was filed against Alvarez before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 39. After trial, the court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of rape, imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the offended party in the amount of 10,000 pesos for moral damages. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's reliance on testimony he called incredible and contrary to human experience, its failure to consider the complainant's behavior after the incident, its finding of a basis for conviction, and its consideration of the other rape cases filed against him in violation of the rule against res inter alios acta, meaning matters done between other parties.

Facts

On 22 September 1983, at around noon, thirteen-year-old Rosie Pascual, an elementary pupil at the Cabangaran Elementary School in Umingan, Pangasinan, was invited by her classmate Merlita Valdez to lunch at the house of Merlita's stepfather, the appellant Reynaldo Alvarez. They were accompanied by another classmate, Sorita Macabiog. After lunch, Merlita and Sorita went out of the house and sought shelter under an aratiles tree, while Alvarez invited Rosie to his room upstairs. As she entered, he suddenly undressed her and laid her down without saying a word. He removed her panty and his own pants, placed himself on top of her, spread her legs, and forced his penis in. She could not shout because he placed a handkerchief in her mouth, and he threatened to take her life. She felt intense pain, and he was not able to insert it all the way. The assault lasted for one hour, after which he removed the handkerchief while persisting in his threat on her life.

She did not immediately report the outrage to her parents because she was afraid he would harm her. Eventually she had to reveal it because she and Merlita quarreled, and Merlita spoke loudly of Rosie's sexual experience with Alvarez, which was overheard by their teacher, Mr. Abelardo Magpili, who then wrote Rosie's father to see him. When her father arrived, the teacher asked Rosie whether Alvarez had indeed sexually abused her, and she answered in the affirmative; her father confronted her himself and she gave the same answer. Rosie and her father reported the matter to the Barangay Captain, who advised them to file a complaint with the police and to have Rosie medically examined at the puericulture center. Dr. Thelma C. Busto, the Rural Health Officer, confirmed that Rosie had a laceration on her hymen possibly caused by sexual abuse, her vaginal canal admitting one finger, a sign that she was already deflowered.

For his part, Alvarez claimed alibi: that on 22 September 1983 he was in Barangay Dadap, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, at the house of his sister, Delia Alvarez Bartolome, to collect a debt of 2,000 pesos, arriving there on the nineteenth and staying until he was paid on the twenty-fourth. Yet he also claimed that he came to know Rosie only when he was already in jail, and in another breath that she and Merlita and their classmates used to frequent his house. He suggested that Rosie's parents only wanted to extort money from him, being a money lender since his return from Libya, and that the Barangay Captain had an axe to grind against him for refusing him a loan. He admitted that several rape cases were pending against him, all involving Grade Five pupils of the same school, and that he had been convicted in one. The trial court discarded the defense and sustained the prosecution.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of the complaining witness, standing alone, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape.
• Whether or not the force, threats and intimidation required in rape must be overpowering or irresistible.
• Whether or not the complainant's behavior before and after the incident, including her delay in reporting it, renders her testimony incredible and contrary to human experience.
• Whether or not the trial court violated the rule against res inter alios acta in considering the other rape cases filed against the accused.

Applicable Provisions

Section 48 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, the rule against res inter alios acta invoked by the appellant, provides:

Section 48. Evidence of similar acts. Evidence that one did or omitted to do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or omitted to do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.

This rule bears on the appellant's claim that the trial court was improperly influenced by the other rape cases against him; the Court examined the judgment and found it rested on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that in rape cases the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the complaining witness, provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the course of things, and that the prosecution need not present testimonies of persons other than the offended party herself if her testimony is accurate and credible. The Court noted that rape is essentially an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted except in dark, or deserted and secluded places, away from prying eyes. It also reaffirmed that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great weight and respect, if not conclusive effect, because it has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying, and may be disturbed on appeal only if the trial court overlooked some material or substantial facts. Finding no indication that the trial court's findings were arrived at arbitrarily, and quoting its observation that there was no reason to doubt the complainant's version, the Court accepted Rosie's candid and simple testimony as flowing from an unaffected mind. It added that it is unthinkable that a rural teener and elementary pupil would endure the embarrassment and humiliation of a public disclosure that she had been ravished, allow an examination of her private parts, and undergo the ordeal and expense of a court proceeding if her story were a lie.

On the second issue, the Court held that the force or violence required in rape is relative, and when applied it need not be overpowering or irresistible. What is essential is that the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose which the offender had in mind, or to bring about the result. The force or violence necessary in rape is naturally a relative term, depending on the age, size and strength of the parties and their relation to each other. The Court agreed with the trial court that, considering the isolated room, the time just after lunch, and the absence of anyone with the victim, one could not expect any particular kind of resistance from a young, innocent thirteen-year-old girl against a man of whom she was so much afraid, and that the immature barrio girl had to meekly submit herself.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the argument that Rosie's behavior showed the weakness of the charge, holding instead that the theory of the defense was weak and futile. People react differently under emotional stress; there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident, and some may shout, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility. That Rosie did not immediately divulge her ravishment did not necessarily mean she was not sexually desecrated; being of tender age and utterly innocent of the ways of the world, her temporary silence was understandable, as she could have been terrified by the threats and shocked into insensibility by the bestiality she was subjected to.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the contention that the trial court was affected by the other rape cases in convicting the accused, in violation of the res inter alios acta rule, was without merit, because it was clear from the decision that the judgment was based mainly on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution. The Court nonetheless noted the accused's admission of the other pending cases and his conviction in one, and observed the same pattern in the rape of Mary Grace Lacasandili, a minor of eleven years, committed on 23 September 1983, one day after the rape of Rosie, in the same house.

Finally, considering the appalling sexual aberration which may leave a permanent scar on Rosie's psyche, the Court found the award of 10,000 pesos for moral damages too meager and raised it to 30,000 pesos.

Doctrine

A conviction for rape may rest solely on the testimony of the complaining witness, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the course of things; corroboration is not indispensable. The force, threats and intimidation required in rape are relative and need not be overpowering or irresistible; it is enough that the force used is sufficient to consummate the offender's purpose, judged by the age, size and strength of the parties and their relation to each other. The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great weight and respect, if not conclusive effect, absent a showing that it overlooked material or substantial facts. Delay in reporting a rape, especially by a young and naive victim, does not by itself destroy her credibility, because people react differently under emotional stress. And under Section 48 of Rule 130, evidence of similar acts is not admissible to prove that one did the same thing at another time, so a conviction must stand on the strength of the prosecution's own evidence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, with the modification that the award of moral damages to Rosie Pascual was increased to 30,000 pesos, with costs against the accused-appellant.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the force or violence required in rape is relative, and when applied it need not be overpowering or irresistible. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of the lone testimony of the complaining witness, the relative character of force in rape, and the treatment of a young victim's delay in reporting the crime.