G.R. No. 90390. October 31, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODANTE FELIPE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
In this appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth
Judicial Region, Branch 63 of Calauag, Quezon, the accused-appellant seeks a reversal of the
judgment of conviction dated August
21, 1989. The decision has
the following dispositive portion:
“WHEREFORE and considering the foregoing, the Court finds the
accused RODANTE FELIPE y BUSTAMANTE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, indemnify (sic) ROSALIE REVILLA in the
amount of twenty five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) and pay (sic) the costs of
the suit.” (RTC Decision, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 24-25)
The accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape upon
complaint by the offended party’s father, Rolando C. Revilla
in an Information dated September 30, 1987 which reads:
“INFORMATION
The undersigned, upon complaint filed by Rolando C. Revilla, father of the offended party, Rosalie Revilla accuses Rodante (Dante)
Felipe of the crime of rape, committed as follows:
That on or about the 20th day of June 1987, at Barangay
Villa Gomez, Municipality of Luzon, Province of Quezon,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force, threats, violence and intimidation, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of said Rosalie Revilla, a
minor, 12 years of age, against her will.
“Contrary to law.
“Lucena City for Gumaca, Quezon.
“September 30, 1987.
(Sgd)
DANTE H. DIAMANTE
Provincial Fiscal”
(Records, p. 5)
The pertinent facts as summarized by the Solicitor-General in his
brief are as follows:
“On June 18, 1987,
Rolando Revilla, father of private complainant
Rosalie Revilla, together with his wife, left his
house in Villa Gomez, Quezon, Quezon, to seek medical treatment in Lucena City. They left behind their two (2) daughters,
namely private complainant Rosalie, twelve (12) years old, and Rosana, nine (9) years
old, in the care of daughter-in-law, Erlinda
Gonzales Revilla (p. 3, tsn,
June 28, 1989; p. 13, tsn, July 18, 1988).
The following evening, June
19, 1987, private complainant and her younger sister went to sleep
at 6:00 o’clock p.m. on the floor of
their hut. In the early morning of June
20, 1987, private complainant was awakened when she felt pain in
her private parts. She saw a man on top
of her with his organ inserted in her own organ. Private complainant shouted and
struggled. She kicked the man on his organ. The man was thrown near the door of the house
which was illuminated by a gas lamp.
Private complainant recognized appellant, a long-time neighbor (pp. 3-5
and 17, tsn, July
18, 1988; pp. 2-3, tsn, June 21, 1989).
After freeing herself from appellant, private complainant tried to
escape by running to the
door. Her sister-in-law, Erlinda, who was then in her house three (3) arms length away,
heard private complainant shouting for help.
Appellant caught private complainant, boxed her on the stomach, slapped
her on the face and started strangling her.
Private complainant lost consciousness (pp. 5-6, tsn,
July 18, 1988; p. 4, tsn, June 21, 1989;
pp. 9-10, tsn, supra).
Erlinda lighted a gas lamp and immediately went to private
complainant’s house. At the door of the
house Erlinda saw appellant coming out. Appellant recognized Erlinda
and ran away. Erlinda
found private complainant unconscious on the floor, her private parts bloody
and her panty pulled down on one of her legs.
Erlinda shook private complaint who regained
consciousness. When asked what happened
to her, private complainant answered ‘pinag-iyot-iyot
ni Dante.’ Erlinda then brought
private complainant and her younger sister to her house (pp. 9-13, tsn, June 21, 1989).
That afternoon, private complainant’s father arrived and was
informed of what happened. They filed a
complaint for rape against appellant at the police station in Quezon, Quezon. Prior to that, private complainant submitted
herself to a medical examination by Dr. Amador G. Nañola,
the Municipal Health Officer of Quezon, Quezon. The
physician issued a medical certificate dated June 21, 1987 (Exhibit A) containing the following
findings:
“‘Redness and congestion around vaginal opening, hymen, absent,
admits one finger and can admit two fingers with pain. Vaginal canal contains whitish fluid.’ (Exhibit ‘A-4’) (pp. 4-7, tsn,
June 28, 1989;
pp. 3-4, tsn, February 9, 1988)’ ” (Appellee’s
Brief, pp. 3-6, Rollo, p. 57)
The accused-appellant, in denying the unlawful act imputed to
him, claimed as follows: that he could
not have possibly committed the alleged rape against the offended party since
at the time of the incident he was in the high seas near Balisin
Island fishing together with a certain Ricardo Menle
and the latter’s son; that they
left Quezon, Quezon at
around midnight of June 20, 1987 and it took them about 2 1/2 hours to reach
the place where they fished; and that they returned back to Villa Gomez, Quezon at about 9:00 o’clock in the morning of the
following day, June 21, 1987.
(Appellant’s Brief, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 39-40)
Upon arraignment,
the accused-appellant, assisted by his
counsel from the then Citizens’ Legal Assistance Office,
entered a plea of not guilty.
After trial ensued and the verdict of conviction was rendered,
the instant appeal was interposed with a lone assignment of error, to wit:
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE
PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO MEET THE TEST OF MORAL CERTAINTY OF APPELLANT’S GUILT
AND TO OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR.”
(Appellant’s Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 37)
The accused-appellant submits that the trial court assailed his
testimony instead of scrutinizing with utmost care the story told by the
alleged rape victim as required in cases of this nature thereby basing its conviction not on the strength of the evidence
for the prosecution but rather on the weakness of the defense. The accused-appellant points out that
the alleged victim’s account of the imputed crime furnished few details by
which her story can be tested and that her story was tainted with improbabilities which rendered it highly
doubtful.
The improbabilities referred to by the accused-appellant are as
follows: (1) that private complainant
Rosalie felt pain only after the accused-appellant had forcibly inserted his penis to her vagina and was already on top of her
and making the coital movements when logic dictates that she should have been
awakened when the accused-appellant initially laid on top of her and made his
entry into her private part; and (2) that the said complainant was able to free
herself from the accused-appellant by kicking his private part when it is
inconceivable how a twelve-year old girl managed to do so with the size and
weight of the accused-appellant on top of her and making the push-and-pull
movement as claimed by the alleged victim.
(Appellant’s Brief, pp. 5-6, Rollo, pp. 41-42)
We find the contentions of the accused-appellant devoid of merit.
It is an axiomatic rule of law that “credibility” is the province
of the trial court. (People v. Januario dela Cruz y Hurado, G.R. No. 84714, October 5, 1990 citing People v. Caringal, 176 SCRA 404 [1989]). Premised on the fact that the crime of rape,
more often than not, is witnessed only by the offended party and the accused, the trial judge’s evaluation of
the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before him deserves our utmost
respect in the absence of any showing that such evaluation is tainted
with arbitrariness considering the trial judge’s advantage of directly
examining the witnesses’ demeanor in court.
(People v. Romenaldo Murallon,
G.R. No. 85734, September 13, 1990 citing People v. Alvarez, etc., 163 SCRA 745
[1988]; People v. Rondina, 149 SCRA 128 [1987] citing
People v. Ancheta, etc., 148 SCRA 178 [1987])
A careful perusal of the records of the case at bar discloses that
the trial court’s finding that the accused-appellant’s guilt is beyond any
indicia of doubt merits our unqualified concurrence. The victim’s straightforward and spontaneous
testimony clearly establishes the fact of rape and its author, the accused-appellant. She stated in Court that:
“xxx xxx xxx
Q In
the early morning of June 20, 1987,
do you recall or remember where were you? (sic)
A I
was in the house, sir.
Q Where
is this house of yours located?
A In Villa Gomez.
Q And
what were you doing there at the time?
A We
were sleeping, sir.
Q While
you were sleeping in the early morning of June 20, 1987, do you recall or remember any unusual incident that happened?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that unusual incident?
A When
I was awaken there was somebody on top of me, sir.
FISCAL:
We
want to make on record that the witness is crying.
COURT:
Place
that on record.
FISCAL:
Q You
said that on the said date and hour you were awaken that (sic) somebody was on
top of you, did you recognize who was on top of you?
A Yes, sir. Rodante Felipe,
sir.
Q How
long have you known him?
A I
have known him for a long time in Unisan, Quezon.
Q If
the said person who was on top of you on the said date and hour and according to
you Rodante Felipe is in the courtroom, will you be
able to identify him?
A Yes, sir. (WITNESS pointing to a
person in the courtroom answering by the name of RODANTE FELIPE).
Q You said that he was on top of you when
you were awaken, what was he doing then at the time while he was on top of you?
A When I
was awaken he was already on top of me and he was making a coitus movement and
I felt pain on my private parts.
Q Why,
what is the cause of the pain?
A Because
when he was making the coitus movement I felt pain and I was struggling.
Q Do
you know what kind of pain was it when you felt pain when according to you your
private part was very painful?
A It
was very painful, sir.
Q And
what was the cause of that pain?
A Because
he inserted his organ to my private
part so I felt pain.
Q Do
you mean to say that the male organ of Rodante Felipe
penetrated to your private part?
A Yes, sir.
Q And
what did you do if you did anything when you felt pain because of that private
part inserted to your vagina?
A I
was struggling and I was shouting.
Q Were
you able to release yourself from him?
A When
I was able to release from him (sic) and I tried to run away from him he caught
me and he slapped me and boxed me.
Q How
were you able to release yourself
from him, by what means?
A I
kicked him, sir.
Q When
you kicked him did you hit him?
A Yes, sir. I was able to kick him in his organ and he
felt pain so I was able to release myself.
Q And
you said the accused boxed you, where in your body did he box you?
A In
my stomach and he slapped me on my left face, and strangled me.
Q When
the accused boxed you, slapped you and strangled you
what happened to you?
A I
lost consciousness, sir.” (TSN, July 18, 1988, pp. 20-23)
xxx xxx xxx
The medical findings made by the municipal physician who
conducted the physical examination of the victim and who testified as to his findings in court coupled with the corroborative testimonies of
the victim’s father and sister-in-law strongly confirm the fact that the
accused-appellant sexually abused Rosalie.
The improbabilities and lapses pointed out by the
accused-appellant in Rosalie’s narration of what the former did to her on that
fateful day in June 1987 are, indeed, more apparent than real as the
prosecution opined because of a clear
showing that all the essential elements of the crime of rape under Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code are present.
The accused-appellant would like to make us believe that the
veracity of the victim’s narration is questionable since she was not awakened by the accused-appellant’s act of getting on top of her
and making the initial thrust of his penis into her vagina. It is not at all unusual that the 12 -year
old girl would wake up only when the pain of the man’s organ being forced
inside her vagina was felt. The man
did not have to bear down with his entire weight upon the poor victim before
trying to do the sexual act. In this
regard, our pronouncement in the case of People v. Romeo Camasis, G.R. No. 87083,
September 14, 1990 citing People v. Tolentino,
140 SCRA 411 [1985] bears repeating. We
stated that:
“xxx [I]f the complainant was indeed
fabricating a story, it would have been easier for her to say that she was
awake when she was assaulted.”
When
the sister-in-law arrived in the house, Rosalie was unconscious on the
floor. Her panty was pulled down and her
private part was bloody. There can be no
doubt as to who boxed and strangled Rosalie after raping her.
In fine, the accused-appellant’s defense of alibi must fail since
alibi is unavailing as a defense where there is positive identification of the
perpetrator of the crime, most especially, when the said identification is made
by the victim of the rape herself in the absence of any motive to implicate the
assailant. (See People v. Restituto Bravo, G.R. No. 68422, December 29, 1989 citing
People v. Nolasco, 163 SCRA 623 [1988]; People v.
Sato, 163 SCRA 602 [1988]; People v. Patong-og, 155
SCRA 675 [1987]; People v. Malabad, 133 SCRA 392
[1984]; see also People v. Ernesto Santos alias “Kariba”,
G.R. No. 77912, March 6, 1990
citing People v. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405
[1987])
In the light of the circumstances of the instant case, we hold
that the degree of moral certainty required to convict the accused-appellant is
substantiated by the evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the
modification that the amount of indemnification is increased to P50,000.00 in view of our recent pronouncements on indemnity.
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), and Bidin, J., concur.
Feliciano, J., on leave.