G.R. No. 94549. August 09, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICKY SUETA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
REGALADO, J.:
Persistent in his avowals of innocence, accused-appellant Ricky Sueta
seeks the reversal of his conviction by Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court
of Roxas City for the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. C-3070 thereof. Deplorably, that conviction also stands as a
societal indictment, for the unfortunate victim, Goldie Ruth T. Fuentes, was
only five years of age at the time.
The sworn complaint initiated by the girl’s grandmother and
guardian, Fedelina A. Tan, and the corresponding information signed by
Assistant City Prosecutor Victor C. Posadas, both of which were filed before
the said trial court on January 5, 1990, charged that on December 30, 1990,
appellant willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of Goldie
Ruth T. Fuentes in Roxas City.[1]
Appellant was apprehended by elements of the Roxas City Police
Force a few hours after the incident at the place where the rape allegedly took
place. Although no bail was recommended
by the prosecution for his temporary release, appellant nonetheless prayed that
he “be granted bail in the amount of P40,000.00.” The trial court
consequently set the application for hearing on January 15, 1990, with the
stipulation that the evidence adduced therein would be considered part of the
evidence in the trial on the merits.[2]
On February 9, 1990, the trial court issued an order denying
appellant’s application for bail. The
court opined that the prosecution had clearly established a prima facie case for the crime charged and the evidence it had adduced was
strong enough to show appellant’s guilt and to warrant the filing of an
information in court.[3] Upon
his arraignment on February 13, 1990 with the assistance of counsel, appellant
pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. The trial court thereafter set and conducted the trial of the case on
the merits.[4]
The factual antecedents of the present case, as established by
the evidence, are well recounted by the trial court in its decision and are
best reproduced hereunder:
“In her testimony, the alleged victim of rape, Goldie Ruth
Fuentes, at 5 a girl of very tender age and a kindergarten pupil, told the
court that as of December 30, 1989, she was living with and under the care of
her maternal grandparents who were operating a store at Roxas Avenue, Roxas
City, because her parents were working abroad. Her mother was working in Italy and her father was in Hongkong. In terms surprisingly clear and unambiguous
for a child so young and tender, she related before the court her story.
“At about 12 noon of December 30, 1989, she and a playmate,
Temar Hoo, also a girl about her age, were playing ‘monkey-monkey’, jumping up
and down in a small hut standing on a vacant lot behind a bakeshop in Roxas
Avenue, Roxas City, near her grandparents’ store. Suddenly, accused Ricky Sueta whom she identified and pointed to
in court asked her and Temar to play a game couples play. Sueta was lying down on the flooring of the
hut and he told her to sit on his thighs, at the same time pulling down her
panties. And then Sueta inserted, to
use her term, his ‘bird’ into her ‘flower’. Because it was done with some force,
she shouted as it was painful. She felt
something hard and solid and
then warm liquid getting inside her genitals. The accused was moving his body sideways and intently looking at her as
he did so.
“At this juncture, a certain ‘Cano’ (Lolito Obligacion), who
was tending to a few fighting cocks nearby, shouted, ‘Goldie, your grandmother
is coming.’ On hearing that, she stood up, descended the stairs of the hut, and
rushed to her grandma and guardian,
Fedelina A. Tan, Grandmother and granddaughter
then went home together.
“On reaching home, she confided to her Lola that she felt pain
in her ‘flower’ because Ricky Sueta inserted his ‘bird’ into it. Then her aunt, Marie Lis A. Tan, a
registered nurse, and her uncle, Wilfredo Tan, a physician, took a look at her
genitals and decided to take her to the Roxas Memorial General Hospital here in
Roxas City for physical examination.
“At the Roxas Memorial General Hospital, Goldie Ruth Fuentes
was subjected to a pelvic examination by Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lanada, the resident
physician then on duty. Her findings
are reflected in a medical certificate marked by the defense as Exh. ‘1’ (p.
22, record). It shows that the genitalia
was grossly normal, that in the labia minora there was a 1 cm. old healed laceration,
lower 3rd right, that the hymen was open and intact, and that there was no
presence of spermatozoa.
“The grandmother and guardian of Goldie, Fedelina Tan,
testified that at about noon of December 30, 1989, she was tending their
grocery store along Roxas Avenue, Roxas City. A few minutes before, she saw Goldie playing with a playmate. At about noon, she started looking for her
granddaughter as the child had not come home as she used to before
noontime. She sent one of their
salesgirls to look for her in the neighboring establishments. The salesgirl having failed to find the
child, she herself went out to look for her. She went to several stores nearby and when she entered the Family
Bakeshop a man informed her that Goldie was playing in the backyard, near the
poultry. She hastened to the place, and
as she was approaching a small hut that man shouted, ‘Goldie, your grandmother
is here.’ When she called her, Goldie came down from the hut. She saw the accused lying down.
“When they reached home, Fedelina said she bathed Goldie and
changed her clothes. It was then that
the little girl started complaining that her genitals were painful. Asked why, the girl answered it was because
the accused inserted his sex organ into hers. The little girl said this in a more picturesque language: ‘My flower is
painful because Ricky inserted his bird inside it’. Hearing that, she took a good look at her genitals and she saw a
small laceration and a little
bleeding. She quickly summoned her son,
Dr. Wilfredo Tan, and his wife, Marie Liz, a registered nurse, and told them to
examine the child. The two quickly
concluded that their niece was a victim of a criminal assault. And so the two took Goldie to the hospital
for physical examination.
“From the hospital, Dr. Tan took Goldie to the Roxas City
Police Station to lodge their complaint for rape against the accused. Patrolman Rosendo Abo-ol and three other
policemen were then ordered by a police lieutenant to proceed to the Family
Bakeshop to pick the accused up (sic) for questioning. The policemen found the accused behind
the bakeshop. The policemen took the
accused to the police station, and on arrival, Pat. Abo-ol saw Goldie point to
the accused as the man who criminally assaulted her.
“The girl’s uncle, Dr. Wilfredo Tan, told the court that when
his mother Fedelina called him and his wife Marie Liz to examine the little
girl who was complaining of pain in the vagina, they made her lie down, spread
her legs and took a look at her genitals. They saw a laceration at the right labia minora, with redness and
swelling. Certain that his niece was
criminally assaulted, he and his wife took her to the hospital for pelvic
examination. A few days later, he
accompanied his niece to Dr. Bisnar, and then to Dr. Jaboneta in Iloilo City
for further pelvic examination.
“The testimony of Dr. Tan was corroborated in all its material
points by his wife, Marie Liz A. Tan.”[5]
Appellant does not deny that he was with the victim and her
playmate, Thissa Marie (“Temar”) Hoo, at the time of the
incident. What he vehemently disputes
is the alleged commission of the rape on the victim. He recalled at the witness stand that in the morning of December
30, 1990, Goldie Ruth and Temar Hoo were playing children’s games at the hut
where he usually rested and slept. He
had been recently hired by his brother-in-law, Wilfredo Hoo, to take care of
the latter’s fighting cocks. Apart from
serving as his sleeping quarters, it was in that hut that he kept watch over
Wilfredo Hoo’s game fowls.[6]
Appellant further claims that an assistant, Lolito
(“Cano”) Rodriguez, tended to the fighting cocks nearby. As noontime approached, appellant decided to
take an early nap and he soon fell asleep. After a while, he was roused from slumber by the noise created by the
playful girls. It was then almost high
noon and it was at this time that Goldie Ruth’s grandmother arrived to fetch
the girl. Appellant narrated that when her grandmother called out for her, Goldie
Ruth clambered out of the hut but fell on her buttocks. The girl was aided back on her feet by her
grandmother and, together, they departed for home. Shortly thereafter, appellant resumed his interrupted sleep.[7]
A few hours later, appellant was awakened by his father who told
Sueta that some policemen were looking for him. Appellant then appeared before the law enforcers and went
voluntarily with them to the Roxas City police station. There, he was surprised to know of the accusation against him. According to appellant, he was maltreated by
the policemen when he professed his innocence. Since then, he has been under detention.[8]
Satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had indeed
perpetrated the dastardly deed on Goldie Ruth Fuentes, the court a quo
rendered its verdict of guilt on June 21, 1990, sentencing appellant to serve a
term of “imprisonment for life (reclusion perpetua),”[9]
to indemnify the victim, her guardian and/or parents in the amount of
P25,000.00, and to pay them P7,000.00 “as reimbursement for the private
prosecutor’s fee.” The court also credited appellant in the service of his
sentence with the full time that he spent under preventive imprisonment.[10]
In this appeal, appellant insists that the trial court committed
a grave error when it gave more credence to the testimonies of the witnesses
for the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the victim herself, Goldie
Ruth, than to the version of the defense. He contends that the trial court failed to take into account the
“story-telling” habit of the girl and the inconclusive medical
findings of the doctors who examined Goldie Ruth.[11]
After a thorough and careful review of the records, we have
perforce to reject appellant’s contentions, fully convinced as we are of the
utter lack of merit in the theory and evidence of the defense.
At the outset, it may be well to recall some doctrines that
generally guide the courts in arriving at a just verdict in prosecutions for
rape, to wit: (1) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to refute; (2) In view of
the intrinsic nature of the crime where two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be received with extreme caution; and (3) The
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and must not
be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[12]
As in most criminal cases, the issue here boils down to the
favorable appreciation by the trial court of the testimonies proffered by the
litigants. In this particular case, the
trial court gave more weight and credence to the declarations of the witnesses
for the prosecution and, on that score, the settled rule is that such a finding
must be respected, given the natural advantage that a trial judge has in the calibration of such
evidence.[13]
As earlier stated, the offended party, Goldie Ruth T. Fuentes,
was only five years old at the time of the rape. At such a tender age, she could not be expected to weave with
uncanny recollection such a complicated tale as the sexual assault that appellant unconscionably perpetrated on
her. She spontaneously narrated to her
grandmother, uncle and aunt, to
Wilfredo Hoo and his spouse, and ultimately to the court, her ordeal at the hands of appellant.
Witness the spontaneity and clarity of her testimony on the
stand:
“Q On
December 30, 1989, at about noontime, can you recall where were you?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Where
were you on December 30, 1989 at about noontime?
A I
was in a nipa hut.
Q What
were you doing in the nipa hut on that date and time?
A I
was playing.
Q With
whom?
A I
was playing with Timar.
Q Who
else were present when you were playing with Timar?
A
Ricky.
Q Will
you please look around and tell us if Ricky Sueta is inside this courtroom now?
A He is the one. (Witness pointing to a man inside the
courtroom who when asked answered that his name is Ricky Sueta).
Q What
kind of game did you play with Timar on December 30, 1989, at the nipa hut?
A We
were playing just like couples.
Q Now
who told you to play a game of just like couples?
A Ricky.
Q Now,
did Ricky participate in your game just like couples?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Could
you tell us what did Ricky do to you?
A He
forced his organ (in)to my genitals.
Q When
he forced his organ in(to) your genitals, what did you do?
A I
shouted.
Q Why
did you shout?
A Because
it was painful.
Q When
the organ of Ricky was forced inside your genitals, what did Ricky do with his
body if any?
A His
body was moving.
Q Can
you demonstrate to us how his body was moving?
A He
was moving like this. (witness moving
her body from side to side.)
Q While
the body of Ricky was moving, did you see his face?
A Yes,
sir.
Q How
would you describe the face of Ricky?
A He
was looking.
Q He
was looking to (sic) whom?
A Me.
x x x
Q What
was the position of Ricky when he inserted his organ inside your genitals?
A Lying
down.
Q How
about you, what was your position when Ricky inserted his organ inside your
genitals?
A I
was sitting on his lap.
Q Before
Ricky inserted his pennis (sic) inside your organ, were you wearing panty?
A He
pulled it down.
Q And
before Ricky inserted his pennis (sic) inside your organ, was Ricky wearing
pants?
A None.
Q What
do you mean when you said ‘None’?
A He
was naked.
Q Now,
can you tell the Honorable Court if the pennis (sic) of Ricky penetrated your
sex organ?
A His
organ penetrated my genitals.
Q Now,
while you were sitting on the lap of Ricky who was lying down and his organ was
inside your private part, you said you shouted because it was painful, after
that what happened?
A Cano
said, ‘your grandmother is coming’.
Q Where
was Cano when he told you that?
A He
was just around.
Q When
you heard that your grandmother was coming, what did you do?
A I
went home.
Q Can
you recall if that nipa hut had stairs?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
your grandmother saw you coming out of the nipa hut?
A Yes,
sir
Q Where
were you when your grandmother saw you?
A I
was going down when she saw me.
Q Upon
seeing your grandmother, what did you do?
A I
went to her.
Q Did
you tell her anything?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
did you tell your grandmother?
A That
the organ of Ricky penetrated my organ.
Q And
after you told your grandmother that the pennis (sic) of the accused was
inserted in your private part, what did your grandmother do?
A She
brought me to the hospital.”[14]
Thus, in its order of February 9, 1990 on appellant’s application
for bail, the court below correctly and aptly observed: “In the case at
bar, Goldie Ruth Fuentes clearly and unequivocally testified that she felt pain
when the accused forced his penis into her genitals. And that pain was her chief complaint to the examining physician
in the hospital. Her narration before
the court of when and how the accused did it was so clear and convincing as to
make the court believe that hers was not a contrived story, as she appeared so
young and innocent, as not being capable of contriving stories that could cause
her and her family to suffer shame and humiliation. x x x.”[15]
Verily, courts usually lend credence to the testimonies of young girls,
especially where the established facts indubitably point to their having been
sexually assaulted.[16]
Moreover, Goldie Ruth positively pointed to appellant as her
assailant not only once but twice, firstly, when appellant was brought by the
police for questioning at the Roxas City police station and, secondly, when she
was called to testify on the witness stand.[17] In both instances, Goldie Ruth definitely
and without hesitation pointed to and identified appellant as her rapist.
Appellant takes issue with the failure of the trial court to
appreciate the fact that during her cross-examination, the victim disclosed
that she had earlier been sexually abused by Sueta. The girl stated that she also reported this to her grandmother
and for which she was likewise taken to the hospital for examination.[18]
However, as perceptively observed by the Solicitor General, and
with which we agree, the victim may in all probability have been molested twice
by appellant not on different dates but on the same day and occasion. At any rate, the indubitable fact is that
all throughout her testimony, she remained as assertive and unflinching about
the abominable attack on her chastity and the identity of her attacker as she
was when she initially revealed that fact ever so innocently to her
grandmother.
What further enervates the case for appellant is his failure to
present strong and credible evidence to rebut the positive testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. Indeed, his bare
denials of culpability and self-serving assertions that he was asleep inside
the hut at the time of the incident do not inspire the slightest consideration
in view of his clear and positive identification by the victim as the
paraphiliac predator.[19]
Appellant has not even presented to the court any plausible reason why the
victim, her grandmother, uncle and aunt would heap upon him such a serious
accusation as the rape of Goldie Ruth.
The defense of denial, when not supported by clear and convincing
evidence, deserves no weight in law. It
cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of credible
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters, for as between positive and
categorical testimony which bears the earmarks of truth, on one hand, and a
bare denial, on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.[20]
Further, in the absence of evidence to indicate that the prosecution witnesses
were moved by improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved
and their testimony should accordingly be entitled to full credit.[21]
Appellant’s protestations to the effect that the trial court was
moved by considerations of bias since the victim was a hapless five-year old
girl is at best a flaccid and futile attempt to shore a tottering defense. In the pretensions of appellant, the trial
court “was evidently under emotional excitement transformed into
directional sympathy toward the version of the alleged victim largely all
because the one telling the story is young”.[22] Precisely, the trial court was
impressed by the candid and forthright declaration of the victim despite her
tender years. Indeed, while her
statement that “Ricky inserted his bird inside my flower” spoke eloquently,
albeit sadly, of the utter innocence and naivete of Goldie Ruth, it also
spelled out volumes of truth to her cries of rape.
It is simply hard to conceive that a young girl would invent such
a sordid tale as her violation by appellant unless it was the plain truth. Time and again, and with indisputable
applicability to this case, the Court has held that when an alleged victim of
rape says that she has been violated, she says in effect all that is necessary
to show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets
the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[23]
Appellant makes much of the apparent conflict in the medical
findings of the doctors who conducted physical examinations on Goldie
Ruth. Indeed, while those of Dr. Helen
Bisnar, a private practitioner, and Dr. Lourdes Lanaga, a resident physician at
the Roxas City Memorial Hospital, indicated that the victim’s hymen was intact,
that of Dr. Ricardo H. Jaboneta, the NBI Medico-Legal Officer for Region VI, showed
that the girl’s hymen had suffered a laceration through “intra-labial
sexual intercourse with a man on or about the alleged date of commission”.[24]
Appellant’s arguments on this point are clearly specious submissions.
The well-entrenched rule is that a medical examination is not an
indispensable element in a prosecution for rape.[25]
Nevertheless, it may be taken into consideration in determining the veracity of the victim’s claim.[26] In
the case at bar, all the aforestated medical reports submitted by the examining
physicians were one in declaring that the offended party had suffered a one
centimeter laceration in her sexual organ, thus corroborating and lending truth
to the victim’s account that she had been violated.
In fact, Dr. Jaboneta, on whose objective medical findings and
testimony the court below evidently relied upon with good reason, was emphatic
in declaring before said lower court that the laceration which he found on the
victim’s sexual organ was definitely caused by the insertion of a male organ
into the girl’s vagina at about the time of the alleged rape.[27]
In any event, it is beyond cavil that the mere penetration of the male organ
into the labia majora of the victim’s genitalia consummates the felony.
We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not commit a
reversible error in convicting appellant since the constitutional but
disputable presumption of innocence in
his favor has been clearly and convincingly breached by the superior
evidence of the prosecution. In view,
however, of this court’s current policy with regard to the amount of indemnity that may be awarded in rape
cases of this nature, that is, rape
of a woman who is below twelve years of age, the indemnification to the victim
and her family should be increased to P50,000.00.[28]
Furthermore, the penalty to be imposed on appellant should be reclusion perpetua.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment convicting accused-appellant
Ricky Sueta of the crime of rape is hereby
AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATIONS that said accused-appellant is hereby ordered
to pay the victim and her family the amount of P50,000.00 as and by way of
indemnification, and that the penalty imposed on him by the trial court is
hereby amended to reclusion perpetua.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Nocon, and Puno, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
Original Record, 1-4; Exhibit “D”.
[2]
Ibid., 20, 23.
[3]
Ibid., 80.
[4]
Ibid., 88, 91.
[5]
Ibid., 200-202.
[6]
TSN, March 21, 1990, 7-8, 13-14.
[7]
Ibid., 9-10.
[8]
Ibid., 10-13.
[9]
The proper imposable penalty under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion
perpetua. In People vs.
Baguio (196 SCRA 459 [1991]), this Court emphasized that reclusion perpetua is
not the same as life imprisonment. See
Administrative Circular No. 6-92, dated October 8, 1992 and 6-A-92 dated June
21, 1993.
[10]
Per Judge Sergio Pestaño; Original Record, 211.
[11]
Brief of the Appellant, 1; Rollo, 84.
[12]
People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707 (1991); People vs. Tismo,
204 SCRA 535 (1991).
[13]
People vs. Magallanes, G.R. No. 89036, January 29, 1993.
[14]
TSN, February 6, 1990, 5-8.
[15]
Original Record, 80.
[16]
People vs. Abuyan, Jr., 211 SCRA 662 (1992).
[17]
TSN, February 14, 1990, 7, 9; February 6, 1990, 5.
[18]
TSN, February 6, 1990, 9-13.
[19]
People vs. Barba, 203 SCRA 436 (1991).
[20]
People vs. Alegado, 201 SCRA 37 (1991); People vs. Song, et al.,
204 SCRA 135 (1991).
[21]
People vs. Belibet, et al., 199 SCRA 587 (1991).
[22]
Brief of the Appellant, 9; Rollo, 92.
[23]
People vs. Abonada, 169 SCRA 530 (1989); People vs. Yambao, 193
SCRA 571 (1991); People vs. Tismo, supra, Fn. 12.
[24]
Original Record, 72, 74-75; Exhibits “A”, “B” and
“C”.
[25]
People vs. Saldivia, 203 SCRA 461 (1991).
[26]
People vs. Cruz, 180 SCRA 765 (1989).
[27]
TSN, February 27, 1990, 20-21.
[28]
People vs. Guibao, G.R. No. 93517, January 15, 1993.