PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUBEN LIM Y ORTIZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Special Criminal Court,
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 88 in Criminal Case No. Q-56248
entitled “People of the Philippines v. Ruben Lim y Ortiz” finding the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay moral damages amounting to
P50,000.00 and to pay the costs of the suit.

The accused, Ruben Lim y Ortiz, was charged with the crime of
rape in an information as follows:

“That on or about the 5th day of December, 1986 in Quezon City,
Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, with lewd design, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation through the use
of a gun, had carnal knowledge with DELAILAH LIM Y GARCIA, without her consent
and against her will, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be
awarded to her under the provision of the Civil Code.” (Rollo, p. 6)

On the basis of said information, a warrant of arrest was issued
on February 29, 1988. The accused,
however, remained at large until April 22, 1988 when he surrendered for
arraignment. He entered a plea of not
guilty.

The prosecution’s version, as narrated in complainant’s
Memorandum below and as adopted by the lower court in its decision is as
follows:

“On December 4, 1986 at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening, accused
Ruben Lim went to the house of the complainant at Barrio Palanas, Barangay
Vasra, North Karen Saguban, (sic) the sister of the complainant to allow the
latter to go and stay temporarily in his house so that the accused may go to
Lucena City as his brother-in-law, Efren Mansion, was shot to death and no one
would take care of the house as all
the household members proceeded to Lucena City to attend the wake of their dead
relative. Karen allowed her sister
Delailah to go and stay in the house of the accused for the purpose of taking
care of the house.

At about 8:00 o’clock p.m., Delailah left for the house of the
accused. When the complainant arrived
there at, (sic) the accused told her he would be leaving for Lucena City the
following day. He told Delailah to
sleep upstairs as he would sleep downstairs. When Delailah learned that the accused would not be leaving for the
night, she asked permission to go home but she was told by the accused not to leave as he would be leaving
early morning.

At around 9:00 p.m., December 4, 1986, Delailah went to sleep
upstairs believing that the accused would leave the following morning, but at
about dawn of December 5, 1986, she felt somebody touching her. When she woke she saw Ruben doing the
acts. Ruben Lim immediately covered her
mouth with his left hand, and pulled her hair with his right hand, and tried to push down Delailah but as the
latter was trying to resist and fight him, the accused told her not shout (sic)
otherwise he would kill her and her family specially the father who is
suffering from a heart ailment. Accused
drew his firearm from his right waist and poked it at the neck of the
victim. The firearm was a .38
revolver. There was light coming from
the electric post at the time of the incident. While the .38 caliber revolver was poked at her neck, the accused continued
threatening her. The complainant
believed the threats since when the accused was still single, he was charged
with frustrated murder in the province, and in Manila, the accused has a string
of cases and capable of carrying
out his threats (sic). When Delailah
tried to resist, accused hit her stomach and the accused removed (hinablot) the
panty of Delailah. Accused pressed the thigh of Delailah. Accused placed his finger on the private
part of the complainant, trying to loosen it. Accused succeeded in having a sexual intercourse with the complainant
despite the strong resistance and her plea not to do so, since they were
cousins. Accused even said ‘Anong
pinsan-pinsan, walang pinsan-pinsan sa akin, kaysa iba pa ang mauna, ako na
lang ang uuna.’ After the sexual intercourse, accused again threatened Delailah
not to report to anybody or else he would kill her and that of her family (sic)
and the complainant believed such threat.

Before Delailah left the house of the accused, the latter showed an
armalite and continued to threaten her. In the morning of December 5, 1986 complainant was allowed to leave but
she did not reveal to anybody what happened to her for fear of being
killed. For several months after the
commission of rape, the accused frequently visited private complainant to
repeat his threats. (TSN, 14 July 1988,
p. 22) During those visits, accused released (sic) that Delailah Lim was
pregnant with his baby. Accused begun
insisting that Delailah Lim have an abortion. Private complainant refused and put a stop (sic) to Ruben Lim’s
harassment, she informed his wife and was told to obey the wishes of the
accused for he is capable of carrying out his threats. (TSN, 14 July 1988, p. 24) Despite
complainant’s continued refusal, accused, with the aid of his sister, Virginia
Lim, succeeded in bringing Delailah to an abortionist – known to complainant as
Aling Maring. On June 21, 1987,
Delailah Lim had the abortion. Even as
this happened, complainant could not bring herself to report the case as she
remained afraid of the accused. She
only revealed that she was raped by the accused when she learned that the
accused was detained (but was subsequently released) for illegal possession of
firearms which was on October 7, 1987. On the following day, private complainant was accompanied by her sister
to the police station to file her complaint for rape against the accused who
was there held in custody. Delailah
executed a written complaint (Exhibit A) and submitted herself to medical
examination by Doctor Moraleda of the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory.

Preliminary investigation was conducted by the Assistant City
Fiscal and accused submitted his counter-affidavit and rejoinder
affidavit. On November 23, 1987,
complainant filed another case against the accused this time on intentional
abortion with one ‘Aling Maring’, the abortionist as co-accused. On February 5, 1988, the information was
file (sic) in the sala of Judge Velasco with no bail recommended. Acting on this information, a warrant of
arrest was issued with no bail recommended. The warrant of arrest returned unserved as the accused remained at
large. During the period when the
accused eluded arrest, accused threatened his uncle – Atty. Eldorado Lim, who
was suspected of aiding the complainant. Ruben Lim warned Atty. Lim that he would spray the lawyer’s house with
armalite (sic) if he could not convince Delailah to withdraw the cases filed
against him. Atty. Lim yielded and
called Delailah and her sister, Karen, to execute an affidavit of desistance. With great reservation Delailah executed on
March 1, 1988, an affidavit of desistance on the rape case and on March 8,
1988, a separate affidavit of desistance for the case of intentional
abortion. As result of the affidavit
filed, the case of intentional abortion was dismissed, and upon arraignment of
the accused for the rape charge, bail was granted. On the same date of arraignment, a motion for reconsideration of
order granting bail was filed by Delailah. This petition, however, was held in abeyance until the prosecution has
presented evidence. On April 28, 1988,
complainant executed a ‘Sinumpaang Salaysay’ (Exh. F) explaining that the
affidavit of desistance was involuntary and executed under duress and meant to
hasten the capture of the accused who would have believed that the case against
him would be dropped. (Memorandum
submitted by complainant. pp. 1-5)” (Rollo, pp. 28-31)

The defense, on the other hand, claims that at the time of the
alleged rape on December 5, 1986, the accused was in Lucena City attending the
wake of his brother-in-law, Efren Mansion. He claims, further, that he stayed in Lucena City from November 29, the
start of the week-long vigil for his brother-in-law, until interment on
December 6. The only time he left
Lucena City was in the morning of December 5, 1986 to attend a preliminary investigation
before Fiscal Silverio in Quezon City set at 2:00 o’clock that afternoon for a
theft case he filed against A. Paran and W. Paran. He was, allegedly, even with his wife and children when he left
for Quezon City since his wife had to buy a few things to be used at the
wake. His wife returned to Lucena City
that same afternoon while he left Quezon City early in the morning of December
6, 1986 with Jose Bacay, his second degree cousin and Atty. Eldorado Lim, his
uncle.

The lower court gave full faith and credit to the prosecution’s
version and rendered the herein questioned decision. Hence, the present appeal with the accused-appellant raising the
following assignment of errors:

“I. THAT
THE TRIAL COURT OVERLOOKED FACTS OF SUBSTANCE AND VALUE WHICH, IF CONSIDERED,
MAY AFFECT THE RESULT OF THE CASE THAT INSTEAD OF CONVICTION THERE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN AN ACQUITTAL OF THE ALLEGED CRIME OF RAPE.

II. THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT
CONSIDERING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI, WHERE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ACCUSED TO BE AT THE SCENE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME
AT THE TIME OF ITS COMMISSION.

III. THAT
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED, RUBEN
LIM Y ORTIZ, IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.” (Brief
for the accused-appellant, p. 87)

In People v. Yambao, (193 SCRA 571 (1991), this Court had occasion to state once
more the three settled principles to guide an appellate court in reviewing the
evidence in rape cases, 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 disprove it; (2) in
view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.

After a very careful examination of the records with the
foregoing principles in mind, this Court has arrived at no other conclusion but
that the present appeal must fail.

It must be noted that the issues
raised in this appeal are factual and the appellant has not presented
any compelling reason that would warrant the reversal of the findings of facts
of the lower court. It is a settled
principle that factual findings of trial courts are accorded utmost respect, in
the absence of arbitrariness, since they had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor and deportment of witnesses. (People v. Raptus, G. R. Nos. 92169-70, June 19, 1991; People v.
Tongson, 194 SCRA 257 [1991]; People v. Calixtro, 193 SCRA 303 [1991]; People
v. Rafanan, 182 SCRA 811 [1990])

The appellant’s primary defense is alibi with his wife and sister
corroborating his testimony. It has
long been recognized that alibi is an inherently weak defense which cannot
prevail over the positive identification of
the accused. (People v. Godines,
196 SCRA 765 [1991]; People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493 [1990]; People v. Robante,
178 SCRA 852 [1989]) Also, an alibi corroborated by the wife or other relatives
of the accused is extremely weak. (People v. Rio, G. R. No. 90294, September 24, 1991; People v. Serenio,
179 SCRA 379 [1989]; People v. Esquillo, 171 SCRA 571 [1989]) Moreover, whether
or not the proffered alibi is to be believed depends on the credibility of the
appellant’s version vis-a-vis that of the prosecution. The lower court found the prosecution’s version
credible. This Court finds nothing in
the records that would lead to a different
conclusion.

The appellant impugns the credibility of the prosecution’s theory
by pointing out that ten months and three days had lapsed since the alleged
rape before charges were filed against him. He asserts that if ever the alleged incident occurred, the delay in
filing the case would lead to
the conclusion that there was tacit consent to the act. The prosecution, however, successfully
explained the delay. The victim,
Delailah Lim, testified that the appellant threatened to kill her and her
family if she goes to the police. It
was established that after the alleged rape, the appellant made periodic visits
to the victim’s house, averaging twice a week, to repeat the threats. (p. 7, TSN, May 9, 1989) The entire records
of the case show that the appellant is a violence prone ex-soldier and it is
understandable why the victim should be afraid of him. The affidavit of desistance itself is a
product of fear.

The delay in filing the case is justified where such is due to
death threats against the victim and/or her family. (People v. Aquino, 186 SCRA 208 [1990]; People v. Nunag, 173 SCRA
274 [1989])

There appears to be no question that the threats were
sufficiently effective to deter the victim from reporting such an outrage
perpetrated upon her person.

Delailah Lim’s testimony established that she has a well-founded
belief that the appellant is capable of carrying out his threats. She knows that the appellant owns a .38 caliber
gun and an armalite – the former he used at the time he raped her, and the
latter, he showed her before he left the appellant’s house the following
morning. (p. 20, TSN, July 14, 1988)
Delailah Lim also testified that she knows of a frustrated murder case filed a
few years back against the appellant in the province. (p. 14, TSN, ibid)

The appellant tries to
play down the alleged fears of Delailah by establishing during the
cross-examination of the latter that she was aware that the appellant did not
face trial for the imputed crime nor was he ever convicted for the same. (TSN, August 22, 1988, pp. 8-9)

It is the considered
opinion of this Court that the fact of whether the appellant was actually
charged with frustrated murder or whether he was convicted for the same is not
material in resolving the particular question at hand. What is important is that Delailah Lim truly
believed that the appellant was capable of carrying out his threats although
the factual bases for such belief may turn out to be different from what she
conceived them to be.

The appellant next
contends that Delailah filed the present case due to the instigations of her
family since he confronted them regarding his share in the profits from the
properties of their deceased grandmother. However, in the counter-affidavit which the appellant submitted during
preliminary investigation, he stated a totally different motive of Delailah Lim
and we quote:

“That the only reason I can think of why Delailah G. Lim had
instituted this baseless and preposterous complaint is that she is being
manipulated by her sister’s deceased boyfriend, who is the brother of my
sister’s deceased husband, to force the latter to share the proceeds of the
death benefits which my sister received from the government after my brother-in-law died. x x x” (Exhibit O)

In imputing ulterior
motives to the complainant, the appellant hopes to convince this Court that the
charges against him are fabricated. But the manner by which the appellant presented his contention convinces
this Court that it is the imputed motives which have been fabricated. The lower court also correctly pointed out
that “….Even conceding that the grandmother’s estate has been contested by
her heirs, William Lim, father of Delailah Lim, Atty. Eldorado Lim and Antonio
Lim (deceased), father of the accused, it is unlikely that the partition has
not yet been settled considering that Paula Tumlawen died in 1968 or almost two
decades before this suit was instituted. (TSN June 26, 1989, p. 3)” (Rollo, p. 32)

The appellant further impugns the credibility of the
prosecution’s theory by alleging that Delailah’s behavior after the alleged
rape did not exhibit the fear and exhaustion which such a startling and
frightful experience should have instilled in her. She still accompanied her sister to Lucena City at about 1:00 o’clock of December 5 considering that
she knew that the accused would also be there. According to the testimonies of Ruth Lim, the appellant’s wife and
Rosalinda Mansion, the appellant’s sister, Delailah even played card games and
would even jump with joy whenever she wins. (TSN, May 9, 1989, p. 5 and TSN, May 13, 1989, p. 5, respectively)

In People v. Raptus, supra, citing People v. Ronquillo
(184 SCRA 236 [1990]), it has been held that “…different people react
differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no
standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a
strange or startling frightful experience.”

Delailah Lim, moreover, has already explained her actions
immediately after the rape during her cross-examination. She decided to accompany her sister to
Lucena City since her brother-in-law requested her so. Also, she could not think of any excuse to
refuse the request without her sister and brother-in-law becoming suspicious of
her behavior. (p. 39, TSN, July 27,
1988)

At any rate, the testimonies of the appellant’s wife and sister
regarding Delailah’s behavior in Lucena
City are quite dubious for their narrations coincide in every respect and
detail. (People v. Talla, 181 SCRA 133
[1990]; People v. Madriago IV, 171 SCRA 103 [1989]; People v. Rosario, 159 SCRA
192 [1988])

The appellant next contends that the Affidavit of Desistance
(Exhibit 1) executed by Delailah Lim stating that the rape case arose out of a
mere misunderstanding should be considered in his favor. It must be
noted that the Affidavit was executed on March 1, 1988 at a time when the
accused was still at large. On April
22, 1988, the appellant surrendered for arraignment and immediately thereafter,
that is, on the 28th of the same month, the complainant executed a ‘Sinumpaang
Salaysay’ explaining that the Affidavit of Desistance was involuntary and
executed under duress. It was also meant
to hasten the capture of the accused who would have believed that the case
against him would be dropped. The
foregoing series of events lends credence to Delailah’s claims as to why she
executed the Affidavit. The trial court
correctly observed the following:

“x x x Its (referring to the Affidavit of
Desistance) performance coincided with the time Ruben remained at large after
the warrant of arrest was issued with no bail grant. This Court takes note that the tender of voluntary surrender by
the accused was on April 22, 1988 for several days after the affidavits of
desistance on rape and intentional abortion were executed. From the facts adduced, inference may be
drawn that Ruben Lim had occasion to force the filing of the affidavits as
alleged by Delailah Lim and came out of hiding when the case against him would
not prosper due to the retraction.

“The duress angle of the affidavits of desistance is supported by
the motions to withdraw filed on March 4, 1988 by Atty. Eldorado Lim, counsel
of the accused in the following cases: People v. Ruben Lim (carnapping case) presented as evidence by the
prosecution marked Exhibits I, J and K. To quote:

‘That last Saturday and Sunday, the accused threatened the
undersigned counsel with death due to suspicion that said undersigned counsel
extended his help to his niece Delailah Lim in a rape case by that letter (sic)
against Ruben Lim which is assigned to this Honorable Court.’” (Rollo, p. 37)

The appellant belatedly impugns the credibility of Atty. Lim whom
he alleges to have conspired with Delailah for their grandmother’s
inheritance. It is quite improbable
that the appellant would have retained the services of Atty. Lim in the other
cases filed by and against him, a relationship which requires utmost
confidence, if they maintained adverse interests.

In any case, to warrant the dismissal of the complaint, the
victim’s retraction or pardon should be made prior to the institution of the criminal action (People v. Soliao, 194
SCRA 250 [1991]). The present case was
filed on February 24, 1988 while the Affidavit was executed only on March 1,
1988.

All the foregoing discussions clearly show the strength of the
prosecution’s case. This Court finds it
unnecessary, then, to delve lengthily into the other trivial points raised by
the appellant in his brief (such as Delailah
Lim being at the age of highest sexual desire; the development of intimacy
between the complainant and appellant due to Delailah’s frequent visits to the
appellant’s house; Delailah having purposely worn a dress which is straight out
and open from the neckline down on the date of the alleged rape) to show that
the act was consensual inasmuch as the same are mere conjectures, not having
been established during the trial.

As to the matter of the complainant submitting voluntarily to an
abortion, such fact is impertinent to the case at hand. Even assuming, arguendo, that complainant
submitted to an abortion, such does not detract from the fact that the
appellant perpetrated the offense charged herein.

WHEREFORE, ALL THE FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, the
APPEAL is hereby DISMISSED. The
decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.