G.R. Nos. 104996-98. March 28, 1994
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FREDO MATAMOROSA AND DANNY MAGAPURO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
KAPUNAN, J.:
After their conviction for the abduction and rape of a 16-year
old mental retardate, accused-appellants Fredo Matamorosa and Danny Magapuro
appealed to this Court, averring that their identity as the perpetrators of the
crime had not been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The records show that at around 11:00 o’clock in the evening of
September 16, 1990, Christine Rayandayan, a 16-year old mental retardate, went
to church in Ugong, Pasig. After the
mass, Salcedo “Poldo” Magapuro followed Christine and brought her to
a banca piloted by accused-appellant Alfredo “Fredo” Matamorosa (TSN,
August 26, 1991, pp. 3-4; Exhibits “A-1” & “D-1”).
On board the banca, while Salcedo Magapuro watched,
accused-appellant Fredo Matamorosa undressed the passive Christine, put his
body on top of hers, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, the two men brought Christine to
the other side of the river where she was again raped by accused-appellant
Fredo Matamorosa (TSN, June 19, 1991, pp. 2-4).
The banca then returned to shore. While accused-appellant Fredo Matamorosa remained in the banca,
Salcedo Magapuro took Christine and brought her to another gangmate, Zaldy
Bernardo (Exhibit “A-1”), who brought her to his house at the
Bernardo Compound. The other members of
the gang, namely, accused-appellant Danny Magapuro (brother of Salcedo
Magapuro), Rowel Cruz, and Bernardo Matamorosa (brother of accused-appellant
Fredo Matamorosa) soon arrived at Zaldy Bernardo’s house, where they took turns
in raping the helpless Christine (Exhibit “A-1”; TSN, June 19, 1991,
pp. 3-4; TSN, July 12, 1991, pp.
4-6).
After her ordeal, Christine was sent home. However, she instead went to her friend
Rosalie’s house, and there spent the night. It was in the following
morning that Christine went home. By
then, Christine’s father, Reynaldo Rayandayan, had already learned from a
co-worker that Christine had been raped. Christine’s swollen mouth and the “kiss
marks” on her neck served to confirm the outrage perpetrated upon
her (TSN, September 23, 1991, p. 2).
On September 18, 1990, Christine and her father went to the
police station, where the latter signed a complaint for the rape of his
daughter (Exhibit “C”). The
following day, Christine was medically examined at the PC/INP Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame by Dr. Jesusa
O. Nievas, who filed the following report:
“There is scanty growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coapted
with the pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same are disclosed a
congested fourchette and an elastic, fleshy-type hymen with shallow, healing
lacerations at 1 and 3 o’clock and deep healing lacerations at 5 and 7
o’clock. External vaginal orifice
offers moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining index finger and the virginsized speculum. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent
rugosities. Cervix is normal in size,
color and consistency.
“xxx xxx xxx.
“Subject is in non-virgin state physically. There are no external signs of recent
application of any form of trauma.
“xxx xxx xxx.
“Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for
gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa.” (Exhibit “E”).
After an investigation, a complaint/information for forcible
abduction and rape was filed against Salcedo Magapuro, Fredo Matamorosa, Zaldy
Bernardo, Danny Magapuro, Rowel Cruz and Bernardo Matamorosa (Crim. Case No.
85915, Records, p. 1). Only
accused-appellants Fredo Matamorosa and Danny Magapuro were brought to trial,
the other accused being still at large. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
Aside from the testimonies of Christine, her father, and two (2)
barangay tanods who saw Christine in the company of the accused at the time
that the rape was committed, the prosecution presented Dr. Francianina Gonzales
Sanchez and Dr. Cecilia Villegas to testify on the mental capacity of
Christine. Both doctors were agreed in
their assessment that Christine is a low-grade moron with an IQ of 54, and the mental
age of a 7 to 8-year old child; that Christine is passive and was not likely to
have resisted the sexual assault upon her; that Christine knows that rape is
wrong but is not in a position to realize its consequences; and, that Christine
has the capacity to remember her assailants and identify them with reliability
(Exhibits “B” & “G”, TSN, August 2, 1991, pp. 6-10;
TSN, December 18, 1991, pp. 4-10).
The two accused-appellants denied the charges against them
claiming that they do not know of any reason why they were charged with having
abducted and raped Christine since the latter was not known to them. They also cannot find any reason why
Christine and her family would want to file such serious charges against
them. Danilo Magapuro asserted that in
the evening of September 16, 1990, he was at home watching television until
nine o o’clock, after which he went to sleep (TSN, January 28, 1992, pp.
4-8). On the other hand, Fredo
Matamorosa admitted having piloted a banca on the night of September 16, 1990
and having ferried a man and a woman across the river, but claimed that he did
not know the identity of his passengers. (TSN, January 28, 1992, pp. 12-18).
Judge Martin S. Villarama, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig, Branch 156, disbelieved the accused and found them guilty as charged. The conspirators were each sentenced to
RECLUSION PERPETUA and held solidarily liable to the complainant for
P30,000.00, as civil indemnity, and to pay their proportionate shares of the
costs (Decision, p. 9; Records, p. 206).
In this appeal, accused-appellants
attack the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Accused-appellants question Christine’s
identification of Fredo Matamorosa as among the persons who raped her pointing
out that during the trial held on June 4, 1991, when both accused-appellants
were present in the courtroom, she declared that the person who followed her
from the church and brought her to the banca was not present in the courtroom;
whereas, during the trial held on June 19, 1991. Christine declared that it was Fredo Matamorosa who brought her to a banca, undressed her, and
raped her.
The contradiction in Christine’s testimony is more apparent than real. During the June 4 trial, Christine’s
testimony proceeded as follows:
“Q While
walking do you recall of any incident that happened?
“A Somebody
followed me, sir.
“Q Do
you know who is that person who
followed you?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Will
you point to him?
“A He
is not around, sir.
“Q What
happened after you were followed by that person?
“A He
brought me in the center, sir.
“Fiscal Suyat:
We just want to manifest
that there are six (6) persons inÂvolved in this incident but only two were
under the jurisdiction of the Court.
“COURT:
Noted.
“Q How
many persons brought you to the center?
“A Only
one, sir.
“Q What
center is that?
“A A big one, sir.
“Q At
the center, what happened?
“A I
was brought in a banca, sir.
“Q By
whom?
“A By
the male persons, sir.
“Q What
happened at the banca?
“A They
undressed me, sir.” (TSN, June 4, pp. 2-3).
While on June 19, Christine testified in the following manner:
“Fiscal Suyat:
“Q In
the last hearing you testiÂfied that Fredo Matamorosa brought you in a banca. Do you remember that?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q And
who was with Fredo Matamorosa in the banca?
“A I
do not know the persons, sir.
“Q Then
what happened when you reached the banca?
“A He
undressed me, sir.
“Q Who
undressed you?
“A Fredo,
sir.
“Q After
undressing you, what did he do?
“A He
put his body on top of me, sir.
“Q What
else?
“A He
kissed me, sir.
“Q After
kissing you what else did he do?
“A He
inserted his private parts into my private parts, sir.
“Q At
the time he inserted his private parts inside your private parts what was his
other companion doing?
“A None,
sir. He Just looked at us.”
(TSN, June 19, 1991, pp.
1-2.)
Clearly, there is no contradiction between testimonies. Contrary to accused-appellants’ contention,
there was never any mention during the June 19 hearing, of Fredo Matamorosa
following Christine before bringing
her to a banca. Rather, Fiscal Suyat asked Christine if it was
Fredo Matamorosa who brought her in a banca. In view of her low mental capacity, Christine must have thought that the
question asked was whether it was Fredo Matamorosa who ferried her in the
banca, that is, whether it was Fredo Matamorosa who piloted said banca.
Considering that accused-appellants had admitted that Fredo
Matamorosa is a “bankero” or banca operator (TSN, January 28, 1992,
p. 12), and since his own sister, Emma Matamorosa, testified that she saw
Christine and an unidentified man being ferried by Fredo Matamorosa across the
river on the night in question (TSN, February 17, 1992, p. 7), Christine’s
assent to Fiscal Suyat’s question cannot be taken as a contradiction of her
earlier testimony regarding the identity of the person who followed her from
church and brought her to the
banca. Obviously Christine’s answers to
those two questions were different because they called for different
answers. In response to the question
who followed her from church and brought her to the banca, Christine’s answer
was clear: she does not know his name
and he is not among the accused-appellants. As to the question of who ferried her in the banca, Christine’s response
was equally plain: Fredo Matamorosa.
This Court further agrees with the trial court’s assessment that
Christine’s straightforward and clear testimony inculpating accused-appellant
Fredo Matamorosa, as among the persons who raped her, deserves full faith and
credence. It is axiomatic that the
trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of a witness is accorded with the
highest respect because it is the trial court that has the direct opportunity
to observe the witnesses on the stand and determine if they are telling the truth or not (People v. de la Cruz, G.R.
No. 108180, February 8, 1994). Further,
well-entrenched is the rule that the testimony of a rape victim is credible
where she has no motive to testify against the accused (People v. Palicte, G.R.
No. 101088, January 27, 1994; People v. Cabilao, 210 SCRA 326 [1992]) – – as,
in fact, it had been admitted by accused-appellants that they know of no reason
why Christine and her family would want to falsely impute the heinous crime of
rape to them.
Manifestly, therefore, Christine was able to relate her harrowing
experience to the court in a
consistent and clear manner despite her mental limitations. This is but to be expected considering that
the two doctors who examined her were unanimous in their assessment that
although Christine has the mental age of a 7 to 8-year old child, she has the
capacity to remember her assailants and to identify them with reliability (see
TSN, August 2, 1991, pp. 6-10; TSN, December 18, 1991, pp. 4-10).
At any rate, Christine’s testimony is supported by the
corroborative declarations of the two barangay tanods, Bernie Cruz and Lorenzo
Bernardo, who both saw Salcedo “Poldo” Magapuro (brother of
accused-appellant Danny Magapuro) follow Christine from church and bring her to
accused-appellant Fredo Matamorosa’s banca (Exhibits “A-1” &
“D-1”). Barangay Tanod,
Bernie Cruz’s testimony also buttresses Christine’s narration of the events
which followed her rape in the banca and fleshes it out by his identification
of the other gang members who raped Christine, namely: accused-appellant Danny Magapuro, Zaldy
Bernardo, Rowel Cruz, and Bernardo Matamorosa (see TSN, July 12, 1991, pp. 4-6;
Exhibit “A-1”).
There is no merit in accused-appellant’s contention that Bernie
Cruz’s testimony is unreliable because he declared at first that it was Zaldy Bernardo whom he saw with Christine but later he claimed
that it was Salcedo
“Poldo” Magpuro who was with
her. As will soon become apparent, there is no
contradiction here.
During direct examination, Bernie Cruz’s testimony proceeded as
follows:
“Q Did
you see the complainant on that day and time?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Was
she alone?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q What
time did you see her alone?
“A
More or less 1:00 o’clock, sir.
“Q When
you saw her alone, did you talk to her?
“A
No, sir.
“Q Where
did she go?
“A She was on her way home, sir.
“Q Do
you know a person by the name of
Zaldy Bernardo?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Why
do you know him?
“A He
is a neighbor, sir.
“Q Did
you not see him in that early morning of September 17, 1990?
“A I
saw him, sir.
“Q Where
did you see him?
“A In
the street, sir.
“Q
Was he alone?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q So
you saw Zaldy Bernardo and the complainant on that same night?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q But
they were not together?
“A They
were together, sir.
“Q You said they were together, earlier you
said Bernado was alone and comÂplainant Christine was alone. Will you
please explain that to the Court?
“A On
that night, Zaldy was with Christine, sir.
“Q What
time was that
when they were together?
“A 1:00 o’clock, sir.
“Q And
where did they go?
“A In
the interior, sir. ‘Sa looban nila Zaldy.’
“Q And
what happened after Christine was brought
to this ‘looban’ which you mentioned?
“A Zaldy
went out. Danny was there together with
Rowel Cruz, sir.
“Q Where
was Danny and Rowel Cruz?
“A They
were also outside, sir.
“Q Outside
of what?
“A In
the street, sir.
“Q And
then what happened after that?
“A Zaldy
went out then Rowel and Danny followed him.
“Q Where
did they go?
“A They
went also to the ‘looban’ with Zaldy.
“Q Are
these persons whom you menÂtioned are in the courtroom?
“A The
two are present, sir.
“Q Will
you please point out to them?
“Interpreter:
Witness was pointing to
persons who identified themselves as Danny Magapuro and Fredo Matamorosa, the two accused in these
cases. “(TSN, July 12, 1991, pp.
3-4; underscoring supplied.)
While on cross-examination, this is what Bernie Cruz said – –
“Q After
buying cigarette, where did you go?
“A Near a jeepney, sir.
“Q Also
in the vicinity of the church?
“A Near
the church, Sir.
“Q And
what time more or less was that?
“A About
12:00 o’clock, sir.
“Q And
what were you doing in that place?
“A We
were talking, sir.
“Q You
and your companion continued conversing with each other?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q And
how long did this conversation last?
“A Just
a few minutes, sir.
“Q After
that, where did you go?
“A We
saw Christine on her way home, sir.
“Q Where
did Christine come from at that time, if you know?
“A I
do not know where she came from, sir.
“Q Where
was she heading at that time?
“A On
her way home, sir.
“Q Did
she take a ride?
“A No,
sir.
“Q Do
you know the house of Christine?
“A No,
sir.
“Q Why
did you say that Christine was on her way home at that time?
“A I
know the Purok where she lives but I do not know the house.
“Q What
Purok?
“A Purok
V, sir.
“Q And
you saw Christine going to that direction?
“A She
passed by Purok III. After that, I
saw her together with Poldo, sir.
“Q Who
is this Poldo?
“A Elder
brother of Danny,
sir.” (TSN, July 12, 1991, pp. 8-9; underÂscoring supplied)
Taking Bernie Cruz’s testimony in its totality, it is readily
apparent that what he said was that at twelve midnight, he saw Christine with
Salcedo “Poldo” Magapuro, and, thereafter, at 1:00 a.m., he saw her
again but, this time, with Zaldy Bernardo. Instead of weakening the case of the prosecution, Bernie Cruz’s
testimony, in fact, strengthens it because his testimony confirms the sequence
of events narrated by Christine and establishes the identity of the man who
followed Christine from church – Salcedo “Poldo” Magapuro – – as well
as the identities of the other persons who raped her in Zaldy Bernardo’s house,
notable among them, accused-appellant Danilo Magapuro.
Finally, we find accused-appellants’ argument that Danilo
Magapuro was implicated in Christine’s rape
because he was standing near the scene of the crime, to be too feeble to
merit consideration. Christine
positively identified accused-appellant Danilo Magapuro as among her assailants and she distinctly stated the extent of
his participation in the crime, as follows:
“Q Do
you know a place Bernardo Compound?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q On
what side of the river?
“A
In front of the dumping area (basurahan), sir.
“Q Why do you know this Bernardo’s Compound?
“A That was the place where he brought me, sir.
“Q Who brought you there?
“A Bernardo, sir.
“Q Who
else?
“A Danny,
sir.
“Q Do you know the full name of this Danny?
“A No,
sir.
“Q If he is in the courtroom will you
point out to him?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Interpreter:
Witness went down from the witness stand and pointing to a person who
answered in the name of Danny Magapuro, one of the accused in this case.
“Q By the way, for purposes of clarificaÂtion, you said this Fredo was the
one who brought you in the banca. Is
this Fredo inside the courtroom?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Will you please point to him also.
“Interpreter:
Witness went down from the witness stand and pointing to a person who
identified himself as Alfredo Matamorosa, another accused in this case.
“Q
You stated Danilo Magapuro brought you
to Bernardo’s Compound. Who was his
companion?
“A His gangmates, sir.
“Q How many were they?
“A Five, sir.
“Q What happened at this Bernardo’s Compound?
“A He
undressed me, sir.
“Q Who
undressed you?
“A Bernardo,
sir.
“Q How
about Danilo what did he do?
“A He inserted his private parts into my
private parts, sir.
“Q You
said Danny and his several companions. Do you know the names of these five
companions of Danny Magapuro?
“A No,
sir.
“Q But if you see them will you be able to
recognize them?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Who else inserted his private parts into your
private part aside from Danny Magapuro?
“A They,
sir.
“Q All his five companions?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q How many times were you raped by the
companions of Danny Magapuro?
“A Once,
sir.
“Q So
each of them did it only once?
“A Yes, sir.” (TSN, June 19, 1991, pp.
3-4).
From the foregoing, it is beyond cavil that the prosecution has
firmly established the identities of accused-appellants as among those who
participated in the abduction and rape of Christine.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the challenged
decision is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against
accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman),
Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason,
JJ., concur.