G.R. Nos. 143844-46. November 19, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ATANACIO MENDOZA, APPELLANT.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
A rape victim, especially one who is of tender age, would not
normally concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private
parts and undergo a public trial, if she is not motivated solely by the desire
to have her ravisher apprehended and punished. As long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may
be convicted on that sole basis.
Statement of the Case
Atanacio Mendoza appeals the March 23, 2000 “Joint Judgment”[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna (Branch 34) in Criminal
Case Nos. 6059-98-C, 6060-98-C and 6061-98-C, convicting him of three (3) counts
of rape. The dispositive portion of the
assailed Decision reads as follows:
“In Criminal Case No.
6059-98-C
“This Court finds accused Atanacio Mendoza GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all its attendant accessory penalties.
“Accused is further directed to indemnify complaining witness
Marilyn Bernardo the sum of Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos as and for
moral damages.
“In Criminal Case No.
6060-98-C
“This Court finds accused Atanacio Mendoza GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Articles 266-a and
266-b of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all its attendant accessory penalties.
“Accused is further directed to indemnify complaining witness
Marilyn Bernardo the sum of Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos as and for
moral damages.
“In Criminal Case No.
6061-98-C
“This Court finds accused Atanacio Mendoza GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Articles 266-a and
266-b of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all its attendant accessory penalties.
“Accused is further directed to indemnify complaining witness
Jennifer Fernandez the sum of Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos as and for
moral damages.”[2]
Three separate Informations,[3] all
dated July 31, 1998, charged appellant as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6059-98-C
“That sometime in March 1997, at Brgy. Parian, Municipality of
Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, through force, violence and intimidation and
with lewd design did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal relation with one MARILYN BERNARDO y BUNO fifteen (15) years old minor,
against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.”[4]
Criminal Case No. 6060-98-C
“That sometime in February 1996, at Brgy. Parian, Municipality of
Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, while conveniently armed with a handgun,
through force, violence and intimidation and with lewd design did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal relation with one
MARILYN BERNARDO y BUNO fifteen (15) years old minor, against her will and
consent, to her damage and prejudice.”[5]
Criminal Case No. 6061-98-C
“That on or about March 25, 1998, at Brgy. Parian, Municipality of
Calamba, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, through force, violence and intimidation and
with lewd design did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal relation with one JENNIFER FERNANDEZ y MATA sixteen (16) years old
minor, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.”[6]
During his arraignment on September 16, 1998, appellant, assisted
by his counsel,[7]
pled not guilty to the charges.[8] After
a joint trial of the cases, the lower court rendered the assailed Judgment.
The
Facts
Version of the Prosecution
In its Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), presents
the prosecution’s version of the facts as follows:[9]
“Criminal Cases No.
5059-98-C and 6060-98-C
“Sometime in February 1996, Marilyn Bernardo, who was then fifteen
(15) years old, and her eleven-year brother Jose Bernardo were entrusted by
their mother to the care of appellant, their mother’s godson. Their mother left their house in
Centerville, Calamba, Laguna to visit her relatives in Batangas. Their father was not living with them,
having separated from their mother.
“Around 1:00 o’clock in the morning, Marilyn, who was then sleeping
in her mother’s room together with her younger brother Jose, was roused from
her sleep when she felt somebody, who turned out to be appellant, touching her
body. Appellant threatened Marilyn not
to move or shout or tell anyone what was happening or else he would shoot
her. Marilyn felt a gun pointed at her.
“Appellant inserted his finger into Marilyn’s private part and
ordered her to remove her clothes. Out
of fear, Marilyn removed her clothing. When appellant went on top of her, Marilyn tried to resist by boxing
appellant but she was eventually overpowered by the former who succeeded in
inserting his penis into her organ. The
frightened victim felt pain and could only cry as she was being defiled by appellant.
“Jose was awakened by the resistance put up by Marilyn and saw
appellant on top of [his] sister. He
was however too afraid to do anything because appellant threatened to kill him.
“Before leaving, appellant warned Marilyn and Jose not to tell anyone
otherwise he would kill them.
“When her mother arrived in the afternoon of the following day,
Marilyn did not report the incident because she was frightened of appellant’s
threat.
“This sexual outrage was repeated sometime in March 1997 when at
around 2:00 o’clock in the morning, appellant entered Marilyn’s room, poked
something at her back, and warned her that if she shouted, he would shoot
her. Appellant then inserted his finger
into her private part. Marilyn boxed
appellant and pleaded with him. Appellant ignored her plea and went on top of her saying, ‘Umayos
ka, umayos ka’. Notwithstanding the
resistance put up by Marilyn, appellant succeeded in consummating his lust. Before leaving, appellant warned Marilyn not
to tell anyone, otherwise he would kill her and her family.
“Again, Jose was awakened by the resistance put up by [his] sister
and tried to leave the room. Appellant
pulled his arms and told him to stay. Frightened and intimidated, he went back to sleep.
“The siblings’ mother was not in their house when appellant
repeated his sexual assault on Marilyn.
“Sometime in the early part of 1998, Marilyn revealed to her mother
that she was sexually assaulted by appellant. Ruben Cabatbat, a barriomate and a fellow member of the victim’s mother
in a religious organization, learned about the incident from the victim and
assisted her and her mother in prosecuting appellant.
“On June 15, 1998, Marilyn was examined by Dr. Lorna P. Sta.
Maria. The medical examination revealed
that Marilyn’s hymen had ‘old-healed lacerations at 3 o’clock and 6 o’clock
position.’
“On June 18, 1998, Marilyn was emboldened to report to the
authorities the sexual assaults committed against her by appellant after
learning that Jennifer Fernandez had already filed a similar case against
appellant.
“Criminal Case No.
6060-98-C
“Around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of March 25, 1998, Jennifer
Fernandez was on her way to school at Pulo National High School when she saw
appellant waiting for her at the corner of Centerville which was near her house
in Barangay Paciano Rizal, Calamba, Laguna. Appellant told Jennifer to go with him. When Jennifer refused, appellant threatened her by saying that something
would happen to her. Frightened,
Jennifer went with appellant who held her arms. Jennifer tried to resist by boxing appellant to no avail.
“Appellant forced Jennifer to board a passenger jeep where they
were the only passengers. They alighted
at Parian, Calamba, Laguna, where a tricycle was already waiting for them. Jennifer was made to board the tricycle
which brought them to Riverview Hotel. At the hotel premises, appellant left her inside the tricycle. Jennifer did not run nor shout as she was
very frightened of appellant. She also
heard appellant telling the tricycle driver to guard her otherwise he would
hold the driver accountable.
“Appellant subsequently returned and dragged Jennifer inside one of
the rooms of the hotel. Once inside the
room, appellant ordered Jennifer to undress. When she refused, appellant slapped her three times and threatened her,
‘Kung hindi ka papayag, papatayin kita.’ Frightened Jennifer undressed and appellant kissed her private
parts. Jennifer tried to resist by
boxing appellant. She also cried and
pleaded with appellant to desist from what he was doing. Appellant responded by
boxing Jennifer on the stomach, causing the latter to twist in pain. Appellant then mounted her and inserted his
manhood into her private part. After
appellant had ejaculated inside Jennifer, he took a towel and wiped the semen
on his organ. He told Jennifer to
dress-up.
“After appellant and Jennifer had left the room and were outside of
the hotel, Jennifer ran away and boarded a jeep. She proceeded to her school where her crying drew queries from
her classmates but she did not reveal to them the reason for her tears as she
was afraid of the threat made by appellant. Jennifer went home at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon and just
stayed in her room where she continued crying.
“Sometime in the early part of 1998, Jennifer revealed to her
parents that she was sexually assaulted by appellant.
“On June 2, 1998, Dr. Charisa Juangco examined Jennifer. The medical examination revealed that
Jennifer had an old healed laceration at 5:00 o’clock and 7:00 o’clock position.’
“On June 3, 1998, Jennifer reported her ordeal to the
authorities. She was afraid to report
it earlier because appellant threatened to kill her and her family.”[10]
(Citations omitted)
Version of the Defense
Appellant denied the charges. Before the RTC, he testified that Marilyn Bernardo had filed the cases
against him as an offshoot of a quarrel. That quarrel was supposedly between his wife, Fely; and Marilyn’s
mother, Prescilla Bernardo[11] — a
preacher herself, who belonged to the same religious group as he. He said that when Prescilla advised him to leave Fely, he ignored said advice and
thereafter absented himself from the preaching activities of the group. His acts allegedly enraged Prescilla, who
then concocted the charges against him.[12] He averred further that he hardly left his
house during the months of February 1996 and March 1997.[13]
As regards the rape charge of Jennifer Fernandez, appellant
alleged that on March 25, 1998, he attended the birthday party of his neighbor
and friend, Mario Manaig. He was in
Mario’s house from ten o’clock in the morning of that day until two o’clock the
next morning, March 26, 1998.[14]
The defense of appellant was corroborated by his wife, Fely
Mendoza; as well as by Mario Manaig and Cecille Manaig. Cecille and Fely further testified that
Jennifer Fernandez confided to them that she had been raped by her own brother,
Ricardo Salazar. Allegedly, she did not
file a complaint against him for fear that he might eject her from his house.[15]
Another witness, Maria Lydia Borlongan, resident manager of the
Riverview Resort and Hotel, testified that during her 24-hour duty on March 25,
1998, she could not recall any rape that had taken place in one of the hotel
rooms.[16]
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The RTC gave credence to the clear and positive testimonies of
private complainants. It said:
“Complaining witnesses in the cases at bar are both minors x x x [a]nd this
circumstance, standing alone, overwhelms the constitutional presumption of innocence
in favor of the accused. And ranged
against the positive clear testimonies of the complaining witnesses, the
defense of alibi and fabrication invoked by the accused cannot hope to
succeed.”[17]
Hence, this appeal.[18]
The Issues
In his Brief, appellant submits the following assignment of
errors for our consideration:
“I.
“The trial court gravely erred in holding
that the fact of minority of both complaining witnesses in Criminal Cases Nos.
6059-98-C, 6060-98-C and 6061-98-C standing alone, overwhelms the
constitutional presumption of the innocence of the accused.
“II.
“The trial court gravely erred in holding
that the delay of the disclosure of the complaining witnesses to disclose the
fact of rape cannot reverse the wheels of guilt of the accused.
“III.
“The trial court gravely erred when it failed
to consider and appreciate evidence for the appellant that the incident of rape
against Jennifer Fernandez was allegedly committed inside a hotel, or that the
alleged assault against Marilyn Bernardo was committed inside a room in the
company of the victim’s brother.
“IV.
“The trial court gravely erred in holding
that the inconsistency in the sworn statement of Marilyn Buno Bernardo against
her declaration in Court do[es] not unnecessarily discredit her.
“V.
“The trial court gravely erred in holding
that appellant is guilty of the crime punished under Article 335 in Criminal
Case No. 6061-98-C in the judgment received on March 31, 2001.
“VI.
“The trial court gravely erred in holding
[that] the appellant is guilty of the crime of rape as defined and penalized
under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in
Criminal Case No. 6060-98-C in the judgment received on April 6, 2000.”[19]
In the main, this Court is being asked to reverse the lower court
on two grounds: (1) the incredible testimony of complainants and (2) the
prosecution’s failure to rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence in
favor of appellant.
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is partly meritorious.
First
Issue:
Credibility of Private Complainants
Appellant faults private complainants for their long delay in
reporting the alleged crimes. He
asserts that it was unnatural for Marilyn Bernardo to wait for two years after
the supposed first rape before filing the charges. He also casts doubts on her credibility by citing material
inconsistencies between her Sworn Statement and her testimony. Finally, he
contends that it was improbable for him to have raped Marilyn inside a bedroom
she shared with her brother.
We disagree. When it
comes to the issue of credibility of witnesses, we generally defer to the
assessment of the trial court, because it had the singular opportunity to
observe their demeanor.[20]
Thus, its findings are conclusive, unless it is shown that certain facts of
substance and value have been plainly overlooked.[21]
In the present case, a review of
the records and the transcripts shows that the RTC had ample opportunity to
examine the testimony of the complaining witnesses. Appellant has not given us sufficient reason to overturn the
lower court’s factual findings.
Moreover, in the prosecution of rape cases, it is well-settled
that long silence and delay in reporting the crime cannot detract from the
victim’s credibility,[22]
especially where the delay is satisfactorily explained.[23]
In Jennifer’s case, reporting the crime four months after it
occurred is hardly unreasonable. Meanwhile, in the case of Marilyn, the fact that she waited two years
before she reported the dastardly deeds was justified by her fear. She explained as follows:
“FISCAL:
Q I noticed that you were
only investigated on June 18, 1998 in the incidence that you have narrated
happened on February 1996 and March 1997. Can you tell us why it was only on June 18, 1998 when you gave your
statement to the investigator?
WITNESS:
A Because I was very afraid
of him, sir, and the reason why I gave my statement on June 18, 1998 I learned
that somebody [h]as filed a case against him.
Q Do you know who[‘s] this
somebody whom you said filed a case against the same accused Atanacio Mendoza?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who?
A Jennifer Fernandez, sir.
Q You said the reason why
you did not immediate[ly] give your statement because you were afraid of the
accused. Why were you afraid of the
accused?
WITNESS:
A Because he threatened me
that he will kill me and my mother and brother, sir.
“FISCAL:
Q This Atanacio Mendoza the
accused in these two case[s], do you know where he was residing?
A Yes sir.
Q Where?
A He is our neighbor at
Centerville, sir.”[24]
It must be noted that a young girl, unlike a mature woman, cannot
be expected to have the courage and the intelligence to report immediately a
sexual assault committed against her, especially when a death threat hangs over
her head.[25]
It is not proper to judge the action of children who have undergone traumatic
experiences by the norms of behavior expected of mature individuals under
similar circumstances.[26] This
is especially true in the case at bar, in which the malefactor was a trusted
friend and neighbor.
Relying on People v. Wilson,[27]
appellant wants us to disregard the testimony of Marilyn because of the alleged
“substantial inconsistency” between her Sworn Statement and her open court
testimony. In the former, she alleged
that during the February 1996 rape incident, “x x x hindi po natuloy na ipasok niya ang kanyang ari sa akin x x x”;[28]
but in the latter, she said that he was able to insert his penis fully into her
vagina.[29]
Appellant’s reliance on Wilson[30]
is misplaced. That case pertains to two
different Sworn Statements executed a day apart. The first affidavit charged the accused with attempted rape; the
second, with consummated rape. The
latter Statement resulted in the filing of an amended Complaint changing the
charge from attempted to consummated rape. No plausible explanation was offered by the victim for the sudden
change. Moreover, the physical evidence
did not corroborate the allegation. Hence, the accusation was deemed unworthy of credence.
In the present case, we find nothing suspicious that would lead
us to believe that the charges were fabricated. The inconsistency cited does not by itself destroy the
credibility of Marilyn as to what transpired in February 1996 and March
1997. She ably clarified this seeming
inconsistency during her testimony when she explained that in February 1996,
appellant had not been able to insert his penis fully into her vagina after
placing his finger inside, but succeeded later in March 1997.[31]
Verily, declarations made in court are given more weight than statements taken ex parte, because the latter are almost
always incomplete and inaccurate.[32]
As to the improbability of committing rape in a public place as
pointed out by appellant, we have consistently held that rape is no respecter
of time and place.[33] It
can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the
roadside, within school premises, inside a house or where there are other
occupants, and even in the same room where there are other members of the
family who are sleeping.[34]
It must be noted that in the case of Marilyn, her younger brother
who was sleeping beside her was awakened by the sound of his sister apparently
“fighting” someone else. He then saw
appellant “on top” of her. The boy
clearly narrated what he saw in this wise:[35]
“FISCAL:
“Q Now sometime in February
1996, do you recall having seen or witnessed any unusual incident that happened
to your sister Marilyn Bernardo?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please tell the Court
what that unusual incident that happened to your sister that you witnessed all
about?
A I saw Atanacio Mendoza
on top of my sister sir.
Q And in what place did you see the accused on top of your
sister on that date of February 1996?
A In our house.
Q And how did you happen to
see that?
A I was awakened because I
felt that my sister was fighting.
Q When you said you were
awakened because your sister was fighting with the accused, what did you do
when you woke up?
A Nothing sir because I
was afraid.
Q Why were you afraid?
A Because I was told that
we will be killed.
Q By whom?
A By Atanacio Mendoza.
FISCAL:
Q You said this incident
happened in your house, what part of your house did you see the accused on top
of your sister when your sister was fighting him?
A In the bedroom of my
mother sir.
Q Who were inside the room
where you said you saw the accused on top of your sister?
A Only the two of us, my
sister and I.
Q When you said your
sister, you are referring to Marilyn Bernardo.
A Yes, sir.
Q And after you were
threatened that you would be killed and you said you were scared, what happened
next, if any?
A That’s it, sir. I was not able to do anything because I was
afraid.
Q How about the accused,
what did he do next after you said you were threatened?
A Nothing more.
x x x x
x x x x x
Q How about on March 1997,
do you recall also of any unusual incident that happened to your sister which
you witnessed?
A The same sir.
Q When you said the same,
what do you mean?
A [Katulad] din noon.
Q The man you saw or you
saw again was Atanacio Mendoza on top of your sister?
A Yes, sir.
Q When did this incident
took place?
A Inside the room of my
mother.
Q In the same bedroom of
your mother where you saw the accused on top of your sister?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your sister
doing at the time you saw him for the second time that the accused was on top
of your sister?
A She was fighting sir.
Q Who were inside the
bedroom?
A The two of us sir.
Q And then what did you do
when you again saw the accused on top of your sister and your sister was
fighting?
A I was then to go out of
the room when he pulled my arms and told me not to leave the room.
Q Did you notice anything
at the time the accused told you not to leave the room?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was he holding?
A I cannot recall because
his hands were at the back of my sister.
Q And when you were told
not to leave the room, what did you do?
A I just slept and was
frightened.”[36]
Second
Issue:
Sufficiency of the Prosecution Evidence
Appellant contends that the prosecution failed to present
evidence sufficient to convict him of the offenses charged.
We are partly convinced. In order for rape to be consummated, there must be proof of the entry or
the sliding of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female
organ.[37]
Full penetration is not necessary. As
held in People v. Campuhan,[38]
“touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal
contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis
on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis. x x x There
must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labia or slid into the
female organ, and not merely stroked the
external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated
rape.”[39]
As to the charge that the first rape incident happened in
February 1996, Marilyn testified during her direct examination that appellant
had been able to insert his penis fully into her vagina.[40]
On cross-examination, when asked to clarify her Sworn Statement, in which she
said “hindi po niya natuloy maipasok ang
kanyang ari sa akin,” she explained as follows:
“ATTY. SAMUELA:
Q. Madam witness, just a
while ago you just testified that in February 1996, the accused in this case
was able to insert his penis in your private part. In fact, you did not come to know if and when he stopped his
penis. Now, you are telling in this
Sinumpaang Salaysay that ‘hindi po natuloy ipasok niya ang kanyang ari sa
akin’. Will you please tell the
Honorable Court which is true in your statement a while ago and the statement
appearing in this Sinumpaang Salaysay?
x x x x
x x x
x x
WITNESS:
A Because on February 1996
he first inserted his finger into my private part, sir, and then he went on top
of me. But he was not able to insert
his private part into my private part, sir. But on March 1997, that was the time when he was able to do what he
wanted to do with me, sir.”[41]
On re-direct examination, she declared:
“FISCAL
Q Now, when asked by the
defense counsel regarding that incident of February 1996 you said that the
accused was able to insert his penis into your private part and your answer was
‘yes’, now you were referring to your statement regarding the same incident
wherein you stated the following:
Hindi po natuloy na maipasok niya ang ari
niya sa akin?
FISCAL:
Q What do you mean by that?
A ‘Hindi po nakabaon,
nakapatong lang.’
Q When you said that ‘hindi
nakabaon at nakapatong lang’, can you elaborate that?
A Because when he is
trying to insert his private part into mine I was resisting and fighting so he
was not able to insert his private part.”[42]
The words of Marilyn — “nakapatong
lang” — show that there was no entry into her private part. There is nothing in her testimony that would
prove that appellant’s penis reached the labia of her pudendum.
Although the testimony of a child must be received with due
consideration on account of her tender age, the Court endeavors at the same
time to harness only what in her story appears to be true, acutely aware of the
equally guaranteed rights of the accused.[43]
Hence, based on the testimony of Marilyn, we cannot conclude with moral
certainty that appellant should be held liable for consummated rape.
In contrast, her testimony regarding the March 1997 incident
indicated certainty that the penis of appellant penetrated her vagina. Her consistent and firm declaration “Nakuha na niya ang pagkababae ko” meant
that he was able to insert his penis fully into her vagina. Recounting her ordeal, she testified thus:
“FISCAL:
Q Tell us, why the accused
was in your house in the morning of March 1997?
A Because he was trusted
by my mother to look [after] us, sir.
Q How was he entered into
your room?
A ‘Sinusubaybayan po niya
kami’, sir.
Q x x x. What did he do to you after he entered the
room?
A He again touched my
body, sir.
Q What did you do when he
was touching your body?
A I was again surprised,
sir.
Q What did you tell him
when you were surprised that he was touching your body?
A I told him not to do it,
sir.
Q And when you told him not
to do it what did he do?
A He again poked something
at my back and again told me that if I made a noise or shout, he will shoot me,
sir.
Q What did you feel when you
were threatened by the accused?
A I was very afraid, sir,
because I felt pain when he pointed something at my back, sir.
Q After he touched you and
threatened you, what did he do next?
A He inserted his finger
into my private part, sir.
Q What did you do when he
inserted his finger to your private part?
A I was boxing him and
pleading him not to do what he was doing but he forced me and went on top of
me, sir.
Q What did you feel when he
inserted his finger to your private part?
A It was very painful, sir.
Q You said he went on top
of you, what did he do when he was on top of you?
A I was boxing him so that
I could keep away from him, but he was forcing me and told me ‘umayos ka,
umayos ka’ but I continue[d] boxing and kicking him, sir.
Q What happened after you
said you were pleading him, boxing him and he was forcing you?
A He went on top of me,
sir.
Q While on top of you, what
did he do?
A ‘Nakuha na niya ang
gusto niya’, sir.
Q When you said, when he
was able to get what he wanted to get, what do you mean by that?
A He abused me, sir,
‘nakuha ang pagkababae ko’.
Q After you said that he
was able to do his purpose, what did he do next?
A He threatened me, sir.
Q How did he threaten you?
A Not to tell anybody what
happened to me, sir, or else he will kill us.
Q What did you feel when
you were threatened by the accused?
A I was very afraid and
whenever I see him I get m[a]d at him and always afraid of him, sir.
Q You said that whenever you see him, you got afraid with him. Why?
A ‘Napakahayop niya.’”[44]
As to Jennifer’s accusation of rape, the evidence on record
convincingly proves the consummation of rape.
Time and time again, we have said that a rape victim, especially
one of tender age, would not normally concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts and thereafter permit herself to be subjected
to a public trial, if she is not motivated solely by the desire to have the
culprit apprehended and punished.[45]
Thus, when a woman — more so if she is a minor — says that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. And as long as the testimony meets the test
of credibility, the accused may be convicted on that sole basis.[46]
Jennifer readily recounted her traumatic experience as follows:
FISCAL:
Q At around 2:00 o’clock in
the afternoon of March 25, 1998, tell us where you were if you could still
recall?
A I was then going to
school sir.
x x x x
x x x x x
Q And while you were
walking in that afternoon of March 25, 1998 going to your school, do you recall
of any incident that happened to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Could you tell the Court
what was that unusual incident that happened to you?
A I was then going to the
school when Atanacio Mendoza waited for me in the corner of Centerville.
Q Where was this
Centerville where Atanacio was waiting for you or ‘inaabangan ka?’
A It is near our house,
sir.
Q And where is [your] house
located? What barangay and
municipality?
A Brgy. Paciano Rizal,
Calamba, Laguna.
Q When you said the accused
Atanacio Mendoza was at the corner of Centerville, Paciano Rizal, Calamba,
Laguna and you were then walking, what did he do to you?
A He told me to go with
him and I answered him I do not want but he told me that If I will not go with
him something will happen to me.
Q Did he tell you why he
wanted you to go with him?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did he tell you?
A He just told me to go
with him and if I will not, something will happen to me.
Q When he said if you will
not go something will happen to you, what did you feel?
A I was afraid sir.
Q And what did you do after
you were threatened by the accused that if you will not go with him something
will happen to you?
A Because I was very
afraid I just went with him but I was fighting him.
Q How were you fighting
him?
A While he was holding my
arm, I was boxing him.
Q And where were you
brought by the accused?
A He boarded me in a
passenger jeep and brought me to Riverview Hotel.
Q That passenger jeep where
you said you were made to ride, was there any passenger at that time?
A None, sir.
Q Do you know the driver of
the jeep?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know if the driver
is known to the accused?
A No, sir.
Q You said you were brought
by the accused to Riverview, where is that Riverview where you said you were
brought by the accused?
A In Parian when we
alighted from the passenger jeep there was already a tricycle waiting for us
and he made [m]e board the tricycle and the driver of the tricycle brought us
inside the Riverview and he left me inside the tricycle and took a number and
brought me inside the room.
Q When you were left inside the tricycle why
did you not run and shout?
A Because he is known to the tricycle driver
and he told the tricycle driver to guard me and I was very afr[a]id.
Q Before the accused left
and g[o]t a number, was there any conversation between the tricycle driver and
the accused?
A None sir.
Q How were you able to say
that the driver of the tricycle is known to the accused?
A Because the accused told
the tricycle driver to guard me ‘at kung may mangyari diyan, mananagot ka sa
akin.’
Q You said you were brought
and dragged inside the room by the accused, can you demonstrate how you were
dragged by the accused?
A He was holding my arms
telling me to enter the room but I answered him I do not want to enter the room
but he pulled and dragged me until I was able to enter the room.
Q Inside the room, what did
the accused do to you?
A Inside the room he
ordered me to undress myself and I answered I do not want, he was forcing me, I
was fighting him so finally I removed my clothes against my will.
Q You said the accused was
forcing you to remove your clothes, how was he forcing you?
A He was pushing me sir
while I was moving backwards and then he slapped me and he also told me ‘Kung
hindi ka papayag, papatayin kita.’
Q How many times were you
slapped by the accused?
A Three times sir.
Q When the accused told you
if you will not agree he will kill you, what did you feel?
A I was afraid sir, ‘kaya
wala na akong nagawa’.
Q You said finally you
undressed yourself, after you have undressed yourself out of fear what did the
accused do to you?
A He kissed my body.
Q And what portion of your
body were you kissed by the accused?
A My private part sir.
Q What did you do when the
accused was kissing your private part?
A ‘Nandidiri ako.’
Q Aside from that what did
you do?
A I was fighting him and
requested him to stop. (Witness is
crying)
I was requesting him to stop but it seems
that he did not hear me. He just told
me to stop crying. I was just crying
then.
Q You said you were
fighting him also when he was kissing your private part, how were you fighting?
A I was boxing him.
(The witness is demonstrating by swaying
her hand closed fist)
Q What did you do after the
accused was kissing your private part and on your part you were trying to box
him?
A He boxed me on my
stomach. ‘Namimilipit ako sa
sakit.’ I said ‘Aray ko,’ and I told
him to stop but he continued inserting his private part into my private part.
Q What was his position in
relation to you at the time you said he was inserting his private part into
your private part?
A He was on my top. ‘Nakadagan siya.’
Q While the accused was
inserting his private part into your organ, what were you doing?
A I was moving backwards
and told him to stop because it was very painful but he did not stop.
Q And he did not stop
despite your pleas?
A ‘Noong nilabasan na siya
itinigil na niya ang pagganon sa akin.’
Q Now after he stopped what
did he do next?
A He took the towel and
wiped yong lumabas sa kanya and told me to dress myself.
Q After you were told to
dress yourself, what did you do?
A So I dressed up.
Q After you dressed up
after you were told by the accused, what did you do next?
A I told him that I will
be going out and he told me not to go out and wait for him because I do not
know how to open the door which was locked. I was not able to go out.
Q But finally, were you
able to go out of the room?
A No, sir.
Q What happened after you
were asked by the accused to wait for him so you can go out?
A So I waited inside the
room and was crying.
Q After you waited for him,
what happened next?
A So he opened the door
and we went outside. I ran away from
him inside and boarded the jeep and proceeded to the school. In the school I continued crying.
Q How about the accused
where did he go?
A I do not know sir
because I left him inside the motel, I did not mind him.
Q Tell us why you proceeded
to the school?
A Because I was afraid to
go home sir because he might go to our house because his house is near our
house.
Q In the school what did
you do there?
A I only cried.
Q What happened after you
said you continued to cry in the school?
A My classmates were
asking me why, I was crying and answered them ‘nothing’. That’s my problem.
Q Why did you not tell your
classmates?
A I was afraid.
Q Afraid of him?
A From Tasyo.
Q Why were you afraid of
Tasyo?
A Because of his threat.”[47]
Furthermore, Jennifer’s testimony is strongly supported by the
medical findings conducted by the medicolegal expert[48]
three months after the incident. The
Medical Report showed that the victim had old healed lacerations at the five
o’clock and the seven o’clock positions. This finding is consistent with penile invasion.[49]
Where the victim’s claim of rape is corroborated by the physical findings of
penetration, there exists sufficient basis for concluding that sexual
intercourse did take place.[50]
Defense of Denial and
Alibi
As consistently held by this Court, alibi and denial cannot
prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of
the crime.[51]
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish clearly and
convincingly that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the
crime scene when it happened. In the
present case, appellant failed to show, by clear and convincing proof, that it
was physically impossible for him to have been at the loci criminis.
Neither can we accept the theory of appellant that it was
Prescilla Bernardo, his godmother and Marilyn’s mother, who instigated her
daughter to file the charges. We
reiterate that it is unnatural for a mother to use her daughter as an engine of
malice, especially if it will subject her offspring to embarrassment and
lifelong stigma. A mother would not
sacrifice the honor of her daughter to give vent to a grudge that would tarnish
the latter’s reputation forever.[52]
Finally, the trial court erred in ruling that the acts committed
by appellant in Criminal Case No. 6060-98-C were covered by Articles 266-a and
266-b of the Revised Penal Code. Republic Act No. 8353 or “The Anti-Rape Law of
1997” reclassified the crime of rape as a crime against person and renumbered
it from Article 335 to Articles 226-A to 226-B of the Revised Penal Code. The amendment took effect on October 22,
1997.[53]
On the other hand, the crime charged herein was committed in February
1996. Hence, appellant can only be held
liable under the old Article 335[54] of
the Revised Penal Code.
Under Article 6 in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, rape is merely attempted when the offender commences the commission of
the crime directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of
execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. The penalty is two (2)
degrees lower than the imposable penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Two (2) degrees lower is prision mayor, the range of which is six
(6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of
any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum of the penalty to be
imposed upon the accused shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor, the range of which is
eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years; while the minimum shall be
taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional, the range of which is from six months and one
(1) day to six (6) years.
Likewise, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, P50,000 is
awarded to the victim as indemnity ex
delicto for each count of consummated rape,[55] and P30,000
for the attempted rape.[56] In
addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000[57]
is awarded to her for the consummated rape and P15,000[58]
for the attempted rape.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Joint Judgment is AFFIRMED
with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. In Criminal Case No.
6060-98-C, appellant is found GUILTY of attempted rape and is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum. He is also ordered to pay Marilyn Bernardo P30,000
as civil indemnity and P15,000 as moral damages.
2. In Criminal Case No.
6059-98-C, appellant is found GUILTY of simple rape and sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. He is likewise ordered to
pay Marilyn Bernardo P50,000 as civil indemnity in addition to the P50,000
already imposed as moral damages.
3. In Criminal Case No.
6061-98-C, appellant is found GUILTY of simple rape and sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. He is also ordered to pay
Jennifer Mendoza P50,000 as civil indemnity in addition to the P50,000
already imposed as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Corona, J., on official leave.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 34-47. Penned by Judge
Antonio M. Eugenio Jr.
[2]
Assailed Judgment, pp.13-14; rollo,
pp. 46-47.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 11-13. Signed by Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Macario A. Agosila and approved by Provincial Prosecutor
George C. Dee.
[4]
Id., p. 11; Crim. Case No. 6059-98-C,
p. 4.
[5]
Id., p. 12; Crim. Case No. 6060-98-C,
p. 25.
[6]
Id., p. 13; Crim. Case No. 6061-98-C,
p. 14.
[7]
Atty. Rodel Paderayon.
[8]
Order dated September 16, 1998; Crim. Case No. 6059-98-C, p. 8; Crim. Case No.
6060-98-C, p. 29; Crim. Case No. 6061-98-C, p. 21.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 135-197. Appellee’s Brief was signed by Assistant
Solicitor General Carlos N. Ortega, Assistant Solicitor General Azucena R.
Balanon-Corpuz and Solicitor Raymund I. Rigodon.
[10]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 6-11; rollo,
pp. 145-150.
[11]
TSN, September 27, 1999, p. 5.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
Id., p. 6.
[14]
TSN, September 13, 1999, p. 4.
[15]
TSN, June 30, 1999, p. 13 and TSN, February 10, 1999, p. 7.
[16]
TSN, April 19, 1999, p. 5.
[17]
RTC Judgment, p. 10; rollo, p. 43.
[18]
This case was deemed submitted for resolution on January 25, 2002, upon this
Court’s receipt of the Appellee’s Brief. The filing of a reply brief was deemed waived, as none had been filed
within the reglementary period.
[19]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 9; rollo, p.
78; signed by Atty. Samuel S. Samuela. Original in upper case.
[20]
People
v. Managaytay, 305 SCRA 316, March 25, 1999.
[21]
People v.
Cana, GR No. 139229, April 22,
2002; People v. Villanueva, 254 SCRA
202, February 28, 1996.
[22]
People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658, June 28, 1996.
[23]
People v. Errojo, 229 SCRA 49,
January 4, 1994; People v. Gornes,
230 SCRA 270, February 23, 1994; People
v. Dela Peña, 232 SCRA 72, April 29, 1994; People v. Abutin, 259 SCRA 500, July 26, 1996.
[24]
TSN, December 2, 1998, pp. 10-11.
[25]
People v. Olivar, 215 SCRA 759,
November 13, 1992.
[26] People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658, June
28, 1996; People v. Razonable, 330 SCRA
562, April 12, 2000; citing People v.
Remoto, 244 SCRA 506, May 29, 1995.
[27]
321 SCRA 409, December 21, 1999.
[28]
Marilyn Bernardo’s Sinumpaang Salaysay;
Crim. Case No. 6059-98-C, p. 2.
[29]
TSN, December 2, 1998, p. 6.
[30]
Supra.
[31]
TSN, December 2, 1998, pp. 18-19.
[32]
People v. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493,
September 6, 1996; People v. Aliposa, 263
SCRA 471, October 23, 1996; People v.
Sumbillo, 271 SCRA 428, April 18, 1997.
[33]
People v. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82,
February 23, 1996; People v. San Juan,
270 SCRA 693, April 4, 1997.
[34]
People v. Tan Sr., 264 SCRA 425,
November 20, 1996; People v. Sangil Sr.,
276 SCRA 532, July 31, 1997; People v. Ambray, 303 SCRA 697,
February 25, 1999; People v. Villar, 322 SCRA 393,
January 19, 2000.
[35]
TSN, January 18, 1999, p. 3.
[36]
Id., pp. 3-5.
[37]
People
v. Collado, 353 SCRA 381, March 1, 2001.
[38]
329 SCRA 270, March 30, 2000.
[39]
Id., p. 280, per Bellosillo, J.
[40]
TSN, December 2, 1998, p. 6.
[41]
Id., pp. 18-19.
[42]
TSN, December 9, 1998, pp. 7-8.
[43] People v. Campuhan, supra, p. 286.
[44]
TSN, December 2, 1998, pp. 7-9.
[45]
People v. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 335,
January 20, 1997.
[46]
People v. Butron, 272 SCRA 352, May
7, 1997; People v. Santos, GR Nos. 135454-56, November 13, 2001.
[47]
TSN, October 14, 1998, pp. 3-8.
[48]
Dr. Charisa C. Juangco.
[49]
TSN, November 27, 1998, p. 4.
[50]
People
v. Villaraza, GR No. 143703,
November 29, 2001.
[51] People v. Taneo, 284 SCRA 25, January
16, 1998; People v. Dacibar, 325 SCRA 725,
February 17, 2000.
[52] People v. Cura, 240 SCRA 234, January
18, 1995; People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA
658, June 28, 1996; People v. Bracamonte,
257 SCRA 380, June 17, 1996.
[53]
People
v. Padilla, 301 SCRA 265, January 20, 1999.
[54]
This article provides: “Art. 335. When
and how rape committed. – Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using
force or intimidation;
2. When the
woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the
woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances
mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.
The crime of rape shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is
committed with the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion
of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.
When the rape is attempted or
frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof,
the penalty shall be likewise death.
When by reason or on the occasion of
the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.”
[55]
People
v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455, February 1, 1999.
[56]
People v. Cruz, 259 SCRA 109, July
17, 1996; People v. Lucas, 232 SCRA
537, May 25, 1994.
[57]
People
v. Catubig, GR No. 137842,
August 23, 2001.
[58]
People
v. Saladino, 353 SCRA 819, March 7, 2001.