Thursday, March 20, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
versus
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO"; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY"; ALBERTO CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG, DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias "TISOY TAGALOG"; JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG"; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM",
G.R. Nos. 138874-75
July 21, 2005
PONENTE: HILARIO DAVIDE, Jr.
FACTS
On the night of July 16, 1997, Larrañaga and seven others kidnapped the Chiong sisters near the west wing entrance of Ayala Center Cebu, the two [women] were raped but only Marijoy's body was found while the other sister's body, was never found.
The accused [appellants] were charged and later on convicted of the crimes of of (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention [Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño, Balansag; and (James Andrew) Uy] ; and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention [Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño, Balansag; (James Andrew) Uy; and (James Anthony) Uy]
The case was centered on the testimony of a co-defendant, David Valiente Rusia who only appeared 10 months after the incident. In exchange for immunity, he [Rusia] testified against his codefendants, he claimed that he was with Larrañaga in Ayala Center, Cebú early in the evening of July 16.
Larrañaga raised in his defense that he was in Quezon City and not in Cebu at the time when the crime is said to have taken place, some thirty five witnesses, including his friends and teachers, testified under oath to prove this, however, all were rejected by the court; he further contended that the body found in the ravine was not Marijoy's but somebody else's. While, Aznar, Adlawan, Balansag and Caño, on the other hand, questioned Rusia’s testimony for being incredible, inconsistent, and unworthy of belief.
ISSUES
Whether the Court erred –
1. in according credence to Rusia’s testimony;
2. in rejecting appellants’ alibi;
3. in holding that the trial court did not violate their right to due process when it excluded the testimony of other defense witnesses; and
4. in holding that the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar was that of Marijoy.
RULING
1. The trial court took into consideration not only Rusia's testimonies but also the physical evidence and the corroborative testimonies of other witnesses for being strikingly compatible. Physical evidence being one of the highest degrees of proof is give more weight than all witnesses put together. Even assuming that his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy in view of his character, it is not so when corroborated with other evidence.
2. It is a well settled rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak for being a negative evidence and self-serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. Moreover, alibi becomes LESS credible when it is corroborated only by relatives or close friends of the accused. In the case at bar, the accused failed to meet the requirements of alibi. Larrañaga failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at Ayala Center Cebu during the abduction. His claimed of being in Quezon City at that time, failed to satisfy the required proof of physical impossibility. It was shown that it takes only an hour to travel by plane from Manila to Cebu and that there were four airlines flying the route. Indeed, Larrañaga’s presence in Cebu City on the night of July 16, 1997 was proved to be not only a possibility but a reality.
3. Prof. Bailen, was properly excluded for being not a finger-print expert but an archaeologist; and that his report consists merely of the results of his visual inspection of the exhibits already several months old. While, the affidavit of Atty. Villarin of the NBI was found to be not testifying in the said for it only contains his own unsubstantiated opinions, his self-congratulatory remarks, and his unmitigated frustration over failing to get a promotion when almost everyone else did. Lastly, Dr. Fortun’s separate study cannot be classified as newly-discovered evidence warranting belated reception because Larrañaga could have produced it during trial had he wanted to.
4. Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, a fingerprint expert, testified that the fingerprints of the corpse match those of Marijoy's; that the packaging tape and the handcuff found on the dead body were the same items placed on Marijoy and Jacqueline while they were being detained; that the recovered body had the same clothes worn by Marijoy on the day she was abducted; and that the members of the Chiong family personally identified the corpse to be that of Marijoy's.

SHERLITA O. TAN AND JOHANNA M. VILLAFRANCA VS. JUDGE PACURIBOT


Facts:
Judge Pacuribot was charged with rape and acts of lasciviousness by Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca.
Ms. Tan was deceived twice by Judge Pacuribot when he offered to take her to the bus terminal but instead brought her to a motel where he ravished her. Not contented, he rented a room in the house of Ms. Tan wherein he would order Miss Tan to go to his room when her husband was not around. Further, Judge Pacuribot during office hours would also request Miss Tan’s presence in his chamber where respondent would sexually harass her even in the presence of another person.
Ms. Villafranca was also deceived by the said Judge when he made her believe that they were going to go out for dinner but instead brought her in a motel in Butuan City where he ravished her and took a nude picture of her. The respondent used such picture to blackmail Ms. Villafranca and would threaten her that in the event she would refuse to submit to his lustful desires, he would send the picture to her family. After the incident, the respondent would order her to bring food at his rented room and would subsequently rape her. Furthermore, the respondent ordered the complainant to send sweet text messages and write love letters and greeting cards to him and even ordered her to file an annulment case against her husband.
Both charges were denied by Judge Pacuribot. Moreover, He claimed that delay in the filing of the charges against him casted doubt to the truthfulness of their claim and that if they were truly raped by him why did they not refuse at all but instead continued to submit themselves to him. He alleged that the charges imputed against him were complainants’ tool of revenge.
Issues:
1. Whether denial can prevail over positive testimony of the witness.
2. Whether the delay in the filing of the charges against him casted doubts to the truthfulness of their claim.
3. Whether the repeated sexual harassments and violence inside Judge Pacuribot’s chamber was improbable.
4. Whether inconsistencies of the witness’ testimony affects the credibility of the witness.
5. Whether absence of physical resistance from the victims negates the commission of the crime of rape.
Ruling:
1. Mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, like
alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings the truth on one hand, and bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.
2. As held in People vs. Espino delay in the commission of rape is not an indication of
fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender’s making good on his threats. This is understandable, considering the inbred modesty of Filipinas and their aversion to the public disclosure of matters affecting their honor.
Delay in the filing of charges does not necessarily undermine the credibility of witnesses. The Supreme Court has deemed delay justified when there is fear of reprisal, social, humiliation, familial considerations and economic reasons.
3. Judge Pacuribot’s defense of improbability cannot be accepted. As held in People v. Lavador,
wherein the rapist argued that rape was impossible due to the presence of the victim’s son on her side, the Supreme Court said that lust is no respecter of time and place and rape can be committed even in places where people congregate: in parks, along the roadside, within the school premises, inside the house where there are several occupants and even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping.
4. Minor and trivial discrepancies which might have been caused by the natural fickleness of
memory, even tend to strengthen, rather than weaken the credibility of the witness, for they shake off the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. As held in Simbajon v. Esteban the Supreme Court said that No married woman would cry sexual assault, subject herself and her family to public scrutiny and humiliation, and strain her marriage in order to perpetuate a falsehood.
5. In the case of People v. Fernandez the Supreme Court held that physical resistance need not
be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission. Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BRYAN FERDINAND DY



PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BRYAN FERDINAND DY y LA MADRID and GIOVAN BERNARDINO y GARCIA, accused-appellants.
[G.R. Nos. 115236-37.  January 29, 2002]

Facts:
Gina and Helen, both American Nationals were studying in China as exchange students. Having heard of the renowned Filipino hospitality, they decided to spend their sem-break in the Philippines. During their visit in the Philippines, they went to several places, and one of which was on Pampanga. While on Pampanga, they met Accused-appellants Bryan and Giovani who offered them a ride to their supposed destination, Baguio City. Bryan, Giovani, and Rizal(the driver) drove the foreigners to Baguio City, and upon arriving at Baguio City, they checked in at the Benguet Pines Tourist Inn at 11:00 PM and afterwards went out for some drinks and dancing at the Songs Jazz Bar. The partiesverions of the events that followed differed.
Prosecution’s Version:
According to Gina and Helen, after having alcoholic drinks at Jazz Bar, they drove to a convenience store to get some soft drinks before returning to the hotel.Giovani and Bryan alighted and returned bringing with them Soft Drinks and food. Both Gina and Helen drank the drinks.
Meanwhile, while drinking their colas, Giovani drove the group to Club John Hey in order to check on the Club’s billeting rates. Gina was then about to finish her cola when she felt something gritty in it which stuck into her teeth; they were like small particles. She dumped out the remaining contents of the cup out of the car. Helen on the other hand finished her drink and threw the cup in the trashcan.
After leaving Club John Hay, the group returned to their hotel. Helen no longer noticed the driver Rizal.There were two rooms they rented, the boy and the girl’s room. Helen got the key from the counter and tossed the key to the boys room to Gina who was about seven to ten feet away and the latter, in turn, gave it to Giovan. Helen also flipped their key to Gina who caught it with one hand. Gina and Helen went to their room, while Giovani and Bryan went to theirs.
Gina went out the room and walked towards the boy’s room. Gina had no recollection why she did so. On the other hand, Helen remembered that one of the boys asked if she had playing cards but he seemed pre-occupied with something else, so she did not make any move to get the playing cards from her bag. Since she was very tired she went to bed. Thereupon, she lost her memory. Sometime later, she felt like vomiting and went to the CR, but she could not remember if she really vomited. She lost her senses and did not know if she went to bed.
She again regained partial consciousness when she felt being wet on her face and upper chest as though somebody was touching her with the mouth.  She could not see anyone or anything; she only felt that her personal space was being violated.  She curled up like a baby in the womb and kept on saying, “no”, until whoever was with her in the room went away.  Then, she lapsed into unconsciousness.
At this time in the boys’ room, Gina walked up to one of the beds and lay down on her belly.  Giovan lay alongside her and forcefully kissed her.  She could not call to mind what else happened as she believed she was drugged.  She could only remember that Giovan was trying to take off her pants while she was trying to prevent him. Giovan was lying on top of her and touching her breasts.  He inserted his fingers into her vagina but at this precise moment someone knocked on the door. 
So, Giovan got up and it was then that Gina realized that he was completely naked and so was she.  He handed the blanket on the bed to her and she covered her body with it.  She saw lights coming from the hallway and heard Giovan say, “I think she is asleep.”  She could not recall removing them again.  When that someone laid on top of her, she found out that it was Bryan.  He placed himself between her legs.  She could not recollect if they kissed but she felt his erect penis against her vaginal opening.  She told him that she did not want to have sex; that she was still a virgin.  He asked why she was still a virgin and she replied that she wanted to wait for a husband. Bryan told her that he won’t put it in.  But Gina felt pain in her vagina because his penis was going into it.
The thought occurred to Gina that if she did not do anything, she knew what was going to happen.  It dawned on her that if she stimulated him in some other way, he might not penetrate her further.  So, she slid down and did a fellatio or oral sex on him.  She could not explain her feelings then; to her it was like a nightmare; it was as if she was observing what was going on and it wasn’t really her; she felt like her head was detached from her body.  She did the oral sex for only several seconds because it was as if someone went into the room.  Then, she became unconscious.
Defense version:
According the Bryan and Giovan, while they were at Songs Jazz bar, Gina and Helen drank a lot of alcoholic beverages and mixtures.  Bryan had a bottle of beer and two shots of tequila, while Giovan only drank one bottle of beer. As they went back to the hotel, they gave to the girls the keys to their room because it was left at the backseat of the car. After giving the keys, Giovan went to their room(boy’s room) followed by Rizal and then Gina. On the other hand, Bryan went with Helen to the girls room where he borrowed Helen’s playing cards.
After, Bryan went back to the boy’s room. They taught Gina how to play cards inside the room, but Gina never learned. Then Gina said she was hungry, so Giovan went out to buy food. Giovan left with Rizal, that was already 4 AM past. Bryan and Gina continued playing cards. After some time, Gina put down the cards and talked to Bryan. Both laid down and talked. Afterwards, they ended up kissing each other. She then undressed and he did the same. As they were about to have sex, Giovan was turned off when, upon feeling her genitals, his hand was smeared with transparent liquid with something like brown or dark brown or red substance in it which smelled awful.  He concluded that it was menstrual fluid. He told her that he could not do the act anymore to which she replied, “never mind”. 
They then put back their clothes on.  Bryan went to the comfort room where he washed his smeared hand.  When he came out, he saw Gina lying in bed with her eyes closed.  He switched off the lights and laid beside her but he could not sleep.  He later on got up and went down to see if Giovan and Rizal had already arrived.  However the two had not yet gone back.  He returned to their room and, lay down beside Gina and feel asleep.  The sun was already somewhat up.  He went to the porch to see if their car was already there and he saw it there and found both Giovan and Rizal sleeping inside the car.
It was already morning when they woke up. Bryan ordered breakfast, then then he and Giovan went upstairs to their room.  Gina was still there.
The girls were still asleep so decided to leave for Bagiuo since they were running out of time. Before leaving, Brian left a paper with his phone number.
At around 3pm in the afternoon, Gina woked up very groggy and complained of her missing things, and the Police was called to investigate. Helen on the other hand had difficulty regaining her sense and was assisted by the police investigators.
The complainant then filed a case for Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness

During the trial, the prosecution presented two expert witnesses.


Dr. Torres- found erythema on both the lateral aspects of the inner part of the labia minora which could have been caused by infection, scratching or insertion of any foreign object into the introitus. On cross-examination, she opined that it could also have been caused by the use of tampon during menstruation.  She concluded that no force could have been applied on Gina’s hymen as it did not have any laceration or bleeding.
Perineal Exam: Positive erythema at the lateral aspect of vaginal wall.  No lacerations; no bleeding noted.
Internal Exam: Nulliparous introitus. Vagina admits two fingers with difficulty.
Pregnancy Test: Negative.
Urinalysis: negative of sperm cell.
Smear Identification: Negative for sperm cell.
Dr. Hernandez- a neuro-surgeon. Based on the set of facts provided by the private prosecutor, the entries in Gina’s journal and the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary examination, he opined that Gina and Helen were drugged, possibly with lorazepam or ativan, which is a benzodiazepine.

The defense presented two expert witnesses to counter Dr. Hernandez’s opinion.
               
Dr. San Pedro- a psychiatrist, opined that Gina and Helen could not have been drugged because they have not been medically examined for the presence of drugs in their system. Neither were the cups used by Gina and Helen examined if they were indeed laced with drugs.  Instead, the condition described by the girls based on the documents given by the defense could have been caused by the alcoholic drinks.

Dr. Pedro Solis- testified that a person who imbibes alcohol goes through three stages, namely: (a) stage of excitement; (b) stage of intoxication or the proprioception stage; and (c) stage of being dead drunk or the toxic stage.  On the basis of the statement of facts and documents provided him by the defense, Gina was only at the first stage, the stage of excitement due to her alcohol intake for the following reasons: she had the power to coordinate when she caught the room key thrown to her by Helen with one hand; she could properly walk; and she could properly reason out when she decided to do oral sex on Bryan in order to avoid sexual intercourse.  Dr. Solis explained that the rather long sleep experienced by Gina and Helen was due to fatigue brought about by their activities the previous day, their alcohol intake, their youth and the cool ambience of Baguio City.

He said it could not be definitely concluded that the girls were drugged because no drug test was conducted.  He added that mere observance of the clinical symptoms can not be a basis for concluding that they were drugged.

Issue(s)/ Ruling:

1. Was there a valid arraignment when the accused were not furnished a copy of the complaint or information and the contents of the complaint or information was not read in a dialect or language known to the accused?


Yes. The accused themselves refused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.  The defense cannot hold hostage the court by their refusal to the reading of the complaint or information. Indeed, the defense may waive their right to enter a plea and let the court enter a plea of “guilty” in there behalf.

Accused-appellants were substantially informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them when their counsel received a copy of the Prosecutor’s resolution maintaining the charge for rape and acts of lasciviousness. The failure to read the complaint or information in a language or dialect known to them was essentially a procedural infirmity that was deemed waived when after the arraignment, the defense never brought up the supposed invalidity or defect thereof.  Rather, accused-appellants and their counsel vigorously and fully participated in the trial of the case.


2. Should the crime of acts of lasciviousness be absorbed by the crime of rape in this case?

No. It cannot be absorbed since in this case, there was conspiracy. There is no occasion for the application in this case of the procedural rule that one crime whose elements are identical with another crime is absorbed by the more serious crime.  There being conspiracy, what is applicable is the rule that the crime committed by one conspirator is added to the crime committed by his co-conspirator and vice-versa.  This is so because in conspiracy, the act of one is considered as the act of the other co-conspirator.

3. Was there conspiracy?

Accused-appellants joint participation in the crime of rape is clear from the trial court’s findings as follows:
Bryan and Giovan were both at the Angeles Flying Club when Bryan spotted Gina and Helen; 
x xx         xxx          xxx
 Upon learning that the girls were coming up to Baguio City, the boys intimated that they, too, were coming up as they had planned two weeks earlier and offered the girls a ride with them.  The boys’ pretension could not be true otherwise Bryan, who came from Manila, would have prepared at least a jacket and some clothes for their well-planned Baguio trip; instead, they had to go first to a residential area in Angeles City where Bryan borrowed a jacket (two according to Helen) before driving to Baguio City;
x xx         xxx          xxx
At the Songs Jazz Bar, Bryan and Giovan kept on offering and giving Gina and Helen alcoholic drinks;
x xx         xxx          xxx
Bryan and Giovan, who went to buy the drinks at Kowloon Restaurant, saw to it that the two plastic cups of Sprite carried by Bryan be given to Gina and Helen.  They were the drugged cola drinks;

As heretofore stated, they detoured through Club John Hay to let Gina and Helen drink their drug-laced Sprite and have the drug take its initial effect;

When Giovan was satiating his lust on Gina, Bryan was not around to let Giovan freely do what he wanted.  When Bryan’s turn came, Giovan also left.
4. Was there rape?(Factual Findings to prove rape)

YES THERE WAS, because there was:

A. There was Carnal Knowledge

Accused-appellant Dy insists there was no carnal knowledge between him and complainant.  He avers that “the only intimate contact between them consisted merely of Mobley’s kissing him, holding his penis and eventually sucking it, and of him in turn kissing her and placing his fingers in her vagina.

He claims that Dr. Torres’ and Dr. Solis’ findings were consistent to his testimony that the cervix was merely reddened and swollen (erythema)  at the lateral aspect of the viginal wall which could have been caused by coitus, infection, scratching, or the use of a tampon and not solely sex. The Erythema or reddening could not have been caused by intercourse as said act would have produced not only irritation on the vaginal wall but also irritation, swelling and reddening of complainant’s outer genital area. Furthermore, the medical examination results showed that complainant’s hymen to was intact and that there was no laceration, bleeding or spermatozoa.

SC ruled:

Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse.  A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. The  presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in the prosecution of a rape case.  It is well settled that penetration of the woman’s vagina, however slight, and not ejaculation, constitutes rape.

For rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary.  Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia.  It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ with the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.  Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape.
Accused-appellant Dy’s contention fails to persuade. The medical opinions he cites do not totally rule out penetration or contact of penis with the vagina.

B. Victimswas deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious

The proven reaction of Gina and Helen to the cola drinks given them by the accused unmistakably indicates that they were indeed drugged. The prosecution expert witness, opined that the sedative-hypnotic drug known as ativan or lorazepam could probably be the one used.

The effects of ativan manifested themselves in Gina and Helen but they were more profound in Helen because she drank all the cola drink spiked with drug and she is slimmer than the 165-pound Gina who did not finish her cola drink because when she felt something gritty that stuck into her teeth and dumped out the rest of her drink.

Gina slept for approximately thirteen hours while Helen slept for almost eighteen hours.  Gina testified that she normally sleeps from seven and a half hours to eight hours.

Gina experienced patchy amnesia, she could remember some of the events happening to her and in front of her but forget the others.

She also had disorientation and confusion. Disorientation and confusion, in turn, produce hypnotic effect, making the one drugged easily suggestible, easily manipulated and easily taken advantaged of

Gina likewise had visual hallucination since she had the sensation that it was as if her head was detached from her body.

She could resist but she had no means of resisting because ativan is a muscle relaxant and all her muscles were flaccid or lax.

Since complainant was drugged, she was effectively deprived of reason if not effectively rendered unconscious.

Here, complainant was not totally unconscious but was physically helpless to resist or effectively communicate her refusal to the lewd desires of accused-appellants.  She was aware of the fact of sexual assault and the identity of her assailants despite her patchy amnesia, disorientation and confusion.

If the ability to resist is taken away by administering drugs, even though the woman may be conscious, sexual intercourse with her is rape. If the woman’s will is affected by the anesthetic, though she may be more or less conscious, the act will be rape.


C. There was force or intimidation

Complainant was found to have been drugged. The obvious implication of drugging complainant was to render her unconscious or at least unable to resist the malicious and sexual designs of defendants. By doing so, defendants ensured that complainant would be in no position to resist or to effectively say “No”.

The effect of drugging complainant betrays both defendants’ intent to sexually assault complainant or engage in sexual intercourse with her.
D. Victim’s credibility was established during trial

Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony.  This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician

Findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. 

This court agrees with the findings of the trial court which established/ bolstered the credibility of the witness’s testimony:
a. Demeanor when she was testifying and she was direct, spontaneous and straightforward, even crying in narrating the sensitive details of her horrible experience;
b. She demonstrated much care and concern about her obligation to tell the truth and nothing but the truth under the oath.
c.The victim’s act of crying during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.
d.No woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.
e.If her story had only been contrived, she would not have been so composed and consistent throughout her entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy interrogation. Indeed, if an accused had really nothing to do with the crime, it is against the natural order of events and human nature and against the presumption of good faith that the prosecution witness would falsely testify against the former.
In this case, accused-appellants could not even come up with a credible motive for complainant to charge them with rape.  At any rate, ill motive is never an essential element of a crime.
It is doctrinally settled that the lone testimony of a rape victim, by itself, is sufficient to convict if credible. The accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 5, in Criminal Case No. 12600-R, finding accused-appellant BRYAN FERDINAND DY y LA MADRID and GIOVAN BERNARDINO y GARCIA guilty of Rape, and sentencing accused-appellant Bryan Dy to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor, as minimum, up to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is AFFIRMED. The said decision, insofar as accused-appellant Giovan Bernardino’s penalty is concerned, is MODIFIED in that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 12601-R, finding accused-appellants guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentencing accused-appellant Dy to suffer the straight penalty of two months of arresto mayor, and accused-appellant Bernardino to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prisioncorreccional, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.




PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 117472.  June 25, 1996]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO, accused-appellant.


FACTS
            Sometime in the afternoon of April 1994, while Rodessa was looking after her three brothers in their house as her mother attended a gambling session in another place, she heard her father, order her brothers to go out of the house.  As soon as her brothers left, Leo Echegaray approached Rodessa and suddenly dragged her inside the room.  Before she could question the appellant, the latter immediately removed her panty and made her lie on the floor.  Thereafter, likewise removed his underwear and immediately placed himself on top of Rodessa.  Subsequently, forcefully inserted his penis into Rodessa's organ causing her to suffer intense pain.Rodessa's plea proved futile as appellant continued with his act.  After satisfying his bestial instinct, Leo Echegray, threatened to kill her mother if she would divulge what had happened.  Scared that her mother would be killed, Rodessa kept to herself the ordeal she suffered.  She was very afraid  because most of the time he was high on drugs.  The same sexual assault happened up to the fifth time and this usually took place when her mother was out of the house.  However, after the fifth time, Rodessa decided to inform her grandmother, Asuncion Rivera, who in turn told Rosalie, Rodessa's mother.  Rodessa and her mother proceeded to the Barangay Captain where Rodessa confided the sexual assaults she suffered.  Thereafter, Rodessa was brought to the precinct where she executed an affidavit. From there, she was accompanied to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for medical examination.

Rodessa testified that the said sexual assaults happened only during the time when her mother was pregnant.  Rodessa added that at first, her mother was on her side.  However, when appellant was detained, her mother kept on telling her: “KawawanamanangTataymo, nakakulong”.

Rodessa was examined by the medico-legal officer in the person of Dra.Ma. Cristina B. Preyna, the complainant was described as physically on a non-virgin state, as evidenced by the presence of laceration of the hymen of said complainant.
On the other hand, Rosalie Echegaray(wife, mother of Rodessa), asserted that the RAPE charge against the accused was only the figment of her mother's dirty mind, Rodessa's complaint was forced upon her by her grandma and the answers in the sworn statement of were coached.  Accusation of RAPE was motivated by Rodessa's grandmother's greed over the lot situated at the Madrigal Estate-NHA Project, Barangay San Antonio, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, which her grandmother's paramour-Conrado Alfonso, gave to the accused in order to persuade the latter(accused) to admit that Rodessa executed an affidavit of desistance after it turned out that her complaint of attempted homicide was substituted with the crime of RAPE at the instance of her mother.  When her mother came to know about the affidavit of desistance, she placed her granddaughter under the custody of the Barangay Captain.That her mother(asuncion Rivera) was never a real mother to her.
She(Asuncion Rivera) stated that her complaint against accused was for attempted homicide as her husband(Leo Echegaray) poured alcohol on her body and attempted to burn her.  That the Certification based on the Masterlistindicates that the property is co-owned by accused and Conrado Alfonso.  That Rodessa is her daughter sired by Conrado Alfonso, the latter being the paramour of her mother.  That Conrado Alfonso waived his right and participation over the lot in favor of the accused in consideration of the latter's accepting the fact that he is the father of Rodessa to simulate the love triangle and to conceal the nauseating sex orgies from Conrado Alfonso's real Wife.

Accused testified on his behalf, that the grandmother has a strong motive in implicating of the crime of RAPE, since she was interested to become the sole owner of a property awarded to her live-in partner by the Madrigal Estate-NHA Project.  That he could not have committed the imputed crime because he considers Rodessa as his own daughter.  That he is a painter-contractor and on the date of the alleged commission of the crime, he was painting the house of one DivinaAng of Barangay Vitalis, Parañaque, Metro Manila.  The travel time between his work place to his residence is three (3) hours considering the condition of traffic.  That the painting contract is evidenced by a document denominated 'Contract of Services' duly accomplished.  He asserted that he has a big sexual organ which when used to a girl 11 years old like Rodessa, the said female organ will be 'mawawarak.' That it is abnormal to report the imputed commission of the crime to the grandmother of the victim.Accused further stated that her(sic) mother-in-law trumped-up a charge of drug pushing earlier and he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of using drugs.  The decretal portion of the judgment of conviction ordering the accused to be confined at the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center irked the grandmother of Rodessa because it was her wish that accused should be meted the death penalty.
Mrs. Punzalan was presented as third defense witness.  She said that she is the laundry woman and part time baby sitter of the family of accused.  That at one time, she saw Rodessa reading sex books and the Bulgar newspaper.  That while hanging washed clothes on the vacant lot she saw Rodessa masturbating by tinkering her private parts.  The masturbation took sometime.

This sexual fling of Rodessa were corroborated by SilvestraEchegaray, the fourth and last witness for the defense.  She stated that she tried hard to correct the flirting tendency of Rodessa and that she scolded her when she saw Rodessa viewing an X-rated tape.  Rodessa according to her was fond of going with friends of ill-repute.  That (sic) she corroborated the testimony of MrsPunzalan by stating that she herself saw Rodessa masturbating inside the room of her house.

In finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, the lower court dismissed the defense of alibi and lent credence to the straightforward testimony of the ten-year old victim to whom no ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant can be attributed.




ISSUES


1.     THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED GUILTY AS CHARGEDOF RAPE WHICH POINTS OUT CERTAIN INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTINMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

2.     THE COURT BELOW OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE HEALED LACERATIONS AT 3 AND 7 O'CLOCK COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE PUMPING OF THE PENIS OF ACCUSED TO THE VAGINA OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, HENCE IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME CHARGED, NOTWITHSTANDING VEHEMENT DENIAL.

3.     THE COURT A QUO WHIMSICALLY IGNORED THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI THAT ACCUSED WAS IN PARAÑAQUE ON THE DATE AND TIME OF THE IMPUTED CRIME HENCE, IT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ALIBI IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE CASE AT BAR."[6]





RULING

Considering that a rape charge, in the light of the reimposition of the death penalty, requires a thorough and judicious examination of the circumstances relating thereto, this Court remains guided by the following principles in evaluating evidence in cases of this nature:  (a) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused though innocent to disprove; (b) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

Anent the first assigned error, no amount of persuasion can convince this Court to tilt the scales of justice in favor of the accused-appellant notwithstanding that he cries foul insisting that the rape charge was merely concocted and strongly motivated by greed over a certain lot.
This Court has stated time and again that minor inconsistencies in the narration of a witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as it is on the whole coherent and intrinsically believable.  Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witness is telling the truth and has not been rehearsed as it is not to be expected that he will be able to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."After due deliberation, this Court finds that the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses deserves our utmost respect in the absence of arbitrariness.

With respect to the second assigned error, the records of the instant case are bereft of clear and concrete proof of the accused-appellant's claim as to the size of his penis and that if that be the fact, it could not have merely caused shallow healed lacerations at 3:00 and 7:00 o'clock. In his testimony, the accused- appellant stated that he could not have raped Rodessa because of the size of his penis which could have ruptured her vagina had he actually done so.  This Court gives no probative value on the accused-appellant's self-serving statement in the light of our ruling the presence of healed lacerations in various parts of the vaginal wall, though not as extensive as appellant might have expected them to be, indicate traumatic injury to the area within the period when the incidents were supposed to have occurred.  In rape cases, a broken hymen is not an essential element thereof.   A mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused's penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape as full entry into the victim's vagina is not required to sustain a conviction.   In the case, Dr. Freyra, the medico-legal examiner, categorically testified that the healed lacerations of Rodessa on her vagina were consistent with the date of the commission of the rape as narrated by the victim to have taken place in April, 1994.

Lastly, the third assigned error deserves scant consideration.  The accused-appellant erroneously argues that the Contract of Services offered as evidence in support of the accused-appellant's defense of alibi need not be corroborated because there is no law expressly requiring so.   In view of our finding that the prosecution witnesses have no motive to falsely testify against the accused-appellant, the defense of alibi, in this case, uncorroborated by other witnesses, should be completely disregarded. More importantly, the defense of alibi which is inherently weak becomes even weaker in the face of positive identification of the accused-appellant as perpetrator of the crime of rape by his victim, Rodessa.

The Contract of Services whereby the accused-appellant obligated himself to do some painting Job at the house of one DivinaAng in Paranaque, Metro Manila, within 25 days from April 4, 1994, is not proof of the whereabouts of the accused-appellant at the time of the commission of the offense.

The accused-appellant in this case is charged with Statutory Rape on the basis of the complaint, dated July 14, 1994.  The gravamen of the said offense, as stated in paragraph 3, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years old.Rodessa positively identified his father accused-appellant, succeeded in consummating his grievous and odious sexual assault on her is free from any substantial self-contradiction.  It is highly inconceivable that it is rehearsed and fabricated upon instructions from Rodessa's maternal grandmother Asuncion Rivera as asserted by the accused-appellant.  The words of Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, speaking for the Court, more than two decades ago, are relevant and worth reiterating, thus:

"x xx it is manifest in the decisions of this Court that where the offended parties are young and immature girls like the victim in this case, (Cited cases omitted) there is marked receptivity on its part to lend credence to their version of what transpired.  It is not to be wondered at.  The state, as parens patria, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those, who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully.  Those of tender years deserve its utmost protection.  Moreover, the injury in cases of rape is not inflicted on the unfortunate victim alone.  The consternation it causes her family must also be taken into account.  It may reflect a failure to abide by the announced concern in the fundamental law for such institution.  There is all the more reason then for the rigorous application of the penal law with its severe penalty for this offense, whenever warranted.  It has been aptly remarked that with the advance in civilization, the disruption in public peace and order it represents defies explanation, much more so in view of what currently appears to be a tendency for sexual permissiveness.  Where the prospects of relationship based on consent are hardly minimal, self-restraint should even be more marked.
The fact that the ten-year old Rodessa referred to the accused-appellant as "Papa" is reason enough to conclude that accused-appellant is either the father or stepfather of Rodessa.  Thus, the act of sexual assault perpetrated by the accused on his young victim has become all the more repulsive and perverse.  The victim's tender age and the accused-appellant's moral ascendancy and influence over her are factors which forced Rodessa to succumb to the accused's selfish and bestial craving.  The law has made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accused-appellant face the supreme penalty of death.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104.

SO ORDERED.