SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219954. August 4, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant,vs. RICHARD BURAGA y ESTEBAN and BRIAN TUANDO y CAAYA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 August 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219954 (People of the Philippines v. Richard Buraga y Esteban and Brian Tuando y Caaya). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal is the Decision 1 dated February 11, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05845, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated October 8, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 269 in Criminal Case No. 614-V-11 finding Richard Buraga y Esteban (Richard) and Brian Tuando y Caaya (Brian) (collectively, accused-appellants), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and meted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Facts
This case stemmed from an Information dated July 15, 2011 filed before the RTC, charging accused-appellants with the crime of Rape, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about July 13, 2011 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation employed upon the person of one [AAA] 3 (Complainant), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the said complainant, against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Version of the Prosecution
During trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) private complainant, AAA; (2) Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Filemon Porciuncula, Jr. (Dr. Porciuncula, Jr.); and (3) the arresting officer, Police Officer 1 Richard Guzman (PO1 Guzman). 5
According to the prosecution, on July 13, 2011, AAA went to visit her friend Arlene, a former co-worker who is a stay-in employee at Cuevas Bakery. At around 6:00 p.m., Arlene reported for work at the store on the ground floor, leaving behind AAA and another person. 6
At around 7:00 p.m., accused-appellants and accused Jayson Ceneta y Carmen (Jayson), who were likewise stay-in employees of Cuevas Bakery, went to the upper floor of the bakery, where the male employees were staying, 7 with seven bottles of Red Horse beer. Jayson and Brian, being former co-workers of AAA invited her to join them. It was during this time that AAA was introduced to Richard. 8
At around 11:00 p.m., after drinking several glasses of beer, AAA felt dizzy and refused to continue, but Richard held her hand and forced her to drink another glass of beer. At this point, Jayson turned off the ceiling light. Thereafter, Brian placed himself on top of AAA, removed her shorts and underwear and had sexual intercourse with her. AAA tried to fight back, but Jayson and Richard held her hands. Jayson and Richard then took turns in having sexual intercourse with AAA, while Brian was holding her down. 9
After the ordeal, AAA left the bakery and immediately sought assistance from the Barangay Hall of _________ which then called for the police. Along with the barangay tanods and elements of the Police Community Precinct No. 9, PO1 Guzman accompanied AAA to the bakery. The police officers gathered the men that were inside the bakery and brought them out. Thereafter, AAA positively identified accused-appellants and Jayson as those who raped her. 10
On July 14, 2011, AAA was physically examined by Dr. Porciuncula, Jr., who thereafter issued a Medico-Legal Report stating that there was "recent application of blunt trauma to the hymen," 11 which could have been caused by a blunt object, possibly an erect male organ, and that she sustained abrasion at the time of insertion due to lack of lubrication. 12
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, the defense presented the testimonies of the accused-appellants, Jayson, and their co-workers, Jerick Daligon (Jerick) and Florie Siclot. 13
According to the defense, on July 13, 2011, after accused-appellants and Jayson finished making bread at around 6:00 p.m., they decided to have a drinking session at the male quarters above the Cuevas Bakery. Moments later, AAA — allegedly being the girlfriend of Richard — joined them in their drinking session. Sometime during the night, accused-appellants and Jayson went to the market and ate mami. Thereafter, they bought more bottles of beer and returned to the room where they drank again with AAA. 14
After their drinking session, AAA left and accused-appellants and Jayson went to sleep. Later that night, accused-appellants and Jayson were awakened by policemen and brought to the police headquarters for allegedly raping AAA. 15
The Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision 16 dated October 8, 2012, the RTC found accused-appellants and Jayson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the RPC, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused RICHARD BURAGA y ESTEBAN, BRIAN TUANDO y CAAYA and JAYSON CENETA y CARMEN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, as defined under Article 266-A (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby imposes upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The accused are further ORDERED TO PAY, jointly and severally, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages to the victim.
All the accused may be credited with the period they have respectively served under preventive imprisonment, in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and applicable rules.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 17
Aggrieved, accused-appellants and Jayson appealed the RTC's Decision and elevated their conviction before the CA.
On November 17, 2012, during the pendency of their appeal before the CA, Jayson died at the National Bilibid Prison Hospital in Muntinlupa, as evidenced by the Death Certificate from the National Statistics Office, submitted by the Bureau of Corrections. Accordingly, upon motion of the defense, Jayson's appeal was dismissed by the CA in its Resolution dated December 20, 2013. 18
The Ruling of the CA
In a Decision 19 dated February 11, 2015, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision, likewise finding that all the elements of the crime of Rape were duly established by the prosecution, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The appealed Decision dated 08 October 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 269, Valenzuela City, in Criminal Case No. 614-V-11 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 20
Thereafter, accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal 21 dated March 16, 2015, which was given due course by the CA in its Resolution 22 dated April 21, 2015.
In the Resolution 23 dated November 9, 2015, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA. The parties were then ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, should they so desire, within 30 days from notice. 24
On February 26, 2016, the Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, filed a Manifestation and Motion 25 dated February 16, 2016 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief, considering that it had exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in its Brief dated November 13, 2013. Accused-appellants likewise filed a similar Manifestation 26 dated March 18, 2016.
In their Brief, accused-appellants assigned several errors on the part of the RTC, to wit:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS' DEFENSE AND RELYING HEAVILY ON THE PROSECUTION'S VERSION. 27
Accused-appellants are essentially challenging the findings of fact of both the trial court and the appellate court, raising doubts as to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and credence accorded to the evidence of the prosecution. 28 Accused-appellants contend that AAA never asked for help from someone within her reach and that it is improbable and contrary to human nature. 29
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA gravely erred in convicting accused-appellants of the crime of Rape.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
This Court is guided by the well-established principles laid down in the disposition and review of rape cases, to wit: (1) the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction; (2) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense; (3) unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal; (4) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; and (5) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. 30
In rape cases particularly, the conviction or acquittal of the accused most often depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. The victim's testimony is most vital and must be received with the utmost caution. Thus, if found credible, her lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. 31
In this regard, We have repeatedly ruled that findings of fact by the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the trial court had overlooked certain facts of weight and importance, considering that the trial court, "having seen and heard the witnesses during the trial, is in a better position to evaluate their testimonies." 32
In People v. Quintos, 33 this Court ruled:
The observance of the witnesses' demeanor during an oral direct examination, cross-examination, and during the entire period that he or she is present during trial is indispensable especially in rape cases because it helps establish the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Trial provides judges with the opportunity to detect, consciously or unconsciously, observable cues and microexpressions that could, more than the words said and taken as a whole, suggest sincerity or betray lies and ill will. These important aspects can never be reflected or reproduced in documents and objects used as evidence.
Hence, "[t]he evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great respect to the trial court's findings," more so when the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings. 34 (Citations omitted)
Accused-appellants are charged with Rape defined and penalized under Section 1, paragraph (a) of Article 266-A and penalized under Article 266-B of the RPC, to wit:
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. — Rape is committed — 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
xxx xxx xxx
To support a conviction for rape, the following elements must be proved: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the offender accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under twelve (12) years of age or was demented. 35
After a careful review of the records of the case and the testimonies of the witnesses, this Court is convinced that the prosecution had established to a moral certainty the elements of carnal knowledge and force or intimidation.
During trial, AAA positively identified accused-appellants and was able to vividly recall the incident:
Q How long have you known Jayson prior to July 13, 2011?
A Jayson and Br[i]an were my former co-workers in Cuevas Bakery, sir.
Q How about Richard, how long have you known him prior to July 13, 2011?
A He was just introduced to me.
Q When you first saw Jayson, Br[i]an and Richard, where did you see the three of them?
A In the bakery, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q In your case how many glasses of this Red Horse were you able to drink?
A Seven, sir.
Q What happened when you have already drank the seven glasses of Red Horse beer?
A After drinking seven glasses, I refused to drink but they forced me to drink.
Q Who was the one forcing you to drink?
A Richard, sir.
Q How did Richard do it, you said you were being forced?
A He held one of my hand and my mouth.
Q Did you drink that glass of Red Horse beer forced by Richard?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened when you drank that glass of Red Horse beer being forced to you to drink by Richard?
A Jayson switch [sic] off the light.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What happened next after Jayson switch [sic] off the ceiling light?
A Br[i]an placed himself on top of me, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q After Ryan had placed himself on top of you, what happened next?
A Ginalaw po nila ko.
Q You used the word "ginalaw nila ko," what do you mean by that?
A They raped me, sir.
Q What was your condition when you said "ginalaw ka nila?"
A I fought back, sir.
Q What do you mean by ginalaw, will you start from the beginning. When Bryan placed himself on top you, what happened next?
A They took turns in having sex with me.
Q Who was the first who according to you gumalaw sa iyo?
A Br[i]an.
Q Who was the second?
A Richard.
Q Who was the last?
A Jayson.
Q How did Br[i]an have sex with you?
A He held one of my hand.
Q After Bryan held one of your hand, what happened next?
A They have [sic] sex with me.
xxx xxx xxx
Q You said you were wearing red blouse and shorts, how did Br[i]an have sex with you when you were wearing your blouse and shorts?
A He removed my shorts and my underwear.
Q After Br[i]an removed your shorts and your underwear, what did he do next?
A He inserted his organ to my vagina.
Q What was your position when Br[i]an inserted his organ into your vagina?
A I am [sic] lying down.
Q How about Br[i]an what was his position?
A He is [sic] on top of me.
Q After Br[i]an was able to insert his private organ into your vagina, what happened next?
A Richard kissed me, sir.
Q What happened next after Richard kissed you?
A He also had sex with me.
Q By the way, what was your reaction when Br[i]an was removing your shorts and underwear?
A I fought back.
Q How did you fight back?
A I was pushing them but they held one of my hand.
Q Who was holding one your hands?
A Jayson.
Q What was Richard doing when Br[i]an was on top of you?
A They were holding my hand.
Q You said they, who were the ones holding your hand?
A Jayson and Richard, sir.
Q You said that Richard also had sex with you. What was your position when he had sex with you?
A I was lying down, sir.
Q What was Richard's position when he had sex with you?
A Same as Br[i]an.
Q After Richard was able to have sex with you, what happened next?
A Jayson was the last to have sex with me.
Q When Richard was having sex with you, what was your reaction?
A I fought back, sir.
Q Did you succeed in fighting them off?
A No, sir.
Q How did Jayson have sex with you?
A He asked me if my vagina is aching and then I cried. (Tinanong niya ako kung masakit pa yung ari ko, sabi nya, "masakit pa? Pagkatapos umiyak na ko.")
Q After he asked you and then you cried, what happened next?
A He wanted to accompany me in going home but I refused.
Q When you went home who accompanied you?
A None, sir.
Q What time did you arrive home?
A I went to the barangay and reported what happened to me, sir.
Q Do you know to what barangay you went?
A __________ sir.
Q What did the people at the barangay do after you told them what happened to you?
A They apprehended the three of them.
Q By the three of there you mean Richard, Br[i]an and Ja[y]son?
A Yes, sir. 36
The foregoing testimony of AAA was given in a straightforward, convincing, credible and satisfactory manner, which shows no other intention than to obtain justice for the wrong committed by accused-appellants against her. In particular the RTC observed that AAA testified spontaneously, naturally and in a straightforward manner, without signs of prevarication. 37
Moreover, accused-appellants' defense of denial cannot overcome private complainant's clear and convincing testimony.
It is undisputed that courts have always viewed the defenses of denial and alibi with considerable caution because they are inherently weak and unreliable, and can be easily made up. These defenses, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving, and merit no weight in law, They cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. 38
According to accused-appellants, they started drinking around 6:00 p.m. with AAA. After drinking a few beers, accused-appellants and Jayson went to the market to eat mami, and left behind private complainant. Accused-appellants narrated that they went back to the bakery at around 11:00 p.m., and resumed their drinking session with private complainant. After a few bottles, AAA left and accused-appellants went to sleep. 39
However, according to defense witness Jerick, he was inside the men's bedroom, which was just adjacent to the room where the group was drinking separated by a door. After around two hours of drinking, Jerick noticed that accused-appellants Jayson and Brian went downstairs, while Richard was left with private complainant inside the room. Later on, someone switched off the light and he could no longer hear them from the other room. When Brian and Jayson arrived, Richard was already asleep. It was at this point that both of them asked to have sex with AAA. She did not react but later on Jerick could hear her crying. AAA thereafter, left the room. 40
Based on the foregoing, even the evidence for the defense do not discount the possibility that accused-appellants had sexual intercourse with AAA. On the contrary, the circumstances narrated by the defense witness leads to the conclusion that at the very least accused-appellants attempted to have sexual intercourse with AAA and that she was later on heard crying by the defense witness.
With respect to accused-appellants attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of AAA and her narration of facts, in particular her failure to cry out for help, We find the same argument to be unavailing.
This Court has ruled that the "failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when that person was intimidated into submission by the accused." 41 A victim should never be faulted for her lack of resistance to any forms of crime particularly as grievous as rape. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the perpetrator's lust. 42
AAA's failure to seek or shout for help is understandable, considering that she was held down by three men and that despite her resistance to their advances she was unable to break free from their hold.
We are thus convinced that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants are guilty of Rape, defined and penalized under Section 1, paragraph (a) of Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC. Thus, we find no reason to reverse the CA Decision, and accordingly, affirm the conviction of accused-appellants and the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
However, this Court finds it necessary to modify the award of damages in accordance with People v. Jugueta, 43 wherein We clarified that for crimes of rape, where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity and moral damages will be P75,000.00 each, and another P75,000.00 as exemplary damages in view of the heinousness of the crime and to set an example. Accordingly, We modify the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages to P75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals are ADOPTED. The Decision dated February 11, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05845 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellants Richard Buraga y Esteban and Brian Tuando y Caaya are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape as defined and penalized under Section 1, paragraph (a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, and meted with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Moreover, accused-appellants are ORDERED to PAY AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. In line with current jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 48-58; penned by Presiding Judge Emma C. Matammu.
3. Pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, the personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise the identity of the victim, including the names of her family members or relatives, and the barangay and town where the incidents occurred, are withheld. The names of the victim and her family members or relatives are replaced with fictitious initials.
4.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id.
7. CA rollo, p. 77.
8.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
9.Id. at 5.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 4.
14.Id. at 6.
15.Id.
16. CA rollo, pp. 48-58.
17.Id. at 58.
18.Id. at 100-101.
19.Rollo, pp. 2-10.
20.Id. at 9.
21. CA rollo, pp. 138-139.
22.Id. at 141.
23.Rollo, pp. 16-17.
24.Id. at 16.
25.Id. at 18-21.
26.Id. at 24-25.
27. CA rollo, p. 37.
28.Id. at 41.
29.Id. at 44.
30.People v. Alcazar, 645 Phil. 181, 191-192 (2010), citing People v. San Antonio, Jr., 559 Phil. 188, 201 (2007).
31. See People v. XXX, G.R. No. 239906, August 26, 2020.
32.People v. Dorado, 140 Phil. 450, 454-455 (1969).
33. 746 Phil. 809 (2014).
34.Id. at 819-820.
35.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 232308, October 7, 2020.
36. CA rollo, pp. 52-56.
37.Id. at 52.
38. See People v. Bensig, 437 Phil. 748, 762 (2002).
39.Rollo, p. 6.
40. CA rollo, p. 57.
41.People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 778 (2014).
42.People v. Penilla, 707 Phil. 130, 146 (2013).
43. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).