FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252894. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RODEL ESCAPE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252894 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee,v. Rodel Escape,Accused-Appellant.) — This appeal 1 assails the Decision 2 dated 14 February 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12563. The CA affirmed with modification the Judgment 3 dated 05 December 2018 of Branch 78, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City in Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-0920-CR, finding accused-appellant Rodel Escape (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape, defined and penalized under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, in relation to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was indicted of the crime of Rape in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 22nd day of August 2014, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, RODEL ESCAPE, through force, violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual assault upon one RRR, 4 a minor, 14 years of age, by then and there kissing her lips, touching her body and then removing her shorts and thereafter had carnal knowledge of her, all done against her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Contrary to law. 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
In the evening of 22 August 2014, RRR, then 14 years old, was roused from her sleep when accused-appellant, one of the workers in their junkshop, started touching her breasts and kissing her lips. Accused-appellant persisted in pulling down RRR's short pants, despite her attempts to pull it back up, and succeeded in forcing her legs apart. He then kissed her neck and thighs and again touched her breast. RRR felt accused-appellant insert his finger, and then his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, accused-appellant stood up and went to the comfort room inside her bedroom. RRR neither said a word nor shouted for help. Allegedly, accused-appellant said that her father, DDD, might kill him if she tells him about the incident. This then would lead to the incarceration of her father, something which she does not want to happen. 7
BBB, 8 RRR's half-brother, testified that at 5:00 a.m. of 23 August 2014, he entered RRR's room to use the bathroom. Once inside, he saw accused-appellant lying awake beside RRR who was then sleeping. Upon seeing him, accused-appellant immediately left the room. RRR's father, DDD, 9 eventually learned of what happened and summoned his wife, CCC, to talk to RRR. After RRR related her ordeal to CCC, they reported the incident to the barangay. 10 Meanwhile, accused-appellant had already left the junkshop without telling anyone of his whereabouts. 11
Based on the medical examination, RRR was found to have shallow, healed laceration and deep healed lacerations in her hymen. 12 RRR was likewise subjected to psychological examination and was found to be suffering from a mild mental retardation and severe major depression with psychosis. 13
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed that on 22 August 2014, he attended a birthday celebration with his relatives and Gerald Aragon (Aragon) in Montalban, Rizal from 10:00 a.m. up to 4:30 p.m. Thereafter, he and a certain Aragon had a drinking spree at the latter's house until 1:00 a.m. He only learned of the rape case after he was arrested in Masbate sometime in 2015. 14
Accused-appellant's brother, Ronnie Escape, a worker at DDD's junkshop, testified that on the alleged day of the incident, accused-appellant was in Montalban, Rizal with their relatives. He remembered being summoned to the Barangay after EEE, a distant relative of DDD, was seen inside RRR's room. As proof, he presented a barangay blotter, showing therein that there were two (2) respondents: accused-appellant; and EEE. However, charges were only filed against accused-appellant. 15
Ruling of the RTC
On 05 December 2018, the RTC rendered its Judgment convicting accused-appellant of the crime of Rape. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused RODEL ESCAPE, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape filed against him, defined and punished under Art. 266-A, paragraph 1 in relation to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua, and to pay the costs of suit.
Furthermore, he is ORDERED to pay the private complainant [Php]50,000.00 as civil liability; and [Php]50,000.00 as moral damages. He is likewise ordered to pay private complainant interest on all damages at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.
xxx xxx xxx.
SO ORDERED. 16
The RTC held that accused-appellant, through force, had carnal knowledge of RRR on 22 August 2014. It gave credence to the spontaneous and unadorned testimony of RRR who was found to be suffering from mild mental retardation. It disregarded accused-appellant's defense of alibi as it was not physically impossible for him to be present at the place of the incident considering the travel time from Montalban to Quezon City would only take one (1) to two (2) hours. Likewise, accused-appellant went into hiding for a year after the incident which can only mean that accused-appellant is guilty, flight being an indication of guilt. 17
Accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On 14 February 2020, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision, affirming accused-appellant's conviction, thus:
WHEREFORE, we DENY the appeal. The Judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that appellant Rodel Escape shall pay the victim the sums of [Php]75,000.00 for civil indemnity; [Php]75,000.00 as moral damages and [Php]P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus straight interest of 6% on all the monetary awards from the date of finality of judgment until the sums be fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 18
The CA gave RRR's testimony full faith and credit based on her straightforward and convincing narration of her sexual ordeal at the hands of accused-appellant. It agreed with the finding of the RTC that accused-appellant, through force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of RRR. It also held that there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident such that RRR's silence and lack of resistance cannot be taken against her. Likewise, RRR's failure to shout and offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary her submission to accused-appellant's lust, physical resistance not being an element of Rape. Added to that, is the medical findings that RRR suffered a mild form of mental retardation as a result of the rape incident. 19
Subsequently, accused-appellant filed the present appeal.
Issue
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether accused-appellant's guilt for the rape incident was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling of the Court
We grant the appeal.
To support a conviction for Rape, the prosecution has the burden to conclusively prove the two (2) elements of the crime, viz.: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. 20
In reviewing Rape cases, the Court is guided by three (3) principles, thus: (1) an accusation of Rape can be made with facility, and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two (2) persons being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 21
Accused-appellant casts doubt on RRR's testimony, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that force and intimidation was employed during the alleged rape. Specifically, he points out that RRR did not shout for help despite her father, stepbrother, and other workers occupying the room above their junkshop being just ten (10) meters away from her room.
Moreover, he was not even armed with a gun or a bladed weapon to subdue RRR to his sexual desire. Further, despite the opportunity to escape, RRR did not do so. 22 RRR and her half-brother, BBB, likewise gave conflicting accounts as to what accused-appellant did after the alleged rape. While RRR testified that accused-appellant went to the comfort room and left after the incident, BBB testified that he saw accused-appellant lying beside RRR at 5:00 a.m. in the morning of 23 August 2014. If he raped RRR, then he could have easily left after satisfying his sexual desire. 23
The determination of the credibility of the offended party's testimony is a most basic consideration in every prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction. 24 As in most rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. 25 The findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great respect and even finality on appeal. However, this principle does not preclude a reevaluation of the evidence to determine whether material facts or circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court. 26
Both the RTC and CA convicted accused-appellant of Rape on the basis of RRR's credible and spontaneous testimony that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation. Given that RRR was found to have a mild mental retardation, the RTC also held that proof of force or intimidation is not even necessary as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to the sexual act. 27
Nonetheless, while it was established that RRR had a mild mental retardation, Ms. Nedy Tayag (Ms. Tayag), a psychologist from the National Center for Mental Health, testified that the mental retardation of RRR only resulted from the traumatic experience, brought about by the rape incident, thus:
Atty. Lauron:
Considering the mental state of the mind of the private complainant, do you think by not shouting out for help is consistent with her mental age?
Ms. Tayag:
Actually, sir, I would like to correct, at the time of the testing, she has a mental retardation but apparently, during the time of the incident she was still on the average. But because of what happened that brought emotional distrust or instability on her, it was lowered. And realistically, sir, if she happens to be a victim of such, it could be a normal reaction for an abnormal situation that she encountered.
Q: You are telling us that the reason why she had a psychological problem was the rape done to her?
A: Yes, I believe it was brought about by the incident that happened to her. 28
Indubitably, at the time of the rape incident, RRR was an average, normal girl capable of giving consent and was therefore not deprived of reason. Necessarily, the presence of force, threat or intimidation must be sufficiently established to sustain a conviction for Rape.
There was no force, threat or
Force, as an element of Rape, must be sufficient to consummate the purposes which the accused had in mind. On the other hand, intimidation must produce fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation includes the moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol. 29
The finding of the RTC that there was force and intimidation was based on RRR's account that accused-appellant forcefully removed her undergarment, forcefully spread her legs apart before inserting his fingers, then his penis, into her vagina. Nowhere was it mentioned that accused-appellant was armed for RRR to succumb in fear. Neither was there a physical threat to her life or any of her family member. If at all, it was more of fear that her father would kill accused-appellant and will be jailed after, thus:
"Atty. Lauron:
Ito kasi ang hindi maintindihan eh. Bakit hindi mo hiningi yung tulong nila o umimik man lang noong nagkaroon ng di kanais-nais na pangyayari sa iyo?
RRR: Natatakot po ako.
Q: Meron bang armas si Rodel noong panahon na iyon?
A: Wala po.
Q: May sinabi ba sa iyong nakakatakot si Rodel noong panahong yun, kasi wala akong nabasa sa dati mong salaysay?
A: Ano po, may sinabi po siya na kung magsumbong daw po ako baka daw patayin siya ni papa.
Q: Ayaw mong mamatay si rodel?
A: Hindi naman po.
Q: Di ba dapat okay sa iyo na mamatay siya? Okay lang ba sa iyo na mamatay si Rodel?
A: Siguro po.
Q: Pero ang banta niya sa iyo ay baka mamatay siya kaya tahimik ka lang, ganon ang nangyari, tama ba yun?
A: Opo. x x x." 30
Likewise, the prosecution did not present evidence as to the physical and moral attributes of accused-appellant which can be sufficient to inti midate RRR. CCC narrated that despite disparity in age, her 14-year-old daughter had a close relationship with 24-year-old-accused-appellant, the latter being their distant relative. 31 BBB even claimed that accused-appellant was his kababata, and had known the latter when they were still in the province. 32
In Rape cases alleged to have been committed by force, threat or intimidation, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that the element of voluntariness on the part of the victim be absolutely lacking, as evidenced by RRR's actuations during and after the alleged rape incident. 33 Although RRR's family members were just outside her room, she did not attempt to shout or call for help. Even granting that she was consumed by fear, if RRR was really defiled, then she could have attempted to escape when accused-appellant went to the comfort room right after the incident, instead of still sleeping beside accused-appellant until the following morning.
In People v. Ollamina, 34 which involved a 15-year-old girl who had accused a 24-year-old neighbor of having raped her, it was held that absent any logical explanation or justification, we believe that only a willing victim would passively allow herself to be ravished and her honor tarnished simply by reason of a verbal threat of an unarmed rapist. Furthermore, the failure of complainant to even attempt to escape from her supposed assailant or at least to shout for help despite opportunities to do so casts doubt on her credibility and renders her claim of lack of voluntariness and consent difficult to believe. While it is true that women react differently in similar situations, it is unnatural for an intended rape victim not to make even a feeble attempt to free herself despite opportunities to do so. Such demeanor is inconsistent with that of the ordinary Filipina whose instinct dictates that she summon every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to besmirch her honor. 35
Unjustified delay in reporting
In a catena of cases, the Court has held that delay in reporting a rape incident in the face of threats of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim and does not destroy the latter's credibility. RRR reported the incident a month after her alleged defilement on 22 August 2014 because of fear. However, it bears stressing that after the incident, there was no more fear to speak of, considering that accused-appellant already left the junkshop right after the day of the alleged incident. 36 RRR therefore had every opportunity to report said incident to her family members.
Further, the records shows it was only after another incident on 26 September 2014, where RRR was again caught by BBB sleeping with another man, this time, EEE, 37 that she was compelled to relate that accused-appellant raped her. And this was only after she was confronted by CCC. 38 In People v. Arces, Jr., 39 citing People v. Relorcasa, 40 it was held that failure of the alleged victim to report that she was raped despite several opportunities to do so renders doubtful her rape charge.
The presumption of innocence in favor of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional guarantee.41A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. It is fundamental that the prosecution's case cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.42Every reasonable doubt of his guilt entitles him to an acquittal.43The prosecution's failure to prove the elements of force, threat, or intimidation compels the Court to acquit accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 14 February 2020 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12563 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Rodel Escape is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is being confined for some other lawful cause.
The Acting Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-25; see Notice of Appeal, 28 February 2020.
2.Id. at 3-22; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño of the Special Seventh (7th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 47-57; penned by Presiding Judge Fernando T. Sagun, Jr.
4. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, including the names of her immediate family or household members, and the barangay and town of the incident, are withheld pursuant to SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
5.Rollo, p. 47.
6.Id. at 47-48.
7.Id. at 5-6.
8.Supra at note 4.
9.Id.
10.Rollo, p. 6.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 7.
13.Id. at 8.
14.Rollo, pp. 8-10.
15.Id.
16.Rollo, p. 57.
17.Rollo, pp. 55-56.
18.Rollo, p. 21.
19.Rollo, pp. 13-19.
20.SeePeople v. Padilla, G.R. No. 234947, 19 June 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
21.People v. Arces, Jr., G.R. No. 225624, 03 October 2018 [Per J. Carpio], citing People v. Rubillar, Jr., 817 Phil. 222, 232-233 (2017), G.R. No. 224631, 23 August 2017 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
22.Rollo, p. 39.
23.Id. at 40-41.
24.People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 239892, 10 June 2020, citing People v. Peralta, 619 Phil. 268, 273 (2009), G.R. No. 187531, 16 October 2009 [Per J. Nachura].
25.Id., citing Remiendo v. People, 618 Phil. 273, 287 (2009), G.R. No. 184874, 09 October 2009 [Per J. Nachura].
26.People v. Ramirez, 826 Phil. 142, 149 (2018), G.R. No. 218701, 14 February 2018 [Per J. Del Castillo], citing People v. Bermejo, 692 Phil. 373, 381 (2012), G.R. No. 195307, 06 August 2012 [Per J. Peralta].
27.Rollo, p. 55.
28. TSN of Nedy L. Tayag, 02 October 2017, p. 12.
29.People v. Tionloc, 805 Phil. 907, 915-916 (2017), G.R. No. 212193, 15 February 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo], citing People v. Frias, 718 Phil. 173, 183 (2013), G.R. No. 203068, 18 September 2013 [Per J. Reyes].
30. TSN of RRR, 07 June 2016, pp. 19-20.
31. TSN of CCC, 01 June 2017, p. 8.
32. TSN of BBB, 08 November 2016, p. 8.
33.Id.
34. 426 Phil. 726 (2002), G.R. No. 133185, 06 February, 2002.
35.People v. Peligro, 439 Phil. 920 (2002), G.R. No. 148899, 28 October 2002.
36.Supra at note 32 at 9.
37. Records, pp. 5, 194-195.
38.Supra at note 31.
39.People v. Arces, Jr., supra at note 21.
40. G.R. No. 102725, 03 August 1993 [Per J. Quiason].
41.People v. Sangcajo, Jr., G.R. No. 229204, 05 September 2018 [Per J. Bersamin].
42.People v. Arces, Jr., supra at note 21.
43.Supra at note 41.