THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201366. February 15, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. HEMIENIANO DELA CRUZ SAMONTE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 15, 2017, which reads as follows: cSaATC
"G.R. No. 201366 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HEMIENIANO DELA CRUZ SAMONTE, Accused-Appellant.
On March 9, 2011, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the conviction of the appellant for the rape of AAA 1 as charged that the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, in Malolos City, Bulacan handed down an June 16, 2009 in Criminal Case No. 326-M-2006, 2 disposing thusly:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated June 16, 2009 of the trial court is affirmed, subject to the modification that accused-appellant is further ordered to pay fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to AAA as civil indemnity. The Decision is affirmed in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
In its decision in Criminal Case No. 326-M-2006, 3 the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer reclusion perpetua, and to pay to AAA civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00.
Antecedents
The information filed in the RTC alleged: 4
That on or about the 28th day of December 2005, in the XXX province of XXX, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of one AAA, a minor, 14 years of age, against her will and without her consent, thereby debasing, degrading and demeaning her intrinsic worth as a human being.
Contrary to law.
The CA adopted the following factual findings by the RTC, to wit: cHDAIS
AAA, 14 years old, a student and a resident of XXX, testified that she is the private complainant in this case. On December 28, 2005, at about 10:30 a.m., she went to the house of their neighbor, Hemieniano dela Cruz Samonte, also known as Jerry, to borrow a big basin (batya). Accused Jerry, who was then alone in his house, was then near the window of the kitchen. Jerry told her to wait for a while as he would get the big basin. So AAA remained standing outside the door of Jerry's house while he went inside his house to get the big basin inside the comfort room. She saw him enter the comfort room to get the basin through the open window of Jerry's house. When Jerry had taken the basin from the comfort room, he brought the basin in the sala. He then asked AAA to enter the sala so she could get the basin. Jerry was then in the sala. As she trusted him, she entered the house of Jerry to get the basin in the sala. Upon entering the sala, Jerry held her forearm and took her to the stairs. He leaned her against the wall, forced her to sit down and then pushed her by the shoulders. He pulled her garterized shorts and panty down to her ankle then he placed himself on top of her. He then removed his towel wrapped around his waist. He spread her legs then pinned them down using his legs. While on top of her, he dilated his eyes and threatened to kill her if she would shout. He inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain in her vagina and she struggled. When she was able to kick him, he sat on the floor. AAA now had the chance to rise up. She raised her shorts and panty and then she ran towards the door. She went home.
Upon arriving at her home, she proceeded to her room and cried. Later on she read a message in her cellphone stating that he would kill her if she would report the incident. After reading the threatening message, AAA got scared so she immediately erased the message. AAA knew that the number belonged to Jerry because there was a time that the wife of Jerry borrowed AAA's cellphone to text and call up Jerry when the latter was detained. After the wife of Jerry used AAA's cellphone, AAA recorded Jerry's number.
When AAA was about to go to school, she saw Jerry stalking her. He rode in his hopper and he was calling her name. This happened in the corner street in XXX fronting a bakery. AAA boarded a jeep and later on she saw him still following her. This was about 9:00 o'clock in the morning but she could not remember what date was it. When she alighted from the jeep, she saw him at the waiting shed by the school. Jerry was calling her but when AAA saw a classmate, she embraced her classmate and they immediately entered the school.
On January 17, AAA went to the house of her half-sister, BBB to report the incident. While she was there, Jerry called up AAA. He wanted to meet AAA at XXX where they would eat and afterwards they would go to a hotel. AAA did not know what to do but BBB told her to say "yes" so they could entrap him. AAA then answered Jerry by texting, "sige po titingnan ko." AAA and BBB then proceeded to their mother. Afterwards, AAA, accompanied by her mother and sister, went to the municipal building of XXX and reported the matter to the police. Upon telling the police that Jerry had asked AAA that they would meet at XXX in XXX, the police advised her to tell Jerry that they would see each other in the said place. So AAA proceeded to XXX and both of them (AAA and Jerry) went up the second floor of XXX. When they were already seated, Jerry invited AAA to go to a hotel. She asked him what they would do there and he told her that they would just talk. At this instance, the policemen arrived and they arrested Jerry. ISHCcT
xxx xxx xxx
HEMIENIANO DELA CRUZ SAMONTE, 38 years old, single, a landscape contractor and a resident of XXX is the same accused in this case. Accused came to know private complainant AAA when he and his live-in partner Emily San Pedro Gatuz resided at XXX in the first week of December 2005. AAA and Emily then became friends.
He testified that on December 28, 2005, at about 7:30 o'clock in the morning, he was alone in his house. At about 8:00 o'clock of that same morning, he had a visitor named Bernardo Concepcion who helped him fix his motorcycle. This visitor left at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning.
In the morning of December 28, 2005, at around 7:30 o'clock in the morning, accused Hemieniano sent Emily to the market in XXX. At about 9:00 o'clock in the morning of the same date, his "kumare" May came to get the money of her husband who was sick at that time and who could not report for work. At about 10:30 a.m. of that same day, AAA went to the house of the accused to borrow a basin so that when AAA arrived, his kumare May was already sitting on a chair in front of his house where he was fixing his motorcycle. Accused told her that there were soaked clothes in it so he advised AAA to come back when her live-in partner would arrive. AAA then just left. Kumareng May left at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning when his live-in partner arrived.
On January 17, 2006, at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning, Hemieniano was at the XXX because he was on duty then. AAA called him up through his cellphone. According to her, her mother would like to talk to him regarding a landscaping. Since he was in XXX, he told AAA to proceed to XXX at XXX, where they would meet. Upon arriving thereat, he already saw AAA in front of XXX and she invited him to go inside the XXX, at the second floor. He asked her why she was alone and she replied that her companions went somewhere but would be back soon. She was busy texting. They were not able to talk much because after five minutes, policemen arrived. He was surprised because they immediately handcuffed him. He asked them the meaning of it but PO2 Martin replied that AAA filed a complaint against him and he had an explanation to do at the police station.
Accused denied having stalked AAA while she was going to school. He also denied having sexual advances towards AAA. The reason that he knew why charges were filed against him was because AAA and her parents were asking P200,000.00 from him so he could be released from jail. He refused to give because, firstly, he did not have the amount. Secondly, even if he had the amount, he would not give it to her because he did not do any crime against her, neither did he harm her. 5
On appeal, the appellant assigned the following errors, namely: CAacTH
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 6
In this Court, the appellant has opted not to file any supplemental brief, thereby reiterating his assignment of errors. The State also waived the filing of any supplemental brief.
Ruling of the Court
The decisive question to be answered is whether or not the State established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to the CA, the State did.
We hold that the CA correctly appreciated the evidence, and justly affirmed the conviction. Thus, we declare the appeal as bereft of merit.
To start with, the appellant assails the full credence accorded to the testimony of AAA on the commission of the rape against her. We cannot side with him. Both the RTC and the CA observed that AAA, even if only 14 years of age at the time of the rape, had been able to vividly and reliably recall her ordeal — how he had forced himself on her, and how his threats had cowed her into submitting to his carnal desire, which enabled him to perpetrate the crime. Their observations are entitled to respect. For one, the RTC, given its direct and personal access to AAA when she recalled in court her saddest experience at his hands, ably appreciated the demeanor of AAA as she was testifying. Its findings as a trial court bind the Court, particularly because the CA upheld them. The Court accords them respect, if not conclusiveness, because it is not a trier of facts.
Secondly, the appellant contends that AAA's testimony was generally incredible and inconsistent. He specifies that it had been unusual for AAA to enter his house if she had previously observed his having stared at her with interest; that her claim of his having forcibly brought her up the stairs of his house, pushed her against the wall and shoved her shoulders was even belied by the absence from the medical report of any mention that she had sustained bruises or other bodily injuries; that it was unlikely that she did not shout for help if he had raped her in the manner she had described; that if she really struggled to resist him, he would not have been able to insert his penis into her vagina; that although he had supposedly sent menacing and threatening messages after the rape to her cellphone, it was unnatural that she had deleted the messages; and that the medico-legal findings resulting from her physical examination on January 18, 2006 showing that her hymen had been fleshy with a shallow healed laceration at 9:00 o'clock position belied the supposed commission of the rape on December 28, 2005 because the laceration would have been fully healed by then. IAETDc
The contentions of the appellant lack substance. The CA carefully reflected and completely debunked his contentions, as the following excerpt from its assailed decision indicates, to wit:
The asseverations are unfounded.
It suffices to state that the laceration on AAA's hymen had healed on January 18, 2006, although it was described as a "shallow healed laceration," not a fresh one. The fact that the medical report stated that there were no external signs of physical injuries on AAA does not negate the commission of rape. The medical examination on AAA was done only on January 18, 2006, or twenty-one (21) days after the crime of rape was committed on December 28, 2005. The medical report mentioned that "there are no external signs of application of any form of trauma at the time of the examination." Thus, it was not impossible that the external signs of trauma sustained by AAA on December 28, 2005 had already healed on January 18, 2006.
In any event, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. As the trial court noted:
Appellant has made much of the absence of scratches or contusions in AAA's external genitalia. Given the unwavering testimony of AAA as to her ordeal in the hands of appellant, however, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against appellant. As aptly observed by the CA, the medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of external signs or physical injuries, such as freshly broken hymen, or laceration, on the complainant's body, does not necessarily negate the commission of rape. This is because complete or full penetration of the victim's private parts is not required to consummate the crime of rape. Neither is hymenal laceration or like vaginal injury an element of the crime of rape, albeit a healed or fresh laceration is a compelling proof of defloration. What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.
Contrary to accused-appellant's claim, it is not unbelievable for AAA to go to accused-appellant's house because she went there to borrow a basin. AAA also explained in her testimony that she erased the text message of accused-appellant because she was scared of accused-appellant. Understandably, AAA was overpowered by the threat of accused-appellant against her life. As a young girl of 14 years, accused-appellant, a mature adult of 38 years, created an overpowering fear on AAA by employing force and threat during the commission of the rape, and by following it up with a threatening text message. This overpowering fear made AAA erase the text message of accused-appellant. Indeed, when a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act coherently. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone a traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults of similar circumstances. DcHSEa
The fact that AAA also testified that while going to school she was stalked by accused-appellant two (2) days after she was raped on December 28, 2005, does not adversely affect the credibility of her testimony. The stalking is an incident separate from the rape. In any event, AAA had also testified that she could not remember the exact date of the stalking. This only goes to show that AAA is not a coached witness and the slight variation in her testimony as to when the stalking occurred should be taken as a bade of her truthfulness. 7
We consider the foregoing analysis by the CA to be based on the records. In contrast, the appellant has not given sufficient cause for us to discredit AAA and her recollections of her ordeal at his hands. Indeed, we should confirm that the sincerity and reliability of AAA's recollections are not to be denied.
And, thirdly, the appellant tendered uncorroborated denial of his culpability. The self-serving denial did not at all overcome AAA's positive identification of him as the culprit in the absence of a compelling reason to doubt her motives for incriminating him unless he had really committed the crime against her.
In view of the foregoing, the State successfully established the guilt of the appellant for rape, as provided in paragraph 1 (a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, viz.:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —
1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
xxx xxx xxx
The penalty for rape is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. This penalty was correctly imposed by the RTC and properly affirmed by the CA. SCaITA
We modify the civil liability of the appellant to conform to the ruling in People v. Jugueta, 8 pursuant to which civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages are each fixed in the amount of P75,000.00, are granted to AAA, plus interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 9, 2011 subject to the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is ordered to pay to AAA civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P75,000.00, plus interest of 6% per annum on each item of civil liability reckoned from the finality of this decision until full payment.
The accused-appellant shall further pay the costs of suit.
(Jardeleza,J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; DeCastro,J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 13, 2017)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, and its implementing rules, the real names of the victim and of her immediate family members are withheld, and fictitious initials are instead used to represent her, to protect her privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-23; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, and concurred in by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
3. CA rollo, pp. 17-27; penned by RTC Judge Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo.
4.Id. at 17.
5.Rollo, pp. 4-8.
6.Id. at 9-10.
7.Supra note 1, at 19-21.
8. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.