People v. Saralde

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 249720. June 30, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAYMOND SARALDE, *accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 249720 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee,v. Raymond Saralde, Accused-Appellant.) — In this appeal, accused-appellant seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 24 May 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10727, which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated 20 November 2017 of Branch 63, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of _______, Camarines Sur in Criminal Case No. 14-2013. HTcADC

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with rape in an Information 3 dated 27 February 2014, which reads as follows:

That sometime in September 2012 at around 11:30 o'clock in the morning, in _________________________, Camarines Sur, 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 have carnal knowledge [of] [AAA], 4 a 15-year old girl, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.

The factual antecedents, as found by the CA, are as follows:

AAA narrated that while she does not know accused-appellant personally, she often noticed him near her school. She later realized that he was stalking her when her classmates revealed that accused-appellant told them that he has a crush on her. Considering that accused-appellant was considerably older than she was, she merely ignored him.

On 22 or 23 September 2012, or the weekend after AAA's fifteenth (15th) birthday on 18 September 2012, she went to one of her classmate's house in _______________ for a school project. After practicing for their performance, two (2) of her groupmates went home while the other two (2) went out to buy merienda. AAA was left alone at the terrace. She placed her cellular phone on a nearby table. A few moments later, a young boy entered the house, grabbed her cellular phone, and ran away.

AAA reflexively went after the boy to get her phone back. She saw the boy enter a nipa hut that was quite far from her classmate's house. It was isolated being surrounded by farm land. She unwittingly followed the boy inside the nipa hut where she found her phone on top of a table. The boy, however, was nowhere to be found. Instead, she saw accused-appellant therein. He told her that he likes her and that he wanted to have sex with her. When she refused, he pushed her causing to hit her hip against the bed therein. Accused-appellant then picked up AAA and forcibly laid her on the bed. He sat on her legs and held her hands in one hand. With his free hand, he pulled up her shirt and sports bra in one movement. He then pulled down her shorts and underwear to her knees. AAA struggled in vain to free herself. Accused-appellant likewise pulled down his shorts and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. He made an up and down movement for a long time. He only stopped when they heard a male voice from outside, indicating that someone was coming.

Accused-appellant released AAA and ordered her to get dressed. He also assured her that he would take responsibility for what he did. AAA did not reply and immediately left accused-appellant. She went back to her classmate's house. She told her classmates that she was going home and sent a message to her mother DDD to fetch her. She, however, did not tell her mother about what had happened.

AAA suffered sleepless nights and crying jags as a result of the incident. She kept thinking of what accused-appellant had done to her. Worse, she noticed that her stomach was getting bigger and that there were changes to her body.

Private complainant's mother DDD noted that AAA became moody and would often throw temper tantrums. AAA likewise became sickly. Five (5) months after the rape, DDD and her husband CCC noticed that private complainant's breasts and stomach were becoming bigger so they took AAA to the doctor. They initially went to a certain Dr. Palma who referred them to a gynecologist as it was feared that AAA was suffering from a tumor. It was only when they consulted with a certain Dr. Deslumbre, an obstetrician-gynecologist, that it was discovered that AAA was pregnant. AAA finally confessed that she was raped by accused-appellant. However, it was only a few months later, or on 02 April 2013, that the family was able to go to the police station to report that AAA was raped by accused-appellant.

The testimony of Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Raoul V. Alcantara (Dr. Alcantara) was dispensed with after the parties stipulated as follows: (a) that he conducted the medical examination on private complainant; (b) that he issued Medico-Legal Report No. BRO-MG-13-41 dated 25 April 2013 summarizing his findings based on the medical examination on private complainant; and (c) that the Medico-Legal Report No. BROMG-13-41 is authentic and duly issued.

Per the Medico-Legal Report No. BRO-MG-13-41 dated 25 April 2013, Dr. Alcantara found a previous injury to private complainant's hymen caused by penetration of a blunt object but there were no recent extragenital physical injury on her. His examination likewise confirmed private complainant's pregnancy. We quote:

IMPRESSIONS

1. No recent extragenital physical injury noted on the body of the subject at the time of the examination.

2. Genital findings reveal clear evidence of previous injury to the hymen secondary to intravaginal penetration by a blunt object.

3. Signs of pregnancy noted.

On 18 June 2013, AAA gave birth to a baby boy via cesarean section, as evidenced by his Certificate of Live Birth. The prosecution likewise presented private complainant's Certificate of Live Birth to show that she was born on 18 September 1997. aScITE

For the defense, accused-appellant was presented as the lone witness.

Accused-appellant interposed the sweetheart defense. He narrated that on 22 July 2012, AAA became his girlfriend. Accused-appellant acknowledges fathering AAA's son. He also knows that accused-appellant was fifteen (15) years old when they had sexual relations while he was around twenty-one (21) years old. Since they have not yet formally broken up, accused-appellant still considers AAA as his girlfriend and he still loves her. He further claimed that the instant case was instigated by private complainant's parents because they did not like him for their daughter as he was poor and uneducated. 5

Ruling of the RTC

On 20 November 2017, the RTC rendered a decision convicting accused-appellant of the crime charged, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the herein-accused RAMOND n SARALDE "GUILTY," beyond reasonable doubt, for Rape (punishable under Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 8353) and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA without eligibility for parole and ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and the costs of suit, with legal interest from the date of filing of the information until fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 6

The RTC noted that accused-appellant already admitted to having sexual intercourse with AAA, but proffering the "sweetheart theory" as his defense. His claim, however, was not supported by any evidence thereby warranting his conviction for the crime of rape. 7

Ruling of the CA

The CA, on 24 May 2019, promulgated the assailed decision affirming BBB's conviction, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated November 20, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, _______ Camarines Sur is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Raymond Saralde is hereby held GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay private complainant AAA Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) moral damages, and Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as exemplary damages. All damages awarded shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.8

The appellate court gave more credence to the testimony of AAA and brushed aside the supposed inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant since they did not affect the material elements of the crime. Further, the CA rejected accused-appellant's claim that the period between the alleged rape and the birth of AAA's child, which is only eight (8) months and twenty-seven (27) days, is inconsistent with the gestational period of nine (9) months. Aside from accused-appellant's bare assertion, there is nothing to prove said physical impossibility. Lastly, the sweetheart defense offered by accused-appellant was not proven by compelling evidence. 9

Issues

For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for rape.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious. AAA's testimony is insufficient to prove accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt as it is neither convincing nor in accord with the normal course of things.

Under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a man who shall 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 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 if none of the circumstances previously mentioned is present. 10

In reviewing rape cases, the Court observes the following guiding principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made withfacility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the personaccused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; (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. 11

In People v. Godoy, 12 the importance of the testimony of the victim for the conviction of an accused in a rape case was explained, thus:

A rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences. It exposes both the accused and the accuser to humiliation, fear and anxieties, not to mention the stigma of shame that both have to bear for the rest of their lives. By the very nature of the crime of rape, conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony because of the fact that usually only the participants can testify as to its occurrence. This notwithstanding, the basic rule remains that in all criminal prosecutions without regard to the nature of the defense which the accused may raise, the burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the accused raises a sufficient doubt as to any material element, and the prosecution is then unable to overcome this evidence, the prosecution has failed to carry its burden of proof of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused must be acquitted.

The rationale for the rule is that, confronted by the full panoply of State authority, the accused is accorded the presumption of innocence to lighten and even reverse the heavy odds against him. Mere accusation is not enough to convict him, and neither is the weakness of his defense. The evidence for the prosecution must be strong per se, strong enough to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the offended woman, provided such testimony is clear, positive, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. (Emphasis supplied) HEITAD

Applying the foregoing, the Court finds the testimony of AAA insufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant with the degree of proof required by the law.

First, the narration of AAA anent the unidentified boy who snatched her phone and allegedly led her to the nipa hut is simply too incredible to be believed as true. To recall, the setting was that AAA "was left alone in the terrace. She placed her cellular phone on a nearby table. A few moments later, a young boy entered the house, grabbed her cellular phone, and ran away." Said account raises obvious questions as to how the snatching incident was accused-appellant's supposed ploy to lead AAA to his nipa hut. This would mean that accused-appellant knew of AAA's plans to go to her classmate's house on said exact date and time. Further, the question of how the mysterious boy was able to casually barge inside the house of AAA's classmate, be knowledgeable enough of its interiors to navigate his way inside, and even know exactly where her phone was placed were unresolved and impressing doubt on the version of the prosecution. Said doubt disrupts the inherent believability of AAA's narration as to why she was in the nipa hut with accused-appellant and brings to fore the possibility that the snatching incident was a mere concoction of AAA to hide the fact that she met accused-appellant on her own volition.

Second, there was a considerable delay in reporting the alleged rape incident, which the prosecution failed to explain. While a "delay in reporting a case of rape is not always to be taken as an ostensible badge of a fabricated charge," 13 it nevertheless renders the charge of rape doubtful if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained." 14 As established, AAA's parents knew she was pregnant around February 2013 or five (5) months into her pregnancy. Yet, it was only on 2 April 2013, when AAA was already seven (7) months pregnant, when they reported the alleged rape incident to the authorities and had AAA undergo a medico-legal examination. The prosecution had no reasonable explanation as to what transpired in the two-month interval. Said delay, thus, render the charge or rape doubtful and give a semblance of truth to accused-appellant's explanation that AAA's parents simply did not want him for their daughter as he was poor and uneducated. In other words, AAA's delay in reporting, coupled with her parent's two-month delay in reporting the incident to the authorities, when considered together, taint the credibility of the claim of rape.

Ultimately, for the conviction of accused-appellant to be sustained, his guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There should be moral certainty — a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it — that he, indeed, committed the crime charged. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is meant to be that, all things given, the mind of the judge can rest at ease concerning its verdict. 15 Unfortunately, the prosecution failed in its task to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant for the crime of rape. The incredibility of the prosecution's evidence, along with the believability of the evidence of the defense, constitute sufficient doubt on accused-appellant's guilt. Accordingly, he must be acquitted of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 24 May 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10727 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Raymond Saralde is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to cause his immediate release unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. The said Director General is likewise ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.

SO ORDERED." ATICcS

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Also referred to in some parts of the records as Raymond Sarlade and Ramond Saralde.

1.Rollo, pp. 3-16; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, and concurred in by Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Gabriel T. Robeniol of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

2. CA rollo, pp. 16-19; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Pedro M. Redoña.

3.Rollo, p. 4.

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, pp. 4-7.

6. CA rollo, p. 19.

7.Id. at 18-19.

8.Rollo, p. 15.

9.Id. at 9-15.

10.People v. DDD, G.R. No. 243583, 03 September 2020 [Per J. Peralta].

11.People v. Lumibao, 465 Phil. 771 (2004), G.R. Nos. 144080-81, 26 January 2004 [Per J. Quisumbing].

12. 321 Phil. 279 (1995), G.R. Nos. 115908-09, 06 December 1995 [Per J. Regalado].

13.People v. Domingo, 579 Phil. 254 (2008), G.R. No. 177136, 30 June 2008 [Per J. Tinga].

14.People v. Bejim, G.R. No. 208835, 19 January 2018 [Per J. Del Castillo]; People v. Domingo, 579 Phil. 254 (2008), G.R. No. 177136, 30 June 2008 [Per J. Tinga]; People v. Barcena, 517 Phil. 731-749 (2006), G.R. No. 168737, 16 February 2006 [Per Curiam].

15.Supra at note 12.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.