FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229820. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROY TAGOLINO y LAURENTE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229820 — People of the Philippines v. Roy Tagolino y Laurente
The appeal utterly lacks merit.
Appellant is guilty of rape by
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) 1 defines rape by carnal knowledge, viz.:
Art. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape iscommitted —
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 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.
The elements of rape by carnal knowledge are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. 2
Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the victim to testify about the commission of the crime. As such, the accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided it is credible, consistent, and convincing. 3
Here, the prosecution sufficiently established that on April 25, 2007, appellant Roy Tagolino y Laurente had carnal knowledge of AAA 4 through force, threat or intimidation. AAA made a clear, candid, and positive narration of how appellant suddenly grabbed her hair from behind, pointed a knife to her neck, dragged her to the nipa grove, mauled and undressed her, took off her pants, forced her to lie on her back, pushed and pulled his penis in her genitals while holding her hair in one hand and a knife in the other, and kept boxing her as she cried, 5 thus:
Q. Can you please tell us what happened to you when you were walking back to the house of [BBB]?
A. While I was walking through the nipa [grove], I noticed somebody is running and heading towards behind me and suddenly I felt somebody already grabbing my hair and not long after he poke a knife to my neck, sir.
Q. And were you able to see who was this person who grabbed your hair and poke[d] a knife [to] your neck?
A. At first[,] I did not see clearly his face because he was behind me. I was only able to see his face, I only was able to recognize his face when we were already at the nipa [grove].
Q. You mean to say Ms. Witness that after he grabbed your hair Ms. Witness behind[,] you were brought inside the nipa [grove]?
A. Yes, that's correct, he dragged me towards inside the nipa [grove].
Q. When you reached inside [sic] the interior portion of the nipa [grove], what happened thereat?
A. When we were already interior [sic] the nipa [grove], he mauled me first and then took off my pants.
Q. And after he took off your pants, what else did he do?
A. The[n], he took off my shirt and then my panty.
Q. And after he took off your shirt and panty at that time, what else did he do?
A. He let his penis out of his brief.
Q. And when he let his penis out of his brief, what happened next?
A. So that was it, he already ravished me.
Q. Can you please tell us, what was your relative position to the accused when you said he ravished you inside the nipa plantation?
A. He made me lie on my back and then raised both of my legs and folded my legs up and fold [sic] them on my belly.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. What I mean Ms. Witness before inserting his three fingers, you said that you were ravished at that time by the accused. Can you please tell us specifically or clarify to us what do you really mean when you said the accused ravished you?
A. What I mean was, he took off my shirt and then he pulled my bra using his knife and then he was holding my hair in the other hand and on the other hand he was pulling his knife while, he was pushing and pulling through me and then after that, that was the time after the pushing and pulling, he let me do an oral sex.
Q. You mentioned of a push and pull Ms. Witness, what was he pushing and pulling [in] you?
A. His penis sir.
Q. Where did he [make] this push and pull motion [in] you? Which part?
A. My genital. My sex organ[,] sir.
Q. And how did you feel at that time?
A. I kept on crying but then he only kept on boxing me. 6
AAA could not have fabricated the harrowing details of the rape incident had she not actually experienced them in appellant's hands. For no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an 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. 7
By itself, the victim's testimony withstands scrutiny sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. It assumes even more probative weight when it is corroborated by physical evidence. 8
Here, AAA's allegation of rape conforms with the physical evidence. Dr. Edilberto Calipayan examined AAA and found: contusion in the genitals; fresh laceration in the hymen; abrasion in the fourchette; spermatozoa in the cervix, vaginal wall and vulva; contusion and hematoma in the lip; and second-degree blister formation in the inner oral wall which could have been caused by something blunt such as a fist. 9 Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible defloration. When the victim's consistent and forthright testimony is consistent with medical findings, as here, the essential requisites of carnal knowledge are deemed to have been sufficiently established. 10
Appellant is guilty of rape by
As defined under Article 266-A, rape may be committed by sexual assault under paragraph 2, viz.:
Art. 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —
xxx xxx xxx
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Rape by sexual assault contemplates two situations. First, it may be committed by a man who inserts his penis into the mouth or anal orifice of another person, whether a man or a woman, under any of the attendant circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1. Second, it may be committed by a person, whether a man or a woman, who inserts any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person, whether a man or a woman, under any of the four (4) circumstances stated in paragraph 1. 11
Here, AAA vividly testified how appellant forcefully inserted his penis into her mouth which caused her to choke, 12 thus:
Q. Now after he made that push and pull motion on you, what else did he do after?
A. After that, he lay [sic] and then I did an oral sex but that was just a very short period of time.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. And was he able to insert his penis [into] your mouth?
A. Yes, it was inserted forcefully, that's why I choked sir.
Q. And when [you choked], what happened to you when [you choked]?
A. I wrestled him and I push[ed] his sex organ away.
Q. And after he made you [do] that forceful oral sex Ms. Witness and [you pushed] away the sex organ of the accused, what happened next?
A. After that I managed to push him to the ditch and I was able to run but then he caught me up [sic] and then he mauled me again. He kicked me and I got muddy at that time. 13
Appellant's act of inserting his penis into AAA's mouth is clearly covered by the definition of rape by "sexual assault" under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, as amended.
Appellant is guilty of rape by
AAA testified that after satisfying his lust by forcing, threatening, or intimidating her to have sexual intercourse and oral sex with her, appellant mauled her again, then forcefully inserted and pushed and pulled out his muddied three fingers into her sex organ, causing her pain, 14 thus:
Q. A while [ago] Ms. Witness, you said that the accused inserted his three fingers [in] your sex organ. Which came first, the inserting of the fingers to your sex organ or when he forcefully made [you have] oral sex with him?
A. The oral sex first. 15
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Now during a while ago Ms. Witness you said that the accused also forcefully inserted three fingers in your sex organ, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you please tell us when did this happen in the course of that incident that you are testifying now?
A. After he let me do the oral sex.
Q. Can you please tell us the circumstances wherein he forcefully inserted his fingers [in] your sex organ?
A. He inserted (witness demonstrated using her three fingers, she inserted her three fingers pushing them and pulling them inside) my sex organ so hard enough for me to feel pain.
Q. Can you recall which fingers of the accused did he use in inserting to your sex organ?
COURT INTERPRETER
The witness showed the court using her right hand, middle ring and little fingers.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. And what did you feel when he was doing this to you?
A. When he inserted his fingers, I noticed that there [we]re also mud and dirt which were inserted with his fingers. That's what I noticed.
Q. And how did you feel when this happened?
A. And so[,] since I did not feel so comfortable and I really did not find that incident pleasant[,] and so I covered my vagina and I felt pain inside my vagina. 16
The insertion of one's finger into the genital of another person constitutes rape by sexual assault. 17 Appellant's act of inserting his three fingers into AAA's vagina, therefore, amounts to rape by sexual assault punishable under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, as amended.
The fact that AAA could recall which exact fingers appellant inserted into her genitals does not affect AAA's credibility as the same is not material in the crime of rape by sexual assault. What is important is that the prosecution was able to prove that appellant inserted his fingers in AAA's vagina and this was corroborated by the examining physician who confirmed that three (3) fingers inserted in AAA's genitals could have caused the contused-looking vestibule in AAA's vagina. 18
Appellant is guilty of rape by
AAA testified that appellant also forcefully inserted his penis almost halfway into her anus, causing her pain. 19 AAA made a graphic account of this incident, thus:
Q. Now in that incident Ms. Witness, you already testified that he sexually ravished you, he inserted his three fingers into your vagina and he also forcefully had oral sex with [you]. What else did he do[,] if any[,] aside from these sexual acts that he committed to you?
A. And so he let me [turn] my back and while in that position, he tried to insert his penis to my anus, but then there was great pain that I felt and so I tried my best to resist it, so that's why it did not penetrate. 20
Q. When did this happen Ms. Witness in the course of the events that you just narrate[d] to us[,] when he forcefully tried to insert his penis into your anus?
A. It happened after he inserted his penis and his fingers to my vagina. That specific incident which he tried to forcibly insert his penis to my anus, it happened after those things transpired, but that was before I managed to run out of his grip.
Q. For clarification Ms. Witness, did he succeed in inserting all his sex organ into your anus?
A. No, sir.
Q. Could you please tell us which part or portion of your anus that his male organ was able to penetrate?
A. It did not even reach half way because I resisted and I let him pull it because it was so painful.21 (Emphases supplied)
Appellant's act of inserting his penis into AAA's anus clearly falls under the definition of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, as amended.
We have consistently ruled that testimonies of victims given in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner are considered worthy of belief. For no woman would fabricate a tale of rape, consent to an examination of her private parts, and thereafter permit herself to be perverted in a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. 22
The Court respects the trial court's factual assessment and conclusion that AAA's testimony was credible and convincing 23 since it had the opportunity to observe first hand AAA's conduct and demeanor while testifying. More so because such findings carry the Court of Appeals' full concurrence. 24
On this score, AAA's alleged failure to offer a tenacious and continuing resistance, to shout for help, and to escape when he allegedly asked her to perform oral sex on him do not negate the commission of rape especially since appellant intimidated or forced her into submission by pointing a knife to her neck and later holding it while he was raping her, and boxing her whenever she cried. More, rape victims react differently. 25 There is no standard form of reaction for a woman when facing a shocking and horrifying experience such as rape. Some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. None of these conducts, however, impair the credibility of a rape victim. 26
At any rate, AAA tried to repel, albeit unsuccessfully, appellant's sexual acts. When he made her do oral sex on him, AAA took the opportunity to escape but appellant caught up with her and mauled her again. AAA testified, thus:
Q. Was he able to insert his penis to your mouth?
A. Yes, it was inserted forcefully, that's why I choke[d] sir.
Q. And when [you choked], what happened to you when [you choked]?
A. I wrestled with him and I push[ed] his sex organ away.
Q. And after he made you have that forceful oral sex Ms. Witness and [you pushed] away the sex organ of the accused, what happened next?
A. After that[,] I managed to push him to the ditch and I was able to run but he caught up with me and then he mauled me again. 27
The non-presentation of the knife is also immaterial. For even without such physical evidence, the trial court and the Court of Appeals found AAA's clear and convincing testimony sufficient to support appellant's conviction. Besides, the police blotter, which was duly admitted in evidence, specifically indicated that an 11-inch butcher's knife was recovered at the crime scene. 28
In his defense, appellant claims that the sexual acts were consensual, and that AAA only cried rape because she did not get the agreed payment. It is settled that when an accused alleges consent to the sexual act as a defense, he has the burden to prove this allegation by substantial evidence. 29 This, appellant failed to do.
Apart from his bare allegation, appellant failed to prove that AAA indeed agreed to have sex with him for a fee of P500.00. Even assuming that AAA agreed to have sex with appellant for a fee and failed to get her payment, the same does not negate rape. For even in the case of a prostitute who contracts for paid sex, it is unlikely for her to go to the extent of filing a case against her customers or alleged rapists, have her parts physically examined, and testify in court how they ravished her just to get even for their failure to pay. Obviously, the reason for her to go to court and opt to suffer the ordeal of being interrogated on her harrowing experience is to obtain justice, 30 as in this case.
More, appellant claimed that he and AAA both put their clothes back on after they had sex. Evidence, however, shows otherwise. AAA escaped from the crime scene and ran naked to BBB's house. The police recovered AAA's skirt, bra, and panty and appellant's gray shirt at the crime scene. Surely, if AAA had a consensual sex with appellant, there is no rhyme and reason for her to hastily leave the scene naked and thereby embarrass herself before the public, and immediately report the rape incident to the authorities. All this support the concurring findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals of AAA's lack of consent to the sexual acts.
As a rule, factual findings of the trial court are binding and conclusive upon this Court especially when supported by evidence and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 31 as in this case. The trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility and calibration of their testimonies are accorded weight and respect as the trial court had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment first hand and even carries the Court of Appeals' full concurrence. 32 There is no cogent reason to deviate from this rule in the present case.
The trial court correctly found
In People v. Lucena, 33 the Court convicted the accused of three (3) counts of rape for the three (3) penetrations done one after another. The Court ruled that the three insertions into the victim were in satiation of successive but distinct criminal carnality.
Here, the trial court found that appellant committed four (4) separate and individual acts, i.e., inserting his penis into AAA's vagina; inserting his penis into AAA's mouth; inserting his fingers into AAA's vagina; and inserting his penis into AAA's anus. Notably, the fact that AAA managed to ran away from appellant after he had inserted his penis into AAA's mouth created a gap between the sexual acts. The Court sustains the findings of the Court of Appeals that appellant committed each of the four (4) acts independently and individually to satisfy his successive but distinct criminal carnality. Appellant's conviction, therefore, for rape by carnal knowledge and three (3) counts of rape by sexual assault is proper.
Appellant failed to prove
For the alternative circumstance of intoxication to be treated as a mitigating circumstance, the defense must show that the intoxication is neither habitual nor subsequent to a plan to commit a felony, and that the accused's drunkenness affected his mental faculties. 34 Appellant failed to prove these requisites. He failed to show that his intoxication was not habitual or intentional. Too, there is no showing that appellant was unable to comprehend how wrong his acts were when he committed the crimes charged. The trial court, therefore, did not err in not appreciating appellant's alleged intoxication as a mitigating circumstance.
Penalties
Under Article 266-B 35 of the RPC, when rape by sexual intercourse under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, it shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. 36
On the other hand, when rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal, 37 or a duration of six (6) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. In the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the imposable penalty is in the medium period, or from ten (10) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and four (4) months, under Articles 64 and 65 of the RPC, as amended. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty should be within the imposable penalty stated above, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional, or from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. 38
In People v. Rico, Jr., 39 where rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon and without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the Court found the accused guilty of rape through sexual intercourse and rape through sexual assault. For rape through sexual intercourse, the Court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay the victim civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) each. For rape through sexual assault, the Court sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. It also ordered him to pay the victim civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) each. In accordance with People v. Jugueta, 40 the Court imposed six percent (6%) legal interest per annum on all the monetary awards from finality of the resolution until fully paid.
Here, it was properly alleged in the Informations and proven during trial that rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon. AAA testified that appellant pointed a knife to her neck when he dragged her to the nipa grove, held the same while performing the sexual acts on her, and boxed her whenever she cried. Too, no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was established.
Applying Rico, Jr. and Jugueta, the trial court correctly sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua for rape through sexual intercourse (Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00089-HC). The award of civil indemnity and moral damages should be increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) each and an additional Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) should be awarded as exemplary damages.
For the three (3) counts of rape through sexual assault (Criminal Case Nos. R-ORM-07-00086-CR, R-ORM-07-00087-CR, and R-ORM-07-00088-CR), We agree with the imposition of the penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum and the award of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as civil indemnity and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as moral damages for each count. The maximum penalty, however, should be increased to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal and an additional Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) should also be awarded as exemplary damages for each count of rape by sexual assault, consistent with Rico, Jr.
All the monetary awards shall be subject to six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this resolution until fully paid.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated July 28, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01703 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:
a. In Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00089-HC, Roy Tagolino y Laurente is found GUILTY of rape by carnal knowledge and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is ORDERED to PAY AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) each. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid;
b. In Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00086-CR, Roy Tagolino y Laurente is found GUILTY of rape by sexual assault. He is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ORDERED to PAY AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) each. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid;
c. In Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00087-CR, Roy Tagolino y Laurente is found GUILTY of rape by sexual assault. He is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ORDERED to PAY AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) each. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid; and
d. In Criminal Case No. R-ORM-07-00088-CR, Roy Tagolino y Laurente is found GUILTY of rape by sexual assault. He is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is ORDERED to PAY AAA civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) each. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
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. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997. Approved on September 30, 1997.
2.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 230904, January 8, 2020.
3.Id.
4. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family, or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy, and fictitious initial shall, instead, be used in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto [533 Phil. 703 (2006)] and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
5. CA rollo, pp. 76-78.
6.Id.
7.People v. Alberca, 810 Phil. 896, 906 (2017).
8.People v. XXX, supra.
9.Rollo, p. 7.
10.People v. XXX, supra.
11.People v. Espera, 718 Phil. 680, 692 (2013).
12. CA rollo, pp. 77-78.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 76-80.
15.Id. at 78.
16.Id. at 78-79.
17. See People v. Fetalino, 552 Phil. 254, 267 (2007).
18.Rollo, p. 12.
19. CA rollo, pp. 76-80.
20.Id. at 79.
21.Id. at 79-80.
22.People v. XXX, G.R. No. 241787, March 15, 2021.
23. See People v. Hirang, 803 Phil. 277, 290 (2017).
24.Castillano v. People, G.R. No. 222210 (Notice), June 20, 2016.
25.People v. Barberan, 788 Phil. 103, 111-112 (2016).
26.People v. XXX, supra.
27.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
28.Id. at 12-13.
29.People v. Rapiz, G.R. No. 240662, September 16, 2020.
30.People v. Seguis, 402 Phil. 584, 604 (2001).
31.Gumama v. People, G.R. No. 253799 (Notice), February 3, 2021.
32.Castillano v. People, supra.
33. 728 Phil. 147, 166 (2014).
34.See People v. Mondigo, 567 Phil. 361, 369 (2008).
35. Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Article 266-B. Penalty. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
36. Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, however, later proscribed the imposition of death penalty.
37. Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Article 266-B. Penalty. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
38.People v. Rico, Jr., G.R. No. 232075 (Notice), January 28, 2019.
39.Id.
40. 783 Phil. 848 (2016).