People v. Tejada

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206721. March 21, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROGER TEJADA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows: AHDacC

"G.R. No. 206721 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGER TEJADA, Accused-Appellant.) — The accused assails the affirmance with modification by the Court of Appeals (CA), through its decision promulgated on September 13, 2012, 1 of his conviction for four counts of rape of the complainant, then only 15 years in age, under the decision rendered on August 24, 2012 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 2 Branch 61, in Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental in Criminal Case No. 97-1830, Criminal Case No. 97-1831, Criminal Case No. 97-1832 and Criminal Case No. 97-1833, and meting on him reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordering him to pay her P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.

The accused was charged with the rapes on December 20, 1996 under the following informations, to wit:

Criminal Case No. 97-1830

That on or about the 13th day of July, 1996, in the Municipality of _______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, 3 against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Criminal Case No. 97-1831

That on or about the 27th day of July, 1996, in the Municipality of _______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Criminal Case No. 97-1832

That on or about the 10th day of August, 1996, in the Municipality of _______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Criminal Case No. 97-1833

That on or about the 14th day of September, 1996, in the Municipality of _______________, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7 IDSEAH

The CA recounted the following antecedents, viz.:

The Evidence for the Prosecution

The victim AAA, then 15 years old at the time of the ill-fated events having been born on April 28, 1981, recollected the following facts:

On July 13, 1996 at around 5:00 in the afternoon, she was on her way home from the farm after gathering woods. While traversing the two (2) feet wide pathway, she saw the accused Tejada under a coconut tree on the right side of the road. She is familiar with Tejada as they are neighbors with the latter living about 25 meters from her house. Tejada approached her pointing a knife and forcibly led her to the sugarcane plantation located on the left side of the pathway. When they were already in the field surrounded by the sugarcane, Tejada undressed, took off AAA's shorts and underwear and mounted on top of her. AAA was helpless because aside from the fact that she was smaller than the 44 year old Tejada who had the knife pointed at her. AAA felt pain in her vagina when Tejada inserted his penis therein doing a push and pull movement. When Tejada was done, he left her and threatened to kill her parents if she relates the incident. Fearful for her parents' life, AAA went home and kept silent.

The fateful occurrence was repeated on July 27, 1996, August 10, 1996 and September 14, 1996 all at about 5:00 p.m. in the same area as AAA was often at the field on Saturdays because it was her chore to gather woods to be used for cooking. Though she wanted to run from Tejada every time she saw him on the side of the pathway, she could not do so because of the woods she was carrying and even if there were three (3) adjacent houses along the pathway, nobody was home during the time of the said incidents. She likewise tried to struggle free every time Tejada would force himself on her but was unsuccessful. Scared that she might be stabbed, she was also not able to shout for help. She went home crying but did not utter a single word about the incidents to her parents.

However, despite being discreet about what happened, AAA could no longer keep it from her parents when she got pregnant.

Dr. Lorna Transmontero, the Municipal Health Officer of the Municipality of Cauayan, testified that on October 15, 1996, she examined then 15-year old AAA and per Medico Legal Report, the following findings were disclosed:

1. Healed vaginal lacerations at 6:00 position, 2 c.m. in diameter;

2. Lacerations of the hymen at 6:00 to 12:00 position;

3. Admits two (2) fingers freely; and

4. Pregnant compatible with four (4) months age of gestation.

On her cross-examination, AAA reasoned that she did not make any excuses not to go to the field as her father would get mad at her if she failed to gather woods. She could not also depend on her brother who is often out of their house. Her father is a farmer who tills the field near the area where she used to gather woods.

By July 1996, AAA stopped having her menstrual period. Her aunt was the first to notice her belly bulging but she never told her what happened. Her parents knew of her pregnancy only after they touched her belly. By the time she filed the complaints, she was already four (4) months pregnant.

While testifying, AAA was able to positively identify Tejada in open court.

The prosecution formally offered Exhibits "A" to "C" including its submarkings without defense's objection. The same were admitted per Order dated January 23, 2003. 8 aCIHcD

The Evidence for the Accused-appellant

For his defense, the 44-year old accused Tejada denied AAA's allegations and deposed that on the dates he purportedly raped the latter, he was at his house all day with his mother. He stays in his house most of the time as he usually suffers from asthma attack especially if he travelled a certain distance. Since he was 16 years old, he had been suffering from the said illness which later developed into tuberculosis. He easily gets tired and would sit and lie to pacify his difficulty in breathing. He insisted that on those pertinent dates he was bed ridden suffering from acute tuberculosis. However, he could not proffer any prescriptions to support his claim as he was too poor to consult a doctor.

He, nonetheless, recalled that AAA had a boyfriend with whom she goes home with but before proceeding to their respective houses, they would go to the sugarcane plantation. He further averred that he and AAA's father once had the occasion to talk and the latter shared how AAA talked back at him. AAA's father blamed such an attitude for the increasing number of fathers raping their own daughters. Tejada merely replied that if that happened to his sister, he would kill their father. He noticed AAA's father turn pale.

On cross-examination, he admitted that despite being sick, he still had sexual urges but denied having sex with any girl other than his previous girlfriend. He professed that if the baby were his, he would be very happy to see his offspring but he insisted that the baby is not his. He even suggested that the baby undergo some blood test to determine who the real father is.

Tejada suspected that the false imputation against him was in retaliation for reprimanding AAA's sibling who kept looking for a brawl. To corroborate on Tejada's whereabouts on the dates he allegedly raped AAA, defense planned to present the accused's cousin Arlene Tejada, but the prosecution merely made a stipulation thereon and the case was deemed submitted for decision per Order dated August 10, 2004. 9

Ruling of the RTC

In the decision dated August 24, 2004, 10 the RTC, giving credence to the testimony of AAA, considered it improbable that she would impute such serious crimes against the accused and in the process endure the embarrassment and humiliation of her public disclosure of her having been ravished, allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the ordeal and expense of a court proceeding if her story was a lie, 11 declared the accused guilty of four counts of rape as charged. It observed that AAA had satisfactorily explained that the delay in reporting the rapes had been due to his death threats; that she, being then merely 15 years in age, should not be expected to act like an adult, or like a person of maturity and experience who would know what to do in the difficult circumstances she was in; and that she was not expected to have the courage and intelligence to disregard the threat on her life and on the lives of the members of her family in order to complain immediately against him for having forced himself on her. 12

The RTC disposed thusly:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Roger Tejada, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and to pay the complainant AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 by way of moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, the aggravating circumstance of use of deadly weapon having attended the commission of the crime for each count of rape, to support his offspring with her and to pay the costs.

It is furthermore ordered that the accused be remitted to the National Penitentiary. cHaCAS

SO ORDERED. 13

Decision of the CA

On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC's decision. The CA explained that challenging the victim's credibility and the weight attributed by the RTC to the Prosecution's evidence involved the review of factual matters in relation to which the findings by the trial court were, as a general rule, binding on the appellate courts; that the identification of the culprit was best established through familiarity with his physical features; that it would be absurd to hold that AAA had been unfamiliar with the accused's physical features because they were neighbors; and that the delay in reporting the crimes of the accused, or her vacillation in denouncing his acts did not necessarily impair the credibility of the witnesses considering that such delay or vacillation was satisfactorily explained.

The CA decreed:

WHEREFORE, the August 24, 2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 61, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental in Criminal Case Nos. 97-1830 to 1833 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the amount of exemplary damages. The accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay the victim AAA P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.

SO ORDERED.14

Issue

On February 26, 2014, the Court noted the respective manifestations of the Office of the Solicitor General and of the accused waiving the filing of supplemental briefs, and reiterating their respective arguments in the CA.

Consequently, the accused assigns the lone error that:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 15

Ruling of the Court

We affirm the CA.

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by three settled principles, namely: (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 the accusation; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two 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 merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the Defense. 16

The accused insists that the facts related by AAA were improbable because they went against conventional wisdom and experience; and that the RTC erroneously assumed that a minor like AAA could not have imputed such serious crimes against him and endure public humiliation had she not been ravished. He cited several suspicious circumstances indicating the improbability of her testimony against him, namely: (1) after the first rape, AAA still repeatedly went back to the same pathway, thereby allowing herself to be raped by him three more times; 17 (2) it was already dark when AAA supposedly passed on the pathway, and saw him; her claim that despite the darkness in the sugarcane plantation, she could still identify the perpetrator then hiding in the distance, and point to him as her rapist was quite unbelievable; 18 and (3) she suffered rape three times before deciding to reveal everything to her parents upon knowing that she was already pregnant. 19 DACcIH

Rape is a serious crime with severe consequences for both the accused and the victim. Using the guiding principles used in the review of rape convictions, the Court must now conduct a comprehensive and extensive assessment of the convictions. 20

In this jurisdiction, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor as they testify. Such unique opportunity of observation provides the trial judge a vantage point that is denied to the appellate courts. This is the main reason why the trial judge's findings, once affirmed by the CA, are regarded as generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. 21 Although we have recognized exceptions to the rule, we have now no reason to disturb the lower courts' appreciation and determination of the credibility of the other witnesses.

AAA's testimony showed that the accused, through force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of her on four separate dates, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx

Q: On July 13, 1996 at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, can you recall where were you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And where were you at that time?

A: In the farm.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: While you were walking on July 13, 1996, was there an occasion that you saw this Roger Tejada?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What time?

A: Past 5:00 o'clock, sir.

Q: Where did you see Roger Tejada?

A: Under the coconut trees.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: When you saw Roger Tejada, what if anything did he do?

A: He pointed a knife on my side and he entered-

xxx xxx xxx

Q: What did the accused do when you saw him?

A: He pointed a knife at me and entered inside the sugarcane (field).

Q: What part of your body pointed the knife of the accused?

A: On my side.

Q: When you were there inside the sugarcane field what did the accused do, if any?

A: He took off my shorts.

Q: Aside from the shorts, what did the accused take off, if any?

A: My panty.

Q: And after taking off your shorts and panty, what did the accused do?

A: He laid down on top of me. HSCATc

Q: When he laid down on top of you, was there any clothing worn by the accused during that time?

A: No, sir.

Q: Was he not wearing clothing when he lying on top of you?

A: No, because he raped me. 22

xxx xxx xxx

Q: On July 27, 1996, at about 5:00 o'clock, can you recall where were you?

A: Still on the field.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: You mentioned a while ago, that on July 27, 1996, you were gathering woods then later you went home, on your way home, was there anything unusual that happened?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what was that?

A: I was raped by Roger.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: After you saw him, what did you do?

A: He approached me and pointed a knife on me.

Q: What particular part of your body, where he pointed a knife?

A: On my side.

Q: And what did he do then?

A: He held my neck and brought me inside the sugarcane field.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: When you were inside the sugarcane field, what did the accused do?

A: He raped me. 23

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Now, on August 10, 1996, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, again can you tell the Honorable Court where were you at that time?

A: Still on the cliff.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: On August 10, 1996, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, you said you were getting firewoods, after gathering firewoods (sic), what did you do?

A: I went home, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: While you were walking on your way home, was there any unusual incident that happened?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what was that?

A: I was raped by Roger.

Q: Can you tell the Honorable Court how did he rape you at the time of August 10, 1996.

A: He pointed a knife on my side and brought me inside the sugarcane field.

Q: While inside the sugarcane field, what did the accused do?

A: He took off my shorts and my panty.

Q: After that, did he do anything to you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did he do?

A: He inserted his sex organ to me. 24

xxx xxx xxx

Q: On September 14, 1996, at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, can you recall where were you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where were you at that time?

A: On the cliff, sir. IDTSEH

xxx xxx xxx

Q: When you were there or while you were walking on your way home at that time, was there anything happened?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And again what was that?

A: I was raped by Roger.

Q: Can you tell the Honorable Court, how did he raped (sic) you at that time?

A: He pointed a knife in my side and brought me inside the sugarcane field.

xxx xxx xxx

Q: while you were inside the sugarcane plantation what did the accused do?

A: He took off my shorts and panty.

Q: And what did he do anything to your vagina?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did he do?

A: He entered his sex organ to my vagina. 25

xxx xxx xxx

AAA's foregoing recollections are accorded greater credence than the mere denials of the accused. It bears emphasis that when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of 12 to 16 years, the courts are inclined to lend credence to the version of their violation considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by a court trial should the matter about which they testified be not true. The instinct for young and unmarried women is to protect their honor; hence, it is not easy to believe that they would fabricate a tale of their defloration, allow the examination of their private parts, reveal their shame to the communities where they grew up, and permit themselves to be subject of public trials unless they had really been ravished. 26

Moreover, AAA's recollections were corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Lorna Transmontero, the physician who had examined her. Dr. Transmontero attested to the presence of lacerations of AAA's hymen at 6:00 to 12:00 positions, and certified that AAA was in fact pregnant at the time of the examination. It is well-settled that there is sufficient foundation to conclude the occurrence of carnal knowledge once the rape victim's testimony has been corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration. Indeed, hymenal lacerations, healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. 27

In a further attempt to discredit AAA's testimony, the accused has argued that her repeatedly going back to the same pathway despite the first rape, and thereby allowing herself to be raped by him three more times could only be improbable. The argument does not persuade. Although her conduct immediately following the sexual assault should be of utmost significance because of its tendency to shed light on her credibility as a rape victim, there is really no norm of behavior among rape victims. Indeed, not every victim is expected to act conformably with the usual expectations of mankind. In other words, there is no standard behavioral response for anyone confronted with or experiencing a strange or startling experience, for each situation is different depending on the various circumstances obtaining in each case. 28

The accused would discredit AAA's identification of him as her rapist by reminding that it was already quite dark when AAA passed through the pathway. The Court cannot side with him. His identification as the rapist was clear and unmistakable. As the CA pointed out, she could not have mistaken him for somebody else because they had known each other by virtue of their being neighbors in the same barangay whose houses were only about 25 meters from each other across the road. 29 As such, she was undoubtedly familiar with his physical features. SICDAa

AAA's delay in reporting the commission of the rapes did not negate the credibility of her accusations against him. 30 The delay could be attributed to her tender age and to the threats he had made against her and her family. The Court has repeatedly ruled that delay in reporting incidents of rape should not be taken against the victims who face threats of physical violence from the accused. 31 AAA's failure to disclose or denounce the rapes without loss of time to the persons close to her or to the police authorities did not warrant the conclusion that she had not been sexually assaulted, or that her charges were baseless, untrue or fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against their rapists because they prefer to suffer the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims. 32

The accused interposed that on the dates and at the time when the rapes occurred, he was bed-ridden due to pulmonary tuberculosis and bronchial asthma in his house situated in Sitio Panas-an, Brgy. Isio, Cauayan, Negros Occidental. He declared that being then too weak and unable to walk far he could not have raped AAA. His alibi deserves no consideration, however, because it was implausible. For the alibi to prosper, he must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. 33 In this regard, it was not impossible for him to be at the place where the crimes were committed considering that he resided only 20 to 25 meters from where she lived. The distance did not negate his physical access to the scene of the crimes. Moreover, his alibi did not improve upon its corroboration by Arlene Magada Tejada, his first cousin. Verily, an alibi established mainly by the culprit and his relative who were far from being disinterested persons 34 remained unworthy of belief in the face of his being positively identified by his victim whose positive identification of him definitely prevailed over his alibi and denial. 35

The accused suggested that the charge had been brought against him by AAA as her family's way of getting back at him after he had reprimanded her younger brother for always getting into trouble; and that she had conceived and delivered a child sired by her own father. His suggestions were inconsequential in this appeal. Ill motives imputed against the victim hardly mattered if affirmative and credible declarations from the victim herself sufficiently established his culpability as the rapist. 36 We reiterate, too, that motives like family feuds, resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a genuine rape victim. 37

Although the affirmance of the convictions is in order, the Court nevertheless modifies the awards of damages granted to AAA conformably with the Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta. 38 The awards for civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages for each count of rape are increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on the items of civil liability reckoned from the finality of this decision until full settlement.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on September 13, 2012; and ORDERS accused ROGER TEJADA to pay to AAA for each count of rape the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment until full satisfaction.

The accused shall further pay the costs of suit. (Leonen, J.,on official leave.)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-17; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.

2.Id. at 59-66; penned by Judge Henry D. Arles.

3. The real name of the victim is withheld to protect her identity and privacy pursuant to Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262 and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.

4. Records, pp. 131-132.

5.Id. at 132.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Rollo, pp. 5-7.

9.Id. at 8-9.

10. CA rollo, pp. 59-66.

11.Id. at 63.

12.Id.

13. CA rollo, p. 138.

14.Rollo, p. 16.

15. CA rollo, p. 47.

16.People v. Antivola, G.R. No. 139236, February 3, 2006, 421 SCRA 587, 595.

17. CA rollo, p. 51.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 52.

20.People v. Celocelo, G.R. No. 173798, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 576, 584.

21.People v. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 305, 316: Vidar v. People, G.R. No. 177361, February 1, 2010, 611 SCRA 216, 230.

22. TSN, November 28, 2004, pp. 4-7.

23.Id. at 11-13.

24.Id. at 16-18.

25.Id. at 18-21.

26.People v. Ponsica, G.R. No. 137661-63, July 4, 2002, 384 SCRA 32, 43.

27.People v. Belen, G.R. No. 137991-92, June 10, 2002, 383 SCRA 314, 324.

28.People v. Atadero, G.R. No. 183455, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 327, 343.

29. TSN, November 28, 2004, pp 3-4.

30.People v. Condes, G.R. 187077, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 312, 330.

31.People v. Lucas, G.R. No. 80102, January 22, 1990, 181 SCRA 316, 325.

32.People v. Ogarte, G.R. No. 182690, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 395, 412.

33.People v. Hernando, G.R. No. 186493, November, 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 741, 752.

34.People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 749, 761.

35.People v. Amatorio, G.R. No. 175837, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 292, 304-305.

36.Rondina v. People, G.R. No. 179059, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 293, 312.

37.People v. Audine, G.R. No. 168649, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 531, 549.

38. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 282-283.