G.R. No. 88724 April
3, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CEILITO ORITA alias "Lito," defendant-appellant.
The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
C. Manalo for defendant-appellant.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
The accused, Ceilito Orita alias Lito, was charged with the
crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 83-031-B before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch II, Borongan, Eastern Samar. The information filed in the said case
reads as follows (p. 47, Rollo):
The undersigned Second Assistant Provincial Fiscal upon
prior complaint under oath by the offended party, accuses CEILITO ORITA alias
LITO of the crime of Rape committed as follows:
That on March 20, 1983, at about 1:30 o'clock in the morning
inside a boarding house at Victoria St., Poblacion, Borongan, Eastern Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above named
accused with lewd designs and by the use of a Batangas knife he conveniently
provided himself for the purpose and with threats and intimidation, did, then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with Cristina S. Abayan against her will and without her
consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon being arraigned, the accused entered the plea of not
guilty to the offense charged. After the witnesses for the People testified and
the exhibits were formally offered and admitted, the prosecution rested its
case. Thereafter, the defense opted not to present any exculpatory evidence and
instead filed a Motion to Dismiss. On August 5, 1985, the trial court rendered
its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads (pp. 59-60, Rollo):
WHEREFORE. the Court being morally certain of the guilt of
accused CEILITO ORITA @ LITO, of the crime of Frustrated Rape (Art. 335, RPC),
beyond reasonable doubt, with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and
nightime (sic) with no mitigating circumstance to offset the same, and
considering the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposes on
accused an imprisonment of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, PRISION MAYOR, as
minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS PRISION MAYOR, maximum; to indemnify CRISTINA S.
ABAYAN, the amount of Four Thousand (P4,000.00) Pesos, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs.
SO ORDERED.
Not satisfied with the decision, the accused appealed to the
Court of Appeals. On December 29, 1988, the Court of Appeals rendered its
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads (p. 102, Rollo):
WHEREFORE, the trial court's judgment is hereby MODIFIED,
and the appellant found guilty of the crime of rape, and consequently,
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the
victim in the amount of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
On January 11, 1989, the Court of Appeals issued a
resolution setting aside its December 29, 1988 decision and forwarded the case
to this Court, considering the provision of Section 9, paragraph 3 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 in conjunction with Section 17, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1
of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The antecedent facts as summarized in the People's brief are
as follows (pp. 71-75, Rollo):
Complainant Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year old freshman student at the St.
Joseph's College at Borongan, Eastern Samar. Appellant was a Philippine
Constabulary (PC) soldier.
In the early
morning of March 20, 1983, complainant arrived at her boarding house. Her classmates had just
brought her home from a party (p. 44, tsn, May 23, 1984). Shortly after
her classmates had left, she
knocked at the door of her boarding house (p. 5, ibid). All of a sudden, somebody held
her and poked a knife to her neck. She then recognized appellant who was a
frequent visitor of another boarder (pp. 8-9, ibid).
She
pleaded with him to release her, but he ordered her to go upstairs with him.
Since the door which led to the first floor was locked from the inside,
appellant forced complainant to use the back door leading to the second floor
(p. 77, ibid). With his
left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand poking a
"balisong" to her neck, appellant dragged complainant up the stairs
(p. 14, ibid). When they
reached the second floor, he commanded her to look for a room. With the
Batangas knife still poked to her neck, they entered complainant's room.
Upon
entering the room, appellant pushed complainant who hit her head on the wall.
With one hand holding the
knife, appellant undressed himself. He then ordered complainant to take off her
clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt. Then he pulled off her bra, pants
and panty (p. 20, ibid).
He
ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He made her hold his
penis and insert it in her vagina. She followed his order as he continued to
poke the knife to her. At said position, however, appellant could not fully
penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis entered her as she kept on moving
(p. 23, ibid).
Appellant
then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him. In this position,
only a small part again of his penis was inserted into her vagina. At this
stage, appellant had both his hands flat on the floor. Complainant thought of
escaping (p. 20, ibid).
She
dashed out to the next room and locked herself in. Appellant pursued her and
climbed the partition. When she saw him inside the room, she ran to another
room. Appellant again chased her. She fled to another room and jumped out
through a window (p. 27, ibid).
Still
naked, she darted to the municipal building, which was about eighteen meters in
front of the boarding house, and knocked on the door. When there was no answer,
she ran around the building and knocked on the back door. When the policemen
who were inside the building opened the door, they found complainant naked
sitting on the stairs crying. Pat. Donceras, the first policeman to see her,
took off his jacket and wrapped it around her. When they discovered what
happened, Pat. Donceras and two other policemen rushed to the boarding house.
They heard a sound at the second floor and saw somebody running away. Due to
darkness, they failed to apprehend appellant.
Meanwhile,
the policemen brought complainant to the Eastern Samar Provincial Hospital
where she was physically examined.
Dr. Ma. Luisa Abude, the resident physician who examined
complainant, issued a Medical Certificate (Exhibit "A") which states:
Physical Examination — Patient is fairly built, came in with
loose clothing with no under-clothes; appears in state of shock, per
unambulatory.
PE Findings — Pertinent Findings only.
Neck- — Circumscribed hematoma at Ant. neck.
Breast — Well developed, conical in shape with prominent
nipples; linear abrasions below (L) breast.
Back — Multiple pinpoint marks.
Extremities — Abrasions at (R) and (L) knees.
Vulva —
No visible abrasions or marks at the perineal area or over the vulva,
errythematous (sic) areas noted surrounding vaginal orifice, tender, hymen
intact; no laceration fresh and old noted; examining finger can barely enter
and with difficulty; vaginal canal tight; no discharges noted.
As aforementioned, the trial court convicted the accused of frustrated rape.
In this appeal, the accused assigns the following errors:
1) The trial court
erred in disregarding the substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
witnesses; and
2) The trial court erred
in declaring that the crime of frustrated rape was committed by the accused.
The accused assails the testimonies of the victim and Pat.
Donceras because they "show remarkable and vital inconsistencies and its
incredibility amounting to fabrication and therefore casted doubt to its
candor, truth and validity." (p. 33, Rollo)
A close scrutiny of the alleged inconsistencies revealed
that they refer to trivial inconsistencies which are not sufficient to blur or
cast doubt on the witnesses' straightforward attestations. Far from being
badges of fabrication, the inconsistencies in their testimonies may in fact be
justifiably considered as manifestations of truthfulness on material points.
These little deviations also confirm that the witnesses had not been rehearsed.
The most candid witnesses may make mistakes sometimes but such honest lapses do
not necessarily impair their intrinsic credibility (People v. Cabato, G.R. No.
L-37400, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 98). Rather than discredit the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, discrepancies on minor details must be viewed as
adding credence and veracity to such spontaneous testimonies (Aportadera et al.
v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-41358, March 16, 1988, 158 SCRA 695).
As a matter of fact, complete uniformity in details would be a strong
indication of untruthfulness and lack of spontaneity (People v. Bazar, G.R. No.
L-41829, June 27, 1988, 162 SCRA 609). However, one of the alleged
inconsistencies deserves a little discussion which is, the testimony of the
victim that the accused asked her to hold and guide his penis in order to have
carnal knowledge of her. According to the accused, this is strange because
"this is the only case where an aggressor's advances is being helped-out
by the victim in order that there will be a consumation of the act." (p.
34, Rollo). The allegation would have been meritorious had the testimony of the
victim ended there. The victim testified further that the accused was holding a
Batangas knife during the aggression. This is a material part of the victim's
testimony which the accused conveniently deleted.
We find no cogent reason to depart from the well-settled
rule that the findings of fact of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses should be accorded the highest respect because it has the advantage
of observing the demeanor of witnesses and can discern if a witness is telling
the truth (People v. Samson, G.R. No. 55520, August 25, 1989). We quote with
favor the trial court's finding regarding the testimony of the victim (p 56,
Rollo):
As correctly pointed out in the memorandum for the People,
there is not much to be desired as to the sincerity of the offended party in
her testimony before the court. Her answer to every question profounded (sic),
under all circumstances, are plain and straightforward. To the Court she was a
picture of supplication hungry and thirsty for the immediate vindication of the
affront to her honor. It is inculcated into the mind of the Court that the
accused had wronged her; had traversed illegally her honor.
When a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed provided her
testimony is clear and free from contradiction and her sincerity and candor,
free from suspicion (People v Alfonso, G.R. No. 72573, August 31, 1987, 153
SCRA 487; People v. Alcid, G.R. Nos. 66387-88, February 28, 1985, 135 SCRA 280;
People v. Soterol G.R. No. 53498, December 16, 1985, 140 SCRA 400). The victim
in this case did not only state that she was raped but she testified
convincingly on how the rape was committed. The victim's testimony from the
time she knocked on the door of the municipal building up to the time she was
brought to the hospital was corroborated by Pat. Donceras. Interpreting the findings
as indicated in the medical certificate, Dr. Reinerio Zamora (who was presented
in view of the unavailability of Dr. Abude) declared that the abrasions in the
left and right knees, linear abrasions below the left breast, multiple pinpoint
marks, circumscribed hematoma at the anterior neck, erythematous area
surrounding the vaginal orifice and tender vulva, are conclusive proof of
struggle against force and violence exerted on the victim (pp. 52-53, Rollo).
The trial court even inspected the boarding house and was fully satisfied that
the narration of the scene of the incident and the conditions therein is true
(p. 54, Rollo):
. . . The staircase leading to the first floor is in such a
condition safe enough to carry the weight of both accused and offended party
without the slightest difficulty, even in the manner as narrated. The
partitions of every room were of strong materials, securedly nailed, and would
not give way even by hastily scaling the same.
A little insight into human nature is of utmost value in
judging rape complaints (People v. Torio, et al., G.R. No. L-48731, December
21, 1983, 126 SCRA 265). Thus, the trial court added (p. 55, Rollo):
. . . And the jump executed by the offended party from that
balcony (opening) to the ground which was correctly estimated to be less than
eight (8) meters, will perhaps occasion no injury to a frightened individual
being pursued. Common experience will tell us that in occasion of conflagration
especially occuring (sic) in high buildings, many have been saved by jumping
from some considerable heights without being injured. How much more for a
frightened barrio girl, like the offended party to whom honor appears to be
more valuable than her life or limbs? Besides, the exposure of her private
parts when she sought assistance from authorities, as corroborated, is enough
indication that something not ordinary happened to her unless she is mentally
deranged. Sadly, nothing was adduced to show that she was out of her mind.
In a similar case (People v. Sambili G.R. No. L-44408,
September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 312), We ruled that:
What particularly imprints the badge of truth on her story
is her having been rendered entirely naked by appellant and that even in her
nudity, she had to run away from the latter and managed to gain sanctuary in a
house owned by spouses hardly known to her. All these acts she would not have
done nor would these facts have occurred unless she was sexually assaulted in
the manner she narrated.
The accused questions also the failure of the prosecution to
present other witnesses to corroborate the allegations in the complaint and the
non-presentation of the medico-legal officer who actually examined the victim.
Suffice it to say that it is up to the prosecution to determine who should be
presented as witnesses on the basis of its own assessment of their necessity
(Tugbang v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 56679, June 29, 1989; People v.
Somera, G.R. No. 65589, May 31, 1989). As for the non-presentation of the
medico-legal officer who actually examined the victim, the trial court stated
that it was by agreement of the parties that another physician testified
inasmuch as the medico-legal officer was no longer available. The accused did
not bother to contradict this statement.
Summing up, the arguments raised by the accused as regards
the first assignment of error fall flat on its face. Some were not even
substantiated and do not, therefore, merit consideration. We are convinced that
the accused is guilty of rape. However, We believe the subject matter that
really calls for discussion, is whether or not the accused's conviction for
frustrated rape is proper. The trial court was of the belief that there is no
conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the victim and thus
convicted the accused of frustrated rape only.
The accused contends that there is no crime of frustrated
rape. The Solicitor General shares the same view.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code defines and enumerates
the elements of the crime of rape:
Art. 335. When and
how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or
intimidation;
2. When the woman is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious and
3. When the woman is
under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned
in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.
xxx xxx xxx
Carnal
knowledge is defined as the act of a man in having sexual bodily connections
with a woman (Black's Law Dictionary. Fifth Edition, p. 193).
On the other hand, Article 6 of the same Code provides:
Art. 6. Consummated,
frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for
its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the
offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the
acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Correlating
these two provisions, there is no debate that the attempted and consummated
stages apply to the crime of rape. Our concern now is whether or not the
frustrated stage applies to the crime of rape.
The
requisites of a frustrated felony are: (1) that the offender has performed all
the acts of execution which would produce the felony and (2) that the felony is
not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator's will. In the
leading case of United States v. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209, 212, Justice Moreland
set a distinction between attempted and frustrated felonies which is readily
understood even by law students:
. . . A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the
offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is
prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from performing all of the
acts which should produce the crime. In other words, to be an attempted crime the purpose of
the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and
compels him to stop prior to the moment when he has performed all of the acts
which should produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention
to perform. If he has performed all of the acts which should result in the
consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it
can not be an attempt. The essential element which distinguishes
attempted from frustrated felony is that, in the latter, there is no intervention
of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the
commission of the crime and the moment when all of the acts have been performed
which should result in the consummated crime; while in the former there is such
intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of
the acts which should produce the crime. He is stopped short of that point by
some cause apart from his voluntary desistance.
Clearly,
in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his
victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more
is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a long line
of cases (People v. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People v. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980;
People v. Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 666; People v.
Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21, 1974, 58 SCRA 505), We have set the
uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not
essential. Any penetration
of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips
of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina
is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is
no penetration of the female organ (People v. Tayaba, 62 Phil. 559
People v. Rabadan et al., 53 Phil. 694; United States v. Garcia: 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of
execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and
manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is
hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed.
Of course, We are aware of our earlier pronouncement in the
case of People v. Eriña 50 Phil. 998 [1927] where We found the offender guilty
of frustrated rape there being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the
genital organ of the offended party. However, it appears that this is a
"stray" decision inasmuch as it has not been reiterated in Our
subsequent decisions. Likewise, We are aware of Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2632 (dated September 12, 1960) and
Republic Act No. 4111 (dated March 29, 1965) which provides, in its penultimate
paragraph, for the penalty of death when the rape is attempted or frustrated
and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. We are of the
opinion that this particular provision on frustrated rape is a dead provision.
The Eriña case, supra, might have prompted the law-making body to include the
crime of frustrated rape in the amendments introduced by said laws.
In concluding that there is no conclusive evidence of
penetration of the genital organ of the victim, the trial court relied on the
testimony of Dr. Zamora when he "categorically declared that the findings
in the vulva does not give a concrete disclosure of penetration. As a matter of
fact, he tossed back to the offended party the answer as to whether or not
there actually was penetration." (p. 53, Rollo) Furthermore, the trial
court stated (p. 57, Rollo):
. . . It cannot be insensible to the findings in the medical
certificate (Exhibit "A") as interpreted by Dr. Reinerio Zamora and
the equivocal declaration of the latter of uncertainty whether there was
penetration or not. It is true, and the Court is not oblivious, that conviction
for rape could proceed from the uncorroborated testimony of the offended party
and that a medical certificate is not necessary (People v. Royeras People v.
Orteza, 6 SCRA 109, 113). But the citations the people relied upon cannot be
applicable to the instant case. The testimony of the offended party is at
variance with the medical certificate. As such, a very disturbing doubt has
surfaced in the mind of the court. It should be stressed that in cases of rape
where there is a positive testimony and a medical certificate, both should in
all respect, compliment each other, for otherwise to rely on the testimony
alone in utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate,
would be productive of mischievous results.
The alleged variance between the testimony of the victim and
the medical certificate does not exist. On the contrary, it is stated in the
medical certificate that the vulva was erythematous (which means marked by
abnormal redness of the skin due to capillary congestion, as in inflammation)
and tender. It bears emphasis that Dr. Zamora did not rule out penetration of the genital organ of the
victim. He merely testified that there was uncertainty whether or not
there was penetration. Anent this testimony, the victim positively testified
that there was penetration, even if only partially (pp. 302, 304, t.s.n., May
23, 1984):
Q Was the penis
inserted on your vagina?
A It entered but only
a portion of it.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What do you mean
when you said comply, or what act do you referred (sic) to, when you said
comply?
A I inserted his
penis into my vagina.
Q And was it
inserted?
A Yes only a little.
The
fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted even on
the sole basis of the victim's testimony if credible (People v. Tabago,
G.R. No. 69778, November 8, 1988, 167 SCRA 65; People v. Aragona, G.R. No.
L-43752, September 19, 1985, 138 SCRA 569; People v. Taduyo, G.R. Nos.
L-37928-29, September 29, 1987, 154 SCRA 349). Moreover, Dr. Zamora's testimony
is merely corroborative and is not an indispensable element in the prosecution
of this case (People v. Alfonso, supra).
Although the second assignment of error is meritorious, it
will not tilt the scale in favor of the accused because after a thorough review
of the records, We find the evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of consummated rape.
Article 335, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code provides
that whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. The trial court appreciated the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime. Thus, the proper imposable
penalty is death. In view, however, of Article 111, Section 19(1) of the 1987
Constitution and Our ruling in People v. Millora, et al., G.R. Nos. L-38968-70,
February 9, 1989, that the cited Constitutional provision did not declare the
abolition of the death penalty but merely prohibits the imposition of the death
penalty, the Court has since February 2, 1987 not imposed the death penalty
whenever it was called for under the Revised Penal Code but instead reduced the
same to reclusion perpetua (People v. Solis, et al., G.R. Nos. 78732-33,
February 14, 1990). Reclusion perpetua, being a single indivisible penalty
under Article 335, paragraph 3, is imposed regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances (in relation to Article 63, paragraph 1, Revised
Penal Code; see People v. Arizala, G.R. No. 59713, March 15, 1982, 112 SCRA
615; People v. Manzano, G.R. No. L38449, November 25, 1982, 118 SCRA 705;
People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 70744, May 31, 1985, 136 SCRA 702).
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby MODIFIED. The
accused Ceilito Orita is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the
victim in the amount of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.
