Judicial Affidavit Accused.docx

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LANAO Del NORTE 12TH JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 7 TUBOD, LANAO Del NORTE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NO. 2273-07-2018

-versusFOR RAPE PEDRO TAPLAK, y MONTEVIROS, Accused

x -------------------------------------x JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF PEDRO TAPLAK, y MONTEVIROS Accused-appellant PEDRO TAPLAK, y MONTEVIROS of legal age h a / i n g b e e n d u l " s s 5 o n t o i n a c c o d a n c e 5 i t h la5& full" conscious that I a! ans5e ing the follo5ing7 u e s t i o n s u n d e o a t h & a n d t h a t I ! a " f a c e c i ! i n a l liabilit" fo false testi!on" o pe u " and said udiciala , i d a / i t 5 a s c o n d u c t e d a t t h e L a 5 O , i c e o f A t t " ( Clai e P( #uentes& located at Conchita 6ldg(& Ri9al %t(&O !oc Cit"& 5hich ta:ing 5as done in English 5hich Ic l e a l " s p e a : a n d u n d e s t a n d a n d t h a t t h e o t h e info !at ion o e7ui e!ents of %ec( ;& A('( <=.8.8.%Cas e3plained to !e b" the ad!iniste ing o,ice & he eb"deposes and states as follo5s-

Benjamin Rafales (hereafter BENJAMIN) appeals from the 16 May 1997 judgment[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, of Balanga, Bataan, in Criminal Case No. 6115, which convicted him of statutory rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties, to pay the victim the amount of P40,000 as civil indemnity and to pay the costs. The information that charged BENJAMIN with rape reads as follows: That in or about the month of November 1993 at Brgy. Gen. Lim, Orion, Bataan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused thru force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeed to have sexual intercourse with the offended party,

Rochelle Gabriel y Abanador, 11 year old minor girl, against the will and consent of the latter, to her damage and prejudice.[2] BENJAMIN pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment. Trial on the merits followed. The prosecution first presented as witness the victim Rochelle Gabriel y Abanador (hereafter ROCHELLE). ROCHELLE testified that in 1993, her neighbor BENJAMIN thrice raped her. The first rape took place sometime in November. ROCHELLE was then at her home with her siblings while her parents were at the farm. BENJAMIN arrived, unceremoniously removed ROCHELLEs dress, laid her on the floor, undressed himself, placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis in her vagina. ROCHELLE felt pain. After the act was over, she saw a whitish substance on her vagina.[3] The second incident of rape occurred three days after. It was mid-afternoon. ROCHELLE and playmate Gemma Benaro were playing in the latters house. BENJAMIN appeared, ordered Gemma to leave, undressed ROCHELLE, laid her on the floor, undressed himself, placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis in her vagina. As before, ROCHELLE felt pain and noticed a white substance on her vagina.[4] The third rape took place a few days after this incident. ROCHELLE and playmate Marissa Rafales were playing cards at the latters house when BENJAMIN arrived and asked Marissa to leave. BENJAMIN removed ROCHELLEs dress and shorts. He laid her down, undressed himself, stayed on top of her and inserted his penis in her vagina. ROCHELLE again felt pain and saw a white substance on her vagina.[5]Testifying that she was born on 30 August 1983, ROCHELLE was ten (10) years old when these incidents took place. ROCHELLE did not report or reveal to her parents or anyone else the sexual molestations.[6] BENJAMINs threats to kill her and her family proved too much of a deterrence. Claiming that she had frequent quarrels with her siblings, ROCHELLE ran away from home. She took refuge in the streets and sought the company of streetchildren.[7] The police finally found her and brought her to one Vicky Santos, an employee of the Department of Social Welfare and development.[8] ROCHELLE stayed with Vicky for four (4) months before she was turned over to the orphanage. Hence, it was only after two (2) years or in 1995 when ROCHELLE finally disclosed her sexual ignominy from BENJAMINs lecherous arms. Despite her fears that BENJAMIN would carry out his threats to kill her, ROCHELLE confessed the sexual molestations to Vicky when she confronted her (ROCHELLE) with stories of a childrape victim. ROCHELLE learned that Vicky heard these stories from Gemma, Marissa, and BENJAMINs two sisters. Thus, Vicky accompanied ROCHELLE to the police station where she executed a sworn statement[9]attesting to the incidents of the rape. After ROCHELLEs testimony, the other witnesses of the prosecution took the witness stand. Pacita Abanador, ROCHELLEs mother, testified that ROCHELLE was born on 30 August 1983. She also identified BENJAMIN as their neighbor.[10]

SPO Rolando Bernabe claimed that he was the investigating police officer who took ROCHELLE and Pacita Abanadors sworn statements. Dr. Jose Bernardo Gochoco, Jr. who physically examined ROCHELLE two years after the rape incidents affirmed his findings contained in a medico legal report[11] that ROCHELLEs hymenal ring and posterior fourchette were intact. He concluded that there was no physical penetration of ROCHELLEs labia majora.[12] For its part, the defense presented its lone witness, accused BENJAMIN. His defense consisted mainly of denial. He denied having raped ROCHELE at any time. He denied the rape charge when he was interrogated at the police precint. He denied his lechery when a representative of the Department of Social Welfare and Development visited and allegedly urged him while in prison to confess to the crime. Yet he, knew of no reason why ROCHELLE would falsely accuse him of rape.[13] In weighing the evidence thus proferred, the trial court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt BENJAMINs culpability. Affording full credence to ROCHELLEs positive testimony, the trial court disposed: It could be seen that there is direct testimony by the young victim that the accused laid on top of her and raped her. While there seems to be a variance on how she was raped - in her statement before the police, she was violated four (4) times and she was not sure whether there was penetration or not, but in her declaration in Court she said that she was raped three (3) times and that there was penetration and that she saw whitish substance in her genitali genitalia the stubborn fact is that the victim declared that she felt pain when the penis of the accused was directed at her private parts. The Court holds that the variance between the out of Court statement and the declaration in Court does not serve to discredit the testimony of the complainant that the accused raped her. Affidavits are generally incomplete and discrepancies between the statements of the affiant and those made on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit the witness. (People vs. Soan, 243 SCRA 627) Neither could the fact that the victim only revealed her ordeal some four (4) months after she was taken custody by the DSWD sufficient reason to discredit totally her testimony. A young firl [sic] below twelve (12) years could not be expected to be as prompt and punctilious in denouncing those who violate her chastity as a woman of age would. She ran away from home after she was molested by the accused and was found by the police roaming at the town plaza of sufficient excuse for her delayed revelation of the dastardly act committed against her. Delay in the prosecuting. [sic] the rape is not an indication of fabricated charges. (People vs. Cabresos, 244 SCRA 362) That the hymenal ring and fourchette of the victim were intact per the medicolegal certificate do not belie the testimony of the victim that she was raped. In the case of People vs. Castro, 196 SCRA 679, it was held that if the victim is of

tender age, the penetration of the male organ could go only as deep as the labia. The visible effect had there been an immediate examination would have been swelling of the parts which suffered traumatic contact of the penis seeking entry. For rape to be committed entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. Rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina ar not essential. Entry, to the least extent of the labia or lips of the female organ is sufficient. The victim remaining a virgin does not negate rape. The fact that the whitish substance was found at the pedendum [sic] is proof enough that the penis of the accused at least knocked at the door of the vagina. This is already considered rape.[14] But while the prosecution proved that BENJAMIN thrice raped ROCHELLE, the information charged him with only one count of rape, thus the trial court held that BENJAMIN could only be convicted of one crime of rape. And since the rape was committed against a victim below twelve (12) years old without any attendant modifying circumstances, the trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused having been proved beyond reasonable doubt for statutory rape, the accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law. The accused is also ordered to indemnify the victim the sum of P40,000.00 and to pay the costs.[15] In his appeal, BENJAMIN contends that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He emphasizes that certain facts, ignored by the trial court, underscore his innocence and ROCHELLEs lack of credibility, viz.: (1) the delay in the reporting of the rape charge coupled by the probability that ROCHELLEs wanderings and constant company of streetchildren might have undermined the stability of her mind at the time of her testimony; (2) the ponentes admission that he did not personally observe the deportment of the witnesses; (3) ROCHELLEs observation that she found a whitish substance on her vagina, where if she was indeed raped, she should have discharged blood; and (4) the failure of ROCHELLEs mother to notice any change in her daughters behavior, for ROCHELLE should have exhibited the consequent physical and emotional trauma evident in a rape victim. Antithetic to BENJAMINs disavowal is the Office of the Solicitor Generals prayer (as contained in the Brief for the Appellee) for the affirmance of the challenged decision. Said Office maintains that there is moral certainty that BENJAMIN committed the crime charged. ROCHELLE positively identified BENJAMIN as her rapist. Her straightforward, candid and spontaneous testimony should dispel any doubt on her credibility or of the fact that the crime was actually perpetrated. Her sole testimony established BENJAMINs conviction. Further, the inconsistencies between ROCHELLEs oral testimony and her affidavit were accurately noted and explained by the trial court. Significantly, BENJAMIN also failed to impute to ROCHELLE any ulterior motive why she would falsely testify against him. The only conclusion is that no such motive existed and that her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.

The Office of the Solicitor General additionally asserts that BENJAMINs denunciation of ROCHELLEs conduct after the rape is purely speculative. There is no proof of ROCHELLEs mental imbalance. Her mothers failure to observe any change in her behavior and the absence of a bloody discharge did not militate against the fact that she was ravished. Also inconsequential is ROCHELLEs unlacerated hymenal ring and fourchette, for they do not disprove rape. "A mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda" by the accuseds penis suffices to constitute rape. What is important is that there be penetration, no matter how slight, of the male organ within the labia or the pudendum of the female organ. Finally, the Office of the Solicitor General seeks to increase the civil indemnity from P40,000 to P75,000. BENJAMIN chose not to file a Reply Brief. We affirm the conviction of BENJAMIN. In the review of rape cases, we are always guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility since it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) by reason of the intrinsic nature of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its merits and it cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[16] We have meticulously reviewed the records of the case, particularly the transcripts of the stenographic notes of the witnesses and found that the trial court did not err in convicting accused BENJAMIN. ROCHELLEs sincere, forthright and spontaneous declarations that she was raped by one whom she respectfully deferred to as "kuya"[17] proved with moral certainty BENJAMINs guilt, thus: Q Why do you know Benjamin Rafales? A Because he is our neighbor. Q Beside that can you tell us why you know him? A He raped me three times. Q Now, will you go to the first time that according to you he raped you. Do you remember what month was that when according to you he first raped you? A November, 1993, sir. Q Where? A In our house.

Q Where was your house at the time? A At Gen. Lim, Orion, Bataan. Q You stated that he raped you for the first time in your house in 1993, what time was it? A 1:00 P.M. Q How did he rape you in your house? A He came to our house and he removed my dress, sir. Q And what happened next? A He lay me down on the floor, and he went on top of me, sir. Q And when the accused on top of you, what did he do? A He inserted his penis in my vagina, sir. Q What did you feel when he inserted his penis in your vagina? A I was hurt. I felt pain. xxx Q Did you notice something in your vagina after Benjamin Rafales stayed on top of you? A Yes, sir. Q What was the color? A White, sir. COURT Q Why do you know that it is colored white? A I saw it on my vagina, sir. PROS. BERNARDO Q For how long did the accused stayed [sic] on top of you?

A Less than an hour. xxx Q Now, let us go to that time when according to you you were allegedly raped for the first time by Benjamin Rafales. You said that at the time your brother and sister were at your house, is that it? A Yes, sir. xxx Q And yet when the accused went on top of you you did not cry for help? xxx A I shouted. Q And the attentions of your brother and sister were called? A No, sir, because he immediately covered my mouth. Q But nonetheless you already shouted? A Yes, sir. xxx Q Let us do [sic] in detail about this rape allegedly committed. Will you tell the court how the rape was committed by the accused, he approached you, what did he do to you and what did he tell you? A He immediately removed my dress, sir. Q You mean to say that Benjamin Rafales approached you and without much ado he undressed you? A Yes, sir. Q And of course for you this is not ordinary for another person to undress you? A Yes, sir. Q And you did not tell Benjamin Rafales not to undress you? A I told him.

Q And what was the reaction of Benjamin Rafales when you told him not to undress you? A He continued to remove my dress, sir. COURT Q Was Benjamin Rafales at that time holding anything? A None, sir. ATTY. AGUANTA Q And when you were already undressed, what happened? A He immediately lay me down on our papag. COURT Q And when you were already lying down what happened? A He immediately went on top of me, sir. Q Were you at that time wearing any panty? A Yes, Your Honor. COURT Q What happened to your panty when according to you he lay you down? A He removed it. Q In other words he not only removed your dress but also your panty and you were totally naked? A Yes, sir. Q How about the accused did he also removed [sic] his clothing? A Yes, sir. Q All his clothings? A Yes, Your Honor, even his brief.[18]

The other two incidents of rape occurred some days after and in a similar manner. ROCHELLEs credibility is therefore beyond dispute. Her candor in responding to queries relating to shameful details of that episode in her childhood is palpable. Her responses were clear and categorical, all earmarks of truth. For the unassailable credence we grant to ROCHELLEs testimony, we reject BENJAMINs proposition that certain facts evince his innocence and the improbability of the crime having been committed. BENJAMIN assails ROCHELLEs failure to immediately disclose her alleged sexual molestations as a possible telltale mark of falsity or fabrication. But delay in the disclosure of a crime is not always an indication of prevarication. In rape cases, young girls usually conceal for sometime their ordeals due to the threats made by their assailants.[19] In this case, ROCHELLE dared not tell anyone her ordeal because she actually feared BENJAMIN who threatened to kill her and her parents should she reveal his misdeed. Further, ROCHELLE had for quite sometime been deprived of the counsel of parents or other adults. She ran away from home, and explained this behavior as a consequence of her frequent quarrels and misunderstanding with her siblings. It was only during her stay at the orphanage when Vicky confronted her [ROCHELLE] with tales of a child-rape victim. ROCHELLE confessed to Vicky that she was the child-rape victim alluded to by her playmates Marissa, Gemma and the sisters of BENJAMIN. She revealed the details of the sexual violations quite hesitantly for she still feared BENJAMIN and his threats to kill her. These circumstances perforce satisfactorily explained and justified the two (2)-year delay in the disclosure of the crime. Besides, the prescriptive period for the filing of a rape charge is twenty years.[20] BENJAMIN then posits that having roamed the streets and "having been in association with streetchildren, ROCHELLE may not have a stable mind when she testified in court." But as the Office of the Solicitor remarks, this is pure speculation. The defense failed to provide proof to support this hypothesis. Besides, this hypothesis is a ridiculous non-sequitur if not downright illogical; as if mere association with streetchildren necessarily undermines the stability of ones mind. BENJAMIN also deems as material the admission by the ponente of the assailed decision that he "did not hear the testimony of witnesses but only read their testimonies in cold print." The obvious import is the ponente could not have properly appreciated ROCHELLEs testimony in view of its incongruity with first, the affidavit she executed before the police and second, the doctors medical certificate. BENJAMIN thus discloses another fallacy in his logic, for truth be told, he failed to produce evidence to buttress this allegation of unjust judgment. Besides, a judge who pens a decision is not immediately disqualified to render such judgment simply because another magistrate heard the case. Such fact does not necessarily render a ponentes decision void, unjust[21] or reversible[22] considering that the full record of the case was available for his perusal.[23] Anyway, in such a case, the respect ordinarily accorded to the trial courts findings of fact does not apply, hence (as already adverted to) our careful and thorough scrutiny of the records particularly the transcript of stenographic notes.[24] Having thus complied with this injunction, we are now more than convinced that the records bolster the judgment of the trial

court. To be specific, the inconsistencies in the details of ROCHELLEs testimony, on the one hand, and her affidavit and the medical certificate, on the other hand, were satisfactorily analyzed and explained by the ponente. At any rate the first inconsistencies refer only to the manner of the commission of the rape, i.e., ROCHELLE in her testimony was certain that the rape was committed three times, there was penile penetration and that she noticed a whitish substance on her vagina; in her affidavit, ROCHELLE was not certain if there was indeed penetration, she did not mention the white substance but specified that she was raped four times with the second rape being witnessed by her playmates. But ROCHELLEs steadfast claim of rape and that she felt pain during the time BENJAMIN was unleashing his lust on her trivialized these inconsistencies. It may even be reasonable to assume that at the time of the execution of her affidavit she had no idea that penile penetration in the vagina could be slight or full. It is also well settled that when a woman claims that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped.[25] As to ROCHELLEs failure to mention in her affidavit the presence of the white substance on her vagina, suffice it is to say that nothing in said affidavit indicated that SPO Bernabe ever addressed ROCHELLE any question on the topic. On BENJAMINs assertion that the medical findings did not prove the rape charge, we have already ruled that proof of injury is not an element of rape.[26] Even a medical examination is not required in the prosecution of rape cases.[27] Moreover, as the trial court noted, the physical examination took place two (2) years after the rape occurrences. Naturally, whatever injuries ROCHELLE might have sustained must have healed, leaving no traces thereof. Anyway, even the absence of hymenal lacerations does not negate rape.[28] We also deem the matter of Marissa and Gemmas witnessing of the second rape as trifling for the lone testimony of the rape victim is indeed sufficient for a verdict of conviction.[29] Attempting to additionally assail ROCHELLEs credibility or cast doubt on the fact of rape, BENJAMIN theorizes that she should have noticed blood "oozing" from her vagina rather than the "white substance." We reiterate the rule that rape is consummated with the slightest penile penetration of the labia or pudendum of a female.[30] Hence, blood or a whitish discharge of or on the vagina after the sexual act is not necessary to prove rape. In the words of the ponente of the challenged decision -- "the fact that the whitish substance was found at the pedendum [sic] is proof enough that the penis of the accused at least knocked at the door of the vagina. That is already considered rape." Finally, we reject for being absolutely frivolous, BENJAMINs accusation that ROCHELLEs failure to exhibit the emotional and physical trauma evident in a rape victim assayed to the falsity of her tale of rape. At any rate, BENJAMINs sole defense of denial, already considered as inherently weak, appears flimsy, feeble and self-serving. It cannot therefore prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the complainant.[31] To recapitulate, the prosecution has satisfactorily discharged its onus of proving that BENJAMIN thrice raped ROCHELLE when she was only ten years old. No birth certificate was presented to establish her age but ROCHELLE and her mother testified that she was born on 30 August 1983. The defense made no objection.[32] Thus, carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years of age is sufficient for conviction.[33] However, BENJAMIN can only be

convicted of one count of rape since the information charged only one offense.[34] This is in compliance with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. We cannot, however, approve the recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General to increase the award of civil indemnity to P75,000. Said amount could only be awarded if the crime of rape was committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory laws.[35] But the trial court erred in awarding the amount of P40,000 as civil indemnity. We hereby increase the amount to P50,000 in accordance with current jurisprudence.[36] Also in order is an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000 even without proof thereof. It is automatically awarded in rape cases, for it is assumed that the complainant has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.[37] WHEREFORE, the 16 May 1997 decision of the Regional Trial Court, Balanga, Bataan, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 6115 finding accused-appellant BENJAMIN RAFALES guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that the indemnity awarded is increased from P40,000 to P50,000 and accused-appellant is further ordered to pay Rochelle Gabriel y Abanador the sum of P50,000 as moral damages. No costs. SO ORDERED. Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Original Record (OR), 205-210; Rollo, 21-26. Per Judge Lorenzo R. Silva, Jr. OR, 1. [3] TSN, 23 January 1996, 3-4, 5. [4] Id., 6-7, 9. [5] Id., 7-8. [6] Id., 9. [7] TSN, 23 January 1996, 12-13. [8] Id., 12, 13-14, 15, 16. [9] Exhibit"A"; See also TSN, 14 November 1995, 6. [10] TSN, 23 January 1996, 10-11. [11] Exhibit "B." [12] TSN, 14 November 1995, 10-13. [13] TSN, 28 May 1996, 2-6. [14] Rollo, 25. [15] Id., 26. [16] People v. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537, 546 [1994]; People v. Excija, 258 SCRA 424, 438-439 [1996]; People v. de Guzman, 265 SCRA 228, 241 [1996]. [17] TSN, 23 January 1996, 9. [18] TSN, 23 January 1996, 3-4, 5, 18, 19-20. [1] [2]

See People v. Alib, 222 SCRA 517, 529-530 [1993]; People v. Lagrosa, Jr., 230 SCRA 298, 307 [1994]. See also People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 131261-62, 10 August 1999; People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 128889, 20 August 1999; People v. Sacapao, G.R. No. 130525, 3 September 1999. [20] Article 90, Revised Penal Code. [21] See People v. Espanola, 271 SCRA 689, 716 [1997]; People v. Rabutin, 272 SCRA 197, 205 [1997]. [22] See People v. Queleza, 279 SCRA 145, 155 [1997]. [23] See People v. Rabutin, supra note 21; See also People v. Sorrel, 278 SCRA 368, 377 [1997]. [24] See People v. Gutual, 254 SCRA 37, 43-44 [1996]; See People v. Sulit, 233 SCRA 117, 124 [1994]; and People v. Escalante, 238 SCRA 554, 563 [1994]. [25] See People v. Ramos, People v. Dizon, and People v. Sacapao, supra note 19. [26] See People v. Bantisil, 249 SCRA 367, 377-378 [1995]; People v. Gagto, 253 SCRA 455, 464 [1996]. [27] People v. Delovino, 247 SCRA 637, 650 [1995]; People v. Gagto, supra note 26, 463. [28] See People v. Tismo, 204 SCRA 535, 556 [1991]. [29] See People v. Lao, 249 SCRA 137, 145-146 [1995]; People v. Cristobal, 252 SCRA 507, 517 [1996]; People v. Gagto, supra note 26, 467. [30] See People v. Tismo, supra note 28; See also People v. Sacapao, supra note 19. [31] See People v. Antonio, 233 SCRA 283, 299 [1994]; People v. Delovino, supra note 28, 649; See also People v. Ramos, supra note 19. [32] TSN, 23 January 1996, 3; TSN 17 October 1995, 2. The information alleges that ROCHELLE was eleven (11) years old when the rapes were committed. Evidence on record reveals that she was only ten (10) years old. The disparity is immaterial considering that she was still below twelve (12) years old at the time of the commission of the crime. [33] Article 335, Revised penal Code; People v. Lagrosa, Jr., supra note 19, 305; People v. Diaz, 262 SCRA 723, 730 [1996]. [34] People v. Robles, 170 SCRA 557, 562 [1989]; People v. Joya, 227 SCRA 9, 28 [1993]; People v. De Guzman, 265 SCRA 228, 244 [1996]. [35] People v. Victor, 292 SCRA 186, 200 [1998]; People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411, 435 [1998]. [36] See People v. Malunes, 247 SCRA 317, 327 [1995]. [37] People v. Prades, supra note 35; People v. Fuertes, 296 SCRA 602, 614 [1998]; People v. Teves, G.R. No. 128839, 20 July 1999. [19]

SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 191365

Present:

-versus-

CARPIO,J., Chairperson, VILLARAMA, JR.,* PEREZ, MENDOZA,** and SERENO, JJ.

Promulgated: EDUARDO NAVARETTE, JR. y NATO, Accused-Appellant. February 22, 2012 x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION PEREZ, J.: On appeal is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated 29 January 2010 in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 03344 affirming with modification the Decision [2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, Branch 21, in Criminal Cases No. 10680-03 and No. 10681-03 finding appellant Eduardo Navarette, Jr. y Nato guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On 11 June 2002, appellant was charged in two (2) Informations for rape allegedly committed as follows: Criminal Case No. 10680-03 That sometime in 1994 in Imus, Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the first cousin of the offended party [AAA][3], then eight (8) years old, with lewd designs and by means of threat, force and intimidation did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and had sexual intercourse with private complainant [AAA], against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of said minor.[4] Criminal Case No. 10681-03 That sometime in 1996 in Imus, Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the first cousin of the offended party [AAA], then ten (10) years old, with lewd designs and by means of threat, force and intimidation did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and had sexual intercourse with private complainant [AAA], against her will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of said minor.[5]

Appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial then proceeded.

As a backgrounder, AAA is the first cousin of appellant. AAAs father, Dominador Navarette (Dominador) is the brother of appellants father Eduardo Navarette, Sr. (Eduardo, Sr.) The prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim, AAA, her mother, BBB, and the medico-legal officer, Dr. Ida C. De Perio-Daniel (Dr. PerioDaniel). [6]

AAA related that she was raped by appellant twice the first time, when she was 8 years old in 1994, and the second time, when she was 10 years old in 1996. On both occasions, AAA claimed that she went to the house of appellant to play with appellants brother Emerson. Appellant apparently suggested that AAA look for Emerson upstairs.AAA heeded and proceeded to the second floor. Appellant followed AAA and pulled her towards a room. Thereat, appellant forced her to the floor and undressed her. In 1994, appellant tried inserting his penis in AAA, but it merely touched her vagina. In 1996, however, appellant was able to insert his penis on AAAs vagina and there was complete penetration. It took AAA three (3) years before she reported the incident to BBB because appellant allegedly threatened that he would kill AAAs parents and sister. AAA was however forced to tell her parents about the rape incident because her sister was being harassed sexually by appellant.[7] During the cross-examination, it was revealed that on 2 January 2002, Eleazar Navarrette (Eleazar), appellants brother was killed by Dominador. AAA admitted that her father killed Eleazar because the latter allegedly raped her too. Several days after the murder case was filed against AAAs father, appellant was charged with rape by AAA.[8] BBB recalled that in 1999, AAA told her that she was raped by appellant in the years 1994 and 1996. BBB did not immediately tell her husband out of fear and shame. When appellant allegedly attempted to sexually abuse AAA in 2002, BBB was impelled to inform her husband.[9] Dr. Perio-Daniel, a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), conducted an examination on AAA, which findings were contained in Living Case No. MG-02-17, as follow:

GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: xxxx GENITAL EXAMINATION Pubic hairs, fully grown, moderate. Labia majora and minora, coaptated. Fourchette, lax. Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen, fimbriated, tall, thick with healed laceration, complete at 2:00 oclock position, edges rounded, noncoaptable. Vaginal walls, tight. Rugosities, prominent. CONCLUSION: 1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries were noted on the body of the subject at the time of the examination. 2. Healed hymenal laceration, present.[10]

Dr. Perio-Daniel could not exactly tell whether AAA was raped because of the lapse of time between the date of the alleged commission of the crime and the date of the physical examination.[11] For the defense, appellant claimed that AAA falsely charged him of rape because AAAs father killed his brother Eleazar. Dominador wanted to have the case for murder filed against him dismissed in exchange for the dismissal of the rape case.[12] Appellants testimony was corroborated by his aunt, Lualhati Navarette (Lualhati), who happens to be the sister of Dominador and Eduardo, Sr.. Lualhati testified that Dominador planned to file a case against appellant as leverage to the case filed against the former for killing Eleazar.[13] Dominador passed away sometime in 2002.[14] On 6 March 2008, the RTC rendered judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of the crime of RAPE as charged in the two informations, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the two cases.

Said accused is ordered to pay private complainant the amount of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity, another P75,000.00 for moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages for each conviction of rape. The period of detention while the cases were pending before the Court shall be deducted from the sentence to be served by the accused.[15]

The trial court lent credence to the testimony of AAA that she was raped. The trial court found her testimony categorical, straightforward and candid. Moreover, in upholding the credibility of AAA, the trial court relied heavily on established doctrines in rape cases. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of appellant but modified the award of exemplary damages by increasing it from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. In his Brief, appellant casts doubt on the testimony of AAA. He insists that AAA should have at least remembered the month when she was raped considering the traumatic experience she had undergone. Appellant also questions why AAA still went to the house of appellant despite the fact that she was raped the first time. The belated reporting of the incident by AAA to BBB may have been justified but the fact that it took BBB another 3 years before she filed a case only confirmed the defense that the charges were fabricated and filed so that Dominador would have a leverage against the murder case lodged against him for allegedly killing appellants brother. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that the victims ability to remember the exact months when the rapes were committed are not necessary to prove appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The OSG vouches for the credibility of AAAs testimony and adds that AAAs failure to recall has no bearing on her credibility. Moreover, the OSG avers that AAAs act of returning to appellants house, by itself, cannot be taken against her nor cast doubt on her credibility because the victim had undergone a traumatic experience which affected her mental disposition. The OSG maintains that the threats made by appellant on the victim are sufficient to dissuade her from reporting the abuses she suffered. The OSG refutes the leverage theory of the defense by stating that these allegations are unsubstantiated and were categorically denied by AAA.

The primary issue in this case pertains to whether appellants guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Appellants main defense is that the rape charges were concocted to serve as leverage for the murder case filed by appellants family against AAAs father. For the charge of statutory rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the woman; and, (2) that such woman is under twelve (12) years of age.[16] In cases of rape, only two (2) persons are normally privy to its occurrence, the complainant and the accused. Generally, the nature of the offense is such that the only evidence that can prove the guilt of the accused is the testimony of the complainant herself. Thus, the prosecution of rape cases is anchored mainly on the credibility of the complaining witness.[17] The general rule is that findings of trial court relative to the credibility of the rape victim are normally respected and not disturbed on appeal, more so, if affirmed by the appellate court. This rule may be brushed aside in exceptional circumstances, such as when the courts evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case.[18] After an exhaustive review of the records, we find that there is no sufficient justification to apply the exception. In recounting her ordeal, AAA narrated that she was raped twice, first in 1994, to wit: Q: As far as you can recollect AAA, how did the first rape happened [sic]? What time was it? A: I cannot recall anymore sir. Q: Was it in the afternoon or in the morning? A: In the afternoon. Q: Where did it happen?

A: In their house. Q: Why were you there? A: Because I was playing there among his siblings because he is my childhood [friend]. Q: You went [to] there [sic] house looking for his youngest sibling? A: Yes sir. Q: What was the name of his sibling? A: Emerson. Q: He is a boy? A: Yes sir. Q: And how old is Emerson? A: 7 years old. Q: And you were 8 years old? A: Yes sir. Q: You went to the place of Eduardo Navarette looking for Emerson. Did you find Emerson? A: No sir. Q: Who was there in the house of Eduardo Navarette? A: Only Eduardo. Q: What did Eduardo Navarette, Jr. tell you? A: According to him Emerson is upstair[s]. Q: Did you find [him] there? A: No sir. Q: What happened? A: Eduardo also went upstair[s].

Q: And then? A: He pulled me towards the room. Q: [Who else was there] at that time? A: Nobody else. Q: What happened once you where [sic] inside the room? A: He laid me on the floor. Q: And then? A: And then he undress[ed] me. Q: What particular clothes did he undress you [sic]? A: Short[s]. Q: What about the upper clothes? A: No sir. Q: What about your panty? A: Yes sir. Q: Did he remove his brief? A: Yes sir. Q: What did he do? A: He was trying to insert his penis. Q: Did his penis touch your genitalia? A: Yes sir. Q: Where in particular or what part of your genitalia? A: In the middle. Q: Did he completely able to penetrate?

A: No sir. Q: Why? A: Because it did not fit. Q: While he was doing that to you, what did you react? A: I was just crying sir. Q: And after that what happen[ed] next? A: He told me not to tell anybody. Q: And then? A: He threatened me. Q: How did he threaten you? A: He told me that he would kill my parents. Q: How did you feel when he threatened you? A: I was scared and I cried I could not do anything. Q: And he let you go? A: Yes sir.[19]

and in 1996, viz: Q: When was the next time that he raped you? A: It was in 1996. Q: Where? A: Also in their house. Q: In 1996 could you remember the month? A: No sir. Q: How did the second rape happened?

A: I was also looking for my playmate his sibling. Q: You are referring to Emerson? A: Yes, sir. Q: At the time you went to the house of Eduardo Navarette, who was inside the house? A: Nobody was inside the house. Q: Where was Eduardo Navarette? A: He was downstair[s]. Q: So you were looking [for] Emerson? A: Yes sir. Q: Did you find Emerson there? A: No sir, he was not there. Q: So what happen[ed]? A: The same thing happened sir, I went upstair[s] because that is the place where we play. Q: So when you went upstair[s] at the house of Eduardo Navarette, what happened to you there? A: He followed me. Q: What did he if any do to you? A: He [a]gain pulled me inside the room. Q: Only the 2 of you were upstairs? A: Yes. Q: What happened inside the room? A: He covered my mouth. Q: At that time how old were you?

A: 10 years old. Q: So, when he covered your mouth what else did he do to you? A: He laid me on the floor. Q: And once you were already lying on the floor, what other things did Eduardo do to you? A: He removed my shorts, panty and he raised my clothes. Q: What were you wearing on top, the upper part of your body? A: T-shirt. Q: Once he did that to you, what next did he do to you? A: He undressed [me]. Q: What clothes did he remove from his body? A: Short[s] and brief? Q: And then he mounted you? A: Yes. Q: While he was on top of you, what did you do? A: He was trying to insert his private part. Q: Was his penis able to touch your genitalia? A: Yes sir. Q: In what particular portion of your genitalia? A: In the middle sir. Q: At that time was he able to penetrate? A: Yes sir. Q: How did you feel? A: It was painful sir. [20]

AAA is consistent and categorical in stating that she was raped and that appellant is the perpetrator. On two occasions, appellant forced her to lie down, removed her underwear, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. Appellants penis merely touched AAAs vagina in 1994 while there was complete penetration in 1996. AAA did not waver despite the rigorous cross-examination of the defense counsel. Incidentally, AAAs testimony before the court corresponds to her sworn statement[21] previously executed on 15 January 2002. In said statement, AAA told the NBI Special Investigator that in the years 1994 and 1996, she went to the house of appellant to play with the latters brother. In both times, she was dragged into the room. Thereat, appellant undressed her and forced her to the floor. Appellant laid on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA reportedly told BBB of the incident in 1999. In October 2001, appellant again asked her if they could have sex as his birthday gift. This prompted AAA and BBB to tell Dominador. According to appellant, AAAs testimony is fraught with some improbabilities, such as her failure remember the dates of the alleged rape; her return to the house of appellant despite her claims that she was already raped; and the delay in reporting the case. The Court of Appeals opined that errorless testimony cannot be expected of a rape victim for she may not be able to remember or recount every ugly detail of the harrowing experience and appalling outrage she went through, especially so since she might in fact be trying not to recall the same, as they are too painful to remember. Indeed, it is doctrinal that date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. The precise time when the rape took place has no substantial bearing on its commission. [22] In statutory rape, time is not an essential element. What is important is that the information alleges that the victim was a minor under twelve years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her, even if the accused did not use force or intimidation on her or deprived her of reason.[23] In this case, the courts a quo found the Informations stating only the years of the commission of rape as sufficient. The more pertinent statement relating to the elements of rape, such as carnal knowledge and the age of the victim were adequately proved by the prosecution. We further consider that at the time of the

occurrence of the first incident of rape, AAA was only 8 years old. She could not be expected to remember with detailed accuracy the exact date of the rape. In attempting to discredit AAA, appellant harps on the supposed return of AAA to the house of appellant despite her claims of rape. The Court of Appeals countered that there is no such thing as normal human behavior when a person is faced with an extraordinary circumstance. Thus, the victims having returned to the place where the sexual harassment took place, while seemingly opposed to the manner that most would consider normal, should not be readily taken as proof that she is lying. In People v. Marcos,[24]we expounded: x x x Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances. The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by calculus. It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims. Certainly the Court has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been violated. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. Indeed, different people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[25]

Regarding the delay in reporting the incident, the Court of Appeals stated that it is well entrenched that delay in reporting rape cases does not by itself undermine the charge, where the delay is grounded in threats from the accused.[26] Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant.[27] In the instant case, it bears noting that on those two occasions that the appellant raped AAA, he threatened to kill her and her family if ever she would tell anyone about what happened. AAA was only 8 years old when she was first

ravished by appellant. Obviously, such threat could easily, as it did, in fact, intimidate her. Thus, the delay in reporting is justified in this case. The main thrust of the defense is that the rape charges were concocted to serve as leverage for the murder case filed by appellants family against AAAs father. Motives such as feuds, resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim. Also, ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim which clearly established the liability of the accused.[28] In the present case, AAA categorically identified appellant as the one who ravished her. Her account of the rape incidents, as found by the lower courts, was credible. We agree with the Court of Appeals when it ruled: In this case, the defense would want us to believe that the complaining witness had brazenly resorted to prevarication and lies only to pressure the family of the accused to drop the murder charge they filed against the father of the supposed rape victim. Apart from their naked and self-serving say so, however, the defense witnesses failed to tender any specie of evidence that would substantiate this claim to the satisfaction of this Court. As pointed out by the trial court, no documentary and testimonial evidence were shown to establish that the father of the complainant really murdered the brother of the accused. In fact, even if we are to indulge the version of the accused, it would seem to benefit still the case of the prosecution since, according to the version of the defense, the father of the complainant murdered Eleazar precisely out of rage because he was informed that his daughter was raped by Eleazar and Eduardo Navarette.[29] [Emphasis supplied]

Assuming arguendo that the instant rape case was only filed as a leverage to the dismissal of Dominadors case, there exists no more reason on the part of AAA to pursue the charges against appellant because Dominadors case had already been long dismissed due to the latters passing. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 January 2010 finding appellant Eduardo Navarette, Jr. y Nato guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice

* Per Special Order No. 1195. ** Per Raffle dated 6 February 2012. [1] Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-8. [2] Penned by Executive Judge Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr. Records, pp. 166-175. [3] Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with that of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy. People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419. [4] Records, p. 4. [5] Id. at 8. [6] See note 3. [7] TSN, 30 November 2005, pp. 3-12. [8] TSN, 9 February 2006, pp. 8-13. [9] TSN, 8 June 2006, pp. 5-6. [10] Records, p. 24.

[11]

TSN, 18 April 2005, p. 6. TSN, 19 September 2007, pp. 4-5. [13] TSN, 31 October 2007, p. 6. [14] Records, pp. 170-171 citing testimony of herein accused-appellant, TSN, 19 September 2007, pp. 1-8 and testimony of Lualhati Navarette, TSN, 31 October 2007, pp. 1-7. [15] CA rollo, p. 28. [16] People v. Garbida, G.R. No. 188569, 13 July 2010, 625 SCRA 98, 105 citing People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 179714, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 517, 527. [17] People v. Coja, G.R. No. 179277, 18 June 2008, 555 SCRA 176, 186 citing People v. Buenviaje, 408 Phil. 342, 351 (2001); People v. Bares, 407 Phil. 747, 759 (2001). [18] People v. Bongat, G.R. No. 184170, 2 February 2011. [19] TSN, 30 November 2005, pp. 5-8. [20] Id. at 8-11. [21] Records, p. 21. [22] People v. Lolos, G.R. No. 189092, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 509, 518 citing People v. Ching, G.R. No. 177150, 22 November 2007, 538 SCRA 117, 129. [23] People v. Dion, G.R. No. 181035, 4 July 2011 citing People v. Escultor, 473 Phil. 717, 727 (2004). [24] G.R. No. 185380, 18 June 2009, 589 SCRA 661, 673-674. [25] People v. Remoto, 314 Phil. 432, 450 (1995); People v. Malones, 469 Phil. 301, 326-327 (2004). [26] Rollo, p. 6. [27] People v. Ariola, G.R. Nos. 142602-05, 3 October 2001, 418 SCRA 809, 821 citing People v. Baway, 402 Phil. 872, 892 (2001). [28] People v. Aure, G.R. No. 180451, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 836, 864 citing People v. Audine, G.R. No. 168649, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 531, 549 and People v. Santos, G.R. No. 172322, 8 September 2006, 501 SCRA 325, 343. [29] Rollo, pp. 6-7. [12]