[ G.R. No. 182550. March 23, 2011 ] 661 Phil. 699
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 182550. March 23, 2011 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RUEL VELARDE ALIAS DOLOY BELARDE, APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
On appeal is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming in toto the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Catbalogan, Samar, finding RUEL VELARDE alias DOLOV BELARDE (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of consummated rape as defined and penalized under paragraph 1(d) of Article 266-A and Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
FACTS
The facts, as culled from the records, are summarized below. In the evening of November 2, 1999, AAA[3] (at the time nine [9] years, nine [9] months and thirteen [13] days old)[4] was watching television in the house of her neighbors - the appellant’s family - in Barangay Maputi, Municipality of Zumarraga, Samar Province. Shortly before 11:00 p.m., she became sleepy and went home. At home (located in the same barangay), she spread her sleeping mat on the floor and went to sleep. She awakened from this sleep when she felt the appellant on top of her. She tried to shout but he covered her mouth. The appellant then took off her shorts and panties, removed his own pants, and inserted his penis into her vagina through pumping motions. AAA felt pain in her vagina and cried. The appellant only stopped his assault when AAA’s father appeared and chased him, but the appellant managed to escape by jumping out of a window. The following day, the appellant - then on his way to Catbalogan -was apprehended by a barangay tanod. On February 4, 2000, he was criminally charged for rape.[5]
THE RULING OF THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS
At the trial, the prosecution presented AAA, her mother BBB, and the resident physician of the Samar Provincial Hospital in Catbalogan, Dr. Alfonso Flores. BBB testified that AAA was born on January 19, 1990 in Barangay Maputi, Zumarraga Island, Samar,[6] and presented AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth[7] and Certificate of Baptism[8] as proof of this claim. Dr. Flores testified that while AAA’s vagina had no hymenal lacerations, the confluent abrasion thereon indicated that it had been “disturbed,” possibly by a hard and rough object.[9] The appellant, his father Rolando Velarde, his first cousin Wilson Orbello, his uncle-in-law Perlito Orbello, and one Rosalinda Orbello testified for the defense. The defense rests on denial and alibi. According to the defense, on November 1, 1999, the appellant, with his cousin Wilson Orbello, went home to Barangay Maputi to observe All Souls’ Day; both had come from Tacloban City where the appellant worked as a warehouse watchman. The following day, the appellant visited the cemetery and went home at around 4:00 p.m. to watch television. At 6:00 p.m., his cousin Marvin Orbello invited him to drink tuba, and the appellant consumed half a gallon of tuba at Marvin’s house. He, returned home by 9:00 p.m. to sleep, in preparation for his early return to Tacloban City the next morning. The appellant woke up at 5:00 a.m. the next day and hurried to catch the 6:00 a.m. boat trip to Catbalogan. He was already aboard a motorboat when a barangay tanod came and forced him to disembark because of the complaint AAA had filed against him. The defense posits that AAA charged appellant with rape because AAA’s father, CCC, who allegedly misbehaves in their barangay when drunk, held a personal grudge against the appellant’s father, Rolando Velarde, whom CCC allegedly owed money to and stole chickens from. The RTC disbelieved the defense. It found AAA’s testimony to be “highly credible” and accordingly, convicted the appellant, under the following terms:
WHEREFORE, and in view of the foregoing, the court hereby pronounces the accused RUEL VELARDE, alias Doloy Belarde, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, as principal by direct participation, of the consummated crime of RAPE, under Article 266-A, Paragraph (1), Sub-paragraph (d) of the Revised Penal Code, and condemns the said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the offended girl, [AAA] in the amount of P50,000.00, as well as pay her another amount of £50,000.00 by way of moral damages, and to bear the costs of this action. SO ORDERED.
The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto.
THE APPEAL
The appellant claims that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that (1) his identity was not sufficiently established due to the dim light in the room where the rape allegedly took place; (2) the confluent abrasion observed by Dr. Flores on AAA’s vagina, being caused by a “hard and rough object,” was allegedly not caused by a man’s penis; and (3) the “failure” of the prosecution to present AAA’s father on the witness stand was “perplexing.” Finally, the appellant also argues that AAA was “incredible and unbelievable” due to the following “material” inconsistencies in her testimony: (a) AAA initially testified that she was raped twice by the appellant, but later declared that she was raped only once;[10] (b) AAA first stated that the rape occurred “inside a room in her house,” then changed it to “outside the room;"[11] and (c) AAA initially testified that her father came upon them while the appellant was having sexual intercourse with her, but later declared that she went down their house and saw her father after the appellant had abused her.[12] Citing People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Flores,[13] and People of the Philippines v. Ronie Caboverde y Acas,[14] the appellant posits that these “irreconcilable and unexplained contradictions” in AAA’s testimony engender “serious doubts” as to her reliability and veracity, and cast reasonable doubt on his guilt.
THE COURT’S RULING
We AFFIRM with modification the lower courts’ decisions. The CA did not err on the credibility of AAA. We are satisfied that AAA is a credible witness. We agree with the CA that while AAA’s testimony had inconsistencies, these inconsistencies do not at all affect her credibility. Inconsistencies are to be expected when a person is recounting a traumatic experience.[15] Rape, a traumatic experience, is usually not remembered in detail.[16] This observation is more pronounced in the case of minors such as AAA who was merely ten years old at the time she testified. For this reason, we held in People of the Philippines v. Domingo Sta. Ana y Tupig that it is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by norms of behavior expected from adults.[17] Further, we have repeatedly ruled that this Court accords great respect to a trial court’s assessment of witnesses as it had the advantage of actually examining their demeanor, hearing their responses and testing their credibility on the stand. We note the following declaration of the RTC:
The court finds the testimony of the offended girl highly credible. The court has carefully observed the manner the girl testified and studied the contents of her testimony. It sees no reason to doubt the essential veracity of the offended girl’s declarations in court, especially as they referred to the all-important issue of the accused’s carnal knowledge of her.[18]
We agree with the CA that the RTC did not err in believing the testimony of AAA; we are satisfied that the RTC had undertaken precautions to ensure that AAA, a child-witness, would not perjure herself.[19] While mindful of our pronouncement in People of the Philippines v. Avelino Gazmen, et al.,[20] we, nonetheless take note that the judge who conducted the trial of the case, the Hon. Sinforiano A. Monsanto, also penned the decision of the court. That said, the testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no woman, especially a young one, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and, thereafter, subject herself to a public trial, if she had not been motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[21] In these lights, we see no reason to disturb the ruling of the CA on AAA’s credibility. The CA did not err on AAA ’s positive identification of the appellant as her rapist. We are likewise satisfied with the CA’s disposition of the appellant’s contention that AAA could not have positively identified him as her rapist given the dim lighting of the room where the rape took place. The CA correctly observed that the appellant was already on top of AAA when she awakened; this proximity, coupled with the fact that AAA knew the appellant well as he was her neighbor, enabled AAA to positively identify him as her attacker. In addition, we note that AAA reiterated her positive identification of the appellant as her attacker on two occasions in open court:
FISCAL VILLARIN
Q.
You said that you noticed that he was already on top of you, whom are you referring to?
A.
Him (witness pointing to a person who answers to the name of Roel [sic] Belarde).[22]
Q.
Are you sure that it was the accused who allegedly molested you or had sexual intercourse with you that evening?
A.
Yes, sir.[23]
Ruptured hymen not an element of rape. In People of the Philippines v. Geronimo Borromeo y Marco[24] we reiterated our oft-repeated doctrine that an intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim had been raped. The CA correctly labelled as unmeritorious the appellant’s contention that his RTC conviction was erroneous because the examining doctor (Dr. Flores) found AAA’s hymen to be intact. Our ruling in People of the Philippines v. Gorgonio Villarama[25] finds particular application in this case:
In most cases of rape committed against young girls where total penetration of the victim’s organ is improbable due to the small vaginal opening, it has been held that actual penetration of the victim’s organ nor rupture of the hymen is not required.
The settled rule is that the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the female pudendum is sufficient to consummate rape. This rule renders inconsequential the appellant’s contention that AAA was not raped since the confluent abrasion observed by Dr. Flores on her vagina was caused by a “hard and rough object” - not by something hard and “smooth” like the male penis as the appellant argued. What is significant in this case is that a credible witness - the victim herself - testified that the appellant succeeded in introducing his penis into her vagina:
FISCAL VILLARIN:
Q.
How did the accused get on having sexual intercourse with you, how did he do it?
COURT
Q.
What did he do which caused you pain?
A.
He tried to insert his penis unto me.
Q.
On what part of your body did he try to insert his penis?
A.
Into my vagina.
Q.
You said that you felt pain, where did you feel your pain?
A.
At my lavia [sic].[26]
Q.
You said that the accused tried to insert his penis inside your vagina?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Did he succeed in putting his penis inside your vagina?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Are [you] sure of that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
How many times did the penis of the accused enter your vagina, if you can remember?
A.
Only once.[27]
Failure of AAA ’s father to testify is of no moment.
The appellant insinuates that the rape charge against him is false simply because AAA’s father failed to testify in support of his daughter’s claim. We do not find this argument meritorious. As the CA correctly ruled, the matter of deciding whom to present as witness for the prosecution is not for the accused or for the trial court to decide, but is a prerogative given to the prosecutor.[28] What is significant is the existence of a credible testimony - the testimony of AAA - sufficient to convict the appellant. Courts are not precluded from rendering judgment based on the testimony of even a single witness. We, likewise, agree with the CA and the RTC that the defense failed to impute a credible motive for AAA to falsely accuse the appellant of rape. As the RTC observed, had AAA’s father actually wanted to get even with the appellant’s father, there were ways of attaining that goal other than through the filing of a case that entailed subjecting AAA to shame and humiliation. It is unnatural for a parent to use his daughter as a tool of malice, especially if the consequence is to subject the child to embarrassment and lifelong stigma.[28] It is highly improbable, too, that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute a crime as serious as rape if the crime had not really been committed.[30] In sum, we find that the prosecution successfully established the commission of rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code; rape is committed when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman who is under twelve (12) years of age. We are satisfied that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the evening of November 2, 1999, the appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA, who - having been born on January 19, 1990[31] - was only nine (9) years old at that time. Furthermore, the appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi cannot prevail over AAA’s positive testimony that the appellant raped her that night. Denial and alibi are the weakest of all defenses because they are easy to concoct and fabricate.[32] To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as a purely self-serving tale. Alibi, on the other hand, is rejected when the prosecution sufficiently establishes the identity of the accused.[33] The facts in this case do not present any exceptional circumstance warranting a deviation from these rules. We, therefore, affirm the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt made by the RTC and the CA. The Proper Penalty The RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant. Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, which define and penalize rape, provide:
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed: I) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
xxxx
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
xxxx
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
The Proper Indemnity We affirm the awards made by the lower courts of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, which are amounts in accordance with the latest jurisprudence on rape. Civil indemnity is mandatory when rape is found to have been committed.[34] Moral damages are awarded to rape victims without need of proof other than the fact of rape, on the assumption that the victim suffered moral injuries from the experience she underwent.[35] However, we modify the awards made by the lower courts by ordering the appellant to pay AAA exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00. The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and serve as a deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the March 31, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00117, being in accordance with the law and the evidence, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant RUEL VELARDE alias DOLOY BELARDE is further ORDERED to pay AAA exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00. SO ORDERED. Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., and Sereno, JJ., concur.