S Upreme Qcourt: L/Epublic of Tbe Ffianila
S Upreme Qcourt: L/Epublic of Tbe Ffianila
s;upreme QCourt
;ffianila \l'JLfR ~) V.~
Oivisi 1 Clerk of Court
T lii-d Division
FEB 0 2 2018
THIRD DIVISION
VELASCO, JR.,
Chairperson,
- versus - BERSAMIN,
LEONEN,
MARTIRES, and
GESMUNDO, JJ.
DECISION
MARTIRES, J.:
THE FACTS
1
Rollo, pp. 3-14
2
CA rollo (CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01226-MIN), pp. 22-28.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 225642-43
These two (2) cases were jointly tried before the RTC, and Amarela
and Racho' s appeals, although separate, were consolidated in the CA on 13
5
November 2015.
She had the urge to urinate so she went to the comfort room beside the
building of the Maligatong Cooperative near the basketball court. Between
the cooperative building and the basketball court were several trees. She
was not able to reach the comfort room because [Amarela] was already
waiting for her along the way. Amarela suddenly pulled her towards the
day care center. She was shocked and was no match to the strength of
Amarela who pulled her under the stage of the day care center. He
punched her in the abdomen which rendered her weak. Then Amarela
undressed her. She tried to resist him but he was stronger. He boxed her
upper thigh and she felt numb. He placed himself on top of her and
inserted his penis inside her vagina and made a push and pull movement.
She shouted for help and then three (3) men came to her rescue [so]
Amarela fled.
The three (3) persons brought her to a hut. But they closed the hut and
had bad intentions with her. So she fled and hid in a neighboring house.
When she saw that the persons were no longer around, she proceeded on
her way home. She went to the house of Godo Dumandan who brought her
first to tl1e Racho residence because Dumandan thought her aunt was not fJ1
Records (Criminal Case No. 64,964-09), p. I.
4
Records (Criminal Case No. 64,965-09), p. I.
CA rol/o (CA-G.R. HC No. 01227-MIN), pp. 81-82.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 225642-43
xx xx
[AAA] then said that [Racho] brought her to a shanty along the way
against her will. She was told to lie down. When she refused, [Racho]
boxed her abdomen and she felt sick. She resisted by kicking him but he
succeeded in undressing her. He, then, undressed himself and placed
himself on top of [AAA]. [Racho] then inserted his penis into [AAA]'s
vagina. After consummating the act, [Racho] left her. So [AAA] went
home alone.
When she reached home, her parents were already asleep. She went
inside her room and cried. The following morning, she decided to leave
home. Her mother was surprised at her decision until eventually, [AAA]
told her mother about what happened to her. She told her [eldest] brother
first who got very angry.
They reported the matter to the police and eventually [Amarela] and
[Racho] were arrested. 6
For the defense, Amarela testified for himself denying that he had
anything to do with what happened with AAA:
Amarela said he had a drinking spree with his friend Asther Sanchez.
While drinking, he felt dizzy and fell down from the bench. So Sanchez
brought him to the house of his elder brother Joey in Tawan-tawan. He did
not know what happened next because he slept and woke up at six o'clock
in the morning. 7
On his part, Racho confirmed that he went with AAA to bring her
home but also denied raping her:
f4/
[AAA] was asking for help while crying because she was allegedly raped
by three persons in the pineapple plantation.
His mother advised her to just take a bath and change clothes and sleep
at his brother's house. But [AAA] wanted to go home. Since he was the
only one who was not drunk, Racho was instructed by [his] mother to
accompany [AAA] in going to her aunt's house.
When they reached Caniamo, [AAA] did not want to be brought to her
aunt's house because she knows the latter would just scold her. Instead,
she wanted to be conveyed to their house at Ventura. Since Ventura was
far, Racho did not go with her and instead went back home.
When asked about the charge of rape against him, Racho said he could
not have done that because his hand is impaired while showing a long scar
on his left arm. This was a result allegedly of a hacking incident on
September 21, 2008. He offered a Medical Certificate (Exh. 1) issued by
Dr. Lugi Andrew Sabal of the Davao Medical Center which indicates that
Racho was confined in the said hospital from September 21, 2008 up to
October 1, 2008 after an operation on his left forearm. He said that his left
arm was placed in a plaster cast but that he removed the cast after three (3)
months. He said that even after he removed the cast, his arm was still
painful and he could not move it around.
Anita Racho testified that she was at home in the evening of February
10, 2009 together with her husband and sons Bobby and [Racho]. Godo
Dumandan arrived together with [AAA] who was allegedly raped by three
(3) men. [AAA] appeared madly and wet so she advised her to take a bath
and not to go home anymore since it was late. [AAA] insisted on going
home, so she asked her son [Racho] to accompany her. [Racho] at first
refused pointing to his elder brother Bobby to accompany her. He
eventually brought [AAA] home. He came back at around 10:00 o'clock
in the evening and then he went to sleep.
The following day, she was surprised when [Racho] was arrested
allegedly for raping [AAA]. [Racho] denied raping [AAA]. 8
M
of the crime of RAPE and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
Id. at 25-26.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 225642-43
Before the CA, Amarela and Racho pointed out that although there
were other witnesses, the only material testimony on record was that of
AAA. They argued that there were several circumstances casting doubt on
AAA' s claim that she was raped because her testimony does not conform to
common knowledge and to ordinary human experience.
9
Id. at 27-28.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 225642-43
The Court sees no reason to deviate from the well-entrenched rule that
in matters of credibility of witnesses, the assessment made by the trial
court should be respected and given preponderant weight. [AAA's] ordeal
is so traumatic that she would rather forget the whole incident. But once a
rape victim has decided to seek justice, that means she is willing to recall
the dastardly detail of the animalistic act committed on her person.
[Racho] would have us believe that the charge against him was merely
fabricated because, according to him, being raped by two different
assailants, on two different occasions and only hours apart, is contrary to
the nonnal course of things.
The Supreme Court has once said that rape in itself is prompted by the
abnormal need of a man to overpower and control a woman by way of
sexual abuse. There is no typical mode, norm, or circumstance in
committing rape or sexual abuse for the evil in man has no conscience. In
fact, in a catena of cases, the Supreme Court had ruled that rape is no
respecter of time or place. Thus, we cannot agree with [Racho] 's argument
that just because [AAA] had been raped five hours earlier, the possibility
that she might get raped again is nil.
We do not agree.
Appellant Amarela also argues that [AAA] could not have identified
her assailant because it was very dark at the place where [AAA] was
allegedly pulled by her assailant and the place where she was allegedly
raped.
Time and time again, the High Court has repeatedly ruled that positive
identification prevails over denial, a negative defense that is inherently
unreliable. We have no reason to doubt [AAA's] unwavering assertions
positively establishing the identities of the two accused-appellants. We
find the guilt of each of the accused-appellants to have been proven
beyond reasonable doubt."'
Decision 7 G.R. No. 225642-43
OUR RULING
More often than not, where the alleged victim survives to tell her story
of sexual· depredation, rape cases are solely decided based on the credibility
of the testimony of the private complainant. In doing so, we have hinged on
the impression that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit
that she has been sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her
natural instinct to protect her honor. 11 However, this misconception,
particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair
disadvantage, but creates a travesty of justice.
This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor. And while the
factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for
a woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply
cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved
Filipino woman. We, should stay away from such mindset and accept the
realities of a woman's dynamic role in society today; she who has over the
years transfonned into a strong and confidently intelligent and beautiful
person, willing to fight for her rights.
First, the Court gives the highest respect to the R TC' s evaluation of
the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly
observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point,
the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of
witnesses.
Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal
of the RTC's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is
generally bound by the lower court's findings, particularly when no
significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are
shown to have been overlooked or disregarded.
14
People v. Zamoraga, 568 Phil. 132, 140 (2008); People v. Achas, 612 Phil. 652, 662 (2009); People v.
Banig, 693 Phil. 303, 312 (2012); People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642, 657 (2014); People v. Pita/la, G.R.
No. 223561, 19 October 2016.
15
People v. Parcia, 425 Phil. 579, 585-586 (2002).
16
Id. at 586.
17
People v. Nerio, Jr., 764 Phil. 565, 575 (2015) citing People v. CA, 755 Phil. 80, 111 (2015); People v.
Regaspi,)68 Phil. 593, 598 (2015) citing People v. Cabungan, 702 Phil. 177, 188-189 (2013).
18
People v. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759, 773 (2014) citing People v. Sanchez, 681 Phil. 631, 635-636 (2012).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 225642-43
First, AAA narrates that she was on her way to the comfort room,
isolated from the crowd at the beauty contest and made it easy for Amarela
to grab her without anyone noticing:
Q: Now, you said that you watched the beauty contest at around 7:00 in
the evening on Feb. 10, 2009. After that, Ms. Witness, while watching,
what did you do?
A: I was on my way to the CR.
xx xx
Q: Now, between the basketball court and the cooperative you referred to,
what separates these two buildings?
A: Durian trees and cacao.
Q: You said that you were going to the CR located at the back of the
Maligatong Cooperative to relieve yourself. And, were you able to go
to the CR at the back of the Maligatong Cooperative?
A: Nomore.
Q: Why not?
A: [Amarela] was waiting for me.
Q: Exactly, can you please tell us the location where he was waiting for
you?
A: At the back of the cooperative. /J'I
Decision IO G.R. No. 225642-43
8. When Eric left us, [Amarela] grabbed me going to the purok beside the
daycare center of Sitio Maligatong, Brgy. Tawan-Tawan, Baguio
District [more or less] 20 meters away from the [cooperative] building .
.I shouted for help but still nobody heard me. 20
easily notice that a man was holding a woman against her will. Thus,
AAA's version that she was on her way to the rest room, instead of being
pulled away from the crowd watching the beauty contest, would make it
seem that nobody would notice if AAA was being taken away against her
will. If indeed AAA was on her way to the rest room when she was grabbed
by Amarela, why does her sworn statement reflect another story that differs
from her court testimony? To our mind, AAA' s testimony could have been
concocted to just make her story believable rather than sticking to her
original story that Amarela introduced himself and pulled her away from the
stage. We cannot say that this inconsistency is simply a minor detail
because it casts some doubt as to whether AAA was telling the truth - that
she was abducted against her will before she was raped.
Direct Examination
Q: Now, what separates this beauty contest from what you were testifying
a while ago as the daycare center?
A: Coconut trees, durian trees, and cacao.
Q: ·what else?
A: Several trees.
Cross-Examination
Q: Since it was already night time, it was very dark at that time, correct?
A: Yes, ma'am. /)rAj
I
23
TSN, 12 May 2009, p. 19.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 225642-43
xx.xx
Q: Now, while under the makeshift stage of that day care center, it was
dark, very dark?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And you cannot see the face of [Amarela], was not clear to you
because it was very dark, correct?
A : Y es, ma ' am. 24
Re-Direct Examination
Q: At the time that you said that while [Amarela] was undressing you
could not see his face, would you confirm that?
A: Yes, sir.
xx xx
Q: Now, at the time that you were raped you said that it was too dark,
how did you then identify that [Amarela] was the one who raped you?
A: I know him when he brought me from the Coop.
Q: From the Coop. to the day care center that was the time that you
identified him?
. 25
A : Y es, sir.
From AAA's testimony, we are unsure whether she was able to see
Amarela given the lighting conditions in the crime scene. In her re-direct
examination, AAA clarified that she identified Amarela while she was being
pulled to the day care center. Even so, the prosecution failed to clarify as to
how she was able to do so when, according to AAA herself, the way to the
day care ~enter was dark and covered by trees. Thus, leaving this material
detail unexplained, we again draw reservations from AAA's testimony.
identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be
established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the
criminal beyond reasonable doubt. 26
Third, her claim that she was forcibly brought under a makeshift
stage, stripped naked, and then raped seems unrealistic and beyond human
experience. She said:
Q: Under what?
A: Under the makeshift stage.
Q: You said there was also a makeshift stage at the day care center?
A: Yes.
Q: Since you said he pulled you towards that makeshift stage, what was
your reaction, Ms. Witness?
A: I was scared.
xx xx
Q: While he was undressing you, what did you do, Ms. Witness?
A: I was just lying down. /Jilli
xx xx n
26
People v. Caliso, 675 Phil. 742, 752 (2011) cited in People v. Espera, 718 Phil. 680, 694 (2013).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 225642-43
Q: What else did he do to you while you were resisting his advances?
A: He boxed my upper left thigh.
xx xx
Q: Now, you said that he undressed you, Ms. Witness, and you said he
also undressed himself. What, then, [did he] do to you?
A: He placed himself on top of me.
From this, AAA would like us to believe that Amarela was able to
undress himself and AAA, and place himself on top of her while under a 2-
feet high makeshift stage. It is physically impossible for two human beings
to move freely under a stage, much more when the other person is trying to
resist sexual advances. Moreover, AAA failed to mention how exactly
Amarela pulled her to the makeshift stage without any sign of struggle or
resistance. If indeed she was being held against her will, AAA could have
easily called for help or simply run away.
FINDINGS
GENERAL PHYSICAL FINDINGS
Height 5 feet & 4 inches I Weight J 44Kg
General Survey Awake, afebrile, not in respiratory distress
Mental Status Conscious, coherent, respond well to questions
when asked and maintained eye to eye contact.
Pertinent Physical Normal findings
Findings/Physical
Injuries
ANO-GENITAL EXAMINATION
External Genitalia Normal findings
Urethra and Normal findings
Periurethral Area
Perihymenal Area (+) Hyperemic/Erythematous perihymenal area.
and Fossa
Narvicularis
Hymen (+)Complete laceration at 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock
positions with minimal bloody secretion on the
lacerated area.
Perineum Normal findings
fol
27
TSN, 12 May 2009, pp. 21-25.
28
Records (Criminal Case No. 64,964-09), p. 9.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 225642-43
Discharge None
Internal and Not done
Speculum exam
Anal Examination Good sphincteric tone
DIAGNOSTIC AND EVIDENCE GATHERING
Forensic Evidence Pending laboratory results (Spermatocyte
and Laboratory determination gram staining).
Results
IMPRESSONS
Anogenital findings are diagnostic of blunt force or penetrating trauma.L'J
29 Id.
30
People v. Pamintuan, 710 Phil. 414, 424 (2013) citing People v. Opong, 577 Phil. 571, 593 (2008);
People v. Lou, 464 Phil. 413, 423 (2004); People v. Baltazar, 385 Phil. 1023, 1036 (2000); People v.
Laso/a, 376 Phil. 349, 360 (1999).
31
People v. Ferrer, 415 Phil. 188, 199 (2001 ).
32
People v. Dion, 668 Phil. 333, 351 (2011 ).
33
Localization and Number of Defloration Lacerations in Annular Hymens, J Biomed Clin Res Suppl. 1
Vol. 2 No. 1, 2009.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 225642-43
In the instant case, the lacerations were found only at the 9 o'clock
and 3 o'clock positions of the hymen. Considering the locality of these
lacerations, we cannot completely rule out the probability that AAA
voluntarily had sex that night. Moreover, the absence of bruises on AAA' s
thighs-when she said she was punched there twice-reinforces the theory
that AAA may have had consensual intercourse.
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits.
Whether the accused's defense has merit is entirely irrelevant in a criminal
case. It is fundamental that the prosecution's case cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 41
As to Racho's case, we note that AAA testified only once for both
criminal cases. This means that both Amarela and Racho were convicted
based on her lone testimony. When we rely on the testimony of the private
complainant in rape cases, we require that her testimony be entirely credible,
trustworthy, and realistic. For when certain parts would seem unbelievable,
especially when it concerns one of the elements of the crime, the victim's
testimony as a whole does not pass the test of credibility. Since we doubt
AAA' s account on how she was raped by Amarela, we have to consider her
testimony against Racho under the same light.
In her testimony, AAA claimed that Racho was instructed to bring her
to her aunt's house, but instead forced her to go inside a house along the
way. While inside the house, Racho supposedly boxed AAA's abdomen,
undressed himself, placed himself on top of AAA, and inserted his penis into
AAA' s vagina. Afterwards, Racho got dressed and left AAA to go home by
herself. 42
We find it odd that AAA was not brought to the police right after she
arrived at Godo Dumandan's house to seek help. Instead, she was brought
to the Racho residence where she told Neneng Racho what happened.
Again, instead of reporting the incident to the police, AAA insisted that she
be brought to her aunt's house nearby. This is way beyond human
experience. If AAA had already told other people what happened, there was
no reason for her not to report the incident to the proper authorities.
Faced with AAA's doubtful narration before she went home alone, we
are inclined to believe Racho's version that they parted ways when AAA
insisted that she wanted to go home. To begin with, Racho did not even
want to bring AAA to her aunt's house nearby. 43 If he had the intention to
have sex with AAA, Racho would not have declined her mother's
instruction. To add, Racho said he left AAA by herself because he did not
want to bring AAA to her house since this was in another town from her
aunt's house. 44 His reason for leaving AAA to go home alone is supported
by the fact that he was able to immediately come home right after he left
with AAA. Unlike AAA's testimony, the version offered by Racho is
corroborated by the testimony of his mother. fj11J
41
f~dan,
People v. Cruz, 736 Phil. 564, 571 (2014) citing People v. 402 Phil. 297, 312 (2001); People
v. Bormeo, 292-A Phil. 691, 702-703 (2014) citing People v. Quintal, 211 Phil. 79, 94 (1983); People
v. Garcia, 289 Phil. 819, 830 (1992).
42
TSN, 11 March 2009, pp. 29-32.
43
TSN, 22.February 2012, p. 6.
44
TSN, 6 June 2011, p. 7.
Decision 18 G.R. No. 225642-43
45
People v. Bautista, 426 Phil. 391, 413 (2002).
46
People v. Jampas, 610 Phil. 652, 669 (2009).
47
Id. 670.
Decision 19 G.R. No. 225642-43
SO ORDERED.
s
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Decision 20 G.R. No. 225642-43
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
Court's Division.
J. VELASCO, JR.
sociate Justice
Chairoerson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
~\~
D i '• ; /: · , ' u· k o t' Co u rt
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
'1 '. ~ ~ ~ · ~-.: i '-· ! :~ ! o n
~)
:i :..... ~_,, LJ• 1...
0
·:
LU 1s