SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 128814 February 9, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALFREDO ARAFILES, accused-appellant.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision,1 dated August 12, 1996, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Laoag City, finding accused-appellant Alfredo Arafiles guilty of two counts of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each crime and to indemnify complainant Maria Corazon Dampil in the amount of P50,000.00.
In two identical informations filed against accused-appellant, it was alleged:
That on 27 February 1994, at about 11:30 o'clock in the evening, at Brgy. Dulloogan, in the municipality of Bacarra, Province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of force and intimidation did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned against her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. Trial on the merits then ensued, during which the prosecution called to the stand two witnesses: complainant Maria Corazon Dampil, 15 years old, single, a student, and resident of Barangay 19, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, and Dr. Maribel Pichay, resident physician of the Governor Roque Ablan Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, in Laoag, Ilocos Norte.
Maria Corazon Dampil (Corazon) was 15 years old at the time she was allegedly raped. Accused-appellant is the first cousin of her mother and, therefore, her uncle.2 Complainant had known accused-appellant since childhood and used to go to the latter's place and stay in his house during harvest time. Corazon was thus close to her Uncle Alfredo, herein accused-appellant.3 Based on Corazon's testimony, the following is the prosecution's version of the facts:
On February 27, 1994, at around 11 o'clock in the evening, Corazon went to the house of a neighbor, Rodel Galutira, to watch a film on betamax. As she came near her neighbor's house, she heard someone whistle. It was her Uncle Alfredo, who waved his hand, beckoning her to approach him. Unsuspecting, complainant approached her uncle and was told that her barkada, Jayson Tacal, had something to tell her. Accused-appellant then held Corazon's hand and led her to a cliff about 30 meters away. When they reached the cliff, however, Corazon found that Jayson Tacal was not there. She asked her uncle where Jayson was, and the latter told her to wait while he checked the whereabouts of Jayson. After awhile, accused-appellant returned without Jayson. It was then that Corazon sensed that her uncle was up to something evil. She tried to run, but accused-appellant grabbed her by the shoulder and prevented her from fleeing. Corazon then shouted, calling on her grandmother for help, but accused-appellant covered her mouth with his hand. She tried to free herself, but he boxed her in the abdomen, rendering her "a little bit conscious."4 When she became fully conscious, she found accused-appellant on top of her, having sexual intercourse with her. Accused-appellant remained on top of her for about a minute. Corazon felt pain. She tried to push him, but he was too strong for her. Thereafter, Corazon asked accused-appellant to hand over her shorts and panties and, as he obliged, she took advantage of the situation and tried to run, but accused-appellant caught her and hit her again in the abdomen. Accused-appellant then raped her for the second time. Corazon was too weak to resist. Like the first rape, the second lasted only a short while. She was then allowed to put on her panties and shorts and warned that she would be killed if she reported the incident to anyone. The two then started for home. At some point along the way, Corazon somehow managed to run from accused-appellant. Upon reaching home, she told her grandmother, Nena Damo, and uncle, Paulino Damo, that she had been sexually assaulted by accused-appellant. Paulino Damo was so angry that he took his bolo and was going to confront the appellant, but he was prevailed upon not to take the law into his own hands. The following morning, on February 28, 1994, Corazon reported the matter to the police. That afternoon, she underwent physical examination at the Governor Roque Ablan Hospital.1âwphi1.nęt
Dr. Maribel Pichay testified that she examined Corazon. Her findings are contained in a medical certificate5 dated March 1994, the relevant portions of which are as follows:
| labia majora | — coaptated at its entire length |
| labia minora | — coaptated at its entire length |
| vestibular mucosa | — reddish in color |
| fourchette | — tense |
| vaginal rugosities | — prominent |
| vagina | — hardly admits two fingers |
| hymen | — stellate in shape with fresh lacerations at the 6:00 position and 9:00 position corresponding to the face of the clock
Microscopic Examination: NEGATIVE to Sperm |
Dr. Pichay testified that the presence of fresh lacerations indicated recent penetration by a hard object. As there was no old laceration, she concluded that complainant had been a virgin prior to the incident in question. She stated that from her experience as an obstetrician-gynecologist, she was certain that the lacerations were caused by the insertion of a penis.6 During cross-examination, she conceded that another hard object could have caused the lacerations.7 She however remained firm that, in terms of probability, based on the characteristics of the lacerations she observed on complainant, only a penis could have caused the same.8 She also noted that no other injury, abrasion, or hematoma was found on Corazon's body.9
The defense presented as its lone witness accused-appellant Alfredo Arafiles, 26 years old, married, a farmer and resident of Barangay Dulloog, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte. He denied having raped Corazon, but claimed that the two of them were more than friends.10 The following is his version of the facts:
February 27, 1994 was accused-appellant's birthday. To celebrate the occasion, he had a drinking session with his friends Ferdinand Damo, Doming Damo, Jayson Tacal, Charito Tolentino and Paulino Damo. At around nine o'clock that evening, Corazon came to their house to ask for his help in explaining to her grandmother that she and Jayson Tacal were not friends. Without waiting for his response, Corazon went home, only to return later that evening, at around 10 o'clock, and asked if she could talk to him outside his house. Corazon asked him again to tell her grandmother that, after all, she and Jayson Tacal were not friends. According to accused-appellant, after Corazon had told him this, she suddenly grabbed him and kissed him on the lips. As he was a little drunk, he responded to his niece's flirtations. However, they were caught kissing by his wife. Corazon then pushed him away and ran. When she reached their house, Corazon started shouting that she had been raped by accused-appellant. This made him go to San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, to hide because Corazon's family was going to kill him.
Finding the prosecution version to be more plausible, the trial court convicted accused-appellant. Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant assigns the following errors as having been allegedly made by the trial court:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINING WITNESS MARIA CORAZON DAMPIL.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF TWO COUNTS OF RAPE DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Accused-appellant claims that the trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to Corazon's testimony which he says is incredible, inconceivable, inconsistent and contradictory.11
The issue here, as in most rape cases, is the credibility of complainant.12 In this case, we think the trial court correctly relied on the testimony of complainant for the following reasons:
First. The findings of Dr. Maribel Pichay when she examined Corazon confirms the latter's claim that she had been raped. The physical examination was conducted in the afternoon of February 28, 1994, the day immediately following the commission of the rape. The presence of fresh hymenal lacerations which, in Dr. Pichay's experience as an obstetrician-gynecologist, are of the kind usually caused by the insertion of the penis and not by any other hard object, corroborates complainant's allegations that she was sexually abused. Although Dr. Pichay said it was possible the lacerations were caused by a hard object, the probability is that they had been caused by penile penetration considering the claim of complainant that she had been sexually attacked the day before. Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, ranking high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.13
Second. Admittedly, there are some inconsistencies in the testimony of complainant. In her direct examination, she testified that accused-appellant did not take off his pants but merely unzipped the front part in order to take out his penis.14 But on cross examination, she said that what accused-appellant did was merely to lower his pants to his thighs in order to expose his penis.15 Accused-appellant also points out that complainant claimed to have lost consciousness because she was boxed in the abdomen, but during cross examination, she said she did not become unconscious and that she even tried to move her body to prevent accused-appellant from raping her.16 Lastly, accused-appellant questions whether or not the alleged rape was consummated as Corazon allegedly could not say whether he inserted his penis in her vagina.17
The inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant are minor and do not affect Corazon's credibility. In People v. Sagaral,18 it was held that complainant's inconsistency with respect to what the accused was wearing when he raped her was "trivial and [bore] no materiality to the commission of the crime of rape."19
As to whether or not Corazon became unconscious after accused-appellant hit her in the abdomen, the following is what she said:
Court —
Q What happened to you when Alfredo Arafiles boxed your abdomen?
A I was a little bit conscious but only I was weak but I tried to put on a fight but he was stronger than me.
Fiscal —
Q What was your physical position after you were boxed on the abdomen by Alfredo Arafiles?
A I put my two hands on my abdomen. (witness demonstrate by putting [her] two hands to [her] abdomen).
Q Will you demonstrate for us to appreciate your actual physical position after you were boxed? (Witness demonstrating by putting [her] two hands at her abdomen and bending [her] body).
Q Why did you put both hands on your abdomen and bended?
A Because it is very painful, sir.
Q How did it effect your consciousness?
A I was very weak, sir.
Q After Alfredo Arafiles boxed your abdomen and as a result of which you became weak, what happened next?
A When I regained consciousness; I found out that my uncle was on top of me, sir.
Q As you regained your consciousness and felt that Alfredo Arafiles was already on top of you, when then did you lost your consciousness in relation to the time that Alfredo Arafiles boxed you?
A A little bit long, sir.
Q Long from what, I withdraw.
Why did you lost your consciousness?
A As a result of his boxing of my abdomen.20
Thus, complainant did not say she completely lost consciousness when she was hit in the abdomen, but only that she was hurt and in such pain which rendered her weak. It is in this context that her claim to have "recovered consciousness" much later must be understood. This also explains why, after recovering from the blow, she was able to put up some resistance.
Accused-appellant also asserts that complainant could not say whether she saw him inserting his penis in her vagina.21 Assuming this is true, we see nothing unusual or improbable about complainant's failing to notice accused-appellant inserting his penis into her private part. That is not important. What is important is that there was penetration as a matter of fact. Complainant testified:
Court
Q Did you notice him insert his penis inside your vagina?
A I did not notice if he inserted it for I was then very weak, sir, but I know that he inserted it because I saw him removed his pants.
Q why do you say that he inserted his penis inside your vagina?
A Yes, sir, because I saw his penis.
Q You saw his penis but you did not notice whether it was inserted inside your vagina?
A Maybe because of my nervousness then and besides I was then very weak after he boxed me on my abdomen.
Q According to you, you noticed his buttocks moving up and down, at that time, did you notice his penis inserted in your vagina?
A I only noticed when he inserted his penis inside my vagina but because of my nervousness I was not able to feel it, sir.
Q You were not able to feel his penis inside your vagina when his buttocks was moving up and down?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you saw his penis, did you see him insert it in your vagina?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you did not try to move your body sidewise to and from at the time he was inserting it?
A I did, sir.
Q Yet he was able to insert his penis inside your vagina in spite of you doing that?
A Yes, sir, because he is stronger.
Q You mean to say, that despite the fact that you moved your body left and right he was able to insert his penis inside your vagina?
A Yes, sir.
Q Why?
A Because I was then very weak, I felt my body losing consciousness.
Q You mean to say, you were in a semiconscious state reason for which you did not notice what was happening only unnoticed that his buttocks was going up and down?
A I was in a state of losing consciousness that my feeling was very weak and much that I wish to resist him, I could not do it.22
Indeed, Corazon may have failed to notice when accused-appellant inserted his penis in her vagina due to shock, fright and her weakened state, let alone her tender years. The fact, however, is that she felt some pain because there was penile penetration:
Atty. Caluya.
Q Miss Witness, you said that Alfredo Arafiles managed to insert his penis inside your vagina, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long was his penis inside your vagina?
A A moment, sir.
Q Can you estimate in terms of minute how many minutes his penis was inside your vagina?
A About one minute, sir.
Q And for that entire duration did you feel anything while his penis was inside your vagina?
A There is, sir.
Q And what did you feel?
A Painful, sir.23
This removes any doubt on whether or not accused-appellant was able to consummate the offense. In any event, it is well-settled that full penile penetration is not necessary in order to consummate the crime of rape; it is enough that the male organ touches the female external genitalia for there to be carnal knowledge.24
Taken as a whole, the Court is convinced of Corazon's testimony. We have ruled that the protracted examination of a young girl, not accustomed to public trial, could produce contradictions which nevertheless would not destroy her credibility.25 Paradoxically, they may be badges of spontaneity, indicating that the witness was unrehearsed.26
Third. When there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the complainant to testify against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.27 In the present case, accused-appellant claims that complainant filed the two rape cases against him because his wife caught them (complainant and accused-appellant) kissing, and because she probably wanted him to separate from his wife. Before the incident, Corazon allegedly committed certain improprieties, like leaning on him while they were in front of his wife.28
This claim is preposterous. While the prosecution may not be permitted to draw strength from the weakness of the defense evidence, the existence of any improper motive strong enough to impel a complainant to concoct a tale of rape is an affirmative allegation which the defense must establish by clear and convincing evidence. Here, all that the defense offered to prove its allegation is the self-serving and incredible claim of accused-appellant. As noted by the trial court,29 accused-appellant's wife was not even called to the witness stand to testify on Corazon's alleged improper and immodest conduct. She could have been presented to corroborate accused-appellant's claim that complainant simply grabbed him and started kissing him on the lips. By its failure to do so, the defense risked the adverse inference and legal presumption that said witness was not presented because her testimony would actually be adverse when produced.30
Fourth. The other points raised by accused-appellant are either irrelevant or clearly refuted by the evidence on record. He postulates that at Corazon's age and considering that she lives in a rural area, it was improbable that she would not be home at 11:30 in the evening.31 There is no dispute, however, that complainant was not yet home at such time that night. The defense admits as much in its own narration of facts.32 Accused-appellant also seeks to cast doubt on complainant's testimony that she stayed and allowed herself to be alone with him for around 30 minutes before the rape occurred.33 This was explained fully by complainant, however, when she stated that she trusted her Uncle Alfredo, whom she had known since childhood. She even believed that he would protect her from any harm.
Accused-appellant asks why, if Corazon shouted for help for about 20 minutes, nobody heard her, considering that she was only about 30 meters away from the several houses in the area. Corazon's testimony reads:34
ATTY. CALUYA:
Q When he was boxing you his hand was no longer on your mouth, is that correct?
MA. CORAZON DAMPIL:
A I was shouting, the hand was no longer on my mouth as I was then shouting, sir.
Q How long have you been shouting?
A Long time, sir.
Q How long, 30 minutes?
A None, sir.
Q Twenty (20) minutes?
A Maybe, sir.
What is clear from complainant's testimony is that she shouted for what she perceived to be a "long time." The claim that Corazon allegedly shouted for help for 20 minutes did not come from her but was not practically put in her mouth by defense counsel. Accused-appellant could not have allowed her to shout that long without risk of being apprehended. In addition, that no one heard her shouts may also be explained through available evidence made of record during the ocular inspection35 of the crime scene, viz.:
FISCAL MANUEL —
That to make it on record, your honor, that the place of the alleged crime is at the northern foot of the mountain and that north of the mountain is a ricefield without any houses at all, so much so on the western part and that the house where the victim allegedly went to see the betamax is on the other side of the mountain and that the mountain is a forested area.
Court —
The place of the first intercourse between the accused and the offended party is 38 meters from the highway.
Court —
The second place of intercourse is 24 meters away from the first place of intercourse.
The defense makes much of the fact that on the southern side of the mountain is a cluster of more than 20 houses.36 It should be noted, however, that these houses were all located south of the mountain while the rapes occurred at the northern portion where there were no houses nearby. Thus, it is not improbable that no one heard Corazon's shouts.
It is also contended that Corazon's allegation that accused-appellant had raped her twice in succession is contrary to human experience as, after an intercourse, a man may again have another one only after a reasonable period.37 However, there is no evidence to show that accused-appellant achieved orgasm such that he could not have wanted to have another intercourse with complainant.
Lastly, accused-appellant invokes the axiom that "the guilty flee even where no man pursueth" and claims that he did not immediately flee after the rape. However, this is belied by his own admission that after complainant reported the incident to her relatives, he hid in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte,38 where he was eventually arrested on March 2, 1994.39 Besides, non-flight does not necessarily prove that the accused is not guilty.
All told, we are convinced that accused-appellant is guilty of rape as found by the trial court. However, in accordance with our recent rulings,40 the award of damages must be modified. Accused-appellant, having been found guilty of two counts of rape, should be made to pay P50,000.00 for each count, or a total of P100,000.00, as civil indemnity. In addition he should be ordered to pay P50,000.00 for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00, as moral damages.1âwphi1.nęt
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS as to the award of damages as stated above.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Per Judge Conrado A. Ragucos.
2 TSN, p. 3, Aug. 8, 1994.
3 Ibid.
4 TSN, p. 8, Aug. 8, 1994.
5 Exh. A; Rollo, p. 7.
6 TSN, pp. 4, 8, April 8, 1994.
7 TSN, p. 6, Aug. 24, 1994.
8 The transcript of stenographic notes reads:
ATTY. CALUYA:
Q: Lets go to the Hymen, and you said during your direct testimony that the laceration you found on the hymen of the complainant is cause(d) by insertion of a penis?
DR. MARIBEL PICHAY:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you categorically stated that such laceration could not be caused by any other thing except (a) penis, do you still maintain such today?
A: Yes, sir, I do.
Q: Do I understand from you doctor, than an insertion of any other thing, hard thing inside the vagina cannot cause the said laceration?
A: No, it can cause, sir but the characteristic of that laceration could be that cause of hymenal insertion because in my practice I have a seen a lot of patient who had staggered injury, falling in a hard object — in a hard object the laceration is not the same as the one I saw (on) the patient.
Q: And you are that the laceration on the patient is cause(d) by sexual intercourse more particularly the insertion of penis in the vagina?
A: Yes, sir.
TSN, pp. 4-5, Aug. 24, 1994 (Emphasis added).
9 Id., p. 3.
10 TSN, p. 5, Sept. 19, 1995.
11 Petition, p. 6; Rollo, p. 63.
12 See People v. Malabago, 271 SCRA 464 (1997); People v. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997); People v. Dacoba, 289 SCRA 265 (1998).
13 People v. Uycoque, 246 SCRA 769 (1995); Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R Nos. 118441-42, Jan. 18, 2000.
14 TSN, p. 10, Aug. 8, 1994.
15 TSN, p. 20, Aug. 16, 1994.
16 Appellant's Brief, p. 10; Rollo, p. 67.
17 Ibid.
18 267 SCRA 671 (1997).
19 Id., p. 679.
20 TSN, p. 8, Aug. 8, 1994 (Emphasis added).
21 Appellant's Brief, p. 10; Rollo, p. 67.
22 TSN, pp. 19-20, Aug. 16, 1994 (Emphasis added).
23 TSN, p. 2, Aug. 18, 1994 (Emphasis added).
24 People v. Clopino, 290 SCRA 432 (1998); People v. Castromero, 280 SCRA 421 (1997).
25 People v. Sagaral, 297 SCRA 671 (1997).
26 People v. Abad, 268 SCRA 246 (1997).
27 People v. Escala, 292 SCRA 48 (1998); People v. Ibaang, 286 SCRA 387 (1998); People v. Malabago, 271 SCRA 464 (1997).
28 TSN, pp. 10 & 12, Sept. 19, 1995.
29 RTC Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 29.
30 See People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 127159, May 5, 1999.
31 Appellant's Brief, p. 11; Rollo, p. 68.
32 TSN, pp. 2-3, Sept. 19, 1995.
33 Ibid.
34 TSN, p. 15, Aug. 16, 1994 (Emphasis added).
35 TSN, p. 2, Sept. 2, 1994 (Emphasis added).
36 Ibid.
37 Appellant's Brief, p. 12; Rollo, p. 69.
38 TSN, p. 11, Sept. 10, 1995.
39 TSN, p. 3, Sept. 1, 1994.
40 People v. Pili, 289 SCRA 118 (1998); People v. Perez, 296 SCRA 17 (1998); People v. Andrade, G.R. Nos. 130206-08, June 17, 1999; People v. Celis, G.R. Nos. 125307-09; People v. Bayron, G.R. No. 122732, Sept. 7, 1999; People v. de los Santos, G.R. No. 120235, Sept. 30, 1999.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
