G.R. Nos. 136862-63




THIRD DIVISION G.R. Nos. 136862-63 March 20, 2001 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO SANTOS, alias "GALMAN", accused-appellant. VITUG, J.: Accused Rolando Santos, a.k.a. "Galman," was charged with rape on two counts in separate informations that read "CRIMINAL CASE NO. SCC-2854 "That sometime in the month of April, 1998, at Zone VII, municipality of Bayambang, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, by means of force or intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with STACY CZYRL P. PAGDANGANAN, a minor of 13 years old against her will and consent and to her damage and prejudice."¹ "CRIMINAL CASE NO. SCC-2855 "That on or about May 4, 1998, in the evening, at Zone VII, municipality of Bayambang, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with STACY CZYRL P. PAGDANGANAN, a minor of 13 years old, against her will and consent and to her damage and prejudice."² When arraigned in open court, Rolando Santos pled "not guilty" to the indictments. The prosecution formally presented its evidence on the indictments at the trial held by the court a quo. Private complainant Stacy Czyrl Pagdanganan, a thirteen-year old lass, decided to spend her summer months in Bayombong, Pangasinan, at the house of her uncle Dante Pagdanganan. Looking forward to her vacation, she finally left for Bayombong on 01 April 1998. A month later, on 04 May 1998, about 8:30 in the evening, Stacy was inside the bathroom of her uncle's house when the accused suddenly barged into the bathroom, poked a knife at her and then started kissing her. Moments later, the accused removed Stacy's underwear and ordered her to sit on the toilet bowl. He fingered her private part, then undressed himself and inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt pain. Just at about this time, she heard her uncle Dante calling for her. She was about to respond when the accused promptly covered her mouth, held her hands, and instructed her to wait until after he would have been able to leave the toilet using the rear door. Stacy dressed up and went out of the front door of the comfort room. Her uncle Dante asked why she was with the accused. Stacy, crying, said that she was sexually abused by him. Dante accompanied Stacy to the Barangay Captain and later to the police station where their statements were taken.. During the investigation, Stacy stated that even prior to the 04th May incident she had likewise been ravished by the accused once during the second week of April 1998 under similar circumstances. Stacy said that she did not reveal the matter to anyone because she was threatened with death, if she did, by the accused. Stacy was brought to the Bayombong District Hospital for medical and physical examination but the laboratory room being already closed by then, she was examined only the following morning. The accused, in his defense, denying the accusation leveled at him, claimed that in the evening of 04 May 1998, he was, in fact, watching television inside his house together with the family. He admitted that he went out of the house for a little while in order to rub and caress his three fighting cocks following which he forthwith returned passing by the comfort room where the victim said she was abused. He heard Dante then calling for his niece Stacy. The accused asserted that the charges against him were merely concocted by Dante who had an old grudge against him. On 21 October 1998, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, rendered its decision finding the accused guilty of rape, on two counts, committed in the months of April and May 1998. The trial court held: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: "1. In Criminal Case No. SCC-2854, the Court finds the accused ROLANDO SANTOS @ 'Galman' guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659. Forthwith, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to indemnify the offended party in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). The accused is further ordered to pay the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages. "2. In Criminal Case No. SCC-2855, the Court likewise finds the accused ROLANDO SANTOS @ 'Galman' guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659, and is hereby ordered to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). The accused is further ordered to pay the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages."³ In his appeal to this Court, accused-appellant asseverated, in his assignment of errors, that — "1. The trial court erred in not finding that the testimony of private complainant was punctured with material improbabilities, inconsistency and unimaginable situation thereby casting grave doubt on the criminal culpability of the accused-appellant. "2. The trial court erred in not acquitting accused-appellant of the crime charged notwithstanding the presence of exculpatory physical evidence supporting the same. "3. The trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of the crime charged by relying on the weakness of defense evidence rather than on the strength of its evidence."⁴ This Court finds no reversible error in the judgment of the trial court appealed from. Contrary to the claim of accused-appellant, the testimony of Stacy, a girl still in her early teens, has not been punctured with material improbability or inconsistency. The plain and straightforward account given by the private complainant of her harrowing experience can only be but truly reflective of an honest and unrehearsed testimony. Hereunder are excerpts of her testimony. "A: At 8:30 o'clock in the evening I was in the comfort room of the house of my uncle Dante Pagdanganan, sir. "Q: While you were inside the comfort room of your uncle Dante Pagdanganan on May 4, 1998 at about 8:30 o'clock in the evening, do you remember if there was any unusual incident that happened? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: What was that unusual incident? "A: Rolando Santos poked a knife on me, sir. (witness is crying while testifying) "Q: You said that while you were inside the comfort room Rolando Santos poked his knife to you what transpired after that? "A: He kissed me, sir. "Q: Where did he kiss you? "A: In the different parts of my body, sir. "Q: After that what happened next? "A: He removed my underwear and he told me to sit on the toilet bowl, sir. "Q: When Rolando Santos removed your underwear and made you sat down on the toilet bowl what happened next? "A: He inserted his finger on my private part, sir. "Q: And after that what happened next? "A: He undressed himself and he placed himself on top of me, sir. "Q: What did he do when he placed himself on top of you? "A: He inserted his private part to my private part, sir. "Q: What do you mean by private part? "A: His penis was inserted to my vagina, sir. "Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis to your vagina? "A: It was painful, sir. "Q: What else did he do to you, if any? "A: He told me not to report the matter or else he will kill me, sir. "Q: After he inserted his penis to your vagina, what happened next? "A: He is inserting well, sir. "Q: Was he able to insert well? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: And after that what happened next, if any? "A: My uncle was already calling me, sir. "Q: And what did you do when your uncle was calling you? "A: I was about to answer but he covered my mouth, sir. "Q: How many times did your uncle called for you? "A: Several times, sir. "Q: Then after that what happened next? "A: Rolando Santos told me he will come out first before I will come out, sir. "Q: And then what happened next? "A: Moments later I dressed myself up and then I went out, sir. "Q: And after you dressed yourself up and went out from the comfort room, what happened next? "A: My uncle asked me why Rolando Santos was inside the comfort room and I was also inside the comfort room, sir. "Q: And what did you tell your uncle? "A: I cried and told to my uncle that I was abused by Rolando Santos, sir. "xxx xxx xxx "Q: You said a while ago that in the month of April 1998 you stayed in the house of your uncle Dante Pagdanganan in Zone VII Poblacion, Bayambang, Pangasinan town, while you were staying at this residence, do you if there is any unusual incident that happened to you? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: What was that unusual incident? "A: I was then inside the comfort room of my uncle Dante Pagdanganan when Rolando Santos poked his knife of me and told me do not shout or else I will kill you. "Q: What time was that when you were inside the comfort room and Rolando Santos entered and poked his knife? "A: Past 8:30 o'clock, sir. "Q: And what happened to you when you were inside the comfort room? "A: He kissed me, sir. "Q: Where did he kiss you? "A: To my different parts of my body, sir. "Q: After he kissed on your different parts of your body and also to your private part, what happened next? "A: He undressed me, sir. "Q: After he undressed you what else happened if any? "A: He made me sat and then he made me lean, sir. "Q: After he made you sat and lean what else happened? "A: He inserted his finger, sir. "Q: Where did he insert his finger? "A: To my vagina, sir. "Q: And after he inserted his finger what else happened? "A: He undressed himself, sir. "Q: And after he undressed himself what happened next? "A: He placed himself on top of me and he entered his penis to my vagina, sir. "Q: And what did you feel when he inserted his penis into your vagina? "A: It was painful, sir. "Q: And what was your reaction when he inserted his penis to your vagina? "A: I was pushing him away, sir. "Q: And what did he do when you were pushing him? "A: He held me on my two hands, sir. "Q: And after that what happened next? "A: After that he told me not to report or else he will kill me, sir. "Q: You mentioned, this incident happened in the month of April at about 8:30 o'clock in the evening, can you remember the date? "A: I could not recall anymore sir, because I was then scared. What I only remembered was the month. "Q: Was it not the first week of April? "A: (Witness is moving his head sidewards). "Q: Was it on the second week of April? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: But you cannot remember that exact date? "A: Not anymore, sir."⁵ The young victim, innocent and guileless, could not have just brazenly impute so serious a crime as rape to the accused.⁶ It would be difficult to imagine her reliving the indignity she suffered and undergoing the perplexities of public scrutiny unless she indeed was motivated by a just desire to have the offender punished.⁷ The statement of the complainant in the police blotter to the effect that he merely attempted to rape her and her subsequent sworn declaration in the afternoon of the same day specifically stating that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina would only show, according to him, that something was truly amiss. This seeming discrepancy, however, was sufficiently explained by the victim when in open court she testified — "PROS. MANAOIS: "Q: Madam Witness, I would like to refresh your memory that on May 4, 1998 right after the incident you, Barangay Captain Genaro Soriano and your uncle Dante went to the police station of Bayambang, Pangasinan and reported all the alleged facts regarding this incident the same was recorded in the police blotter, all, everything you said were allegedly recorded in the police blotter, what can you say to that? "ATTY. FUENTES: Your Honor, may I interpose my objection, may I know the time? "PROS. MANAOIS: Between 9:00 o'clock to 12:00 o'clock midnight on May 4, 1998. "WITNESS: "A: No, sir. "PROS. MANAOIS: "Q: What do you mean by 'no'? "A: I did not tell all, sir. "Q: What did you not tell? "A: That he raped me, sir. "Q: Why did you not tell that he raped you? "A: Because I was ashamed and besides I was cowed by fear because Rolando Santos threatened me that if I will tell what happened to anyone else he was going to kill me, sir. "Q: The same police officer witness for the defense testified that he translated in Pangasinan dialect the contents of the police blotter, police blotter entry #13429 regarding the incident and he claimed that you understood everything, what can you say to that? "A: No, sir. "Q: What do you mean by 'no'? "A: He did not translate, sir. "Q: And so if he did not translate, you mean you did not understand English? "A: No, sir. "Q: We are recalling again your memory madam witness in this police blotter/entry #13429 particularly the place which I 'that reportee, you as the reportee, stated that Rolando Santos alyas Galman is armed with knife entered the comfort room where the victim is there and washing her face and Rolando Santos poked his knife to the victim and started kissing her, then removed the victim short pant and panty and inserted his finger to the labia of vagina of the victim 'Stacy Czyrl Pagdanganan', did you understand that? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: Did you understand? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: So, is that complete? "A: No, sir. "Q: Why not complete? "A: Because he first inserted his finger and thereafter he inserted his private part to my vagina, sir. "PROS. MANAOIS: We would like to manifest your Honor for the record that the witness is in the verge of crying, in fact she is snippy her runny nose which is consequence of the tears. That is all for the witness, your Honor."⁸ Surely, the declaration of a child-victim during an initial investigation cannot be expected to be completely coherent with her testimony taken in much greater detail in court during the trial of the case.⁹ It should be noteworthy that the narration made by private complainant was, in part, corroborated by the statements of Dante Pagdanganan at the witness stand. He testified: "Q: Do you know Stacy Czyrl Pagdanganan? "A: She is my niece, sir. "Q: Why is she your niece? "A: Because her mother and myself are siblings, sir. "Q: Where is she staying at present? "A: We transferred her to my sister, sir. "PROS. MANAOIS: The witness is on the verge of crying. He appears to be emotionally upset. Can you still continue, Mr. Witness? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: On May 4, 1998, do you know where your niece was? "A: She was spending her vacation with us, sir. "Q: Where were you on May 4, 1998 at 8:30 o'clock in the evening? "A: I was at home, sir. "Q: While you were at home on May 4, 1998 at 8:30 o'clock in the evening, do you remember if there was any unusual incident? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: What was that unusual incident? "A: While I was calling Czyrl, Czyrl, I received no answer, sir. "Q: What did you do when you received no answer? "A: I again called out, sir. "Q: When you called out again her name, what happened next? "A: After I have again called out her name, Rolando Santos came out of the back door of the toilet, sir. "Q: Where is that toilet located where you saw Rolando Santos? "A: He came out of the toilet, sir. "Q: Where is that toilet of your located? "A: Our kitchen and our toilet are adjacent to each other and it is inside our house, sir. "Q: What happened next after you saw Rolando Santos came out from your comfort room? "A: I called out again because I was looking for my niece, sir. "Q: What happened next when you called out again for your niece? "A: When I called out again, she came out of the other door of the toilet, sir. She came out at the front door of the toilet, sir. "Q: And what happened next after your niece came out from the front door of your comfort room? "A: She was crying, sir. "Q: And what did you do when you saw her crying? "A: She reported to me and she said, I was abused by Rolando Galman, uncle, sir. (We will notice that the voice of the witness is choking.) "Q: Who is this Rolando Galman, you are referring to? "A: His wife is our cousin, sir. "Q: You are referring to Rolando Santos? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: So after your niece reported to you that she was abused by Rolando Galman, what happened next? "A: We went to the barangay captain, sir. "Q: Where? "A: In the house of the barangay captain, sir. "Q: And what happened to the house of the barangay captain? "A: He took down the statement of my niece and then we went to the police station, sir. "Q: And then what happened to the police station? "A: They again took the statement of my niece, sir. "Q: How about you? "A: They also got my statements, sir. "Q: And what happened next after that? "A: After that, we brought my niece to the doctor, sir. "Q: Where? "A: Bayambang Emergency Hospital, sir. "Q: That Bayambang Emergency Hospital is the same as Bayambang, District Hospital? "A: Yes, sir. "Q: What happened when you brought your niece to the Bayambang Emergency Hospital? "A: The doctor advised us to just come back the following morning because the examination room is already closed, sir. "Q: You said that your comfort room is besides your kitchen, adjacent to your kitchen, can you describe your comfort room? "A: There is an extension attached to the house wherein there is a lavatory and then opposite the lavatory is the comfort room and right near the lavatory is the place where we dine, sir. "Q: And what material was your comfort room made of? "A: Because of poverty our comfort room has about four to five levels of hollow blocks and above that are sacks, sir. "Q: How many doors your comfort room has? "A: Two sir, front and at the rear part. "Q: According to you, you saw Rolando Santos @ 'Galman' came out from the back portion of your comfort room, how were you able to recognize him? "A: As he came out of the comfort room and while I was calling on the name of Czyrl, he turned his face towards me and he left hurriedly, sir."¹⁰ The claim of accused-appellant that the criminal complaints for rape hurled against him have been motivated by Dante Pagdanganan in his desire for revenge is simply too flimsy to be believed or yet belabored. The defense argues that complainant's claim of penile penetration implies that there should have been fresh laceration of her organ coupled with the presence of spermatozoa thereon, a matter which is negated by the medical and physical examination conducted by Dr. Macrina Iglesias of the Bayambang District Hospital. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that neither the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina nor the lack of complete penetration or rupture of the hymen would necessarily deny the commission of rape. Instead, what might be considered essential is the penetration of the female organ no matter how slight.¹¹ A negative sperm-detection test is immaterial to the crime of rape. The medical finding that there was healed laceration on the vagina of the victim would serve to support the victim's testimony that she was twice raped by accused-appellant, the first being in the second week of April 1998, that would account for the presence of the healed laceration. The delay in reporting the first sexual abuse would not tell negatively on her credibility. The initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the attack on her virtue is neither unknown nor uncommon.¹² Nor would the failure of complainant to immediately mention the rape even to the immediate members of her family detract from her credibility. Her hesitation could well be attributable to her age, the moral ascendancy of accused-appellant and his threats against her.¹³ Mere denial and alibi are intrinsically weak defenses absent material evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.¹⁴ An unsubstantiated denial is a negative self-serving assertion which deserves no significant weight in law.¹⁵ Alibi cannot be sustained where it is not only without credible corroboration, but it also does not, on its face, demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the place and time of commission of the offense.¹⁶ When the essential requisites of alibi are not so established, reliance on it as a defense, in fact, can become a liability.¹⁷ Altogether, the trial court did not commit any reversible error in its findings and judgment. WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant. SO ORDERED. Melo, Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ ., concur. Footnotes ¹ Rollo, p. 7. ² Rollo, p. 8. ³ Rollo, p. 27. ⁴ Rollo, p. 47. ⁵ TSN, 03 September 1998, pp. 4-8. ⁶ People vs. Molas, 288 SCRA 684. ⁷ People vs. Balmoria, 287 SCRA 687. ⁸ TSN, 30 September 1998, pp. 24. ⁹ People vs. Manuel, 298 SCRA 184. ¹⁰ TSN, 19 August 1998, pp. 10-12. ¹¹ People vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95. ¹² People vs. Gallo, 284 SCRA 590. ¹³ People vs. Abad, 268 SCRA 246. ¹⁴ People vs. Burce, 269 SCRA 293. ¹⁵ People vs. Atop, 286 SCRA 157. ¹⁶ People vs. Aranjuez, 285 SCRA 466. ¹⁷ People vs. Asis, 286 SCRA 64. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation