Olaes Vs People Republic of The Philippines
Olaes Vs People Republic of The Philippines
Olaes Vs People Republic of The Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
ROMERO, J.:
Appellant Rizalino Rebose was charged with the crime of rape in Criminal
Case No. 95-12116 before the Regional Trial Court4 of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch
72, under an information2 dated April 25, 1995, which reads as follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Lourde Rizalte, 64 years old, a resident of Sitio San Jose, Antipolo, Rizal, and
grandmother of the victim, Lorena Rizalte, testified that at around 9:00 o'clock
in the morning of April 17, 1995, she asked Lorena to look after her parents'
house to which is just 15 meters away, to which request the latter acceded.
Upon her return, Lourdes became suspicious as Lorena, with apparent kiss
marks on her neck, acted incoherently. Lorena kept silent on the incident, but,
after relentless questioning, she confessed to have been sexually violated by
appellant Rebose. Forthwith, Lorena was brought to Camp Crame for
examination where the findings revealed Lourdes that she was physically no
longer in a virgin state.4
Lorena Rizalte testifed that on April 17, 1995, her grandmother Lourdes, told
her to check their house at Sitio Panusugin. Arriving thereat, she saw
appellant, accompanied by Alex Feliciano and two other unidentified persons,
who immediately accosted her allegedly for the wrong done by her father,
Ricardo Rizalte, and grandfather, Lorenzo Rizalte. At this juncture, appellant
started to kiss her. Alex, being the godson of Lorena's grandfatheer,
dissuaded appellant from his amorous advances but the attempt was repulsed
by threats upon his person. Thereupon, Alex and his two other companions
left. Alone with the frightened victim, appellant pulled out his gun and ordered
her to go inside the house where she was made to undress or else she would
be killed. After the sexual congress, Lorena was allowed to leave only after
being sternly warned not to reveal the incident to anybody. Upon returning to
her grandmother's house, she was interrogated with regard to her kiss marks.
Though she tried to conceal the fact of sexual violation even in the presence
of the barangay officials, after the result of her examination at Camp Crame
was released, however, she admitted that appellant Rebose was the culprit.
The defense, on the other hand, presented Alex Feliciano, Virgilio Pose,5
Evelina Olaez, Myrna Liwan and the appellant himself.
Virgilio Pose, on the other hand, presented to the court the payroll record as
proof that Alex was indeed at the construction site on the day the alleged rape
was committed. To further bolster his point, he avers that no other document
is maintained by their establishment as the said pay roll record is their only
basis for the granting of wages. In other words, if a certain worker's name is
not logged thereon on a working day, it necessarily follows that he has not
rendered services on such a day and, therefore, is not entitled to any wage.
Evelina Olaez and Myrna Liwan, both missionaries, testified that on April 16,
1995, appellant briefly attended one of their Sunday worships in Bontoc,
Mountain Province. In corroboration, they attested that appellant was asking
the people in attendance the whereabouts of his two friends from Bontoc.
After the church fellowship, he was invited to have lunch with them along with
other members of the congregation. At around 1:00 p.m., he allegedly lelt for
Sagada, Mountain Province.
In a decision dated June 23, 1997, the trial court found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the decretal portion of which
reads
Appellant's alibi that he was in Bontoc, Mountain Province at the time of the
alleged rape is unconvincing in light of his positive identification by the victim,
Lorena Rizalte. Lorena, a mere 12-year old lass, was candid and
straightforward in her testimony. It is unthinkable that as a means or getting
back at the appellant for the misunderstanding he had with her grandparents,
she would concoct such a grave charge against appellant Rebose,
considering all its attendant scandal and publicity just because of a supposed
dispute over a measly sum of P3,000.00. It would be highly improbable for a
girl of her age to fabricate a charge so humiliating to herself and her family, as
well, had she not been truly subjected to the pain and harrowing experience of
sexual abuse.7
Appellant likewise faults the trial court's findings as contrary to the medical
report of Dr. Lebaquin. In his brief, appellant contended that when asked
whether Lorena's laceration is compatible with the rape charge, Dr. Lebaquin
allegedly "equivocated and vaguely stated that it all depends on the healing
process of the laceration."9 Thus:
Q: Now it says here deep healed laceration, from the the time the
offense was perpetrated in April 17 up to the examination April 19,
1995, would you say that the injury is compatible with the commission of
the offense?
ATTY. DE LEON:
PROSECUTOR:
PROSECUTOR GONZALEZ:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why?
The defensive arguments raised by Alex Feliciano and Virgilio Pose must
likewise fail. On this score, we subscribe to the findings of the trial court, viz:
Firstly, the defense failed to establish that the witness it presented is the
same Alex Feliciano referred to by the victim. Secondly, even if he is the
same Alex Feliciano, the evidence that he was in his place of work in
San Juan Metro Manila at the exact time the incident took place is not
conclusive. With the availability of motorized transport, a distance of
thirty (30) kilometers can easily be negotiated in less than an hour.
Hence, there was no physical impossibility for him to surreptitiously
leave his workplace and be back within the day's scheduled workshift.
The Court cannot repose much reliance on the testimony of defense
witness. Virgilio Pose whose duty as timekeeper is to keep a record of
the exact time a worker comes in and out of the worksite but who is not
in a position to categorically state that a worker or in this case Alex
Feliciano never left the worksite in between the workshift hours.14
The two elements that must be established to hold the accused guilty of
statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman,
and (2) that the woman is below twelve years of age.15 Thus, the age of the
victim, as an essential element for the conviction thereof, must unquestionably
be proved by the prosecution. In the absence of proof, therefore, appellant
Rebose cannot be convicted of statutory rape. However, appellant could still
be held liable for the crime of rape under Article 335 (1) of the Revised Penal
Code which reads:
In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution amply established that
appellant employed force and intimidation in sexually abusing Lorena.
SO ORDERED.