Third Division People of The Philippines, G.R. No. 172323: - Versus
Third Division People of The Philippines, G.R. No. 172323: - Versus
Third Division People of The Philippines, G.R. No. 172323: - Versus
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
Promulgated:
JUDY SALIDAGA y QUINTANO,
Accused-Appellant. January 29, 2007
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
01332 which affirmed in toto the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City, Branch 166, finding accused-appellant Judy Salidaga y Quintano guilty of the
crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay his victim, AAA,[3] the amounts of P50,000.00, as civil indemnity,
and P50,000.00, as moral damages. He was also ordered to pay the costs of suit.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
An Information dated 20 December 2002 was filed against appellant charging him
with rape committed as follows:
Upon arraignment on 6 February 2003, appellant entered a plea of not guilty[5] and
shortly thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented, as its lone witness, the victim herself. In her testimony,
she stated that at the time of the incident, she was alone and asleep at their house
located in Bolante, Pasig City when appellant placed himself on top of her and
poked a knife at her neck. She then claimed that she lost consciousness as she was
overcome by fear for her life. Appellant then inserted his sex organ into her
vagina. She was not able to put up a fight because she was afraid that appellant
would kill her. After appellant had satisfied his lust, he stood up and left the
victims house. A few hours lapsed before AAA went to see her live-in partner at
his place of work and narrated to him what transpired earlier that afternoon. Her
live-in partner was enraged and asked her how the rape took place. Eventually, he
instructed AAA to return to their house. On 20 December 2002, she reported the
incident to the police.[6]
The prosecution likewise presented the Sworn Statement of AAA[7] and the Initial
Medico-Legal Report issued by the crime laboratory of the Philippine National
Police.[8] The report was signed by a certain P/Sr. Insp. Daileg who conducted the
physical examination on AAA. It bears the following information:
The defense presented appellant as its sole witness. He testified that on 11 June
2002, he and AAA commenced living together as lovers. However, their
relationship was short-lived as he was instructed by his parents to go back home to
Taguig. Apart from this, the two of them were having disagreements with respect
to their finances and there was talk going around in their neighborhood that AAA
was seeing somebody else. He disclosed that, while they were still living together,
he caught AAA with another man. He added that during one of their altercations,
AAA allegedly threatened to send him to jail. Not long after, AAA decided to
terminate their relationship.
Appellant also stated that during the time when the supposed rape took place, he
was installing the flooring of the house belonging to Lando and Ate Aling in
Bolante, Pasig City.
On 26 November 2003, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion
of which states:
2. Accused went on top of AAA, poked a knife at her neck, removed her
shorts and inserted his penis inside her vagina.
3. AAA was gripped with fear. She could not fight and resist the sexual
assault because of the knife poked at her neck and she was afraid
accused would kill her.
Considering the established relevant facts and the law applicable, the
Court is convinced that the accused committed the crime of Rape as
charged in the Information.
A Notice of Appeal[12] was seasonably filed by appellant and the trial court ordered
the transmittal of the entire records of the case to this Court. Subsequently, we
ordered the referral of the case to the Court of Appeals conformably with our
decision in the case of People v. Mateo.[13]
In determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in rape cases, the courts are
guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made
with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult
for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature
of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the
testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3)
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[16]
The Court of Appeals, in sustaining the trial court, declared that the appellants
defense of denial and alibi cannot outweigh AAAs positive and unequivocal
narration as to how the rape was perpetrated by appellant. In the process, the Court
of Appeals reiterated the familiar rule that alibi, like denial, is an intrinsically weak
defense which must be supported by strong evidence of lack of culpability.[17]
It must be emphasized that in this case, the prosecution presented only one witness
who was none other than the offended party herself. We retrace the lone testimony
of AAA as follows:
DIRECT EXAM.
BY FISCAL PAZ:
q AAA, do you recall where were you on December 16, 2002 at 1:00
oclock in the afternoon?
a Yes, sir.
a In the house.
q What were you doing in your house on said date and time?
a I was sleeping.
a None.
q While you were sleeping on said date and time in your house, do you
recall if there was something that happened?
a Yes.
q You said he, who was that person you are referring to?
a Judy.
q If he is inside the court room, please went (sic) down and tap his
shoulder.
a I cannot do it.
COURT:
Witness pointing to a person who when asked gave his name as Judy
Salidaga.
PROSEC. PAZ;
After the accused went on top of you and poked a knife at your neck,
what happened next?
a I was scared.
q Scared of what?
a Mine.
a Yes.
a None.
a I cannot recall.
q After the accused inserted his penis inside your vagina, what happened
next?
a He stood up.
(i)t is but to be expected that if the sexual assault was committed against
the victim while the latter was in a state of unconsciousness, she would
not be able to testify on the actual act of sexual intercourse. It is
precisely when the sexual intercourse is performed when the victim is
unconscious that the act constitutes the statutory offense of rape
especially when, as in the instant case, the loss of consciousness was the
result of appellants act of violence. x x x.[22]
In the subsequent case of People v. San Pedro,[23] our pronouncement was that
In the case of People v. Tayag,[25] the trial court held the accused guilty of forcible
abduction with rape. With the use of a bolo, he purportedly brought the nine-year
old victim to his house and tied her to the trunk of a nearby coconut tree. He
pressed the bolo against her legs then kissed and bit her lips. The accused then
proceeded to hit her on the stomach and she lost consciousness. When she regained
her senses, she felt pain all over her body but the accused once again hit her in the
stomach and she fainted. When she recovered her consciousness, she realized that
her panty had been taken off. Her private part likewise ached. Notwithstanding the
testimonies of the victim and the medical examiner, we still held that the accused
could not be convicted of forcible abduction with rape; instead, we found him
guilty only of forcible abduction
(s)econd. Although the prosecution has proven that Lazel was sexually
abused, the evidence proferred is inadequate to prove she was
raped. Evidence of carnal knowledge is necessary in rape. Lazel
entertained the belief that she was raped because when she regained
consciousness, she felt pain all over her body and her private part. The
trial court found that Lazel was sexually abused because of her belief. It
then equated sexual abuse with rape x x x.
xxxx
Similarly, in the case of People v. Daganta,[27] the accused was charged with
the rape of a minor. According to the prosecution, the accused invited the supposed
victim to his room and once inside, the accused started kissing her on the cheek
and then on her lips. He then sprayed an insect repellant to her face as a result of
which she lost consciousness. When she woke up, she found the accused sitting
outside his room. The lower portion of her umbilicus was painful and when she
urinated, she felt pain in her private parts. The physical examination of the alleged
victim revealed that there was hymenal laceration at five oclock indicative of the
entry of a hard object into her private part. Despite these, this Court reversed the
decision of the trial court based on reasonable doubt, thus:
The principle has been dinned into the ears of the bench and the bar that in this
jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous with guilt.[32] The proof against him
must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to
sway judgment.[33] If the evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one
consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt,
the accused must be acquitted.[34] The overriding consideration is not whether the
court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable
doubt as to his guilt.[35] If there exists even one iota of doubt, this Court is under a
long standing injunction to resolve the doubt in favor of herein accused-
petitioner.[36] The accused may offer no more than a feeble alibi but we are
enjoined to proclaim him innocent in the light of insufficient evidence proving his
guilt.
SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice