PEOPLE PF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Bernabe Pareja y Cruz, G.R. no. 202122, January 15, 2014

Facts:

1.      Pareja was charged with two counts of Rape and one Attempted Rape.

2.      RTC convicted him of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness which was affirmed in toto by the CA.

3.      To exculpate himself from liability, [Pareja] offered both denial and ill motive of AAA against him as his defense.  He denied raping [AAA] but admitted that he knew her as she is the daughter of his live–in partner and that they all stay in the same house.

4.      Contrary to AAA’s allegations, [Pareja] averred that it would have been impossible that the alleged incidents happened.  To justify the same, [Pareja] described the layout of their house and argued that there was no way that the alleged sexual abuses could have happened.

5.      According to [Pareja], the house was made of wood, only about four (4) meters wide by ten (10) meters, and was so small that they all have to sit to be able to fit inside the house.  Further, the vicinity where their house is located was thickly populated with houses constructed side by side.  Allegedly, AAA also had no choice but to sleep beside her siblings.

6.      All taken into account, [Pareja] asseverated that it was hard to imagine how he could possibly still go about with his plan without AAA’s siblings nor their neighbors noticing the same.

7.      Verily, [Pareja] was adamant and claimed innocence as to the imputations hurled against him by AAA.  He contended that AAA filed these charges against him only as an act of revenge because AAA was mad at [him] for being the reason behind her parents’ separation.

8.      he RTC acquitted Pareja from the charge of attempted rape but convicted him of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness in the December 2003 and February 2004 incidents, respectively.

9.      Wanting to reverse his two convictions, Pareja appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in toto the judgment of the RTC

10.  Aggrieved, Pareja elevated his case to the SC

I

Issues:

1.     
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN CONVICTING [PAREJA] OF THE CRIMES CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

2.     
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [PAREJA] BASED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION WITNESS’ TESTIMONY.¹⁶

Held:

When the issue of credibility of witness is presented before this Court, we followe certain guidelines that have overtime been established in jurisprudence. In People v. Sanchez, we enumerated them as follows:

First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’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.

And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC. (Citations omitted.)

The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the “assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage point denied appellate courts–and when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.”²¹   While there are recognized exceptions to the rule, this Court has found no substantial reason to overturn the identical conclusions of the trial and appellate courts on the matter of AAA’s credibility.

Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are generally expected. As this court stated inPeople vs. Saludo:

Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail.  For such an offense is not analogous to a person’s achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget.  Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. (Citation omitted.)

Since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.²⁴   The inconsistencies mentioned by Pareja are trivial and non–consequential matters that merely caused AAA confusion when she was being questioned.  The inconsistency regarding the year of the December incident is not even a matter pertaining to AAA’s ordeal. The date and time of the commission of the crime of rape becomes important only when it creates serious doubt as to the commission of the rape itself or the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction.  In other words, the “date of the commission of the rape becomes relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness of the complainant’s narration practically hinge on the date of the commission of the crime.”  Moreover, the date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.

Improbability of sexual abuse
in their small house and in the
presence of AAA’s sleeping siblings

Pareja argues that it was improbable for him to have sexually abused AAA, considering that their house was so small that they had to sleep beside each other, that in fact, when the alleged incidents happened, AAA was sleeping beside her younger siblings, who would have noticed if anything unusual was happening

This Court is not convinced.  Pareja’s living conditions could have prevented him from acting out on his beastly desires, but they did not.  This Court has observed that many of the rape cases appealed to us were not always committed in seclusion.  Lust is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies constraints of time and space. 

Demeanor of AAA
as a rape victim

Pareja asseverates that AAA’s demeanor and conduct belie her claim that she was raped.  He said that “the ordinary Filipina [would have summoned] every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to besmirch her honor and blemish her purity.”  Pareja pointed out that they lived in a thickly populated area such that any commotion inside their house would have been easily heard by the neighbors, thus, giving AAA the perfect opportunity to seek their help.³⁶   Moreover, Pareja said, AAA’s delay in reporting the incidents to her mother or the authorities negates the possibility that he indeed committed the crimes.  AAA’s belated confession, he claimed, “cannot be dismissed as trivial as it puts into serious doubt her credibility.”

A person accused of a serious crime such as rape will tend to escape liability by shifting the blame on the victim for failing to manifest resistance to sexual abuse.  However, this Court has recognized the fact that no clear–cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped.  It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape.  Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when that person was intimidated into submission by the accused.  In cases where the rape is committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, or common law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence.³⁸   In this case, AAA’s lack of resistance was brought about by her fear that Pareja would make good on his threat to kill her if she ever spoke of the incident.

AAA’s conduct, i.e., acting like nothing happened, after being sexually abused by Pareja is also not enough to discredit her.  Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society’s expectations.  It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young victim.  One cannot be expected to act as usual in an unfamiliar situation as it is impossible to predict the workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress.  Moreover, it is wrong to say that there is a standard reaction or behavior among victims of the crime of rape since each of them had to cope with different circumstances. ³⁹

Likewise, AAA’s delay in reporting the incidents to her mother or the proper authorities is insignificant and does not affect the veracity of her charges.  It should be remembered that Pareja threatened to kill her if she told anyone of the incidents.  In People v. Ogarte,⁴⁰ we explained why a rape victim’s deferral in reporting the crime does not equate to falsification of the accusation, to wit:

The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated.  Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge.  Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists.  They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders’ making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims. (Citation omitted.)

In Criminal Case No. 04–1557–CFM or the December 2003 incident, Pareja was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by sexual assault.  The enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti–Rape Law of 1997, revolutionized the concept of rape with the recognition of sexual violence on “sex–related” orifices other than a woman’s organ is included in the crime of rape; and the crime’s expansion to cover gender–free rape.  “The transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of rape as a crime against persons and the introduction of rape by ‘sexual assault’ as differentiated from the traditional ‘rape through carnal knowledge’ or ‘rape through sexual intercourse.’”⁴⁴   Republic Act No. 8353 amended Article 335, the provision on rape in the Revised Penal Code and incorporated therein Article 266–A which reads:

Article 266–A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –
 

1)	By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
	a)	Through force, threat or intimidation;
	b)	When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious,
	c)	By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
	d)	When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present;
2)	By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

Thus, under the new provision, rape can be committed in two ways:

1.   Article 266–A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through sexual intercourse, also known as “organ rape” or “penile rape.” ⁴⁵ The central element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.⁴⁶

2.   Article 266–A paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called “instrument or object rape,” or “gender–free rape.”⁴⁷   It must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1.⁴⁸

In People v. Abulon,⁴⁹ this Court differentiated the two modes of committing rape as follows:
 

(1)	In the first mode, the offender is always a man, while in the second, the offender may be a man or a woman;
(2)	In the first mode, the offended party is always a woman, while in the second, the offended party may be a man or a woman;
(3)	In the first mode, rape is committed through penile penetration of the vagina, while the second is committed by inserting the penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and
(4)	The penalty for rape under the first mode is higher than that under the second.

Under Article 266–A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape by sexual assault is “[b]y any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.”

AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in December 2003, inserted his penis into her anus.  While she may not have been certain about the details of the February 2004 incident, she was positive that Pareja had anal sex with her in December 2003, thus, clearly establishing the occurrence of rape by sexual assault.  In other words, her testimony on this account was, as the Court of Appeals found, clear, positive, and probable.⁵⁰

However, since the charge in the Information for the December 2003 incident is rape through carnal knowledge, Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during trial.  This is due to the material differences and substantial distinctions between the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in the second, and vice–versa.  Consequently, to convict Pareja of rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with was rape through carnal knowledge, would be to violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.⁵¹

Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness under the variance doctrine embodied in Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure,⁵² to wit:

SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. – An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the  essential  elements  or  ingredients  of  the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter.  And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prisión correccional.

The elements of the above crime are as follows:

(1)	That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2)	That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
	a.	By using force or intimidation; or
	b.	When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
	c.	When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
(3)	That the offended party is another person of either sex.53 (Citation omitted.)

Clearly, the above–mentioned elements are present in the December 2003 incident, and were sufficiently established during trial.  Thus, even though the crime charged against Pareja was for rape through carnal knowledge, he can be convicted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness without violating any of his constitutional rights because said crime is included in the crime of rape.⁵⁴

Nonetheless, the Court takes this case as an opportunity to remind the State, the People of the Philippines, as represented by the public prosecutor, to exert more diligence in crafting the Information, which contains the charge against an accused.  The primary duty of a lawyer in public prosecution is to see that justice is done⁵⁵ – to the State, that its penal laws are not broken and order maintained; to the victim, that his or her rights are vindicated; and to the offender, that he is justly punished for his crime.  A faulty and defective Information, such as that in Criminal Case No. 04–1556–CFM, does not render full justice to the State, the offended party, and even the offender.  Thus, the public prosecutor should always see to it that the Information is accurate and appropriate.

Some issues raised were not touched on this digest. reading the entire case won't consume 5 minutes. :)