EN BANC
G.R. Nos. 142553-54. July 1, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ALBERT SAYANA, appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
Before us for automatic review
is the Decision[1] of
the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 21, sentencing Albert
Sayana to the supreme penalty of death for two counts of qualified rape.
Appellant was charged with two
counts of rape committed against Cheska Angelika de Dios, the daughter of his
common-law wife, Alma de Dios. The Informations alleged:
Criminal Case No. 456-M-99
That on or about the 4th day
of October 1998, in the municipality of Plaridel, province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, who was the common-law husband of the victim’s mother did
then and there willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously, by means of
force, threat and intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of
Cheska Angelika de Dios y Ely, an 11-year old girl, against her will and
without her consent.
Contrary to law.[2]
Criminal Case No. 457-M-99
That in or about the month of
March 1997, in the municipality of Plaridel, province of Bulacan, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
who was the common-law husband of the mother of the victim, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, threat and
intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge of Cheska Angelika de
Dios y Ely, an 11-year old girl, against her will and without her consent.
Contrary to law.[3]
The prosecution evidence
showed that some time in March 1997, appellant forced himself upon the daughter
of his common-law wife, eleven-year old Cheska Angelika de Dios. The
deed took place in their residence at Maria Lourdes Subdivision, Tabang,
Plaridel, Bulacan. Cheska recounted that after dinnertime, while her
mother was out of the house, appellant undressed her, laid on top of her, and
made an up and down movement while he kissed her neck. She felt pain
in her private part. She tried to scream but appellant covered her
mouth. After the act, appellant wiped her private part, and proceeded to
the bathroom to wash himself. Fear prevented Cheska from telling her mother
about the incident as she had often witnessed how appellant would beat her
mother.[4]
According to Cheska, appellant
again violated her in the evening of October 4, 1998. As before,
appellant undressed her and placed himself on top of her. Cheska
felt an up and down movement, his private part touching hers. At the
same time, appellant would kiss her on the neck. She felt pain in
her private part. Cheska also tried to free herself from his hold
but appellant pinned her hands. He also prevented her from shouting
by covering her mouth. After satisfying his lust, appellant wiped
Cheska’s private part, and then went to the bathroom to wash.[5]
Cheska’s aunt, Erlinda Obuyes,
told the court that Cheska’s mother called her on the phone on October 5, 1998,
asking her to fetch her and her children at their residence in Bulacan as
appellant had mauled her. Erlinda brought Alma and her children to
her home in Las Piñas, Metro Manila. After two days, however,
appellant came to get Alma and the children. Alma went with
appellant, together with their two children, but left Cheska to the care of
Erlinda. Erlinda sought the help of their other sister, Arlene Dy,
to enroll Cheska at Isabelo Elementary School in Tondo, Manila so that she
could continue her studies. In mid-October, while Cheska was in the
bathroom, Erlinda noticed a foul-smelling yellowish substance on Cheska’s
underwear. Erlinda brought Cheska to a midwife, then to a
gynecologist, Dr. Nieves Montinola, who advised her to bring the young girl to
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for examination. At the
NBI, however, Erlinda did not allow Cheska to be examined because the examining
officer wanted to insert a tube measuring 4 centimeters in diameter and 1 foot
in length into her niece’s genitalia. Cheska eventually admitted to
Erlinda that appellant had abused her.[6]
Upon advice of her brother,
Erlinda brought Cheska to the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for
examination. Dr. Manuel Aves, a medico-legal officer at said office,
examined Cheska on October 31, 1998. The examination revealed:[7]
GENERAL AND
EXTRA-GENITAL :
PHYSICAL
BUILT : Heavy
MENTAL
STATUS :
BREAST : Budding
ABDOMEN : Flat,
soft
PHYSICAL
INJURIES : No
signs of physical injury
GENITAL : The
vulva is erythematous
PUBIC
HAIR : Absent
LABIA
MAJORA : Coaptated
LABIA
MINORA : Light
pinkish
HYMEN : Superficial
laceration
healed at 12 o’clock
The
hymen is elastic
w/diameter
of 1.2 to 1.5 cm.
EXTERNAL VAGINAL
ORIFICE : The orifice w/
less
resistance upon inserting
prominent
examining finger
VAGINAL
CANAL :
CERVIX : rugosities
smooth
PERI-URETHRAL AND VAGINAL
SMEARS: NEGATIVE
for spermatozoa
REMARKS : The
subject is in non-virgin state on time of exam.
Dr. Aves explained that the
erythematous vulva was a sign that there was manipulation in that area. He also
stated that the vaginal laceration could have been due to
either: intercourse, masturbation or instrumentation. Dr.
Aves also observed that the diameter of the hymen was too wide for Cheska’s
age. He said that this could have been caused by penetration of the
organ, either by instrument, or using of fingers or object, or intercourse.[8]
For his part, appellant
interposed denial and alibi. He claimed that it was impossible for
him to rape Cheska in March 1997 as he was residing in Bataan at that time
while Cheska and her mother were residing in Manila. They moved to
Bulacan only in October 1997. He likewise denied having raped Cheska
in the evening of October 4, 1998 because at that time, he was working in
Malolos town proper. He was employed as delivery driver at Chowking,
Malolos Poblacion. On that day, he left the house and went to work
at 3:00 in the afternoon and returned home past 11:00 in the evening.[9]
Appellant swore that he
treated Cheska as his own child and he did not have the heart to molest
her. He belied the testimony of Erlinda Obuyes that he was mauling
Cheska’s mother, Alma. He narrated that on October 5, 1998, Erlinda
went to their house in Bulacan to get Alma and the children and brought them to
her home in Las Piñas. The following day, Alma went to see him and
asked him to take them back. But because he was busy, he found time
to fetch them only after four days. By that time, Arlene Dy had
already taken Cheska in her custody. Appellant, together with Alma
and their two children, returned to their home in Plaridel,
Bulacan. They lived together as husband and wife until his parents
took him back to Bataan on October 20, 1998. Appellant alleged that
Alma’s sisters might have concocted the charges against him for several
reasons. One, they were opposed to his relationship with Alma
because they were cousins. Two, he disapproved of Alma’s habit of
going to her sisters in Manila whenever they would quarrel. He said
that Alma’s sisters resented this because it was Alma whom they would often
instruct to procure illegal drugs to sustain their drug habit. Three,
he knew of the sisters’ vice and he once threatened to expose them to Arlene
Dy’s husband who was providing financial support to the entire
family. Four, he knew of Arlene Dy’s illicit affair with another man
and the fact that she had killed her former driver. And fifth,
during one of his fights with Alma, he threatened to reveal to the authorities
the whereabouts of their father who was wanted for murder.[10]
Appellant’s alibi was
corroborated by his father, Fausto Sayana, and their neighbor, Dominador
Rivera, and also by his time card. Fausto Sayana and Dominador Rivera both
testified that appellant lived with his parents in Morong, Bataan from February
to August, 1997.[11] Appellant’s
time card, on the other hand, showed that on October 4, 1998, he reported for
work at 3:20 pm and went off duty at 9:18 pm.[12]
The defense also presented
Cheska’s school record[13] showing
that in October 1997, she transferred from A. Aquino Elementary School to
Tabang Elementary School as grade II pupil. The following school
year, she enrolled in third grade at Tabang Elementary School but again
transferred to another school in October 1998.
Another evidence proferred by
the defense was the Medico-Legal Report executed by Dr. Annabelle Soliman,
Medico Legal Officer at NBI who examined Cheska on October 28,
1998. Her findings indicate:[14]
GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
Height: 144.0
cms. Weight: 100
lbs.
Fairly nourished, conscious,
coherent, cooperative, ambulatory. Breast,
infantile. Areolae, light brown, measures 2.5 cms. in
diameter. Nipples, flat, light brown, measures 0.5 cm. in diameter.
No extragenital physical
injury noted.
GENITAL EXAMINATION:
Pubic hair, no
growth. Labia majora, minora, coaptated. Fourchette,
tense. Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen, short, thin,
intact. Hymenal orifice measures 1.2 cm. in
diameter. Vaginal walls and rugosities cannot be reached by
examining finger.
CONCLUSIONS:
No evident signs of
extragenital physical injury noted on the body of the subject at the time of
examination.
Hymen, intact and its orifice
small (1.2 cm. in diameter) as to preclude complete penetration by an
average-sized adult male organ in full erection without producing hymenal
injury.
Giving more weight to Cheska’s
testimony, the trial court found appellant guilty of the charges and meted him
the death penalty, thus:
All premises considered, the
Court finds and so holds the accused Albert Sayana to be GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of Rape in Criminal Case No. 456-M-99 and
Criminal Case No. 457-M-99.
Accordingly, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of Death by lethal injection on both
counts. Further, he is hereby ordered to indemnify the complaining
witness Cheska Angelica de Dios in the sum of P75,000.00 in each of
the two cases.
With costs against the
accused.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Appellant raised the following
arguments in his brief:
1. The
trial court misappreciated the findings of the medico-legal, Dr. Aves and
disregarded the findings of the medico-legal, Dr. Soliman.
2. The
trial court erred in failing to appreciate the inconsistencies in the statement
and declarations of the complainant.
3. The
trial court erred in finding that the Prosecution has established the moral
certainty sufficient to overcome the innocence of the accused beyond doubt,
despite the contradictions and inconsistencies of her declarations and her
witness and impossibility of her story.
4. The
trial court erred in completely disregarding the defense of the accused.
5. The
trial court erred in failing to consider that complainant and her aunt were
ill-motivated.[16]
We reverse the decision of the
trial court.
In reviewing rape cases, the
Court has always been guided by the following 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 person accused, though
innocent, to disprove the charge; (2) considering that, in the nature of
things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony
of the complainant must be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence
for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[17]
The gravamen in the crime of
rape is carnal knowledge. The prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused had sexual contact with the alleged
victim. This, the prosecution failed to do in this
case. While the complainant testified that appellant forced her into
sexual intercourse on two occasions, the physical evidence clouds her
testimony. Records show that the complainant was examined by several
doctors. However, only the reports of the last two doctors who
examined her were offered as evidence. The report of Dr. Annabel
Soliman, Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI shows that there were no signs of
injury in complainant’s genitalia. In a later examination, however,
conducted by Dr. Manuel Aves of the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office,
a healed superficial hymenal laceration at 12:00 position was
found. Dr. Aves explained that the location of the laceration
excludes sexual intercourse as possible cause thereof. Dr. Aves
explained that lacerations found on the upper portion of the hymen are normally
caused by instrumentation but not by sexual contact. Dr. Aves
testified as follows on direct examination:
xxx
Q: Will you
please tell us, on the basis of this medico legal report, what were your
findings in your examination?
A: There
are two stages of examining the victim. One is extragenital and two
is genital area. In the extragenital, there was (sic) no
remarkable findings. The vulva is erythematous, the full area of the
genital area is inflamed, congested. There is absence of pubic hair,
the labia majora is captated (sic) which is normal, the labia minora is
light pinkish which is normal color and then on the hymen I noted a superficial
laceration, healed at 12 o’clock position and then it is also elastic with a
diameter of 1.2 to 1.5 cm. which is too wide for her at her age and then the
external orifice, there is a less resistance upon inserting rugositis (sic)
then the cervix is smooth, negative for spermatozoa with the remarks that the
subject is in a non-virgin state during the time of examination.
Q: Mr.
Witness, what could be (sic) caused this vulva to become erythematous?
A: There
is a sign of manipulation on that area, sir.
xxx[18]
On cross-examination, Dr. Aves
ruled out penile penetration as possible cause of the hymenal laceration, and
submitted that it was more probably caused by instrumentation, thus:
xxx
Q: Now, you
have this finding here superficial laceration healed at 12 o’clock position, in
layman’s language, what do you mean here when you say 12 o’clock?
A: It
is the position of the laceration. For example, that clock, the 12
o’clock is on the upper portion, the 6 o’clock position is the lower position,
sir.
Q: On the
basis of your experience, when you had examined the patients in connection with
rape cases, is it normal in rape case that the laceration is 12 o’clock or at
the 6 o’clock position?
A: If
there were (sic) sexual intercourse or penetration of the vagina, the
most common of the laceration is the lower portion 5, 6, 7 o’clock position,
sir.
Q: When you
said the most common laceration if there was sexual intercourse is 5, 6, 7
o’clock position, it is unusual to have laceration at 12 o’clock position?
A: There
is no penile penetration on that part. It might be insertion of the
finger or any instrument, sir. If the laceration is 6 o’clock, I
said if the laceration is located at the lower portion of the area of the
hymen, the most common cause is sexual intercourse or penile penetration, sir.
Q: And what
do you attribute usually to the presence of the laceration at 12 o’clock
position?
A: Usually
it might be caused by insertion of fingers or any instrument, sir.
Q: Would you
say that such is more common with respect to the 12 o’clock position?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Than
sexual intercourse?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: But you
are precluding the possibility that it was due to penile penetration?
A: Yes,
sir.
Atty. Ramos:
Q: Doctor,
the purported laceration that you found to (sic) Cheska Angelica is at
12 o’clock, you did not find any laceration at 6 o’clock area?
A: It
is only at the 12 o’clock position, sir.
Court:
Q: Is it not
a fact that there are some hymenal elasticity if there is sexual intercourse, (sic)
you cannot find laceration?
A: Yes,
sir.
Atty. Ramos:
Q: Mr.
Witness, in the case of sexual intercourse, when a man is on top of a woman and
making an up and down movement of the penis, you will agree that it is 6
o’clock position would be the possible laceration?
A: Yes,
sir, it is common.
Q: And before
the 12 o’clock position could be affected, (sic) it should be the 6
o’clock position in an up and down movement?
A: Usually
it is the 6 o’clock position the most common, sir.
Q: On the
basis of your findings, Doctor, what could be the cause of your finding of the
laceration at 12 o’clock position could it be sexual intercourse or
manipulation?
A: In
this particular case, it is manipulation, sir.
Q: In this
case?
A: Yes,
Your Honor.
Q: Why do you
say that?
A: Because
the position of the laceration of the hymen, sir.
Q: The extent
of the laceration?
A: Yes,
sir, it is too shallow.
xxx[19]
The explanation given by Dr.
Aves who testified for the prosecution itself, plus the fact that complainant
underwent several gynecological examinations before she went to the Bulacan
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office discount the credibility of the latter’s
testimony that she has been raped.
We are not unmindful of the
Court’s ruling that the absence of laceration in the hymen does not preclude
the existence of rape and that when a woman states that she has been raped, she
states all that is necessary to prove the offense. These principles, however,
do not in themselves support a conviction. They must be weighed with the presumption
of innocence of the accused. To support a finding of guilt, it is
necessary that the complainant’s story be believable in itself.[20]
In this case, we find
complainant’s testimony to be unclear and marked by some doubtful
allegations. For one, she failed to establish that they were already
living with appellant in Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan in March 1997, the alleged
time of the commission of the first offense. She testified on direct
examination that they were already residing in Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan in
March 1997. Her testimony, however, was impugned by her school
records which showed that she went to school in A. Aquino Elementary School in
Tondo, Manila as Grade II pupil until October 1997. It was only in
October 1997 when she transferred to Tabang Elementary School in
Bulacan. On cross examination, it appeared that she was unsure of
the time when they moved to appellant’s house in Bulacan, thus:
xxx
Atty. Ramos:
Cheska Angelica, last time you
stated that before you lived in Plaridel, Bulacan, you were in Manila?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And you
would agree with me that your address in Manila is at Solis Street, Tondo,
Manila?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And you
left that place sometime in October 1997?
A: No,
sir.
Court:
When was it when you and your
family transferred to (sic) Tondo to Plaridel?
A: Month
of January. I forgot the year and date.
xxx
Court:
In Tondo, did you go to
school?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
grade?
A: Grade
I and kinder.
Atty. Ramos:
Did you not start your grade
II in Tondo?
A: No,
sir.
Court:
So, you started schooling for
grade II in Tabang and not in Tondo?
A: I
started my grade II in Tondo and I stopped then and transferred to Tabang,
Plaridel.
Atty. Ramos:
And you continued your grade
II in Tabang, Plaridel because at that time, you transferred your residence
from Tondo to Tabang?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: You
transferred your grade II in Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan sometime in January when
you transferred to Plaridel?
A: (no
answer.)
Court:
The Court will propound the
question. When you were in grade II, can you recall whether it was
Christmas before or after Christmas when you transferred to Tabang and
ultimately you conducted your grade II in the elementary school of the latter’s
plac(e)?
A: Before
Christmas, your Honor.
Atty. Ramos:
A while ago, you said that it
was in the month of January when you transferred your residence from Tondo to
Plaridel, now are you saying that that was also the month when you transferred
to Plaridel and enrolled in Grade II?
A: Yes,
sir.
Court:
Why did you say that you
transferred before Christmas, what can you say about that?
A: Before
Christmas.
Q: Do you understand
(what) the month of January is?
A: (no
answer.)
Court:
The Court would like to
apprise you that the month of January comes after Christmas?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: So, why is
it that earlier, you said that you transferred in January; whereas,
in the latter part when you were asked by the Court, you said you transferred
before Christmas and of course, before Christmas, did you mean that was before
January when you transferred?
A: I do
not know.
Q: The child
maybe in (sic) confused, because there were transfer of residence and
transfer of school. Now, the time that you transferred, was it from
the place, from the grade II in Tondo to grade II in Tabang?
A: Both,
your Honor.
xxx[21]
The time when complainant
moved to Bulacan is a material fact that must be clearly established by the
prosecution because appellant could not have committed the offense if it were
true that complainant was still in Manila and appellant was in Bataan at the
alleged time of its commission.
In addition, we observe that
complainant’s narration of how appellant allegedly ravished her on two
occasions were incredibly identical, as if lifted from a single script.
We have held in several cases
that the lone uncorroborated testimony of the complainant is sufficient to
warrant a conviction, provided that such is credible, natural, convincing and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. However,
we have also held that the testimony of the complainant should not be received
with precipitate credulity but with utmost caution. The test for
determining the credibility of complainant’s testimony is whether it is in
conformity with common knowledge and consistent with the experience of
mankind. Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and
lies outside judicial cognizance.[22] Complainant’s
testimony in this case fails to satisfy the test of credibility.
Moreover, it appears that
complainant’s aunts have sufficient motive to concoct falsehoods against
appellant. The latter mentioned several reasons why they resented
him and the prosecution never refuted these allegations. The records
show that these charges were filed against appellant upon the prompting of
complainant’s aunts.
In rape cases, it is the
primordial duty of the prosecution to present its case with clarity and
persuasion to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable
conclusion. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Although the
law does not demand absolute certainty of guilt, it nonetheless requires moral
certainty to support a judgment of conviction. Where the inculpatory facts
admit of several interpretations, one consistent with accused’s innocence and
another with his guilt, the evidence thus adduced fails to meet the test of
moral certainty and it becomes the constitutional duty of the Court to acquit
the accused.[23] Such
is the case here.
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
appellant Albert Sayana is ACQUITTED. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is hereby ordered to immediately release appellant from the New
Bilibid Prison and to report to this Court compliance with this order within
five (5) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Vitug, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., andAzcuna, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., on
leave.
Austria-Martinez, J., on
official leave.
[17] People
vs. Morales, 363 SCRA 342
(2001); People
vs. Villalobos, 358 SCRA 84
(2001); People
vs. De la Cruz, 356 SCRA 704 (2001).
[23] People vs. De la Cruz, supra note
17; People
vs. Aballe, 357 SCRA 802 (2001);
People vs. Villalobos, supra note 17.
