FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 120897. October 11, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEVERO
DAYUHA y DASO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO,
J.:
The case is an appeal
from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte,
Branch 5, Iligan City convicting accused Severo Dayuha y Daso of rape and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua
and to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages.
On January 13, 1994,
Prosecutor II Roberto Z. Albulario, Jr. of Iligan City filed with the Regional
Trial Court, Lanao del Norte, Iligan City a complaint[2] charging accused Severo Dayuha y Daso with
rape, committed as follows:
“That on or about September 26, 1993, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of force and/or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one IN-IN NOBELITA Q. REY, 15 years of age against her will.
“Contrary to and in violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.”
At the arraignment on
June 20, 1994, accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.[3] Trial ensued.
The facts are as follows:
At around 4:00 p.m. of
September 26, 1993, In-In Nobelita Q. Rey, then 15 years old and a resident of
Agora, Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, took a Jiverte bus (No. 990) driven
by accused at Agora enroute to
Zamboanga, accompanied by one Arlene Ampo. They arrived at the Jiverte bus
terminal in Iligan City at around 7:00 p.m.
After some of the passengers disembarked therefrom, In-In and Arlene were prevented by accused and the conductor from leaving the
bus because the two (2) girls might get lost. Accused and the conductor asked
them if they were sisters, to which Arlene said yes. The accused did not
believe them, and called them stowaways. Thereafter, accused and the conductor
closed the windows of the bus. They asked the two (2) frightened girls if they
had taken supper. When they answered in the negative, the conductor alighted
from the bus and bought bread. After the group had taken dinner, accused spread
a tent over the bus floor, forcibly removed In-In’s pants and underwear, and
then pulled his pants down. In-In was not able to shout or put up any
resistance because the accused, armed with a piece of wood, covered her mouth
and threatened her if she would shout. The accused was able to force In-In to
have sex three (3) times that night, while the conductor raped Arlene.
At around 4:00 a.m. of
the next day, September 27, 1993, the Jiverte bus left Iligan City, with In-In
on board occupying the front seat. Her companion Arlene did not take that ride
and left with In-In’s bag and other belongings. The bus arrived at Aurora,
Zamboanga del Sur at around 12:00 p.m. In-In immediately told her mother of her
sexual ordeal. They then went to the Zamboanga police station where they were
advised to file their complaint in Cagayan de Oro. In-In and her mother went to
Cagayan de Oro City in November, 1993, where In-In was examined by Dr. Tammy L.
Uy of the NBI.[4]
Dr. Tammy L. Uy’s medical
report[5] revealed that In-In’s hymen suffered deep,
incomplete lacerations at 5:00 and 9:00 positions, which are compatible with
sexual intercourse on the date of the commission of the rape. Dr. Uy testified
that a hardened adult penis inflicted these lacerations and that it is possible
to have three (3) sexual encounters performed inside a cramped place like a
bus, within a two-hour period.[6]
The accused denied raping
In-In. He claimed[7] that when the bus arrived at the Iligan City
bus terminal, he waited for about ten (10) minutes for the passengers to alight
from the bus. Since some passengers were blocking the door of the bus, accused
went down the bus by passing through the window near the steering wheel. He
then sat on a bench just three (3) meters away from the bus and conversed with
his co-drivers for thirty (30) minutes. Afterwards, he took dinner at the
terminal restaurant. After eating, In-In and Arlene approached him. The accused
offered to pay for their supper upon learning that the girls had not eaten. He
proceeded to the bench and talked to his co-drivers again until 8:30 p. m. Then
he noticed that In-In was crying, and asked her why. In-In said that Arlene
left and took her bag.
Not for long, accused
decided to sleep. He went up the bus and spread his folding bed near
the engine. As the engine was still hot, he alighted
from the bus and decided to sleep on the bench where he was talking to his
co-drivers earlier in the night.
The accused woke up at
around 4:00 a.m. the next day, September 27, 1993. He took a bath, drank coffee then prepared to leave for Aurora.
He noticed that In-In was inside the bus. The bus left Iligan City at around
5:00 a.m. and arrived in Aurora two (2) hours later. The accused then took his
breakfast at the Aurora terminal, and failed to notice In-In.
The trial court
discredited the denial put up by accused and gave credence to the testimony of
In-In. Thus, on April 27, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision convicting
accused of rape, the decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, finding accused Severo Dayuha to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua.
The accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant the amount of Fifty Thousand (50,000.00) pesos as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.”[8]
In this appeal, the
accused-appellant faults the trial court for believing the testimony of In-In
and in disregarding his denial.
The appeal has no merit.
Accused-appellant’s
arguments boil down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. The trial court
has pointed out in its decision that In-In was “categorical, straightforward,
credible, convincing, natural and spontaneous”[9] in narrating her defloration in the hands of
accused-appellant. The settled rule is that the trial court’s assessment of the
credibility of the witnesses is entitled to respect, since it had the
opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the witness
stand.[10] A witness who testified in a categorical,
straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on
cross-examination is a credible witness.[11]
Furthermore, the record
does not reveal any ill-motive on the part of In-In to falsely accuse
accused-appellant of raping her. It is highly improbable for a woman,
especially one of tender age like In-In, to concoct a brutal tale of
ravishment, allow a gynecologic examination, and undergo the humiliation of a
public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit
apprehended and punished.[12]
Accused-appellant’s
attempt to destroy In-In’s credibility by pointing out her failure to report
the rape while she had the opportunity to do so at the Jiverte bus terminal in
Iligan City, is futile. In-In was
threatened by accused-appellant with death if she would shout for help while he
forced himself on her inside the bus. The fear for her life obviously stayed
with In-In while she was in the bus terminal. It is not uncommon for a girl of
tender age to be intimidated into silence by the mildest threat on her life.[13] Thus, our consistent doctrine is that delay
in reporting a rape, if sufficiently explained, does not affect the credibility
of a witness.[14]
Neither can the
commission of the rape be negated by the fact that it was perpetrated within
the well-lighted bus terminal premises where people usually gather. The
presence of people in a certain place is no guarantee that rape will not and
cannot be committed.[15] For rape to be committed, it is not
necessary for the place to be ideal, or the weather to be fine, for rapists
bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed.[16]
Consequently, in light of
the positive identification of accused-appellant by the victim
herself who harbored no ill
motive against him, the denial of accused-appellant must fail.[17]
The trial court is
correct in the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of P50,000.00 as
moral damages. We award an additional P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, consistent
with the ruling that rape victims are entitled to such an award without need of
proof except the fact of the commission of the rape.[18]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Lanao del Norte, Branch 5, Iligan City convicting accused-appellant Severo
Dayuha y Daso of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is
AFFIRMED, with modification that he is sentenced to pay civil indemnity to the
victim in the amount of P50,000.00, in addition to moral damages in the same
amount.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur.
[1] In
Crim. Case No. 5285, Decision, dated April 27, 1995, Judge Moslemen T.
Macarambon, presiding, RTC Records, pp. 88-102.
[2] RTC
Records, p. 1.
[3] RTC
Records, p. 26.
[4] TSN,
September 15, 1994, pp. 4-17.
[5] RTC
Records, p. 12.
[6] TSN,
July 21, 1994, pp. 8 and 16.
[7] TSN,
December 22, 1994, pp. 4-22.
[8] RTC
Records, p. 102.
[9] RTC
Records, p. 97.
[10] People
v. Antonio, G. R. No. 128149, July 24, 2000; People v. Lomerio,
G. R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000.
[11] People
v. Ulgasan, G. R. Nos. 131824-26, July 11, 2000.
[12] People
v. Antonio, G. R. No. 122473, June 8, 2000; People v. Sapinoso,
G. R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000; People v. Cabebe, 290 SCRA 543 (1998).
[13] People
v. Antonio, supra; People v. Abalde, G. R. No. 123113, March
31, 2000.
[14] People
v. Dequito, G. R. No. 132544, May 12, 2000; People v. Aliviano,
G. R. No. 133985, July 10, 2000.
[15] People
v. Mendez, G. R. No. 132546, July 5, 2000.
[16] People
v. Yparraguire, G. R. No. 124391, July 5, 2000; People v. Bayona, G. R. No.
133343-44, March 2, 2000.
[17] People
v. Aliviano, supra; People v. Cambi, G. R. No. 127131, June 8, 2000.
[18] People
v. Baid, G. R. No. 129667, July 31,
2000; People v. San Juan, G. R. Nos. 112449-50, July 31, 2000.