People vs. Caparas
People vs. Caparas
People vs. Caparas
*
G.R. No. 170473. October 12, 2006.
(Formerly G.R. No. 146283)
Same; Same; Same; When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that
she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
was committed.—It has been consistently held in a long line of cases that
when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. In fact,
the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the
accused of the crime. AAA’s straightforward account of the incident
categorically established the commission of the crime of rape.
_______________
* EN BANC.
. /
305
Same; Same; Same; Alibi; For alibi to prosper, the appellant must not
only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he
must also convincingly demonstrate the physical impossibility of his
presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.—It is well-settled
that alibi is one of the weakest defenses because it is easily fabricated. For
alibi to prosper, the appellant must not only prove that he was somewhere
else when the crime was committed, he must also convincingly demonstrate
the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of
the incident. In the instant case, it was established that the house of the
uncle of appellant, where he purportedly was at the time of the commission
of the crime, was only 10 to 15 minutes away from the place of the incident.
Thus, it was not physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the
crime when it happened, rendering his defense of alibi unworthy of credit.
TINGA, J.:
1
Before this Court for automatic review is the Decision of the Court
of Appeals
2
in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00515, 3
which affirmed the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
_______________
/
1 Rollo, pp. 3-25. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred
in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Edgardo F. Sundiam.
2 Id., at pp. 40-42.
3 Presided by Judge Reynaldo V. Roura.
306
“That on or about the 1st day of October 1999 at about 10:30 o’clock in the
evening, in the barangay of San Isidro, [M]unicipality of Macabebe,
province of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused BERNIE TEODORO Y
CAPARAS, with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
5
feloniously succeeded in having carnal knowledge with [AAA ], 5 years of
age, while the latter was sleeping at her house.
Contrary to law.”
_______________
4 CA Rollo, p. 8.
5 The real name of the victim is withheld per R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262.
See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
6 The real name of the victim’s aunt is withheld to protect her and the victim’s
privacy, also pursuant to R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262.
/
307
illuminated by a 25-watt
7
electric bulb and two (2) small bulbs
installed at the altar.
At about 10:30 in the evening, AAA was fast asleep when she
was awakened after a man, later identified as the appellant, managed
to gain entry into the bedroom, approach 8the sleeping AAA, mount
her and insert his penis into her vagina. AAA screamed, causing
BBB to awaken. BBB quickly switched on the main light and saw
the man she recognized as the appellant inside the mosquito net,
9
atop AAA. They were both half-naked. Appellant got out of bed
immediately and covered his private parts. BBB asked appellant
how he was able to enter their room but the latter 10
did not answer.
BBB called and shouted 11
for her mother, CCC, who was watching
television downstairs. When CCC reached the12room of AAA, she
saw appellant suddenly jump out of the window.
Thereafter, AAA complained that her private parts were aching.
Upon inspection, BBB and CCC noticed that it was swollen and
reddish. When asked what appellant did to her, AAA relayed the
incident to her aunt and grandmother. AAA was brought to the
hospital the next day. Appellant was arrested the following night.
The medical examination conducted on AAA revealed that
AAA’s external genitalia and perineum on the labia majora bore a
“bilateral 0.5 cm, LCM abrasion,” while on the labia minora, the
anterior portion towards the 13
clitoris had a fresh abrasion about 0.5
cm with minimal bleeding.
Dr. Ma. Socorro Ibuen-Posadas (Dr. Posadas) who examined
AAA eventually testified on the medical findings. She
_______________
/
308
stated that the injuries found on the private organ of AAA could
have been caused by a man’s private organ forced to penetrate her
vagina. The fresh bleeding indicated that the injuries sustained were
recent, or at 14
least not more than three (3) days from the time of the
examination.
Appellant denied the accusation and raised the defense of alibi.
He averred that he spent the night at his uncle’s house in Caduang
Tete, Macabebe, Pampanga at the time of the incident, a claim
separately corroborated by his uncle. He further asserted that when
he was about to go to Macabebe Church the following day, he met
the father of AAA, who confronted him about the said incident.
Despite denying the accusations hurled against him, AAA’s father
still beat him and brought him to the police station.
At the trial, appellant also questioned the credibility of Dr.
Posadas as an expert witness as she had not completed the necessary
training in the field of her expertise and she was under the
supervision of a senior officer who was not a signatory to the
medico-legal report.
The RTC, in a Decision dated 29 September 2000, found
appellant guilty of rape and imposed the penalty of death pursuant to
15
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape
Law of 1997. The RTC also awarded P75,000.00 “by way of
damages.”
_______________
309
/
VOL. 504, OCTOBER 12, 2006 309
People vs. Teodoro
“The Court finds the explanation of the accused too shallow to be given
credit and weight. It is unthinkable that a five[-] year old girl, of tender age,
as well as her aunt and also her grandmother, would concoct the story of so
heinous an offense without any serious and valid reason.
The defense of alibi by the accused cannot prosper as he was not able to
prove that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime
scene or its immediate vicinity. In this case[,] his defense that he was in
Caduang Tete during the commission of the crime could not be appreciated
considering that the place of [the] incident can be negotiated for about 10 to
15 minutes. In the absence of strong and convincing evidence, alibi cannot
prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim as well
as her witnesses. The record does not show that the victim as well as her
kins [sic] have ill-motive against the accused.
As to the Medico[-]Legal OB-Gyne Report, which has been objected [to]
by the accused thru counsel that the doctor who issued the same is not
qualified[,] could not be sustained as the examination and findings are
merely corroborative in character. The doctor is found to be qualified to
testify on her findings.
The defense of the accused that the victim is an incompetent witness is
of no moment. It must be borne in mind that the victim is an innocent,
wholesome and naive five-year old girl, that this Court, or anyone for that
matter, cannot expect to articulate and verbalize all answers thrown at her.
Being a child and a victim of rape, her testimony can be expected to be quite
16
inconsistent and ambiguous although factual.”
17
Pursuant to this Court’s decision in People vs. Mateo, the case was
transferred to the Court of Appeals on 7 September 2004. On 30
August 2005, the appellate court affirmed with modification the RTC
decision. Sustaining the finding of guilt, the appellate court further
ordered appellant to pay P50,000.00
_______________
16 CA Rollo, p. 42.
17 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
310
/
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Teodoro
18
in moral damages, in addition to the earlier award of P75,000.00 as
19
civil indemnity.
In denying the appeal, the appellate court expounded on the
findings of the RTC. It accorded full credence to the candid,
forthright and consistent testimony of AAA in identifying the
appellant who raped her and concluded that the testimonies of rape
victims who are young and immature are credible. The appellate
court noted that AAA’s testimony was corroborated not only by
witnesses but by medical findings, as well. Debunking the twin
defenses of denial and alibi of appellant, it stressed that denial
cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of
AAA and it was not physically impossible, as the trial court found,
20
for appellant to be present at the crime scene.
Appellant alleges in his brief that the trial court erred (1) in
finding him guilty beyond reasonable of the crime of rape, and (2) in
21
imposing the death penalty.
Appellant impugns the credibility of AAA, pointing out that
when asked how she knew she was raped, she answered “because
my vagina hurts.” He claims that the trial court erred in accepting
this testimony as sufficient to establish the rape. Moreover, appellant
capitalizes on the medical finding that there was no laceration on the
22
vagina to exculpate himself from criminal liability.
In the review of rape cases where the credibility of the
complainant is in question, this Court consistently relies on the
assessment of the trial court. As aptly noted by the Solicitor General,
the findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of
witnesses command great weight and re-
_______________
18 CA Rollo, p. 105.
19 Id., at p. 19.
20 Rollo, pp. 20-21.
21 CA Rollo, pp. 25-26.
22 Id., at pp. 31-32.
311
Q Do you remember what happened to you one evening while you were
asleep in your house?
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. PANGILINAN
Questioning
What happened to you?
WITNESS
Answering
My vagina was aching, sir.
Q Why was your vagina aching?
A Someone went on top of me, sir.
Q Is he a man or a woman?
_______________
23 Id., at p. 67.
24 Perez v. People, G.R. No. 150443, 20 January 2006, 479 SCRA 209, 220, citing
Sim, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159280, 18 May 2004, 428 SCRA 459; Magno
v. People, G.R. No. 133896, 27 January 2006, 480 SCRA 276, 286, citing People v.
Escote, 431 SCRA 345 (2004).
25 People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 168101, 13 February 2006, 482 SCRA 435, 448;
People v. Antivola, G.R. No. 139236, 3 February 2004, 421 SCRA 587, 596, citing
People v. Fernandez, 351 SCRA 80 (2001); People v. Montes, G.R. Nos. 148743-45,
18 November 2003, 416 SCRA 103, 116; People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 139181, 27
October 2003, 414 SCRA 480, 489.
312
Q When she turned on the light, did you see the man who sexually abused
you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you see his face?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know his name?
A No, sir.
Q If that man who sexually abused you that evening by inserting his penis
to your vagina is in the courtroom, will you point to him?
A Yes, sir. That man.
(Witness pointed to a man inside
27
the courtroom, who, when asked, gave
his name as Bernie Teodoro)
_______________
313
314
Q In your medical certificate, your findings are stated here: Bilateral 0.5
cm., 1 cm abrasion. [W]ill you tell us the exa ct location of this?
A I just told you, it is in the anterior portion towards the clitoris, ma’am.
Are you familiar with the genitalia?
ATTY. CRUZ
Questioning
Of course, I am a woman.
WITNESS
Answering
I even drew it. Would you like to see my drawing?
ATTY. CRUZ
I would like to see your drawing.
WITNESS
(Witness showing the same) So, this is the clitoris, this is the hymenal
ring, this is the labia majora[,] there is a 0.5-1cm abrasion.
Q In the labia majora?
A In the labia majora, ma’am.
Q Not in the labia minora?
A Yes, ma’am, because the labia minora of the child is not yet fully
developed.
Q How about the vaginal orifice, where is that?
A It is inside the vagina, ma’am.
Q Covered by the hymen, am I right?
A Yes, ma’am. This is the hymenal ring, it is intact. (Witness referring to
her drawing).
_______________
315
Q Will you kindly inform this Honorable Court what was that unusual
incident that happened inside your room?
_______________
316
On the other hand, CCC was watching television in the same house
when she heard AAA shouting. Said the witness:
_______________
317 /
VOL. 504, OCTOBER 12, 2006 317
People vs. Teodoro
Q While you were watching t.v. at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening do
you remember if there was anything unusual that happened in your
house?
A Yes[,] sir. [M]y granddaughter suddenly shouted[,] sir.
Q What were the shout[s] of your granddaughter[,] if you remember?
A She was calling me[,] sir[,] and after a short while [BBB] was awaken
sir.
Q Will you tell us the exact words of your granddaughter when she was
calling you?
A She shouted “Nanay,” “Nanay” sir.
Q When you heard your granddaughter calling you[,] what did you do?
A I immediately stood up[,] sir[,] and ascended the stairs.
xxxx
Q What did you see?
A I saw Bernie Teodoro about to stand while he was looking at [BBB] and
then afterwards he jumped out over [sic] the window sir.
Q You said you saw Bernie Teodoro. [W]hat was his position when you
saw him?
36
A He was naked [from the] waistdown[,] sir.
_______________
318
/
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Teodoro
lant must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime
was committed, he must also convincingly demonstrate the physical
impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the
38
incident. In the instant case, it was established that the house of the
uncle of appellant, where he purportedly was at the time of the
commission of the crime,39
was only 10 to 15 minutes away from the
place of the incident. Thus, it was not physically impossible for
appellant to be at the scene of the crime when it happened, rendering
his defense of alibi unworthy of credit. As correctly observed by the
appellate court:
_______________
15 October 2003, 413 SCRA 397, 411, citing People v. Delim, 444 Phil. 430; 396
SCRA 386 (2003).
38 Velasco v. People, supra note 37, citing People v. Alfaro, G.R. Nos. 136742-43,
30 September 2003, 412 SCRA 293, 305; People v. Limio, G.R. Nos. 148804-06, 27
May 2004, 429 SCRA 597, 612, citing People v. Besmonte, G.R. Nos. 137278-79, 17
February 2003, 397 SCRA 513, 527, citing People v. Lachica, G.R. No. 143677, 9
May 2002, 382 SCRA 162, 176.
39 TSN, 1 August 2000, p. 9.
319
/
VOL. 504, OCTOBER 12, 2006 319
People vs. Teodoro
crime. Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at
40
the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water.”
_______________
320
——o0o——
_______________
400 SCRA 447 (2003); People v. Prades, 355 Phil. 150; 293 SCRA 411 (1998).
45 People v. Quiachon, G.R. No. 170236, 31 August 2006, 500 SCRA 704.
321