FIRST DIVISION
[G. R. No.
122479. December 4, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ELLESOR T. SALAZAR, RAMIL T. SALAZAR (At Large), accused.
ELLESOR T. SALAZAR, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
Accused Ellesor
T. Salazar appeals from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Puerto
Princesa City, Branch 48 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape
committed against Ofelia Cordeta, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.
Upon the sworn
complaint of Ofelia Cordeta, on March 12, 1992, Puerto Princesa City Prosecutor
Albert R. Trinidad filed with the Regional Trial Court, Puerto Princesa City,
Branch 48 an information charging Ellesor T. Salazar and Ramil T. Salazar with
rape, committed as follows:
“That on or about the 18th day of
February, 1992, in the evening, at New Buncag, Barangay Mandaragat, Puerto
Princesa City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one
another, with the use of force, violence and intimidation and while armed with
a knife, did then and there wilfully [sic], unlawfully and feloniously have
sexual intercourse with Ofelia Cordeta, without the consent and against the
will of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[2]
The accused
Ellesor T. Salazar was detained; the prosecution recommended no bail for his
temporary release. Accused Ramil T.
Salazar remained at large.
Upon arraignment
on March 27, 1992, accused Ellesor T. Salazar entered a plea of not guilty.[3] Trial on the merits ensued.
Seventeen (17)
year old complainant Ofelia Cordeta testified that at about 4:00 in the
afternoon of February 18, 1992, while she was entertaining her boyfriend
Rolando Arcena at her house in New Buncag, Puerto Princesa City, accused
Ellesor T. Salazar arrived and invited them to a party. It was Ramil’s birthday and a party was
being held at Ellesor’s house, about two hundred (200) meters[4] away from complainant’s house. Rolando and Ofelia were initially hesitant
to go, but Ellesor prevailed upon them.
At the party,
Ellesor entertained Ofelia and Rolando in the sala, where he served them
food and juice. After eating, they
transferred to the kitchen and had beer.
Ofelia estimated that she consumed seven glasses of beer, which made her
dizzy. The same thing happened to
Rolando, who because of his drunkenness was not able to go home. He slept in one of the rooms at the second
floor of the house of accused Ellesor.
Ofelia told
Ellesor that she would like to go home.
Instead of taking her home, Ellesor brought her inside one of the rooms
in the second floor of the house, a room different from where Rolando slept. There were four (4) rooms in the second
floor.[5]
When they were
inside, Ellesor pushed Ofelia to the bed and she fell face up. He removed his pants, approached Ofelia and
undressed her. Ofelia struggled and
resisted the advances of accused Ellesor, but her efforts proved futile due to
her drunkenness. She felt very dizzy
and her head was throbbing. She was
weak and she could barely shout. The
sound she made was drowned by the loud music of the party downstairs.
When Ellesor
inserted his penis into her vagina,[6] Ofelia felt pain that affected her
entire being. He was on top of her for
about fifteen (15) minutes.[7] Afterwards, he left the room and
went downstairs.
Ramil entered
the room after Ellesor left. Armed with
a single-bladed knife, Ramil threatened Ofelia that she would not be able to go
home if she made any sound. Out of
fear, she passed out before accused Ramil could lay his hands on her. She was not sure whether Ramil had sexually
abused her. The only thing she
remembered was that she was naked when Ramil entered the room.
Ofelia regained
consciousness the following day at about 8:30 in the morning. When she woke up, she was already in her
house. Her boyfriend, Rolando Arcena,
brought her home. That day, she told
her mother that accused Ellesor had sexually abused her. She did not mention anything about accused
Ramil.[8]
When asked about
the kind of relationship complainant had with accused Ellesor, Ofelia replied
that their relationship was cordial. In
fact, she treated him as her best friend.
She denied that accused Ellesor courted her.[9]
Rolando Arcena,
Ofelia’s boyfriend, corroborated her story.
He said that in the afternoon of February 18, 1992, accused Ellesor T.
Salazar invited him and Ofelia to a birthday party being held at the latter’s
house. Rolando had known accused
Ellesor for about a year prior to February 18, 1992, and considered him a
friend.
Upon arrival at
Ellesor’s house, they were served food and drinks at the sala. After eating, he, Ofelia and Ellesor
transferred to the kitchen and downed three bottles of beer grande. Since he and Ofelia were not used to
drinking alcoholic beverages, they became drunk quickly. He noticed that Ofelia was getting dizzy and
was resting her head on top of the kitchen table.
Thereafter,
Ellesor took Rolando to one (1) of the four (4) rooms upstairs, where he slept
on the floor. Ofelia was left
downstairs. He did not know what
happened afterwards because he fell asleep.
He could not remember what time he was taken to the room, but he was
sure it was past 7:00 in the evening.
Rolando was
awakened when Ellesor wiped his face with a hot towel. He was still in the same room and he saw
Ofelia sleeping beside him. There was
nothing unusual in the person of his girlfriend who was still dressed in her
polo and skirt. He roused her from her
sleep and told her that they would go home.
Because Ofelia was so weak, Rolando assisted her on the way to her
house, fifty (50) meters away from the house of Ellesor. On the way, they met Ofelia’s mother, Mrs.
Maria Cordeta. No conversation
transpired between them. Ofelia did not
tell Rolando, or her mother, that accused Ellesor and Ramil Salazar raped her
that night.
Rolando denied
that Ellesor courted him or that he received any love letter from accused.[10] He did not rape his girlfriend Ofelia. He could not do it because he underwent
circumcision at the Palawan Provincial Hospital the week before the rape
incident or on February 11, 1992.[11]
Dr. Benjamin S.
Carlos, the doctor who circumcised Rolando, confirmed that under normal
condition, the circumcised man could not perform the sexual act one (1) week
after circumcision.[12] During such period of time, the
wound would still be fresh and the enlargement of the organ might cause
bleeding.
Mrs. Maria
Cordeta testified that at about 4:00 in the afternoon of February 18, 1992,
Rolando Arcena went to their house and fetched her daughter Ofelia. They were attending a party at the house of
accused Ellesor. Ofelia had an argument with Rolando, so she went back. Rolando followed her to the house. After a few minutes, Ellesor arrived and
persuaded them to go to the party.
After getting permission from Ofelia’s elder sister, they went to the
party.
Since it was
11:00 in the evening and her daughter had not arrived home yet, Maria went to
the house of accused Ellesor and inquired about her daughter. A drunken Ellesor came out of the house and
told her that Ofelia and Rolando had just left the party and would probably be
home by then. When she reached her
house, her daughter and her boyfriend were there. She noticed that her daughter was drunk.[13] The next day, Ofelia told her that
Ellesor and Ramil raped her. Maria knew
Ellesor because he often came to their house, but she did not know accused
Ramil.
The next
morning, February 19, 1992, Ofelia was physically examined at the Palawan
Provincial Hospital. The examination
conducted by Dr. Josephine Banaag, Medical Officer II, Provincial Health
Office, Palawan yielded the following results:
“EXTERNAL FINDINGS:
HEENT : Pinkish palpebral
conjuctiva
No contusion noted
C/L : Clear breath sounds
No contusion nor hematoma noted
Breast : Well developed breast
Brownish black nipple in erect position
Well rounded brownish areola
Heart : Normal
Abdomen: Flat soft, no contusion
nor abrasions noted
INTERNAL FINDINGS:
Mons Pubis: Well distributed,
scanty in amount, black hair
LABIA MEJORA: In close apposition
with each other, pinkish in color
Fourchet: No lacerations noted,
pinkish in color
Hymen : (+) Fresh laceration, 11 o’clock position
(+) Fresh laceration, 7 o’clock position
(+) Fresh laceration, 4 o’clock position
(+) Fresh laceration, 3 o’clock position
Cervix: with erosion at external
(+)
minimal whitish discharge
Laboratory Findings:
Gram
staining: (+) Gram negative bacilli
Wet
smear: For spermatozoa- negative”[14]
Afterwards, they
went to the police station and formally filed a complaint for rape against
accused Ellesor and Ramil Salazar.
Accused Ellesor
T. Salazar denied the charge against him.
He said that he could not have raped complainant because he did not want
a woman, but a man. He has “a woman’s
heart in thought, in words and in
feelings.”[15] In fact, he and complainant’s
boyfriend, Rolando Arcena, were having a relationship. Rolando became his classmate in June 1991,
at about which time he also proposed to him.
Rolando accepted his proposal in November of the same year. He knew about the relationship between
Rolando and complainant Ofelia Cordeta.[16]
On February 18,
1992, Ellesor invited Rolando Arcena to a party at his house. At about 4:00 in the afternoon of that day,
he fetched Rolando and Ofelia from the latter’s house, one hundred (100) meters
away from his house.
At the party,
Ellesor served food and juice to Rolando and Ofelia. After eating, they transferred to the kitchen and had some
beer. Around 8:00 in the evening
Rolando became drunk and dizzy. He took
Rolando upstairs and made him lie on the floor in one of the four (4) rooms
upstairs. Ofelia, who had consumed
around seven (7) glasses of beer also felt dizzy. She wanted to go home.
Instead, Ellesor accompanied her upstairs and made her lie in the same
room where Rolando was. There was no
bed in the room.
After about an
hour, he went back upstairs to check on the couple. He brought a hot towel to wipe Rolando’s face. He felt the urge to be physically intimate
with Rolando, who was his boyfriend.
Though Ofelia was in the same room.
She was too drunk to notice what Ellesor was doing to Rolando.
Ellesor performed
oral sex on Rolando, who despite his drunkenness responded to his sexual
advances by embracing him and uttering his name.[17] This lasted for one (1) hour. Afterwards, he went downstairs and helped in
preparing the food.
Ellesor knew
that Rolando had been circumcised the week before. When he sucked (chinupa)
Rolando’s penis, there was no inflammation and it was already healed.[18] He denied that his cousin Ramil
raped Ofelia. At past 7:00 in the
evening, Ramil left the party to go fishing with some of their neighbors whom
Ellesor failed to identify.[19]
Mrs. Concepcion
Garcia, a distant relative of accused Ellesor, testified that on February 18,
1992, she attended the party held at Ellesor’s house. About two hundred (200) persons attended the party. Around 7:30 in the evening, she went
upstairs and caught Rolando and Ofelia embracing each other and having sexual
intercourse in one of the rooms. Both
were naked and Rolando was on top of Ofelia, doing the push and pull
movement. Rolando saw Concepcion and
she quietly went down.[20]
Concepcion
reported to Ellesor what she saw upstairs.
Ellesor told her to leave them alone.
He told her that Rolando requested if he and Ofelia could go upstairs
and talk. Ofelia and Rolando had a
disagreement earlier that Rolando wanted to iron out. Concepcion knew that Rolando was Ellesor’s boyfriend. She testified in favor of her cousin Ellesor
because she knew that he did not rape Ofelia.[21]
Mrs.
Presentacion Salazar, Ellesor’s mother, testified that on February 18, 1992,
she arrived home from work at around 8:00 in the evening and noticed that the
children were whispering. She asked
them why and they told her that there were people upstairs. She went upstairs and saw Rolando and Ofelia
putting on their trousers. Upon seeing
them, she stomped her feet and scolded her son Ellesor for letting in
strangers. Thereafter, Rolando and
Ofelia went down and she did not see them again.
Three (3) days
later, or on February 21, 1992, Ellesor told her that it was Rolando who asked
permission that he and Ofelia be allowed to go upstairs so that they could
talk. At that time, Rolando and Ofelia
were not in good terms.
Presentacion
admitted that her son is gay. She knew
about the relationship between Rolando and her son because they were writing to
each other. She was not aware whether
Rolando and her son had sexual union that night. She loves her son despite his being gay. When asked what could be the reason why her
son was accused of a crime he did not commit, Presentacion said that it was
because they did not give the ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos that
complainant’s family demanded as amicable settlement.[22]
On June 21,
1995, the trial court rendered a decision finding accused Ellesor T. Salazar
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby
rendered finding accused ELLESOR SALAZAR GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
principal of the Crime of rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify complainant, Ofelia Cordeta the sum of
P50,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the
costs.
“It appearing that accused RAMIL
SALAZAR has not been apprehended nor voluntarily surrendered, let the case
against him be ARCHIVED, and let warrant be issued for his arrest.
“SO ORDERED.
“Puerto Princesa City, June 4,
1995.
(Sgd.) AMOR A. REYES
J u d g e”[23]
On June 30,
1995, accused Ellesor T. Salazar filed a notice of appeal.[24]
In his appeal,
accused Ellesor T. Salazar interposes the defense of denial and alibi. He questioned the credibility of
complainant’s testimony, which was the basis of his conviction. He alleged that the prosecution failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, hence, he is entitled to acquittal.
Although the
defense of alibi, like a bare denial, is weak, the prosecution, however,
is not released from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution must
rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence
adduced by the defense.[25]
A charge of rape
is a serious matter with pernicious consequences for accused and complainant.[26] It is with the greatest care and
caution that the Supreme Court examines the testimony of the complainant to
determine its veracity in light of human nature and experience.[27]
In reviewing
rape cases, the Supreme Court is guided by well-established principles,[28] such as: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is
difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent,
to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; (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.[29]
In the case at
bar, there are facts that augur against unquestionably accepting Ofelia’s
testimony as they invariably show its unreliability.
We find
improbable Ofelia’s testimony that Ellesor brought her to a different room when
the evidence clearly showed that she slept in the same room where her boyfriend
was. She said that she was made to lie
on the bed,[30] when in fact there was no bed in
the room where she was brought.[31] Her testimony remained
uncorroborated, while complainant’s own boyfriend, Rolando, has corroborated
that of Ellesor. Both Ellesor and
Rolando maintained that there was no bed in the room where he (Rolando) and
Ofelia slept, and that they slept on the floor.[32]
Ofelia testified
that Ellesor left her in the room completely naked and unclothed immediately
after the rape.[33] If the rape happened as Ofelia
would want to picture it did, how could she explain the fact that her boyfriend
found her lying beside him on the floor, sleeping soundly and fully dressed?
Rolando found nothing suspect about her appearance.[34] She was sleeping so soundly that
Rolando had to wake her up and accompany her to her house. We find it incredible and contrary to human
nature that accused Ellesor would go to the extent of dressing her up, fixing
her appearance, and transporting her body to the room where Rolando was
sleeping just to conceal a dastardly act.
Because by fussing over her in this manner, accused Ellesor would most
likely be caught, as the complainant would be roused from her sleep. The natural reaction of a person who has
committed a wrong is to flee from the place and stay away as far as possible
from the person he has wronged.
Most
importantly, her conduct and appearance immediately after the rape is of
critical value in gauging the truth of her accusations.[35]
If indeed she
has been raped that night, it is unbelievable that complainant’s boyfriend did
not observe anything unusual about her that could have immediately aroused his
suspicion that something bad happened to her.
Complainant did not look disheveled or harassed. Neither did her mother find anything suspect
about complainant when she saw her immediately after the alleged rape, other
than that she appeared drunk.
Circumstances,
which qualify criminal responsibility, cannot rest on mere conjecture, no
matter how reasonable or probable but must be based on facts of unquestionable
existence.[36]
To the contrary
in the mind of the Court, the evidence presented an entirely different
scenario. No rape happened; it was a
consensual sexual intercourse between complainant and her boyfriend Rolando.
Mrs. Concepcion
Garcia, a distant relative of accused Ellesor, testified that it was Rolando
and Ofelia whom she caught having sexual intercourse at about 7:30 in the
evening of February 18, 1992. Both were
naked and Rolando was on top of Ofelia, doing the push and pull movement. Rolando saw Concepcion and she quietly went
down.[37]
Mrs.
Presentacion Salazar corroborated this fact.
She said that when she arrived home from work at around 8:00 in the
evening on February 18, 1992 she noticed that the children were
whispering. When she asked them why,
she was told that there were people upstairs.
And when she proceeded upstairs, she saw Rolando and Ofelia putting on
their trousers.
The prosecution
neither discredited these witnesses nor attributed any ill motive against them
to make them lie in their testimony. A
witness’ testimony cannot be stripped of full faith and credit simply on
account of his relationship to the parties,[38] as in the instant case. Relationship can put the testimony of a
witness in doubt, but it cannot adversely affect credibility by itself.[39] Mere relationship does not
necessarily impair the credibility of a witness.[40] The testimony of these witnesses
regarding what actually transpired on that fateful night remained unrebutted.
At this point,
we wish to emphasize that judges must free themselves of the natural tendency
to be overprotective of every woman decrying her having been sexually abused,
and demanding punishment for the abuser.
While they ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation the rape
victim goes through, as she demands justice, judges must equally bear in mind
that their responsibility is to render justice based on the law and the facts.[41]
We entertain
serious doubts on the culpability of the accused. Rape is a charge easy to make, hard to prove and harder to defend
by the party accused, though innocent.
Experience has shown that unfounded charges of rape have been proferred
by women actuated by some sinister, ulterior or undisclosed motive. Convictions for such crime can not be
sustained without clear and convincing proof of guilt, indeed, beyond
reasonable doubt.[42] We have not hesitated to reverse
the conviction when there are strong indications pointing to the possibility
that the rape charges were false.[43]
Courts should
thus be wary in according undue credulity to claims of rape especially where
the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated
and whose conduct during and after the rape is susceptible to different
interpretations. In all prosecutions,
the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. Unless the presumption is overcome by evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to
mandatory acquittal.[44]
After a thorough
review of the evidence presented before the court a quo, we are for
acquittal of accused Ellesor T. Salazar.
His guilt has not been proved by the required quantum of evidence.[45]
WHEREFORE, we REVERSE the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Puerto Princesa City, Branch 48 in Criminal Case No.
10002. We ACQUIT accused-appellant
ELLESOR T. SALAZAR based on reasonable doubt.
We order his immediate RELEASE from confinement unless held for some
other lawful cause.
Costs de
oficio.
The Director,
Bureau of Corrections shall inform the Court of the release of the prisoner at
the bar within five (5) days from notice, or the reason for non-release.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., (Chairman) Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago JJ., concur.
[1] In Criminal Case No.
10002, Decision, dated June 4, 1995, Judge Amor A. Reyes, presiding, Rollo, pp. 27-37.
[2] Rollo, p. 5.
[3] RTC Record, p. 24.
[4] TSN, August 19, 1994,
p. 3. The witnesses gave contradicting
testimony regarding the estimated distance of the house of the victim to the
house of the accused. In its decision,
the trial court adopted the distance of two hundred (200) meters.
[5] TSN, October 8, 1993, pp. 9-11.
[6] Ibid., pp. 15-18.
[7] Ibid., p.20.
[8] Ibid., pp. 24-26.
[9] Ibid., p. 30.
[10] TSN, July 19, 1994,
p. 16.
[11] Exh. “C”, RTC Record,
p. 166.
[12] TSN, July 19, 1994,
p. 4.
[13] TSN, August 19, 1994,
pp. 1-4.
[14] Exh. “A”, RTC Record,
p. 164.
[15] TSN, September 30,
1994, p. 4.
[16] Ibid., pp. 22-25.
[17] Ibid., pp. 32-33.
[18] Ibid., p. 37.
[19] Ibid., pp. 30-31.
[20] TSN, October 3, 1994,
pp. 2-3.
[21] Ibid., pp. 10-12.
[22] TSN, October 4, 1994,
pp. 5-10.
[23] RTC Decision, Rollo,
pp. 27-37, at p. 37.
[24] Rollo, p. 39.
[25] People vs.
dela Cruz, G. R. No. 133921, June 01, 2000.
[26] People v.
Melivo, 323 Phil. 412 [1996].
[27] People v.
Obar, Jr., 323 Phil. 354 [1996].
[28] People v.
Alimon, 327 Phil. 4479 [1996].
[29] People v.
Ratunil, G. R. No. 137270, June 29, 2000; People v. Abrecinoz, 281 SCRA
59 1997]; People v. Castromero, 280 SCRA 421 [1997]; People v. People v.
Antipona, 274 SCRA 328 [1997]; People v. Butron, 338 Phil. 856 [1997];
People v. San Juan, 337 Phil. 375 [1997]]; People v. Echegaray,
327 Phil. 349 [1996]; People v. Subido, 323 Phil. 240 [1996].
[30] TSN, October 8, 1993,
p. 15.
[31] TSN, July 19, 1994,
p. 11.
[32] Ibid., pp. 13-14.
[33] TSN, October 8, 1993,
p. 24.
[34] Supra, Note 31.
[35] People v.
Ablaneda, 314 SCRA 334, 342 [1999],
citing People v. Cartuano, 325 Phil. 718 [1996].
[36] People v.
Rapanut, 331 Phil. 820 [1996].
[37] TSN, October 3, 1994,
pp. 2-3.
[38] People v.
Aliposa, 331 Phil. 774 [1996].
[39] People v.
Magana, 328 Phil. 721 [1996].
[40] People v.
Layaguin, 330 Phil. 756 [1996].
[41] People v.
Alvario, 341 Phil. 526 [1997].
[42] People v.
Salarza, Jr., 277 SCRA 578, 588 [1997], citing Aquino, Ramon C., The Revised
Penal Code, 1966 ed., p. 1575.
[43] People v.
Medel, 286 SCRA 567, 582 [1998].
[44] People v.
Medel, supra.
[45] People v.
Esmaquilan, 325 Phil. 576 [1996].