People and AAA v CA; G.R. No. 183652; February 25, 2015; Peralta, J.

FACTS:

Private respondents Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola were charged, together with Christian John Lim, Emmanuel dela Cruz, Samuel Rudinas, Jansen Roda, Harold Batoctoy, and Joseph Villame, for allegedly raping AAA, a 16-year old minor. AAA recently graduated and celebrated a dinner party with the respondents and their batchmates. In the party, AAA felt dizzy and when she laid her head to rest, Oporto started kissing her. She angrily told her to stop but Roda also kissed her. When AAA felt sleepy, she was forced to drink more by the respondents overhearing LIM saying to make her drunk. When she regained consciousness, she noticed they were in a lodging house. Oporto was on top of her having intercourse with her. She started crying as she told him to stop. The respondents took turns in raping her. When she woke up, she was without her lower garments and her upper half body on top of the bed but her feet were on the floor. When she arrived home and told her parents, her mother started hitting her. she was brought to the police station to file a report and to the hospital to be examined where they found that there were lacerations on her genitals and the presence of sperm.

The accused denied the rape. They even narrated that it was AAA who initiated kisses to them. They said that when they were looking for AAA, she was on top of Oporto. When they were at the lodging house, AAA was offered to be brought home but she insisted on staying. In the room they were staying, the accused narrated the details of the incident where AAA was willfully initiated the intercourse. RTC found Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola guilty but the rest of the accused were acquitted. CA reversed the decision on the grounds that the prosecution failed to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. CA even added that AAA did not cry for help nor fought when she was wide awake and aware of the intercourse. The CA added that in the medical examination it was found out that there were old hymenal laceration which would mean that she already had carnal knowledge with a man before. CA also stressed the unusual reaction of her mother of hitting her as if she is angry upon discovering that her daughter had sexual intercourse rather than sexually assaulted.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in acquitting the private respondents.

RULING:

Yes.

CA merely relied on the testimonies of the defense and utterly disregarded that of the prosecution. At first, it would seem as if it was a consolidation from both parties, but a closer look would provide that it was as if parroted from the testimonies of the accused. Due process requires that, in reaching a decision, a tribunal must consider the entire evidence presented, regardless of the party who offered the same. It simply cannot acknowledge that of one party and turn a blind eye to that of the other. It cannot appreciate one party's cause and brush the other aside. This rule becomes particularly significant in this case because the parties tendered contradicting versions of the incident.

The victim is crying rape but the accused are saying it was a consensual sexual rendezvous. Thus, the CA's blatant disregard of material prosecution evidence and outward bias in favor of that of the defense constitutes grave abuse of discretion resulting in violation of petitioner's right to due process

On CA’s argument that AAA did not shout for help while she was conscious during the incident, the CA must note that AAA was heavily intoxicated at the time of the assault. Under Art 266-A of RPC, the elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age. Here, the accused intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor more than she could handle. They still forced her to drink even when she was already obviously inebriated. They never denied having sexual intercourse with AAA, but the latter was clearly deprived of reason or unconscious at the time the private respondents ravished her. The CA, however, readily concluded that she agreed to the sexual act simply because she did not shout or offer any physical resistance, disregarding her testimony that she was rendered weak and dizzy by intoxication, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime. The appellate court never provided any reason why AAA's testimony should deserve scant or no weight at all, or why it cannot be accorded any credence. In reviewing rape cases, the lone testimony of the victim is and should be, by itself, sufficient to warrant a judgment of conviction if found to be credible. Also, it has been established that when a woman declares that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been raped, and where her testimony passes the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on that basis alone. This is because from the nature of the offense, the sole evidence that can usually be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony itself. The trial court correctly ruled that if AAA was not truthful to her accusation, she would not have opened herself to the rough and tumble of a public trial. AAA was certainly not enjoying the prying eyes of those who were listening as she narrated her harrowing experience. AAA positively identified the private respondents as the ones who violated her. She tried to resist, but because of the presence of alcohol, her assaulters still prevailed. The RTC found AAA's testimony simple and candid, indicating that she was telling the truth. The trial court likewise observed that her answers to the lengthy and humiliating questions were simple and straightforward, negating the possibility of a rehearsed testimony.

On the other hand, the RTC was not convinced with the explanation of the defense. It noted that their account of the events was seemingly unusual and incredible. Besides, the defense of consensual copulation was belatedly invoked and seemed to have been a last ditch effort to avoid culpability. The accused never mentioned about the same at the pre-trial stage. The trial court only came to know about it when it was their turn to take the witness stand, catching the court by surprise. More importantly, it must be emphasized that when the accused in a rape case claims that the sexual intercourse between him and the complainant was consensual, as in this case, the burden of evidence shifts to him, such that he is now enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each and every element of the crime and that it is the accused who is responsible for its commission. This is because in criminal cases, conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt. Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him. A prima facie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has produced evidence sufficient to support a finding and adjudication for him of the issue in litigation. However, when the accused alleges consensual sexual congress, he needs convincing proof such as love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship between the offender and his supposed victim. Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the complainant, the burden now shifts to the accused to prove his defense by substantial evidence.

The accused acknowledge having carnal knowledge of AAA but failed to prove the burden required of them. The RTC also noticed that Fiel, one of the defense witnesses, was showy and exaggerated when testifying, even flashing a thumbs-up to some of the accused after her testimony, an indication of a rehearsed witness. To be believed, the testimony must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness; it must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the attending circumstances.

When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence. The appellate courts are far detached from the details and drama during trial and have to rely solely on the records of the case in its review. On the matter of credence and credibility of witnesses, therefore, the Court acknowledges said limitations and recognizes the advantage of the trial court whose findings must be given due deference.

According to Dr. Acusta, when sex is consensual, the vagina becomes lubricated and the insertion of the penis will not cause any laceration. It presumed that complainant, therefore, was no longer innocent considering the presence of old hymenal laceration that could have resulted from her previous sexual encounters. The defense, however, failed to show that AAA was sexually promiscuous and known for organizing or even joining sex orgies. It must be noted that AAA was a minor, barely 17 years old at the time of the incident, having just graduated from high school on that same day. No woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of de􀀶oration, allow an examination of her private parts, and be subjected to public trial and humiliation if her claim were not true. And even if she were indeed highly promiscuous at such a young age, the same could still not prove that no rape was actually committed. Even a complainant who was a woman of loose morals could still be the victim of rape. Even a prostitute may be a victim of rape. The victim's moral character in rape is immaterial where, as in this case, it is shown that the victim was deprived of reason or was rendered unconscious through intoxication to enable the private respondents to have sex with her.

Moreover, the essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her consent. A freshly broken hymen is not one of its essential elements. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. To repeat, rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.

Neither does AAA's mother's act of hitting her after learning about the rape prove anything. It is a truism that "the workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and the people react differently." Different people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. At most, it merely indicates the frustration and dismay of a mother upon learning that her daughter had been de􀀶led after partying late the night before. It is a settled rule that when there is no showing that private complainant was impelled by improper motive in making

the accusation against the accused, her complaint is entitled to full faith and credence.

The Court, however, finds that the RTC erred in ruling that Alquizola's liability is not of a conspirator, but that of a mere accomplice. To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof as to previous agreement to commit a crime, it being sufficient that the malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. Conspiracy is proved if there is convincing evidence to sustain a finding that the malefactors committed an offense in furtherance of a common objective pursued in concert. Proof of conspiracy need not even rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from the collective conduct of the parties before, during or after the commission of the crime indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. Alquizola provided the room to execute the sexual assault and likewise stayed inside the room intently watching the assault – he did not do anything to stop the carnal knowledge. He even admitted kissing AAA.