People vs. Conde

G.R. No. 112034 (January 31, 1996)

Rizaldy Conde y Cortez's rape conviction upheld, indemnity increased from P20,000 to P50,000.

Facts:

On the early morning of October 31, 1990, AAA, a 38-year-old housewife, was allegedly raped by Rizaldy Conde y Cortez (the accused) while she was asleep in her home. Upon waking, AAA found the accused on top of her, with his penis penetrating her. She shouted at him, prompting him to flee. As he exited the house, he encountered AAA's sister, daughters, and a male friend, EEE, who confronted him. A scuffle ensued, and the accused was apprehended by neighbors and brought to the local barangay councilman, who then took him to the police station.

AAA reported the incident to the police and executed a sworn statement shortly after the assault. She underwent a physical examination at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) later that day. The medico-legal examination revealed no signs of extragenital injuries, but noted that the vaginal orifice was wide enough to allow penetration without causing new hymenal injury, which was explained by her having given birth to three children.

The accused, in his defense, claimed he was intoxicated the night before and had no recollection of the events leading to his arrest. He denied the charge of rape, suggesting that the accusation was fabricated due to envy from the investigating officer, who was a neighbor of AAA.

The trial court found the accused guilty of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay civil indemnity to AAA.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that rape was committed.
  2. Whether the testimonies of AAA and her daughter, CCC, were credible and sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. Whether the absence of physical injuries on AAA negated the occurrence of rape.

Arguments:

For the Prosecution:

  • AAA's immediate reaction upon waking, her attempt to chase the accused, and her prompt reporting of the incident to authorities demonstrated her credibility and sincerity.
  • The medico-legal findings supported the claim of rape, as penetration can occur without causing visible injuries, especially in women who have given birth.
  • The testimonies of AAA and her daughter were consistent and corroborated each other, establishing a clear narrative of the events.

For the Defense:

  • The accused argued that the absence of physical injuries and the medico-legal findings indicated that no rape occurred.
  • He claimed inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and CCC, suggesting that their accounts were not credible.
  • The defense posited that the circumstances surrounding the accusation were implausible, given the accused's intoxication and lack of motive for the alleged crime.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the credibility of witnesses is primarily determined by the trial court, which has the advantage of observing their demeanor. The court ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court clarified that rape can occur even if the victim is asleep, as defined under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which includes situations where the woman is unconscious. The absence of physical injuries was explained by the medico-legal officer's testimony, which indicated that the victim's prior childbirth could account for the lack of new injuries.

The court also addressed the alleged inconsistencies in testimonies, stating that minor discrepancies do not undermine the overall credibility of the witnesses. The spontaneity of AAA's actions post-assault further supported her credibility.

The court modified the civil indemnity awarded to AAA, increasing it from P20,000 to P50,000, aligning with current judicial policies regarding compensation for victims of rape.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • Rape can be committed against a woman who is asleep or unconscious, as per Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • The credibility of witnesses is best assessed by the trial court, which has the opportunity to observe their demeanor and manner of testifying.
  • Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not necessarily detract from their overall credibility and may even enhance it by indicating that the testimony was not rehearsed.