G.R. No. 173798, December 15, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RENE CELOCELO, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: For review is the Decision 1! of the "ourt of Appeals dated Februar# 2$, 200%, which affirmed with modification the Decision 2! rendered b# the &'", (ranch 2)5, *as Pi+as "it#, in "riminal "ase ,o. -$-10)-, findin. accused-appellant &ene "elocelo /"elocelo0 .uilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of the crime of &ape as defined and penali1ed under Article 2%%-A, para.raph 1, in relation to Article 2%%-(, para.raph 2, of the &evised Penal "ode, as amended b# &epublic Act ,o. $252, imposin. the penalt# of reclusion perpetua, and orderin. "elocelo to pa# the offended part# P50,000.00 as civil indemnit# and P50,000.00 as moral dama.es. 3n 4eptember 22, 1--$, "elocelo was char.ed before the &'" for the crime of &ape. 'he accusator# portion of the 5nformation reads6 'hat on or about the 2%th da# of 7ul#, 1--$, in the "it# of *as Pi+as, Philippines and within the 8urisdiction of this 9onorable "ourt, the above-named accused, armed with :nife and b# means of force, violence and intimidation with lewd desi.ns, did then and there willfull#, unlawfull# and feloniousl# have carnal :nowled.e with one AAA! a.ainst her will and consent thereb# sub8ectin. her to se;ual abuse. 2! "elocelo pleaded not .uilt# to the char.e when he was arrai.ned on December 1, 1---. <! 'rial on the merits followed the termination of the pre-trial conference. 'he prosecution offered three witnesses6 /10 Dr. Aurea P. =illena, >edico *e.al 3fficer 55 of the ,ational (ureau of 5nvesti.ation /,(50, who personall# e;amined AAA? 5!/20 4enior 5nspector >aril#n ,. 4amarita, the police investi.ator who re@uested the ,(5 to conduct the medico-le.al e;amination on AAA? and /20 private complainant AAA, the 1--#ear-old victim. 'he defense had two witnesses6 /10 &ene "elocelo, the accused? and /20 Ad.ardo de =era, the accusedBs brother in law. 'he prosecution first presented Dr. Aurea P. =illena, the >edico *e.al 3fficer 55 of the ,(5 who conducted the ph#sical e;amination on AAA on 7ul# 2%, 1--$. 9er findin.s, as stated in the medico-le.al report, are as follows6 F5,D5,C4 ;;;; P9D45"A* 5,7E&5A46 "ontusion, purplish, 0.5 cm ; 1.0 cm., ri.ht breast. CA,5'A* AFA>5,A'53,6 Pubic hairs, full# .rown, abundant. *abia ma8ora and minora, .apin.. Fourchette, la;. =estibular mucosa, pin:ish. 9#men, tall, thic:, with an old healed complete laceration at %600 oBcloc: position correspondin. to the face of a watch, ed.es rounded, non-coaptable. 9#menal orifice admits a tube 2.0 cm. in diameter. =a.inal walls, la;. &u.osities, shallow. "3,"*E453,46 1. 'he above-described ph#sical in8ur# was noted on the bod# of the sub8ect at the time of the e;amination. 2. 9#menal laceration present. %! Dr. =illena also testified that after conductin. a medico-le.al e;amination on AAA, she too: three va.inal smears from her and brou.ht it to the laborator# for seminal e;amination. )! 'he results were recorded in *aborator# &eport ,o. 4--$-2%). $! 'he report indicated that the va.inal smears .ave a positive result for the presence of human spermato1oa. Ghen the prosecutor as:ed Dr. =illena what this meant, she testified that positive semenolo.# is hi.hl# indicative of recent se;ual intercourse. -! 'he second witness presented was >aril#n ,. 4amarita. 4he was the police investi.ator who re@uested the ,(5 to conduct a medico-le.al e;amination on AAA. 4he was assi.ned as "hief of the Gomen and "hildrenBs des: at the *as Pi+as "it# Police 4tation at the time AAA went to her office. 4he testified that she made the re@uest when AAA came to her office to file a complaint. 10! 4he also testified that AAA came bac: on 7ul# 2-, 1--$ to inform her that the results will be out the followin. da#, 7ul# 20, but AAA will 8ust come bac: on 7ul# 21 to .ive her statement as she was not #et read#. 11! 'he third witness who too: the stand was the victim herself, AAA. 4he testified that on 7ul# 2%, 1--$, at around two oBcloc: in the mornin., while she was sleepin. in their house with her siblin.s, she was awa:ened b# "elocelo, who covered her mouth, and told her Hnot to ma:e an# scandal.I 12! 4he testified that "elocelo pulled her b# her hair and dra..ed her out of the bedroom towards the comfort room which was located outside their house. AAA said she pleaded to "elocelo not to abuse her but he i.nored her pleas and told her to undress. AAA claimed that "elocelo removed her 8o..in. pants and pant# while pointin. a lansetang dipindot /automatic :nife0 at her. 4he was then forced to sit on top of "elocelo, face to face, who b# then positioned himself on the toilet bowl, and while holdin. a :nife with his ri.ht hand and holdin. her arm with his left hand, proceeded to rape her b# movin. AAA up and down. AAA said that after "elocelo raped her, he told her to dress herself and not to tell an#bod# or he will come bac: to :ill her. AAA said that after the incident, she found herself on her sisterBs doorsteps, inconsolabl# cr#in.. AAA, to.ether with her sister, her sisterBs husband, and one of her brothers, went bac: to AAABs house to tell their parents who became h#sterical upon learnin. that AAA was raped. 'he# proceeded to the Barangay office to report the incident, and "elocelo was arrested that mornin. in his wor: place. "elocelo, in his testimon#, denied AAABs claim that he raped her. 9e said that he had been seein. and courtin. AAA for three months prior to the incident. 3n 7ul# 25, 1--$, he went to AAABs house at around ei.ht oBcloc: in the evenin.. AAA allowed him to enter her house, and it was then when he told her that he li:ed her. AAA favorabl# responded to his proposal with H Oo, sinasagot na kita,I and when he as:ed for a :iss, she willin.l# obli.ed. 9owever, after about 20 seconds of :issin., "elocelo said that AAA stopped for fear that her mother mi.ht catch them as the# were in the livin. room. 4he then too: his hand and led him to the comfort room outside their house. "elocelo said that it was AAA who undressed herself and it was she who sat on top of him to have

se;ual intercourse. 'he# a.reed to meet a.ain the followin. da# as it was his pa# da#, but when he reported for wor:, he was arrested for alle.edl# rapin. AAA. 12! Ad.ardo de =era was also presented as a witness for "elocelo. De =era is "eloceloBs brother-in-law and he testified that he was the one who introduced "elocelo to AAA. 9e claimed that AAA alwa#s watched "elocelo pla# bas:etball and she was particularl# happ# whenever the ball was in "eloceloBs hands. 9e also claimed that AAA would hold "eloceloBs hands when con.ratulatin. him and would as: him to pass b# their bench durin. time-outs. 1<! 3n Au.ust 21, 200<, the &'" convicted "elocelo for the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalt# of reclusion perpetua and to indemnif# the offended part# the sum of 3ne 9undred 'housand Pesos /P100,000.000. 'he dispositive portion of the decision reads6 G9A&AF3&A, 8ud.ment is rendered findin. accused &ene "elocelo CE5*'D be#ond reasonable doubt as char.ed and hereb# sentenced to suffer the prison term of reclusion perpetua and li:ewise suffer the accessor# penalt# provided for b# law and to pa# the complainant, AAA!, the sum of P100,000.00 and to pa# the costs. 15! 'he &'", in its decision, said that the issue it was faced with was whether or not the se;ual con.ress was attended with the use of force or intimidation. 'he &'" resolved the issue in the affirmative and held that it believed that there was indeed force and intimidation when "elocelo po:ed a :nife at AAA while havin. se;ual intercourse with her. 'he &'" said that it was but natural for AAA to not fi.ht bac: or even ma:e an# noise for fear of what "elocelo mi.ht do to her and her famil#. 'he &'" found AAA to be a credible witness as it had the opportunit# to observe the demeanor of AAA and saw that she was Hstrai.htforward in denouncin. the accused while he! appeared to be! impishl# smilin. as AAA! denounced him.I 1%! 3n intermediate appellate review before the "ourt of Appeals, "elocelo alle.ed that the &'" erred in findin. him .uilt# be#ond reasonable doubt and assi.ned the followin. errors6 5 '9A '&5A* "3E&' C&A=A*D A&&AD 5, C5=5,C FE** GA5C9' A,D "&ADA,"A '3 '9A 5,"&AD5(*A 'A4'5>3,D 3F '9A P&5=A'A "3>P*A5,A,'.

55 '9A '&5A* "3E&' C&A=A*D A&&AD 5, "3,=5"'5,C '9A A""E4AD-APPA**A,' 3F '9A "&5>A "9A&CAD DA4P5'A '9A FA5*E&A 3F '9A! P&34A"E'53, '3 P&3=A 954 CE5*' (AD3,D &AA43,A(*A D3E('. 555 '9A '&5A* "3E&' C&A=A*D A&&AD 5, ,3' >AJ5,C A F5,D5,C 3F FA"'4 5, 5'4 DA"5453,, G95"9 54 A &A=A&45(*A A&&3&. 1)! "elocelo alle.ed that AAABs Haccount of how she was raped b# "elocelo! is contrar# to human e;perienceI 1$! when she said that her 8o..in. pants and pant# were pulled down to her an:les and #et she was able to sit on top of him. "elocelo also asserted that the &'" was not able to prove his .uilt be#ond reasonable doubt as it relied mainl# on the testimon# of AAA. >oreover, "elocelo claimed that the &'"Bs decision was constitutionall# and procedurall# infirm as it Hdid not bother to state clearl# and distinctl# the facts and the law on which it was based,I 1-! as re@uired b# both the 1-$) "onstitution 20! and the 1--) &ules on "ivil Procedure. 21! 'he "ourt of Appeals sustained "eloceloBs conviction and addressed each of the assi.ned errors. Gith re.ard to the inconsistencies in AAABs testimon#, the "ourt of Appeals believed that the inconsistenc# "elocelo was pointin. out was full# e;plained in the same testimon#. ,e;t, the "ourt of Appeals defended the &'"Bs reliance on the testimon# of AAA, as the &'" found AAABs demeanor consistent with her alle.ation that "elocelo raped her. 'he "ourt of Appeals stated that the findin.s of the &'" Hon the credibilit# of the witnesses and their testimonies are .enerall# accorded .reat respect b# an appellate court,I 22! and since "elocelo was unable to present proof of overloo:ed or misappreciated facts and circumstances that would alter the results of the case, there was no reason to disre.ard the &'"Bs findin.s of facts. 3n the last assi.nment of error, the "ourt of Appeals held that the fact that the 8ud.ment ma# not be satisfactor# to "elocelo is not enou.h to convince it that the decision is flawed. 22! 'he "ourt of Appeals maintained that the conviction was based on facts on record and sound doctrines applicable to the case. 'he "ourt of Appeals further noted the 4olicitor CeneralBs ar.ument that, while the &'"Bs decision ma# be short, it is neither constitutionall# nor procedurall# infirm as onl# the Hessential ultimate factsI upon which the courtBs conclusion is drawn are re@uired to be stated in the courtBs decision. 2<! 5n findin. that the prosecution was able to establish "eloceloBs .uilt be#ond reasonable doubt, the "ourt of Appeals, on Februar# 2$, 200%, affirmed the &'" with clarification on the award, to wit6 G9A&AF3&A, the 8ud.ment of conviction is AFFIRMED with clarification that the award of HP100,000.00I should cover the /a0 civil indemnit# of P50,000.00 and /b0 moral dama.es ofP50,000.00. 25! 3n >arch 22, 200%, "elocelo filed his ,otice of Appeal and subse@uentl# filed a >anifestation that he is adoptin. the ar.uments in his AppellantBs (rief in this appeal. 'his "ourt believes that the resolution of this case hin.es upon whether or not "eloceloBs .uilt for the crime of rape was proven be#ond reasonable doubt. 5t is doctrinal that the re@uirement of proof be#ond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a de.ree of proof as to e;clude the possibilit# of error and produce absolute certaint#. 3nl# moral certaint# is re@uired or that de.ree of proof which produces conviction in an unpre8udiced mind. ; ; ;. 2%! 5n reviewin. rape cases, this "ourt is .uided b# three settled principles6 /10 an accusation of rape can be made with facilit# and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, althou.h innocent, to disprove? /20 considerin. the intrinsic nature of the crime, onl# two persons bein. usuall# involved, the testimon# of the complainant should be scrutini1ed with

.reat caution? and /20 the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw stren.th from the wea:ness of the evidence for the defense. 2)! &ape is a serious trans.ression with .rave conse@uences for both the accused and the complainant. Esin. the above .uidin. principles in the review of rape cases, this "ourt is thus dut#-bound to conduct a thorou.h and e;haustive evaluation of a 8ud.ment of conviction for rape. 2$! 'his "ourt has made a painsta:in. scrutin# of the entire records of the case, includin. both partiesB e;hibits and the transcript of steno.raphic notes, and finds no reason to reverse the "ourts below. "elocelo was char.ed in the information under Article 2%%-A, para.raph 1, in relation to Article 2%%-(, para.raph 2, of the &evised Penal "ode, as amended b# &epublic Act ,o. $252. 2-! "arnal :nowled.e of a woman under an# of the followin. instances constitutes rape6 /10 when force or intimidation is used? /20 when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious? and /20 when she is under 12 #ears of a.e. 20! 5n the case at bar, AAA .ave cate.orical testimon# that "elocelo was armed with a :nife when he forced himself upon her, to wit6 K6 9ow did #ou come to :now that he is made, ver# madL A6 9e pulled m# hair. K6 A6 K6 A6 K6 A6 K6 A6 K6 A6 K6 A6 Ghat else, if an#L 9e is also pointin. to me a LANSETANG DIPINDOT on m# ri.ht side. ,ow, after pullin. #our hair and pointin. a :nife at the ri.ht side of #our bod#, what else did &ene "elocelo doL 9e told me to undress m#self. Ghat did #ou do when &ene "elocelo told! #ou to undress #ourselfL 4till 5 pleaded to him, continuosl# pleadin. to him but he did the raped to me. And what happened after thatL And he removed m# pant#. 9ow did he remove #our pant#L Ghile his left hand is pointin. to me, at m# ri.ht side of m# bod#, he uses his other hand in removin. the pant#. After removin. the pant#, what else did he doL GINALAW NA NIYA PO AKO, he inserted his private parts to m# .enital. 21!

5t is evident from the fore.oin. that force with the use of a deadl# weapon was in fact emplo#ed b# "elocelo on AAA to accomplish his depraved desires that dawn. AAA pleaded for "elocelo to not abuse her but instead he threatened her and her famil#, to wit6 K6 Gh# did #ou not, at the time that &ene was dra..in. #ou towards the bathroom, wh# did #ou not shout and as: for help from #our housemateL A6 (ecause, accordin. to him if 5 will shout, he will not hesitate to :ill me. K6 A6 K6 A6 K6 A6 K6 A6 9ow did #ou feel, when he uttered those words to #ouL 4o, 5 :ept silent fri.ht and pleadin. to him. Gh# did #ou cr#L 5 onl# cried, sir, because 5 do not want that m# brothers who are also inside the bedroom will be affected, or will be involved. ,ow, how did #ou feel when &ene "elocelo uttered those words to #ouL PURO TAKOT NA PO. 5 am afraid, sir. From the time that &ene "elocelo was removin. #our 7o..in. Pants, or pullin. down #our 7o..in. Pants as well as #our pant#, wh# did #ou not shout and as: for helpL (ecause he is threatenin. me that he will :ill me if 5 will shout includin. m# brothers and sisters. 22!

"elocelo insists that both the &'" and the "ourt of Appeals erred in .ivin. full wei.ht and credence to AAABs testimon#, claimin. that her testimon# was incredible as the Hmanner as to how she was alle.edl# raped b# "elocelo! is patentl# incredible and contrar# to human e;perience and observation.I 22! "elocelo ma:es much of the fact that in one part of AAABs testimon#, she said that durin. the se;ual intercourse, her 8o..in. pants and pant# were onl# pulled down up to her an:les, while she was sittin. on top of "elocelo, with her le.s spread wide open. 2<! "elocelo however missed the more important fact that the &'" itself clarified this issue in the same testimon#6 "ourt6 (# the wa#, while the accused was pullin. #ou up and down, were #ou facin. him or #our face bac:wards of himL A6 5 was facin.. "ourt6 And at that time, #ou had #our 8o..in. pants down to #our an:leL A6 Well, i !"# o$l% &e o &e' ("i' o) &e *o++i$+ ("$ # !"# $o 'e,o-e., &e o &e' o$e !"# /o,(le el% 'e,o-e..

"ourt6 Do 5 understand correctl#, that while the accused was doin. the push and pull movement, #ou le.s were openL A6 Des, #our 9onor. 25! /Amphasis ours.0 5t is onl# human for AAA to not be able to readil# narrate the e;act details of her e;perience when @uestioned. 'he "ourt has in the past observed that H i!t would not reall# be unusual for one to recollect a .ood number of thin.s about an eventful incident but what should be stran.e is when one can put to mind ever#thin..I 2%! As this "ourt has time and a.ain declared6 Atched in our 8urisprudence is the doctrine that a victim of a sava.e crime cannot be e;pected to mechanicall# retain and then .ive an accurate account of ever# lurid detail of a fri.htenin. e;perience - a verit# born out of human nature and e;perience. 'his is especiall# true with a rape victim who is re@uired to utili1e ever# fiber of her bod# and mind to repel an attac: from a stron.er a..ressor. ; ; ;. 2)! 'his error cannot impair the credibilit# of AAA especiall# since first, the imputed inconsistenc# or incredible testimon# was later e;plained and clarified b# no less than the &'" itself, and second, the &'", who was in the best position to determine if AAA were indeed credible, believed her to be so, to wit6 'he "ourt had been observant of the demeanor of the complainant and the accused in the course of the trial and found that the complainant was strai.htforward in denouncin. the accused while the accused appeared impishl# smilin. as the complainant denounced him. 2$! Ge once a.ain reiterate the time-honored ma;im that the trial courtBs assessment of the credibilit# of witnesses is entitled to the hi.hest respect. 5t was the trial court that had the opportunit# to observe the witnessesB manner of testif#in., their furtive .lances, calmness, si.hs and the scant or full reali1ation of their oath. 2-! "elocelo also claims that the prosecution failed to prove his .uilt be#ond reasonable doubt. 5n rape cases, there are usuall# onl# two witnesses6 the complainant and the accused. 5t is a settled rule that rape ma# be proven b# the uncorroborated testimon# of the offended victim, as lon. as her testimon# is conclusive, lo.ical and probable. <0! As we have ascertained that AAA was a credible witness, it bears stressin. that her lone testimon#, which was also shown to be conclusive, lo.ical, and probable, is enou.h to convict "elocelo of the crime of rape. Ghat is essential is that AAA cate.oricall# identified her attac:er as "elocelo after she stated in open court and in her sworn statement that "elocelo dra..ed her b# her hair into the comfort room outside her house, threatened her with a :nife, undressed her, and then raped her. 'hese are the fundamental points in her testimonies constitutive of the crime of rape. <1! Ghat AAA did after the rape is also tellin.. 5mmediatel# after the incident, she mindlessl# wal:ed towards the house of her sister and 8ust cried on her doorstep. 'he# then informed their parents about what happened, and without dela#, the# reported the incident to the Barangay office. 3n the ver# same da#, AAA sub8ected herself to a thorou.h medico-le.al e;amination. 'he fore.oin. actions of AAA, subse@uent to the rape, overwhelmin.l# establish the truth of the char.e of rape. 'he# were spontaneous, impulsive and unpretentious. >oreover, "elocelo has not shown an# improper motive on the part of AAA for her to accuse him of rape. 'his "ourt has in man# cases held that no #oun. Filipina would publicl# admit that she had been criminall# abused and ravished, unless it is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. <2! 'hese facts were also found b# the &'", and stated in its decision, however short it ma# be. (orrowin. the "ourt of AppealsB words6 'he assailed decision ma# not be the :ind of 8ud.ment rendered to the satisfaction of the accused. (ut such is not enou.h to convince Es that it is flawed. <2! 'he &'" based its decision on the transcript of steno.raphic notes, and all the documents collected durin. the course of the trial. 5t e;plained wh# it believed AAA to be a credible witness and even described "eloceloBs demeanor durin. the trial. 5t used settled principles, as established b# this "ourt in its evaluation of the evidence and the records. 'he &'" cannot be faulted for its desire to be brief, concise, and strai.ht to the point in pennin. its decision. 5n fine, the prosecution was able to dischar.e its burden of provin. "eloceloBs .uilt be#ond reasonable doubt under Article 2%%-A, para.raph 1, in relation to Article 2%%-(, para.raph 2, of the &evised Penal "ode. "ivil indemnit# ex delicto is mandator# upon a findin. of the fact of rape. <<! >oral dama.es are automaticall# awarded without need of further proof, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actuall# suffered moral in8uries entitlin. the victim to such award. <5! 'a:in. into account the fact that the rape was attended with the use of a deadl# weapon, a @ualif#in. circumstance under Article 2%%-(, para.raph 2 of the &evised Penal "ode, an award of 'hirt# 'housand Pesos / P20,000.000 as e;emplar# dama.es is 8ustified. 'his :ind of dama.es is intended to serve as deterrent to serious wron.doin.s, as a vindication of undue sufferin.s and wanton invasion of the ri.hts of an in8ured, or as punishment for those .uilt# of outra.eous conduct. <%! WHEREFORE, the Decision of the "ourt of Appeals dated Februar# 2$, 200% findin. &ene "elocelo G0ILT1 be#ond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant is further ordered to pa# private complainant e;emplar# dama.es in the amount of P20,000.00 plus interest at the rate of %M per annum on A** dama.es from the date of finalit# of this 8ud.ment. ,o "osts. SO ORDERED.