FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 177320 : February 22, 2012]

PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES, PL!INTIFF"!PPELLEE, VS. #ES!R $!%TIST! & S!NTOS,
!##%SED"!PPELL!NT.
D E # I S I O N
$ERS!'IN, J.:
Under review is the conviction of the accused for illegal sale and illegal possession of shaburespectively
punished under Section 5 and Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No !1"5 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002) #e had been tried for and found guilty of the offenses by the Regional $rial %ourt
(R$%)& 'ranch 1()& %aloocan %ity& and the %ourt of Appeals (%A) had affir*ed the convictions through
the decision pro*ulgated on +ebruary 15& (,,)
-1.
cralaw
!()e*e+e(),
/n April (0& (,,3& the /ffice of the %ity 1rosecutor of %aloocan %ity filed in the R$% two separate
infor*ations charging %esar 'autista y Santos with a violation of Section 5 and a violation of Section 11
(3) of RA !1"5& alleging thus2
%ri*inal %ase No %3")!!3
$hat on or about the (5th day of April (,,3 in %aloocan %ity& 4etro 4anila and within the 5urisdiction of
this #onorable %ourt& the above3na*ed accused& without being authori6ed by law& did then and there
willfully& unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession& custody and control si7 (") pieces of plastic
sachets containing 48$#9:A41#8$A4;N8 #9<R/%#:/R;<8 (Shabu) weighing ,,5 gra*& ,,!
gra*& ,,5 gra*& ,,! gra*& ,,) gra* = ,," gra* >nowing the sa*e to be dangerous drug under the
provisions of the above3cited law
%/N$RAR9 $/ :A?
-(.
%ri*inal %ase No %3")!!@
$hat on or about the (5th day of April (,,3 in %aloocan %ity& 4etro 4anila and within the 5urisdiction of
this #onorable %ourt& the above3na*ed accused without authority of law& did then and there willfully&
unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to 1/( A4A<8/ $A9AA who posed& as buyer
48$#A41#8$A4;N8 #9<R/%#:/R;<8 (S#A'U) weighing ,,5 gra*& a dangerous drug& without the
corresponding license or prescription therefore& >nowing the sa*e to be such
%/N$RAR9 $/ :A?
-3.
E-.+e(*e o/ )0e Pro,e*u).o(
;n the afternoon of April (5& (,,3& an infor*ant went to the Station <rug 8nforce*ent Unit of the
%aloocan 1olice Station to report the peddling of illegal drugs by 'autista on Basa*a Street& 'arangay
(0& %aloocan %ity +orthwith& 1olice ;nsp %esar %ru6 for*ed a tea* consisting of S1/1 Ro**el
9baCe6& 1/3 Ri6alino Rangel& 1/( Dessie %aragdag& 1/( Duanito Rivera& and 1/( A*adeo : $ayag to
conduct a buy3bust operation against 'autista 1/( $ayag& designated as the poseur3buyer& was given a
11,,,, bill as buy3bust *oney& on which he placed his initials A:$ $he rest of the buy3bust tea* would
serve as bac> up for 1/( $ayag $he tea* proceeded to the target area with the infor*ant
-@.
Upon arriving at the target area& the infor*ant pointed out 'autista to the tea* 'autista was then
standing in front of a house 1/( $ayag and the infor*ant then approached 'autista even as the rest of
the tea* too> up positions nearby $he infor*ant introduced 1/( $ayag to 'autista as biyahero ng
shabu& after which the infor*ant left 1/( $ayag and 'autista alone to the*selves 1/( $ayag told
'autista2 Cesar, pakuha ng piso 'autista drew a plastic sachet fro* his poc>et and handed it to 1/(
$ayag& who in turn handed the 11,,,, bill buy3bust *oney to 'autista 1/( $ayag then turned his cap
bac>wards as the pre3arranged signal to the bac>3up *e*bers $he latter rushed forward and arrested
'autista Upon infor*ing 'autista of his constitutional rights& S1/1 9baCe6 fris>ed hi* and found in his
poc>et si7 other plastic sachets& while 1/( %aragdag sei6ed the buy3bust *oney fro* 'autistaEs hand
$he tea* brought 'autista and the sei6ed plastic sachets bac> to the police station
-5.
;n the police station& the tea* recorded the buy3bust bill in the police blotter and turned over the plastic
sachets to 1/( #ector %astillo& the investigator on duty
-".
1/( %astillo *ar>ed the sachet handed by
'autista to 1/( $ayag as F%'S ('autistaEs initials) 'uy3bust&G and the other si7 sachets recovered by
S1/1 9baCe6 fro* appellantEs possession as F%'S31&G F%'S3(&G F%'S33&G F%'S3@&G F%'S35&G and F%'S3
"G
-).
'ased on the written reHuest of ;nsp %ru6& +orensic %he*ist Albert S Arturo conducted a laboratory
e7a*ination on the contents of the *ar>ed sachets&
-0.
and stated in his 1hysical Science Report that the
*ar>ed sachets contained *etha*pheta*ine hydrochloride or shabu& a dangerous substance $he
1hysical Science Report enu*erated the *ar>ed sachets e7a*ined and gave the weight of the shabuin
each as follows2 F%'S ('autistaEs initials) 'uy3bustG I ,,5 gra*J F%'S31G I ,,5 gra*J F%'S3(G I ,,!
gra*J F%'S33G I ,,5 gra*J F%'S3@G I ,,! gra*J F%'S35G I ,,) gra*J and F%'S3"G I ,," gra*
-!.
E-.+e(*e o/ )0e !**u,e+
'autista denied the charge #e clai*ed that on April (5& (,,3& at around "2,, p*& he and his wife&
Rosario& were in their house cutting cloth to be *ade into door *ats when 1/( $ayag and two others
barged inJ that when he as>ed what they wanted& they told hi* that it was none of his businessJ that the
three introduced the*selves as police*en and ordered hi* to go with the*J that they forced hi* to go
with the*& with 1/( $ayag hitting hi* on the napeJ that as they were wal>ing on the road& they de*anded
*oney fro* hi*& but he told the* that he had noneJ and that he was brought to and detained at the
%aloocan %ity Dail
-1,.
De*.,.o( o/ )0e RT#
After trial& the R$% found 'autista guilty as charged through its 5oint decision dated Septe*ber 5& (,,5&
-11.
disposing2
?#8R8+/R8& pre*ises considered and the prosecution having established to a *oral certainty the guilt
of Accused %8SAR 'AU$;S$A y SAN$/S K %8SAR $AA;:;<& this %ourt hereby renders 5udg*ent as
follows2
1 ;n %ri*inal %ase No %3")!!3 for Liolation of Sec 11& Art ;; of RA !1"5& this %ourt in the absence of
any aggravating circu*stance hereby sentences sa*e Accused to a prison ter* of twelve (1() years&
eight (0) *onths and one day to seventeen (1)) years and eight (0) *onths and to pay the fine of $hree
hundred thousand pesos (13,,&,,,,,) with subsidiary i*prison*ent in case of insolvencyJ and
( ;n %ri* %ase No %3")!!@ for Liolation of Section 5& Art ;; of RA !1"5& this %ourt in the absence of
any aggravating circu*stance hereby sentences said Accused to :;+8 ;41R;S/N48N$& and to pay the
fine of +ive hundred thousand pesos (15,,&,,,,,) with subsidiary i*prison*ent in case of insolvency
Sub5ect drug in both cases are declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of the govern*ent to be dealt
with in accordance with law
SO ORDERED.
De*.,.o( o/ )0e #!
/n +ebruary 15& (,,)& the %A affir*ed the R$% 5udg*ent& pertinently holding2
-1(.
;n su*& the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of herein appellant beyond reasonable doubt $he
actual sale of prohibited or regulated drugs coupled with their presentation in court has been sufficiently
proven by the testi*onies of the prosecution witnesses $heir recount of the incident co*ple*ent each
other& giving a co*plete picture on how the illegal sale of shabu transpired and how the sale led to the
apprehension of appellant in flagrante delicto $heir testi*onies li>ewise established beyond doubt that
appellant was found in actual possession of si7 (") additional pieces of heat3sealed sachets containing
white crystalline substance (shabu) when he was arrested
AppellantEs clai*& therefore& that in convicting hi*& the trial court *erely relied on the presu*ption that
official duty has been regularly perfor*ed is without *erit AppellantEs conviction was based on
established facts and evidence on record
?#8R8+/R8& in view of the foregoing& the Doint <ecision of the Regional $rial %ourt of %aloocan %ity&
'ranch 1() in %ri*inal %ases Nos %3")!!3 and %3")!!@ is A++;R48< in toto
SO ORDERED.
I,,ue,
#ence& this appeal& in which 'autista contends that the %A erred in affir*ing his conviction because2 (a)
there were inconsistencies in the testi*onies of 1rosecution witnesses as to who of the* had actually
received the tip fro* the infor*antJ (b) 1/( $ayagEs testi*ony that 'autista had handed hi* a sachet
of shabu without inHuiring about the for*erEs identity ran counter to hu*an e7perienceJ (c) the bac>3up
*e*bers of the buy3bust tea* did not actually witness the transaction between 1/( $ayag and 'autistaJ
and (d) the plastic sachets were not i**ediately *ar>ed after their sei6ure fro* 'autista
-13.
Ru1.(2
$he appeal lac>s *erit
I
I11e2a1 ,a1e a(+ .11e2a1 3o,,e,,.o( o/ shabu
4ere e,)ab1.,0e+ beyo(+ rea,o(ab1e +oub)
Section 5 and Section 11 of Republic Act No !1"5 pertinently provide as follows2
Section 5 Sale& Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and ssential Chemicals I $he penalty of life
i*prison*ent to death and a fine ranging fro* +ive hundred thousand pesos (15,,&,,,,,) to $en *illion
pesos (11,&,,,&,,,,,) shall be i*posed upon any person& who& unless& authori6ed by law& shall sell&
trade& ad*inister& dispense& deliver& give away to another& distribute& dispatch& in transit or transport any
dangerous drug& including any and all species of opiu* poppy regardless of the Huantity and purity
involved& or shall act as a bro>er in any such transactions
7 7 7
Section 11 Possession of Dangerous Drugs I $he penalty of life i*prison*ent to death and a fine
ranging fro* +ive hundred thousand pesos (15,,&,,,,,) to $en *illion pesos (11,&,,,&,,,,,) shall be
i*posed upon any person& who& unless authori6ed by law& shall possess any dangerous drug in the
following Huantities& regardless of the degree of purity thereof2
7 7 7
/therwise& if the Huantity involved is less than the foregoing Huantities& the penalties shall be graduated
as follows2
7 7 7
(3) ;*prison*ent of twelve (1() years and one (1) day to twenty ((,) years and a fine ranging fro* $hree
hundred thousand pesos (13,,&,,,,,) to +our hundred thousand pesos (1@,,&,,,,,)& if the Huantities
of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) gra*s of opiu*& *orphine& heroin& cocaine& or cocaine
hydrochloride *ari5uana resin or *ari5uana resin oil& *etha*pheta*ine hydrochloride or Fshabu&G or other
dangerous drugs such as& but not li*ited to& 4<4A or Fecstacy&G 14A& $4A& :S<& A#'& and those
si*ilarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives& without having any therapeutic value or
if the Huantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic reHuire*entsJ or less than three hundred (3,,) gra*s
of *ari5uana
$o secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu& the following essential ele*ents *ust be established2 (a)
the identities of the buyer and the seller& the ob5ect of the sale& and the considerationJ and (b) the delivery
of the thing sold and the pay*ent for the thing ?hat is *aterial in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually too> place& coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti as evidence
-1@.
$he reHuisites for illegal sale of shabu were co*petently and convincingly proven by the 1rosecution
1/( $ayag& as the poseur3buyer& attested that 'autista sold shabu to hi* during a legiti*ate buy3bust
operation
-15.
According to +orensic %he*ist Arturo& the substance sub5ect of the transaction& which
weighed ,,5 gra*& was e7a*ined and found to be *etha*pheta*ine hydrochloride or shabu& a
dangerous drug
-1".
1/( %aragdag declared that he recovered the buy3bust *oney fro* 'autistaEs hand
right after the sale
-1).
+urther& the 1rosecution later presented as evidence both the sachet of shabu
sub5ect of the sale and the buy3bust *oney used in the buy3bust operation
-10.
$hereby& the 1rosecution
directly incri*inated 'autista
+or illegal possession of a dangerous drug& li>e shabu& the ele*ents are2 (a) the accused is in possession
of an ite* or ob5ect that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drugJ (b) such possession is not
authori6ed by lawJ and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug
-1!.
$he ele*ents of illegal possession of a dangerous drug were si*ilarly co*petently and convincingly
established by the 1rosecution S1/1 9baCe6 stated that upon seeing the pre3arranged signal given by
1/( $ayag& he and the other *e*bers of the tea* proceeded to arrest 'autistaJ and that he fris>ed
'autista and then recovered si7 other plastic sachets fro* 'autistaEs poc>et
-(,.
Undoubtedly& the fris>ing
was legally authori6ed as a search incidental to the lawful arrest of 'autista for evidence in the
co**ission of illegal drug pushing
-(1.
+orensic %he*ist Arturo certified that each of the sachets
contained different shabu of different weights
-((.
$he lower courts 5ustifiably accorded credence to the eyewitness testi*onies of 1/( $ayag& 1/(
%aragdag& and S1/1 9baCe6 $heir testi*onial accounts were consistent with the docu*entary and
ob5ect evidence of the 1rosecution ;t was significant that no ill *otive was i*puted to the* to falsely
testify against 'autista& with 'autista hi*self ad*itting not being aware of any reason why they would
wrongly incri*inate hi*
-(3.
;n drug3related prosecutions& the State bears the burden not only of proving the ele*ents of the offenses
of sale and possession of shabu under Republic Act No !1"5& but also of proving the corpus delicti& the
body of the cri*e FCorpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the cri*e and& in its
pri*ary sense& refers to the fact that a cri*e has been actually co**itted As applied to a particular
offense& it *eans the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged $he corpus delicti is
a co*pound fact *ade up of two (() things& vi!2 the e7istence of a certain act or result for*ing the basis
of the cri*inal charge& and the e7istence of a cri*inal agency as the cause of this act or resultG
-(@.
$he
dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the possession of the
dangerous drug
-(5.
%onseHuently& the State does not co*ply with the indispensable reHuire*ent of
proving corpus delicti when the drug is *issing& and when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody
of the sei6ed drugs as to raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court
-(".
$o ensure that the chain of custody is established& Section (1 of Republic Act No !1"5 relevantly
provides2
Section (1 Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, "ei!ed, and/or "urrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
"ources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and ssential Chemicals, #nstruments/Paraphernalia
and/or $aboratory %uipment&
777
(1) $he apprehending tea* having initial custody and control of drugs shall& i**ediately after sei6ure
and confiscation& physical inventory and photograph the sa*e in the presence of the accused or the
personMs fro* who* such ite*s were confiscated andMor sei6ed& or hisMher representative or counsel& a
representative fro* the *edia and the <epart*ent of Dustice (</D)& and any elected public official who
shall be reHuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereofJ
777
$he co*ple*entary ;*ple*enting Rules and Regulations (;RR) of Republic Act No !1"5 instructs the
apprehending officer or tea* on the custody and control of the confiscated drugs in the following *anner2
777
(a) $he apprehending officerMtea* having initial custody and control of the drugs shall& i**ediately after
sei6ure and confiscation& physically inventory and photograph the sa*e in the presence of the accused or
the personMs fro* who* such ite*s were confiscated andMor sei6ed& or hisMher representative or counsel&
a representative fro* the *edia and the <epart*ent of Dustice (</D)& and any elected public official who
shall be reHuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof2 1rovided& that the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is servedJ or
at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officerMtea*& whichever is
practicable& in case of warrantless sei6uresJ 1rovided& further& that non3co*pliance with these
reHuire*ents under 5ustifiable grounds& as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the sei6ed
ite*s are properly preserved by the apprehending officerMtea*& shall not render void and invalid such
sei6ures of and custody over said ite*sJ
777
$he rule on chain of custody under the foregoing enact*ents e7pressly de*ands the identification of the
persons who handle the confiscated ite*s for the purpose of duly *onitoring the authori6ed *ove*ents
of the illegal drugs andMor drug paraphernalia fro* the ti*e they are sei6ed fro* the accused until the
ti*e they are presented in court ;n this regard& Section 1(b) of <angerous <rugs 'oard Regulation No 1&
Series of (,,( defines the chain of custody rule as follows2
b F%hain of %ustodyG *eans the +u1y re*or+e+ au)0or.5e+ 6o-e6e(), and custody of sei6ed drugs or
controlled che*icals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory eHuip*ent of each stage& /ro6
)0e ).6e o/ ,e.5ure7*o(/.,*a).o( )o re*e.3) .( )0e /ore(,.* 1abora)ory )o ,a/e8ee3.(2 )o 3re,e()a).o(
.( *our) /or +e,)ru*).o(. Such record of *ove*ents and custody of sei6ed ite* shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held te*porary custody -was. of the sei6ed ite*& the date and ti*e when
such transfer of custody *ade in the course of safe>eeping and use in court as evidence& and the final
disposition-.
#ere& the buy3bust tea* did not *ar> the sachets until after reaching the police station 8ven so& the
o*ission did not destroy the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated ite*s ?e are satisfied
that 1/( $ayag and S1/1 9baCe6 brought the confiscated sachets of shabu to the police station
i**ediately after the buy3bust operation& and turned the* over to the duty investigator& 1/( %astillo& for
*ar>ingJ
-().
that in their presence& 1/( %astillo *ar>ed the sachet of shabu sold by 'autista to 1/( $ayag
as F%'S ('autistaEs initials) 'uy3bust&G and the si7 sachets of shabu recovered by S1/1 9baCe6 fro*
'autistaEs possession as F%'S31&G F%'S3(&G F%'S33&G F%'S3@&G F%'S35&G and F%'S3"GJ
-(0.
that 1/( %astillo
then delivered the *ar>ed sachets to ;nsp %ru6 who in turn caused their trans*ittal to the %ri*e
:aboratory /ffice& Northern 1olice <istrict (N1<)& in %aloocan %ity& for appropriate laboratory
e7a*inationJ
-(!.
that upon the instruction of ;nsp %ru6& S1/1 9baCe6 handcarried the written reHuest and
the *ar>ed sachets to the N1< %ri*e :aboratory /ffice for laboratory e7a*ination& where one 1/(
'onifacio received the*J
-3,.
and that thereafter& +orensic %he*ist Arturo certified in the 1hysical Science
Report prepared following his Hualitative e7a*ination that the contents of the *ar>ed sachets were
positive for *etha*pheta*ine hydrochloride or shabu& and enu*erated the *ar>ed sachets e7a*ined
and rendered the weights of the shabu they contained& as follows2 F%'S ('autistaEs initials) 'uy3bustG I
,,5 gra*J F%'S31G 3 ,,5 gra*J F%'S3(G 3 ,,! gra*J F%'S33G I ,,5 gra*J F%'S3@G I ,,! gra*J F%'S3
5G I ,,) gra*J and F%'S3"G I ,," gra*
-31.
?e have held that a non3co*pliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render an
accusedEs arrest illegal or the ite*s confiscated fro* hi* inad*issible as evidence of his guilt& for what is
of the ut*ost i*portance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated
ite*s that will be utili6ed in the deter*ination of his guilt or innocence
-3(.
$hat was done herein 1/( $ayag fir*ly identified the sachet of shabu *ar>ed as F%'S('autistaEs initials)
'uy bustG as the one he had bought fro* 'autista in the buy3bust operation
-33.
;n the sa*e *anner&
S1/1 9baCe6 identified the sachets of shabu *ar>ed F%'S31&G F%'S3(&G F%'S33&G F%'S3@&G F%'S35&G and
F%'S3"G presented in court as those he had recovered fro* 'autistaEs possession right after the buy3bust
operation
-3@.
+inally& +orensic %he*ist Arturo properly stated that the sa*e e7hibits were the very
speci*ens he had sub5ected to che*ical analysis upon the for*al reHuest of ;nsp %ru6
-35.
?ithout
Huestion& then& the Huantities of shabu recovered fro* 'autista were duly preserved within the conte7t of
the rule on chain of custody
As if confir*ing the arresting officersE observance of the rule on chain of custody& 'autista did not assail
the integrity of the confiscated shabu e7cept by insisting on being fra*ed up by the police*en #is
insistence did not deflect guilt fro* hi*& however& considering that his failure to charge the police*en with
fra*e3up and e7tortion could only be regarded as his tacit ad*ission that such evidence had not been
ta*pered or *eddled with but preserved and intact
-3".
II
De(.a1 a(+ /ra6e"u3 (o) e,)ab1.,0e+
'autistaEs denial and defense of fra*e3up were given no consideration due to their being self3serving and
uncorroborated ?e declare such treat*ent warranted #e did not present Rosario& his wife& to
corroborate his clai* of being fra*ed up although she was supposed to have been around at the ti*e of
his arrest #e did not also adduce evidence to substantiate his story of being falsely incri*inated in a
fra*e3up by co*petent evidence #is clai* thereon did not prevail over the positive identification of hi*
by 1/( $ayag as the drug pusher he had transacted with As the %ourt sees it& he was not even sincere
in clai*ing fra*e3up& for he did not for*ally charge the police*en for the supposed fra*e3up and
e7tortion co**itted against hi* Lerily& defenses of fra*e3up and e7tortion are not loo>ed upon with favor
due to their being conveniently concocted and usually asserted by culprits arrested for violations of
Republic Act No !1"5
-3).
III
I(*o(,.,)e(*.e, .( )e,).6o(y
are .(*o(,e9ue().a1
'autista argues that the arresting police*en incurred inconsistencies because they could not be sure on
who of the* had actually received the report of the infor*ant on the illegal drug pushing of 'autista
$he argu*ent has no *erit $here is no dispute that the *atter of who a*ong the police*en actually
received the report fro* the infor*ant did not relate to the essential ele*ents of the cri*es charged Nor
did such *atter refer to the actual buy3bust itself I that crucial *o*ent when 'autista was caught red3
handed selling and possessing shabu in Huestion As such& it was insignificant in this ad5udication ?e
dee* to be basic enough that an inconsistency that had nothing to do with the ele*ents of the cri*e
could not be a basis for acHuittal
-30.
'autistaEs insistence that it was i*possible for hi* to sell shabu to 1/( $ayag due to the latter being
un>nown to hi* *erits no attention 'ased on our collective e7perience as 5udges& we >now that drug
pushing has been co**itted with so *uch casualness even between total strangers ;t was credible
enough& then& that 1/( $ayag categorically declared that the infor*ant had first introduced hi* to
'autista as biyahero ng shabu before 1/( $ayag and 'autista started transacting with each other
-3!.
'autista posits that the bac>3up *e*bers did not visually see the sale between hi* and 1/( $ayag $hat
position is unfounded for three reasons $he first is that 1/( $ayag testified that 'autista had
soldshabu to hi* during the buy3bust operation $he second is that the bac>3up *e*bers the*selves did
actually witness the transaction between 'autista and 1/( $ayag& with 1/( %aragdag specifically saying
that he had seen their transaction fro* seven *eters away fro* the*J
-@,.
and with S1/1 9baCe6& despite
ad*itting not actually seeing the e7change between 'autista and 1/( $ayag& still seeing 1/( $ayag
giving the pre3arranged signal to co**unicate the consu**ation of the sale ofshabu
-@1.
And& thirdly& the
giving of the pre3arranged signal rendered a full ocular view of the e7change between 'autista and 1/(
$ayag superfluous ?orthy of noting is that the giving of the pre3arranged signal in a buy3bust operation
has been an accepted for* of co**unicating the consu**ation of the e7change between the drug
pusher and the poseur buyer
IV
Pe(a1).e,
Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No !1"5 provides that the illegal possession of less than five gra*s
ofshabu is penali6ed with i*prison*ent of 1( years and one day to (, years& and a fine ranging fro*
13,,&,,,,, to 1@,,&,,,,, 'autista was guilty of illegal possession of shabu weighing ,@1 gra* $he
R$% and the %A i*posed on hi* an indeter*inate sentence of 1( years& eight *onths and one day& as
*ini*u*& to 1) years and eight *onths& as *a7i*u*& and a fine of 13,,&,,,,,
Although the penalty thus i*posed is within the range of the penalty i*posable under Republic Act No
!1"5& the incre*ent of one day as part of the *ini*u* of the indeter*inate sentence is deleted despite
its being within the para*eters of the #ndeterminate "entence $a' $he one3day incre*ent to the
*ini*u* of the indeter*inate sentence was surplusage that *ay occasion a slight degree of
inconvenience when it will be ti*e for the penal ad*inistrators concerned to pass upon and deter*ine
whether or not 'autista is already Hualified to en5oy the benefits under the #ndeterminate "entence
$a' and other relevant legal provisions
-@(.
Accordingly& the penalty should be an indeter*inate sentence
of 1( years and eight *onths& as *ini*u*& to 1) years and eight *onths& as *a7i*u*& and a fine of
13,,&,,,,,
Under Section 5 of Republic Act No !1"5& the unauthori6ed sale of shabu& regardless of its Huantity and
purity& carries with it the penalty of life i*prison*ent to death and a fine ranging fro* 15,,&,,,,, to
11,&,,,&,,,,, $he R$% and the %A were correct in prescribing life i*prison*ent and fine of
15,,&,,,,, due to the absence of any aggravating circu*stance ;t is relevant to observe that the higher
penalty of death *ight no longer be possibly prescribed in view of the intervening enact*ent of Republic
Act No !3@"&
-@3.
a law that prohibits the i*position of the death penaltycralaw
:EREFORE& we !FFIR' the decision pro*ulgated on +ebruary 15& (,,) by the %ourt of Appeals&
sub5ect to the SOLE 'ODIFI#!TION that the indeter*inate sentence prescribed on the illegal
possession of shabu as defined and punished under Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No !1"5 is 1( years
and eight *onths& as *ini*u*& to 1) years and eight *onths& as *a7i*u*& and a fine of 13,,&,,,,,
$he accused shall pay the costs of suit
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION

VI#TOR RONDIN!, G.R. No. 17;0<;
Petitioner,
1resent2

:8/NAR</3<8 %AS$R/&
N
Acting Chairperson,
3 versus 3 '8RSA4;N&
<8: %AS$;::/&
L;::ARA4A& DR& and
18R:AS3'8RNA'8&
NN
((&

PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES, 1ro*ulgated2
)espondent& Dune 13& (,1(
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7

D E # I S I O N

DEL #!STILLO, J.:

Sadly& this is yet another case of a lass pitilessly stripped of her innocence

;n this 1etition for Review on Certiorari& petitioner Lictor Rondina (Lictor) assails the <ecision
-1.
dated Duly
(@& (,,) of the %ourt of Appeals (%A) in %A3AR %R3#% No ,,105 which affir*ed with *odification the
Dudg*ent
-(.
of the Regional $rial %ourt (R$%)& /r*oc %ity& 'ranch 35 in %ri*inal %ase No 55@03, finding hi* guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of rape

Factual Antecedents

/n 4arch (!& 1!!!& the %ity 1rosecution /ffice of /r*oc %ity filed with
the R$% an ;nfor*ation
-3.
charging Lictor as follows2

$hat on or about the 15
th
day of Duly 1!!0& at around @2,, oEcloc> in the afternoon& at
F<<<G& -/r*oc %ity.& and within the 5urisdiction of this #onorable %ourt& the above3na*ed
accused2 VI#TOR RONDIN!& being then ar*ed with a >nife and by *eans of force& threat and
inti*idation& did then and there wilfully& unlawfully and feloniously have carnal >nowledge -of. the
co*plainant herein& FAAAG
-@.
3 a si7teen (1") year old lass& against her will
-5.


/n arraign*ent& Lictor pleaded Fnot guiltyG to the cri*e charged
-".
1re3trial and trial thereafter ensued

Version of the Prosecution

;n 1!!0& FAAAG was a young girl of 1" who was in second year high school $he youngest and the only girl
a*ong a brood of four& she lived with her parents and siblings in a rented house located in F<<<&G /r*oc %ity

/n Duly 15& 1!!0& FAAA&G upon arriving ho*e fro* school at around @2,, p*& i**ediately proceeded to
the toilet to defecate $he said toilet& constructed of hollow bloc>s with A;3sheet roofing& had only a tie3wire as
loc> ;t was located outside FAAAEsG house and was being used as a co**unal toilet by the occupants of nearby
houses

/nce inside& FAAAG i**ediately too> off her panty and relieved herself& forgetting to loc> the door
-).
After
washing her anus& FAAAG was surprised when Lictor& a neighbor& suddenly entered the toilet with only a towel
covering hi*self fro* the waist down Lictor i**ediately re*oved the towel fro* his waist as well as his brief #e
then po>ed a >nife on FAAAEsG nec>& covered her *outh and threatened her by saying F-d.onEt ever tell anybody
otherwise ; will >ill your parents& your siblings including yourselfG
-0.
'ecause her *outh was covered& FAAAG was not
able to shout
-!.

Lictor ordered FAAAG to stand against the wall with her hands on both sides
-1,.
and forcefully inserted his
penis into FAAAEsG vagina
-11.
FAAAG felt pain
-1(.
After a while& she felt a liHuid3li>e substance discharged fro* LictorEs
penis
-13.
?hen Lictor had already satisfied his bestial desire& he again wrapped the towel around his waist
-1@.
and
before getting out of the toilet uttered Fdo not tell your *other or else ; will >ill youG
-15.


FAAAG did not i**ediately tell anyone of her *isfortune and 5ust >ept on crying #owever& it ca*e to the
point where she could no longer >eep silent so that a few *onths after the incident& FAAAG finally told her *other
F'''G that Lictor raped her
-1".

?hen F'''G had FAAAG e7a*ined by physicians& it was discovered that aside fro* having healed hy*enal
lacerations& FAAAG was *ore or less si7 *onths pregnant& vi!2

/'3A9N8 N/$8S

A1 1, :41 I Duly& 1!!0 (1
st
wee>)
8<% I April& 1!!! ((
nd
wee>)

Abdo*en I soft& uterus palpable with fundal height of (3 c*s

+etal heart tone I not appreciated

Ouic>ening I noted <ece*ber& 1!!0
Lisual Lulva 87a*ination I pubic hair 3 present
no infla**ations 3 noted
no fresh lacerations
hy*en I with healed lacerations at the 3 oEcloc>&
5 oEcloc> and ! oE cloc> positions

Laginal opening I ad*its two e7a*ining fingers freely

1elvic Ultrasound Result2 Single live intrauterine pregnancy with
*ean A/A of (@ wee>s and ( days by '1<
and +:
-1).



#ence& Lictor was charged with the cri*e of rape <uring the pendency of the proceedings and after
about nine *onths fro* the date of the alleged incident& FAAAG gave birth to a baby girl& F%%%&G on 4ay 1& 1!!!

Version of the Defense

Lictor interposed the defense of denial and alibi #e averred that he could not have raped FAAAG at @2,,
oEcloc> in the afternoon of Duly 15& 1!!0 because during that ti*e& he was in a coc>pit in *rgy
4acabug& /r*oc %ity #e went there at (2,, p* with Ale7 /liveros (Ale7) and Ruben 'ertulfo
-10.
#e could still
very well re*e*ber the coc>fight on that particular day as sa*e was held because of the approaching fiesta of
4acabug on Duly (5 and also because he won #e even gave part of his winnings to Ale7 for the latter to spend on
his birthday
-1!.
;t was already around 523, p* when Lictor and his co*panions left 4acabug +ro* 4acabug& he
and Ale7 headed to the public *ar>et of /r*oc %ity and bought viand
-(,.
After that& the two of the* went to their
respective ho*es Lictor arrived ho*e at around "2,, p*


Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

?ith two conflicting versions before it& the R$% declared the issue to be one of credibility& that is& whether
FAAAEsG clai* that she was raped by Lictor vis3P3vis the latterEs denial and alibi& is credible& convincing and
satisfactory as to hold the latter guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of rape
-(1.

;n resolving the case& the court held that the prosecution was able to duly establish all the ele*ents of
rape ;t gave *uch credence to FAAAEsG testi*ony since it observed that the latter& despite so*e inconsistencies in
her testi*ony during trial& narrated her travails at the hands of Lictor in an earnest& spontaneous and straightforward
*anner She was able to give all the core ele*ents of rape in her narration As to the inconsistencies& the R$%
chose to brush the* aside as it found the* to be *inor inconsistencies which only tend to bolster rather than
wea>en the rape victi*Es credibility as they show that her testi*ony was not contrived
-((.
$he R$% then declared
itself convinced that the prosecution& by its own evidence& was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt #ence& the dispositive portion of its Dudg*ent
-(3.
dated Dune )& (,,,2

?#8R8+/R8& after considering all the foregoing& the %ourt finds the accused Lictor
Rondina AU;:$9 beyond reasonable doubt of the cri*e of Rape as charged in the infor*ation
and& accordingly& without any finding as to *itigating and aggravating circu*stances& hereby
sentences hi* to suffer i*prison*ent of +orty (@,) years reclusion perpetua& to pay the offended
party the su* of 1)5&,,,,, as inde*nity& 15,&,,,,, as *oral da*ages& and costsJ also to
ac>nowledge the offspring -%%%. and to give her support

7 7 7 7

S/ /R<8R8<
-(@.


Lictor filed a Notice of Appeal
-(5.
which was granted by the R$% in its
/rder
-(".
of Dune (0& (,,, After the elevation of the records of the case& this %ourt accepted the appeal
on +ebruary (1& (,,1
-().
%onfor*ably& however& with the %ourtEs ruling in People v& +ateo&
-(0.
the case was
subseHuently transferred to the %A for appropriate action and disposition
-(!.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

;n his brief&
-3,.
Lictor averred that the R$% should not have given full faith and credence to FAAAEsG
testi*ony for the following reasons2 (1) FAAAG reported the cri*e only after five *onths fro* its alleged occurrenceJ
(() the rape could not have been co**itted in the said toilet because of the presence of the occupants of nearby
housesJ (3) it was uni*aginable and i*probable to co**it the rape in the *anner and position narrated by FAAAGJ
(@) FAAAEsG testi*ony was full of inconsistenciesJ and (5) FAAAG was i*pelled by other *otive in filing the charge
against hi*

$he %A& however& found no co*pelling reason to depart fro* the R$%Es ruling Aside fro* reducing the
award of civil inde*nity fro* 1)5&,,,,, to 15,&,,,,,& it affir*ed the trial courtEs 5udg*ent in all other respects in
a <ecision
-31.
dated Duly (@& (,,)& thus2

?#8R8+/R8& pre*ises considered& e7cept for the 4/<;+;%A$;/N in the award of
civil inde*nity as afore*entioned& the trial courtEs <ecision dated Dune )& (,,, is hereby
A++;R48< as to all other respects

S/ /R<8R8<
-3(.

#ence& Lictor co*es to this %ourt to see> a reversal of his conviction

Assignment of Errors

Lictor ascribes upon the lower courts the following errors2


1 $he #onorable %ourt of Appeals and the #onorable Regional $rial %ourt co**itted
serious error of law and grave abuse of discretion when it did not apply the ruling of this
#onorable Supre*e %ourt in 18/1:8 /+ $#8 1#;:;11;N8S vs %R;S1;N $ RUA:8S
-AR No 1@!01,& August (0& (,,3. to the effect that due to the nature of the cri*e of rape
where only two persons are usually involved& the testi*ony of the co*plainant *ust be
scrutini6ed with e7tre*e caution and that the evidence for the prosecution *ust stand or fall
on its own *erits and cannot be allowed to draw strength fro* the wea>ness of the evidence
for the defense

( $he #onorable %ourt of Appeals and the #onorable Regional $rial %ourt co**itted
serious error of law and grave abuse of discretion when it did not apply the ruling of this
#onorable Supre*e %ourt in 18/1:8 /+ $#8 1#;:;11;N8S vs A1A$ -11@ S%RA "(,.
which ruling is sHuarely applicable to the facts in the present caseJ

3 $he #onorable %ourt of Appeals and the #onorable Regional $rial %ourt co**itted
serious error of law and grave abuse of discretion when it declared that the petitioner 7 7 7
failed to show any i*proper *otive on the part of the private co*plainant& which would have
pro*pted the latter to file false clai*s against the petitionerJ

@ $he #onorable %ourt of Appeals and the #onorable Regional $rial %ourt co**itted
serious error of law and grave abuse of discretion when it *erely brushed aside the alibi of
the petitioner not ta>ing into account that while alibi *ay be considered a wea> defense& such
alibi could wor> to e7culpate the petitioner as such alibi is the truth and is sufficiently
corroboratedJ

5 $he #onorable %ourt of Appeals and the #onorable Regional $rial %ourt co**itted
serious error of law and grave abuse of discretion when it rendered and affir*ed a 5udg*ent
of conviction despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
-33.


Our Ru1.(2


$he petition is devoid of *erit

The lo'er courts did not err in giving full faith and credence to
,AAA-s. testimony&
Lictor avers that the lower courts& in resolving the case& failed to apply the %ourtEs pronounce*ent
in People v& )uales,
-3@.
vi!J

;n deciding rape cases& we have been guided by the following well3established principles2
(a) an accusation of rape can be *ade with facilityJ it is difficult to prove but *ore difficult for the
person accused& though innocent& to disproveJ (b) due to the nature of the cri*e of rape where
only two persons are usually involved& the testi*ony of the co*plainant *ust be scrutini6ed with
e7tre*e cautionJ and (c) the evidence for the prosecution *ust stand or fall on its own *erits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength fro* the wea>ness of the evidence for the defense
-35.


$he %ourt had consistently ac>nowledged that F-a.t the core of al*ost all rape cases& the credibility of the
victi*Es testi*ony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the cri*e where only the participants therein can testify
to its occurrenceG
-3".
#ence& Fthe testi*ony of the co*plainant *ust be e7a*ined with e7tre*e care for& whether
the case results in conviction or in acHuittal& the final outco*e would al*ost invariably be dependent on what the
victi* declares and on how she has stood and co*ported herself at the witness stand during HuestioningG
-3).

?e have carefully e7a*ined the records of this case and hold that the lower courts did not co**it
reversible error in according superior weight to FAAAEsG testi*ony

;t is worthy to note that before FAAAG was put on the witness stand& the R$% directed the <epart*ent of
Social ?elfare and <evelop*ent (<S?<) to cause her to be sub5ected to a psychological e7a*ination
-30.
$his was
due to the prosecutionEs clai* that FAAAG was then e*otionally unstable ;n co*pliance therewith& the <S?<
sub*itted to the court the result of the 1sychiatric 8valuation and 4ental Status 87a*ination
-3!.
perfor*ed upon
FAAAG indicating that she was suffering fro* organic brain disease which is *ental retardation She could& however&
undergo trial albeit with assistance because of her sub3average general intellectual functioning
-@,.


Notwithstanding FAAAEsG *ental condition& the %ourt notes that she was still able to recount the details of her
trau*atic e7perience in a credible& convincing and straightforward *anner and therefore her testi*ony bears the
ring of truth She testified as follows2

O2 9ou said that you were already inside the toilet& what did you do insideQ
A2 ; defecated

7 7 7 7

O2 ?hile you were inside what happenedQ
A2 #e inserted his penis -into. *y vagina

O2 $o who* are you referring the pronoun FheGQ
A2 Lictor

O2 Are you referring to the accused in this case Lictor RondinaQ
A2 9es& sir

O2 Are you telling us that he went inside the toiletQ
A2 9es& sir

7 7 7 7

O2 ?here -did. this incident -ta>e. place-&. his insertion of his penis into your vaginaQ
A2 ;nside the toilet

O2 ?hat was your position when he inserted his penis -into. your fe*ale organQ
A2 #e *ade *e lean against the wall

O2 9ou *ean to say that you were in the standing positionQ
A2 9es& sir

O2 <id you not resist 7 7 7 the se7ual advances of the accused
A2 ; resist-ed.

O2 ;n what *annerQ
A2 #e told *e& Fdo not R>uanE because -youEre still young and ;E* oldG.
O2 ?hat do you *ean by saying the word FdonEtGQ
A2 ?hat ; *ean is that& when ; was in the toilet& ; was po>ed with a >nife and ; was not able to
shout because *y *outh was covered

O2 ;n what part of your body was the >nife being po>edQ
A2 ;n *y nec> (And the witness pointed to -the. left side of her nec>)

O2 <id you see the weapon
A2 9es& sir

O2 ?ill you please describe to us the length and the si6e of the weaponQ

%/UR$ ;N$8R1R8$8R2
$he witness esti*ated the length at about 5 inches

O2 $hat e7cludes the handleQ
A2 ;t does not

O2 So that si6e consist-s. only of the bladeQ
A2 9es& sir

O2 <id he say anything when he po>ed the >nife in your nec>Q
A2 9es& sir

O2 ?ould you recall what -were. the utterances *ade by the accusedQ
A2 F<onEt you ever tell anybody otherwise ; will >ill your parents& your siblings including
yourselfG
-@1.

7 7 7 7

O2 ?hile his *ale organ was inside yours& what else did he doQ
A2 $hat is what ;Eve told you sir& that he told *e that -once. you tell anybody ;Ell >ill your parents

7 7 7 7

O2 ?hat did you notice fro* his penis if anyQ
A2 -+elt. different

7 7 7 7

O2 ?as there anything that you -felt.Q
A2 9es& sir

O2 ?hatQ
A2 #e inserted his penis -into. *y vagina and there was so*e >ind of Fapple3appleG or a liHuid
li>e substance

O2 ?hat did you do -in. that instance that his penis was inside your fe*ale organQ
A2 ;t -felt. so different for *e
O2 <id you li>e itQ
A2 No sir

O2 <id you feel painQ
A2 9es& sir

O2 After youEve noticed that he had already e5aculated& what else did he doQ
A2 ?hen he was about to get out& he said that Fdo not tell your *other or else ; will >ill you
-@(.


?hen as>ed by the trial court to de*onstrate her position during the alleged se7ual intercourse& FAAAG
even readily *ade a physical illustration of the sa*e2

O2 9ou were in the straight standing position during the alleged se7ual intercourseQ
A2 9es& your #onor

O2 -As a. preli*inary to the ocular inspection& the %ourt would li>e you to *a>e the physical
illustration as to your position $his is now -the. wall of the courtroo*& i*agine that& that wall
is the wall of the toilet ;llustrate how you were standing at the ti*e that you were se7ually
*olested

%/UR$ ;N$8R1R8$8R2
$he witness illustrate-s. to the %ourt by standing -with. her bac> leaning against the wall with
hands on both sides

O2 ?ere you not in a sHuatting positionQ
A2 No your honor& ; 5ust position-ed. *yself li>e this (As the witness earlier de*onstrated to the
%ourt)
-@3.


?ith her intelligence level& it is hard to believe that her testi*ony had been rehearsed as Lictor would want
to put it ;f such was the case& FAAAEsG testi*ony would have eventually fallen apart #owever& as shown above
and e7cept for a few *inor inconsistencies and so*e difficulty in understanding the Huestions propounded to her&
-@@.
FAAAG was still able to testify with definiteness on the *aterial details of her harrowing e7perience at the hands of
Lictor

Lictor avers that the *anner in which the rape was co**itted& as narrated by FAAA&G defies i*agination& is
incredible and contrary to hu*an e7perience #e calls attention to FAAAEsG testi*ony during cross e7a*ination that
his left hand was covering her *outh while his right hand was po>ing the >nife at her the entire duration of the
alleged se7ual intercourse Aiven the circu*stances& Lictor i*plies that it was i*probable for hi* to penetrate
FAAAEsG vagina in a standing position considering that his two hands& as testified to by FAAA&G were not free and that
FAAAG was *oving to resist the penetration Lictor thus invo>es the case of People v& Apat
-@5.
where the %ourt
pronounced as follows2

3 $he *anner by which the appellant allegedly raped Aregoria& as narrated by her&
defies the i*agination ;t *ay hardly be envisioned how a *an can successfully consu**ate the
se7ual act on an unwilling wo*an with his left hand placed over her *outh (supposedly to prevent
her fro* shouting for help) and with his right hand 7 7 7 holding a hunting >nife pointed at the
wo*anEs forehead and& while so positioned& was able to *anage to re*ove the pantie of the
wo*an& spread her legs& unbutton his short pants& and perfor* the se7ual intercourse
-@".


Lictor li>ewise cites the following inconsistencies in FAAAEsG testi*ony2 (1) FAAAG stated in her direct
e7a*ination that on the day of the alleged rape& she ca*e ho*e fro* school at @2,, p* /n cross e7a*ination&
however& she testified that she 5ust stayed ho*e the whole dayJ and (() in FAAAEsG Affidavit
-@).
e7ecuted on Danuary
(!& 1!!!& she stated that Lictor was wearing shorts when he entered the toilet and that it was the latter who too> off
her underwear 'ut later on direct e7a*ination& she clai*ed that she was the one who re*oved her underwear and
that Lictor was wearing a towel and a brief <espite all these& the lower courts still chose to treat FAAAEsG testi*ony
as gospel truth instead of considering her irreconcilable contradictions as sufficient grounds to create doubt in
LictorEs favor

?e have gone over the records and observed that both on cross and re3cross e7a*inations& FAAAG
answered FyesG when as>ed by the defense counsel if at the ti*e Lictor inserted his penis into her vagina& he was
also covering her *outh with one hand and po>ing a >nife on her nec> with the other
-@0.
;n re3direct e7a*ination&
however& FAAAG testified as follows2

O2 9ou told us earlier that you tried to >eep on *oving while the accused inserted his penis into
your vagina if only to prevent -hi*. fro* penetrating you& is that correctQ
A2 9es& sir

O2 ;f you >eep on *oving& how is it that he was able to penetrate youQ
A2 #e really penetrate-d. it and he insert-ed. it

O2 8asily or forcefullyQ
A2 +orcefully
-@!.


Upon inHuiry by the %ourt& FAAAG answered2


%/UR$
to the witness

O2 ;n what *anner did he -insert. his penisQ <id he -use. his hands or whatQ
A2 9es& your #onor

O2 ?hich hand did he -use. if you can recallQ
A2 :eft

O2 <oes it *ean that his left hand was holding his penis in guiding it towards the inside of your
vaginaQ
A2 9es& your #onor
-5,.


+ro* AAAEs testi*ony& it can be inferred that the covering of the *outh& the po>ing of the >nife and the
insertion of LictorEs penis into her vagina were all happening at al*ost the sa*e ti*e #ence& it is not difficult to
understand why FAAAG answered FyesG when as>ed by the defense counsel if Lictor was covering her *outh and
po>ing a >nife at her nec> when he inserted his penis into her vagina 4oreover& F-r.ape is a painful e7perience
which is oftenti*es not re*e*bered in detail +or such an offense is not analogous to a personEs achieve*ent or
acco*plish*ent as to be worth recalling or relivingJ rather& it is so*ething which causes deep psychological wounds
and casts a stig*a upon the victi*& scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious *ind
would opt to forget $hus& a rape victi* cannot be e7pected to *echanically >eep and then give an accurate
account of the trau*atic and horrifying e7perience she had undergoneG
-51.
;n this case& FAAAG was 5ust 1" years old
when she was cruelly abused by Lictor She was also later found possessed of low level intelligence A fortiori& we
*ust Faccord to her greater understanding& consideration& and sensitivity as she relives& through her testi*ony& her
harrowing -e7perience. at -LictorEs. handsG
-5(.
$his also goes true with respect to the inconsistencies pointed out by
Lictor& which the %ourt finds too fli*sy and trivial to *erit serious consideration
-53.
$o reiterate& it is not unnatural to
find *inor discrepancies in the testi*ony of a rape victi* as she cannot be e7pected to re*e*ber every *inute
detail of her ordeal
-5@.

+urther*ore& FAAAEsG testi*ony is corroborated by the doctorsE findings that she was pregnant and that her
hy*en has healed lacerations at 3 oEcloc>& 5 oEcloc> and ! oEcloc> positions <r 4a 8speran6a S Agudo testified
that these lacerations could have been caused by se7ual intercourse
-55.
F?here a rape victi*Es testi*ony is
corroborated by the physical findings of penetration& there is sufficient basis for concluding that se7ual intercourse
did ta>e placeG
-5".


$hus& there being no co*pelling reason to deviate fro* the lower courtsE appreciation of FAAAEsG testi*ony&
the %ourt gives deference to the well3settled rule Fthat the assess*ent of the credibility of witnesses and their
testi*onies is best underta>en by a trial court& whose findings are binding and conclusive on appellate
courts 4atters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its uniHue opportunity to observe the
elusive and inco**unicable evidence of that witnessE deport*ent on the stand while testifying& an opportunity
denied to the appellate courts which usually rely on the cold pages of the silent records of the caseG
-5).

/ictor-s imputation of ill motive on the part of ,AAA. and her
family deserves scant consideration&


Lictor contends that FAAAG and her fa*ily harbored a grudge against hi*
#e clai*s that FAAAEsG fa*ily& who used to rent the house owned by the aunt of LictorEs wife& was *ade to vacate
the sa*e so that his fa*ily could occupy it instead And as the pleas of FAAAEsG fa*ily to continue occupying the
house were ignored& charges were filed against hi*

$he %ourt& however& is unconvinced

F4otives such as fa*ily feuds& resent*ent& hatred or revenge have never swayed this %ourt fro* giving full
credence to the testi*ony of a rape victi* Also& ill *otives beco*e inconseHuential if there is an affir*ative and
credible declaration fro* the rape victi*& which clearly establishes the liability of the accused ;n the present case&
FAAAG categorically identified -Lictor. as the one who defiled her #er account of the incident& as found by the R$%&
the %ourt of Appeals& and this %ourt& was sincere and truthful #ence& petitionerEs 7 7 7 fli*sy allegation of ill *otive
is i**aterialG
-50.

'esides& it is difficult to believe that FAAAEsG fa*ily would stoop so low as to sub5ect her to physical hardship
and disgrace that usually acco*pany the prosecution of rape 5ust to relieve hurt feelings ;ndeed& it is highly
inconceivable that any fa*ily would willfully and deliberately corrupt the innocent *ind of its *inor *e*ber
and put into her lips the lewd description of a carnal act 5ust to
satisfy a personal grudge or anger against the accused
-5!.

/ictor-s alibi cannot prevail over ,AAA-s. positive identification
of him as her rapist&


Lictor contends that the lower courts erred in brushing aside his defense of alibi on the sole ground that it is
inherently wea> #e avers that proving that he was not at the place of the alleged incident when it happened is the
*ost plausible defense against the charges hurled upon hi* 'esides& his alibi that he was in *rgy
4acabug& /r*oc %ity at the ti*e of the alleged rape is corroborated by the testi*ony of Ale7& who was with hi*
during that ti*e

F;n order for the defense of alibi to prosper& two reHuisites *ust concur2 first& the appellant was at a different
place at the ti*e the cri*e was co**itted& and second& it was physically i*possible for hi* to be at the cri*e scene
at the ti*e of its co**issionG
-",.
;n this case& the second reHuisite is not *et Lictor hi*self testified that the
distance between *rgy 4acabug and the place where the rape occurred is 5ust three to four >ilo*eters and that the
sa*e can be traversed by land transportation in 5ust a few *inutes
-"1.
#ence& it was not physically i*possible for
hi* to be at the cri*e scene at the ti*e of the co**ission of the cri*e Also& even if LictorEs alibi is corroborated
by Ale7& said defense is still unworthy of belief Ale7 ad*itted that Lictor was his e*ployer
-"(.
and that he was
testifying for Lictor as he relied on hi* for livelihood
-"3.
F-;.t has been held that alibi beco*es *ore unworthy of *erit
where it is established *ainly by the accused hi*self and his or her relatives& friends& and co*rades3in3ar*s and
not by credible personsG
-"@.

4oreover and *ost i*portantly& Fdenial and alibi are practically worthless against the positive identification
*ade by the prosecution witnesses& especially by the rape victi*G
-"5.
LictorEs wea> alibi cannot thus overco*e
FAAAEsG positive identification of hi* as her rapist

The lo'er courts did not err in convicting /ictor of the crime of
rape&


All told& we hold that neither did the R$% err in finding Lictor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the cri*e of rape nor did the %A in affir*ing said conviction As aptly declared by the appellate court& the prosecution
has sufficiently established that Lictor had carnal >nowledge of FAAAG against her will and consent ?e subscribe to
the sa*e

Damages awarded

$he %A was correct in reducing the award of civil inde*nity fro* 1)5&,,,,, to 15,&,,,,, F;n cases of
si*ple rape as in this case& civil inde*nity of 15,&,,,,, is auto*atically awarded without need of pleading or
proofG
-"".
#owever& we note that the both the R$% and the %A failed to *a>e an award for e7e*plary
da*ages Under Article (((! of the %ivil %ode& e7e*plary da*ages are i*posed by way of e7a*ple or correction
for the public good F87e*plary da*ages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings& as a
vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an in5ured& or as punish*ent for those guilty of
outrageous conduct 'eing corrective in nature& e7e*plary da*ages can be awarded& not only in the presence of
an aggravating circu*stance& but also where the circu*stances of the case show the highly reprehensible or
outrageous conduct of the offenderG
-").
#ere& Lictor raped a *inor& FAAA&G with the use of a >nife& threatened to >ill
her and her fa*ily if she tells the* of her ordeal& and even got her pregnant Lictor should therefore pay AAA
e7e*plary da*ages in the a*ount of 13,&,,,,, in line with e7isting 5urisprudence
-"0.
Also& interest at the rate of
"S per annu* is i*posed on all da*ages awarded fro* the date of finality of this 5udg*ent until fully paid
-"!.

Support of the offspring CCC!


$he R$% ordered Lictor to ac>nowledge FAAAEsG offspring F%%%G and give her support FArticle 3@5 of the
Revised 1enal %ode provides for three different >inds of civil liability that *ay be i*posed on the offender2 a)
inde*nification& b) ac>nowledge*ent of the offspring& unless the law should prevent hi* fro* so doing& and c) in
every case to support the offspring ?ith the passage of the +a*ily %ode& the classification of ac>nowledged
natural children and natural children by legal fiction was eli*inated and they now fall under the specie of illegiti*ate
children Since parental authority is vested by Article 1)" of the +a*ily %ode upon the *other and considering that
an offender sentenced to reclusion perpetua auto*atically loses the power to e7ercise parental authority over his
children& no Rfurther positive act is reHuired of the parent as the law itself provides for the childEs statusE #ence&
-Lictor. should only be ordered to inde*nify and support the victi*Es childG
-),.
F$he a*ount -and ter*s. of support
shall be deter*ined by the trial court after due notice and hearing in accordance with Article (,1
-)1.
of the +a*ily
%odeG
-)(.

:EREFORE& the <ecision dated Duly (@& (,,) of the %ourt of Appeals in %A3AR %R3#% No ,,105 is
A++;R48< with 4/<;+;%A$;/NS as follows2

1) 1etitioner Lictor Rondina is ordered to pay FAAAG 13,&,,,,, as e7e*plary da*ages

() ;nterest at the rate of "S per annu* is i*posed on all the da*ages awarded in this case fro* the date
of the finality of this 5udg*ent until fully paid

3) 1etitioner Lictor Rondina is further ordered to give support to FAAAEsG offspring& F%%%&G in such a*ount
and under such ter*s to be deter*ined by the Regional $rial %ourt of /r*oc %ity in a proper proceeding with
support arrears to be rec>oned fro* the finality of this <ecision