People of the Philippines vs. Elpedio Torres y Cañete

A rape victim need not offer tenacious resistance where force and intimidation enabled the assault, and the death penalty cannot rest on nighttime as an aggravating circumstance unless it is alleged in the Information; absent any aggravating circumstance, the penalty for rape under Article 335, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua.

Lerma V. Briones, then 27 years old, sought overseas employment and attended a week-long Philippine Overseas Employment Administration seminar in Iloilo City. Elpedio Torres y Cañete was the driver of an L-300 van plying the Iloilo–Kalibo route. The prosecution arose under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which defined rape and authorized the death penalty in certain attendant circumstances; the trial court’s imposition of death made the case subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court.

Lerma V. Briones, then 27 years old, wanted to work overseas. She left her residence in Kalibo, Aklan, and arrived in Iloilo City on November 10, 1997, to attend a week-long seminar sponsored by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration for overseas contract workers. After the seminar on November 17, 1997, she proceeded to the terminal of the L-300 van that would transport her back to Kalibo at about 5:00 p.m. The appellant, Elpedio Torres y Cañete, was the driver of the van, and he and his dispatcher demanded that each of the three passengers pay ₱150.00 instead of the regular fare of ₱100.00. The passengers agreed and boarded the van. One passenger sat beside the appellant, the second sat behind the driver, and Lerma seated herself in the next row.

The passenger seated beside the appellant alighted at Mambusao, Capiz, at 8:00 p.m. The other passenger transferred to the seat beside the appellant, while Lerma transferred to the seat behind the driver. When the other passenger alighted at Altavas at 9:30 p.m., the appellant told Lerma to transfer in front, to the seat beside him. Lerma agreed and seated herself beside the appellant. She noticed that the van traveled much slower than when they were still in Iloilo on their way to Altavas.

At about 11:00 p.m., as the van was nearing a bridge in Feliciano, Balete, Aklan, it suddenly stopped. The appellant touched the part of the engine under Lerma’s seat and told her that the engine had overheated. He also told Lerma that they had to sleep in the van for a while and wait until the engine had cooled. Lerma protested, saying that her mother was waiting for her, but the appellant switched off the light of the van. Suddenly, the appellant pulled out a knife with his right hand and forced Lerma to lean against the seat. He then pointed the knife at her breast and removed her pants and panties. The appellant himself removed his pants and briefs. He warned her not to resist, otherwise she would be killed. Petrified, Lerma could do nothing when the appellant ordered her to spread her legs. He inserted his penis into her vagina and made push-and-pull movements. Lerma felt pain in her vagina. The appellant later pulled out his penis, put his underwear and pants back on, and ordered Lerma to put on her clothes.

The appellant then started the engine and drove on to Kalibo. Instead of driving the van to its terminal, he drove it towards Lerma’s house. By then, it was about midnight. Lerma called out for her mother, and the appellant hurriedly drove off. Lerma then told her mother, Leny de Juan, that the appellant had raped her. They proceeded to the police station and reported the incident to SPO1 Salvador Flores, who took Lerma’s sworn statement. SPO1 Flores accompanied them to the terminal, but the appellant was nowhere to be found. At 9:00 a.m. the following day, Lerma, her mother Leny, her sister Linda, and Linda’s husband Jaime Francisco proceeded to the Ceres Transportation Terminal at Osmeña Avenue to locate the appellant. When they found him, they contacted the police station. Policemen arrived and were told that the appellant was in an L-300 van parked nearby. When the policemen proceeded to the van, they saw the appellant and arrested him.

Dr. Mary Grace B. Villaruel subjected Lerma to an examination and prepared a Medico-Legal Report containing the following findings: PPE: Parous Introitus; (+) Myrtiform caruncles; (+) Old hymenal tears at 3 o’clock, 5 o’clock, and 7 o’clock position; Vagina admits two fingers with ease; No signs of physical injuries; Direct Smear – No spermatozoa seen on smear. The appellant was charged in an Information alleging that on or about 11:00 p.m. on November 17, 1997, at Barangay Feliciano, Balete, Aklan, he, by means of force, violence, and intimidation, employing the use of a knife, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Lerma V. Briones without her consent and against her will. He was arraigned on March 3, 1998, assisted by counsel, and entered a plea of not guilty.

The appellant denied having raped Lerma. He admitted that he was the driver of the L-300 van and that Lerma was one of his passengers. He testified that in the afternoon of November 17, 1997, before he left Iloilo City with Lerma and two other female passengers on board, he checked the van’s engine and found it in good condition. When a passenger alighted in Altavas, it was Lerma who volunteered to sit beside him in the front seat for the rest of the journey to Kalibo. When the van reached Sitio Lumbucan, he noticed that something was wrong with the engine. The engine finally conked out when the van reached Feliciano, at about 9:00 p.m. The appellant then touched that part of the engine under Lerma’s seat and alighted from the van to open the hood. Lerma followed suit and held up a flashlight while the appellant examined the engine. He discovered that the wires from the battery to the engine had been disconnected. He reconnected them and the engine started. The van left Feliciano at 9:30 p.m. and reached Kalibo at about 10:00 p.m. The appellant drove the van directly to Lerma’s house instead of the terminal because it was the shortest route and he was already feeling sleepy. When Lerma alighted from the van, the appellant retrieved her luggage and handed it over to her. Before the appellant could restart the van, Lerma stopped him, saying that she forgot a plastic bag containing x-ray negatives inside. The appellant gave the bag to her and left.

The trial court gave credence and probative weight to Lerma’s account of the events and found that the appellant pointed a knife at her breast and warned her that he would kill her if she resisted, and that he succeeded in raping her. It further found that the crime was committed at nighttime and in an uninhabited place.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellant contended that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt.
• Failure to Resist: Appellant argued that Lerma failed to sufficiently resist the sexual assault to preserve her virtue.
• Physical Impossibility: Appellant maintained that it was impossible for him to have raped the victim with his right hand while he held a knife.
• Alibi: Appellant asserted that, given the fragility of the prosecution’s evidence, the trial court should have given credence to his alibi.
• Penalty: Assuming guilt, appellant argued that the trial court still erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death under the circumstances.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant raped Lerma, notwithstanding her alleged failure to offer sufficient resistance, the alleged physical impossibility of committing rape while holding a knife, and appellant’s alibi.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty based on the use of a deadly weapon, nighttime, and uninhabited place.
• Nighttime as Aggravating Circumstance: Whether nighttime may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance despite not being alleged in the Information, under Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Damages: Whether the victim is entitled to moral and exemplary damages in addition to civil indemnity ex delicto.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility: Yes. The conviction was affirmed; the victim’s failure to offer tenacious resistance does not negate rape where force and intimidation enabled the assault, and the trial court’s credibility findings were upheld.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: No death penalty. Uninhabited place was not proven and nighttime was not alleged; thus no aggravating circumstance attended the crime, and the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua under Article 335, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and Article 63.
• Nighttime as Aggravating Circumstance: No. Section 8, Rule 110 requires aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the Information; applied retroactively because it is favorable to appellant, nighttime cannot be appreciated.
• Damages: Yes. In addition to ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity, the victim is entitled to ₱50,000.00 moral damages and ₱25,000.00 exemplary damages.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility: Lerma’s failure to offer tenacious and sufficient resistance did not imply submission to appellant’s demands. The law requires only that force and intimidation were employed and enabled the commission of the crime; physical injuries are not necessary, and the victim need not kick, bite, hit, or scratch the appellant to prove defensiveness. Intimidation is viewed from the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the crime, not by any hard-and-fast rule; it is enough that it produces fear that something would happen to her or her family if she did not yield. Force and intimidation in rape are relative and need not be overpowering or irresistible. Here, appellant brought Lerma to a secluded place, pointed a knife at her breast, and warned her that he would kill her if she resisted; she was so petrified that she could no longer offer resistance. The trial court’s findings on Lerma’s credibility and the probative weight of her testimony were accorded high respect, and no cogent facts were overlooked or misconstrued to warrant deviation. It was not physically impossible for appellant to rape Lerma while holding a knife with his right hand, since his left hand was free and he used it to remove her pants. Lerma’s immediate revelation to her mother and sister, her report to the police, and her continued efforts to have appellant arrested and prosecuted were indicia of the verisimilitude of her claim. Appellant’s alibi was rejected in light of the credible testimony of the victim.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: The trial court erred in sentencing appellant to death on its findings that the use of a deadly weapon, nighttime, and uninhabited place were attendant. Although the prosecution proved that appellant committed the crime at nighttime to facilitate its commission and with the use of a knife, a deadly weapon, to intimidate the victim, it failed to prove the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place. Under People vs. Cabiles, the more important consideration is whether the place of the commission of the offense offered a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive help; before despoblado could be appreciated, it must be established that solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the crime. The prosecution failed to prove such circumstance. Moreover, the Information failed to allege the aggravating circumstance of nighttime as required by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although the crime was committed before the Revised Rules took effect, the rule was applied retroactively because it is favorable to appellant. Hence, nighttime should not be appreciated against him. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua to death. Since no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Nighttime as Aggravating Circumstance: Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the complaint or information to state the designation of the offense, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The Information failed to allege nighttime. Although the crime was committed before the Revised Rules took effect, the rule was applied retroactively because it is favorable to appellant. Accordingly, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime should not be appreciated against him.
• Damages: The trial court awarded ₱50,000.00 to the victim as civil indemnity ex delicto but failed to award moral and exemplary damages. The victim is also entitled to ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

• Rape — Resistance Not Required — In rape, the victim’s failure to offer tenacious or sufficient resistance does not imply consent. The law requires only that force and intimidation were employed and enabled the accused to commit the crime; physical injuries are not necessary. The Court applied this because Lerma yielded only after appellant pointed a knife at her breast and threatened to kill her.
• Force and Intimidation — Relative and Victim-Centered — Force and intimidation in rape are relative and need not be overpowering or irresistible. Intimidation is viewed from the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the crime, not by any hard-and-fast rule; it is enough that it produces fear that something would happen to her or her family if she did not yield. The Court found Lerma’s fear reasonable given the secluded place, darkness, and knife.
• Credibility Findings of Trial Courts — Findings of fact, calibration of evidence, and conclusions of the trial court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts that would alter the outcome. The Court found no basis to deviate from the trial court’s assessment of Lerma’s testimony.
• Despoblado (Uninhabited Place) — For uninhabited place to aggravate a crime, it must be established that solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the offense; the more important consideration is whether the place offered a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive help. The Court held this circumstance unproven.
• Nighttime as Aggravating Circumstance — Must Be Alleged — Under Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the complaint or information must specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Although the crime preceded the Revised Rules, the rule was applied retroactively because it was favorable to the appellant; hence nighttime, though proven, could not be appreciated.
• Penalty for Rape with Deadly Weapon — Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the imposable penalty for the rape is reclusion perpetua to death. Where no aggravating circumstance is established, Article 63 requires the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.
• Damages in Rape — A rape victim is entitled to civil indemnity ex delicto, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court awarded ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 moral damages, and ₱25,000.00 exemplary damages.

• "Lerma’s failure to offer tenacious and sufficient resistance does not imply her submission to the appellant’s bestial demands. It is not required that she resists the appellant’s sexual advances. All that is necessary is that force and intimidation were employed by the appellant against her, which enabled him to commit the crime. Neither is it necessary for the victim to sustain physical injuries." — This passage states the controlling rule that resistance is not an element of rape and that force and intimidation sufficient to enable the assault, without physical injury, establish the crime.
• "Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that it produces fear—an uncontrollable fright that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her and/or her family at the moment or even thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she should report the incident." — This defines the victim-centered standard for intimidation in rape and explains why Lerma’s fear was legally sufficient.
• "Before despoblado could be appreciated against the accused, it must be established that solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of the requisites for appreciating uninhabited place as an aggravating circumstance, which the prosecution failed to prove.
• "Hence, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime should not be appreciated against him." — This conclusion applies Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure retroactively because it is favorable to the appellant, barring reliance on nighttime that was not alleged in the Information.

• People vs. Cabiles, 248 SCRA 207 (1995) — The Court relied on this to rule that despoblado requires proof that solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of; the place must be one where the victim had no reasonable possibility of receiving help. Since the prosecution failed to prove this, uninhabited place was not appreciated.
• People vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 145505, March 14, 2003 — Cited to apply Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure retroactively because it is favorable to the appellant; thus nighttime, not alleged in the Information, could not aggravate the rape.
• People vs. Patriarca, 319 SCRA 87 (1999) — Cited for the rule that intimidation is judged from the victim’s perception at the time of the crime, not by a hard-and-fast standard.
• People vs. Burgos, 370 SCRA 325 (2001) — Cited for the principle that no standard behavior may be expected from a person confronted by a shocking or harrowing incident; some may shout, faint, or appear to yield.
• People vs. Blanco, 324 SCRA 280 (2000) — Cited for appellate deference to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility calibration absent overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts.
• People vs. Pagsanjan, G.R. No. 139694, December 27, 2002 — Cited as basis for awarding moral damages to the rape victim.
• People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 146464-67, November 15, 2002 — Cited as basis for awarding exemplary damages.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines rape and prescribes the penalty. The Court applied it to find appellant guilty of simple rape and to set the imposable penalty at reclusion perpetua to death; because no aggravating circumstance was established, the penalty was reclusion perpetua.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides rules for applying penalties composed of two indivisible penalties. The Court applied the lesser penalty, reclusion perpetua, since no aggravating circumstance attended the crime.
• Article 14(6), Revised Penal Code — Treats nighttime and uninhabited place as aggravating circumstances. The Court found nighttime proven but not alleged, and uninhabited place not proven; neither could aggravate the penalty.
• Section 8, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires the complaint or information to specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The Court applied it retroactively because it is favorable to appellant, barring appreciation of nighttime.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.