People vs. Edem

In rape, the victim’s minority must be alleged and proved together with her relationship to the accused to qualify the crime or justify the death penalty; absent that, and where the use of a knife already qualifies the rape and absorbs abuse of superior strength, the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

Merly R. Papellero lived and worked in the household of Dennis Edem and his common-law wife Nila Dominguez in Barangay Bolod, Panglao, Bohol, at the house of Nila’s grandmother, Isidra Dominguez. Edem was the employer and household head to whom Papellero looked up as a parent.

Papellero, then eighteen years old and a high school student, was introduced to Edem by Marissa Dominguez, the sister of Edem’s common-law wife Nila Dominguez. Edem needed a househelper, and Papellero agreed to work for him; Marissa fetched her from Carmen, Davao del Norte and brought her to Barangay Bolod, Panglao, Bohol, where she lived with Edem, Nila, and Nila’s grandmother, Isidra Dominguez. Her duties were cooking, fetching water, washing clothes, and general house cleaning.

Barely three weeks after her arrival, sometime in April 1994, Edem came from Tagbilaran City, where Nila was expecting to give birth. He told Papellero to stop working and rest in Isidra’s room and bed; Isidra and Edem’s son had been sent to buy something in Barangay Camayaan. While Papellero was resting, Edem, half-naked, touched her body and breast, kissed her neck, face, and lips, and removed her dress and panty. She shouted, but he covered her mouth with dirty clothes, pointed a knife at the right side of her body, and warned her, “Do not keep on moving because I will kill you.” Fearing for her life, she could only watch as he placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made push-and-pull movements. After he finished, Edem warned her not to tell anybody or he would kill her, adding that he was a lieutenant in the Coast Guard, his father a judge, his mother a physician, his uncle an NBI man, his aunt a lawyer, and that she would be declared “missing in action.” When Isidra arrived that afternoon, Papellero kept quiet out of fear. Edem, for his part, testified that he had brought Nila to Tagbilaran City as early as April 6, 1994 in anticipation of childbirth, that Nila delivered on April 21, 1994, and that he was always at her side, so he never saw Papellero in Panglao in April 1994.

Papellero continued to stay in Isidra’s house. According to the defense, she opted to become a working student and was enrolled at St. Augustine Academy in June 1994, where she continued without complaints; she went to the Panglao police station in May 1994 to report a stoning incident, in August 1994 during the fiesta to ask for police assistance against the Mesagrande relatives, and on July 15, 1995 to report the loss of Edem’s piglet. In November 1994, she went back to Carmen, Davao del Norte, and was entrusted with ₱20,000 to deliver to Porferio Dominguez in Tagum, Davao del Norte as Edem’s share in a land transaction, but the money was allegedly swindled at the bus terminal in Butuan City. On December 4, 1994, she signed a promissory note promising to pay Mamerto (Dennis) Edem Jr. and his family ₱20,000, excluding groceries and valuables estimated at ₱2,000, in monthly installments of ₱2,000 starting December 19, 1994; on December 22, 1994, she executed an unsigned note confirming the promissory note. On June 17, 1995, she stood as sponsor or godparent at the baptism of Edem’s son Nial Carlo Alvin D. Edem at Joseph’s Cathedral in Tagbilaran City and posed for pictures after the event.

Sometime in March 1995, around midnight, Papellero was sleeping in the kitchen of the same house, about five to six meters from where Isidra was sleeping and about nine to ten meters from the room where Edem and Nila were sleeping. She noticed Edem approach her and shouted, but he immediately covered her mouth with his hand and brandished a pistol. He lifted her skirt, removed her panty, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina, making push-and-pull movements; he also kissed her lips and face. After satisfying his lust, he stood up and threatened her with bodily harm if she told anybody, saying she would be “missing in action.” Papellero tried to resist but failed because he warned that he would kill her if she moved or extricated herself.

Cowed by Edem’s threats, Papellero did not report the rapes until May 1995, when she chanced upon Arquilao Dominguez at the well where he regularly fetched water. She told him of the incidents, and he advised her to report the matter to the parish priest or to the teacher of the San Agustin Academy where she and Arquilao’s daughter were studying. When she subsequently enrolled at the school as a fourth year high school student, she reported the incidents to the parish priest, Father Crispin Varquez, through the confessional box. Father Varquez called a meeting of all the teachers and informed them of her confession; upon his instructions, Papellero returned the following day to the convent and met Helen Ho, a DSWD officer, and some teachers. She left Isidra’s house and stayed temporarily with Helen Ho. On August 16, 1995, she was examined by Dr. Marivic D. Nazareno at the Governor Celestino Gallanes Memorial Hospital. On August 18, 1995, assisted by Helen Ho, she filed two complaints for rape with the Panglao police authorities; the complaints were subscribed before Judge Felisa Vaño of the Panglao Municipal Trial Court and subsequently filed with the RTC in Tagbilaran City. The medical certificate stated “Genitals = grossly normal,” but Dr. Nazareno testified that Papellero’s hymen was no longer intact and could no longer be identified, and that this could have resulted from the insertion of a male sex organ into her vagina; she also found no external injuries. Edem denied the charges and claimed the case was filed because of fear of the loss of money, Papellero’s refusal to stop studying and look for another job, and her transfer to Justiniana Mesagrande, who was not in good terms with him.

The RTC disregarded Edem’s denial and gave full credence to Papellero’s testimony. It found that once in April 1994 and once more in March 1995, Edem had carnal knowledge of her against her will, and that he used a knife to threaten and intimidate her for the first rape and a pistol for the second.

• Credibility of Complainant: Appellant argued that the RTC gravely erred in convicting him despite prosecution evidence fraught with gross improbabilities, wanton irrationalities, and being patently against human experience, and in giving credence to complainant’s testimony although it was contradicted by the examining physician and was by itself incredible.
• Delay in Reporting: Appellant argued that complainant’s failure to disclose the sexual abuse immediately to her parents, teachers, friends, or the police, and her continued stay in Isidra’s house for more than a year after the first rape, made her allegation incredible.
• Medical Evidence: Appellant argued that the medical certificate stating “Genitals = grossly normal” and the absence of hymenal lacerations and wounds negated the rapes.
• Alibi: Appellant argued that he was in Tagbilaran City at the time of the April 1994 rape, near his wife who was expecting childbirth, and could not have been in Panglao.
• Denial: For the March 1995 rape, appellant proffered an unsubstantiated denial.

• Credibility of Complainant: Whether the RTC erred in giving full credence to complainant’s testimony despite alleged improbabilities, contradictions with the examining physician, delay in reporting, and her continued stay with appellant.
• Proper Penalty — Criminal Case No. 9509: Whether the March 1995 rape is simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua, absent allegation and proof of any aggravating or qualifying circumstance.
• Proper Penalty — Criminal Case No. 9510: Whether the April 1994 rape is qualified by the use of a knife and punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, and whether the victim’s minority and abuse of superior strength may justify the death penalty.
• Civil Liability: Whether the RTC erred in not awarding damages to the private complainant.

• Credibility of Complainant: No. The RTC’s credibility finding is entitled to highest respect absent a clear showing of overlooked facts; complainant’s testimony, explained delay due to threats, and medical findings showing the hymen was no longer intact support conviction.
• Proper Penalty — Criminal Case No. 9509: Reclusion perpetua. The complaint alleged no aggravating or qualifying circumstance and none was proven, so the crime is simple rape.
• Proper Penalty — Criminal Case No. 9510: Reclusion perpetua. The use of a knife qualified the rape under Article 335, but minority without relationship was not a qualifying or aggravating circumstance and abuse of superior strength was absorbed by the use of the knife; with no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, Article 63 fixes reclusion perpetua.
• Civil Liability: Yes. The RTC erred in not awarding damages; the victim in each case is entitled to ₱50,000 civil indemnity and ₱50,000 moral damages, plus ₱25,000 exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 9510 for the deadly weapon.

• Credibility of Complainant: The SC applied the rule that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance. Having seen and heard the witnesses, the RTC was in a better position to decide credibility, and appellant gave no sufficient and convincing reasons to disturb that finding. The SC reviewed complainant’s testimony on the April 1994 rape: Edem touched her breast, kissed her, removed her dress and panty, covered her mouth with dirty clothes, poked a knife at her right side, warned her “Do not keep on moving because I will kill you,” placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis, and made push-and-pull movements. For the March 1995 rape, complainant testified that Edem covered her mouth, brandished a pistol, lifted her skirt, removed her panty, inserted his penis, and threatened that she would be “missing in action.” The SC held that lack of forceful resistance did not negate rape; it is not necessary that the victim resist unto death, and when she submits because of fear for her life and personal safety, physical resistance need not be established. On delay, the SC held that delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair credibility if satisfactorily explained; the records showed complainant did not immediately disclose the abuse because of Edem’s repeated threats, her fear that they would be carried out, her status as a young, unsophisticated barrio lass far from home, and her lack of salary, which made running away not immediately feasible or affordable. On medical evidence, the SC held that medical findings of injuries in the victim’s genitalia are not essential to a rape conviction; the doctor testified that the hymen was no longer intact and could no longer be identified, and that this could have resulted from insertion of a male sex organ. Absence of external injuries did not negate rape, especially since the cases were filed more than a year after the first incident and five months after the latest. On alibi, the SC held that Edem’s claim that he was in Tagbilaran City could not stand against complainant’s positive identification; the record disclosed no corroboration, and the 25-minute travel from Tagbilaran City to Bolod made it possible for him to be present, commit the assault, and return. Denial, like alibi, if unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving; the positive and categorical testimony of the rape victim generally prevails over bare denial.
• Proper Penalty — Criminal Case No. 9509: The SC held that the trial court erred in imposing “reclusion perpetua to death” for each crime. Although that is the penalty prescribed for rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the trial court cannot impose the whole range as the penalty; it must determine the specific penalty within the range after considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and those circumstances must be alleged in the information and proven during trial. The Complaint in Criminal Case No. 9509 did not mention any aggravating or qualifying circumstance, and none was proven. Hence, the crime was simple, not qualified, rape, and the penalty was reclusion perpetua.
• Proper Penalty — Criminal Case No. 9510: The SC held that the Complaint in Criminal Case No. 9510 stated that the rape was committed with the aid of a knife, and this was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, prescribes reclusion perpetua to death for rape committed with a deadly weapon. The Complaint further alleged that the victim “at the time of the commission of the crime was still minor,” but the SC held that this circumstance alone, without the concurrent allegation and proof of her relationship to appellant, is not recognized by law as a qualifying circumstance; neither is mere minority included in the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the allegation and proof of minority by itself, without relationship, could not justify the death penalty. Neither could abuse of superior strength be appreciated, because “the use of the knife x x x already absorbed abuse of superior strength.” The SC quoted People vs. De Leon: taking advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means available to the person attacked; it is abuse of superior numbers or employment of means to weaken the defense, and is considered when there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor. To appreciate it, the physical condition of the parties, the arms or objects employed, and the incidents in the total development of the case must be evaluated. The SC held that accused-appellant deliberately taking advantage of superior strength was not proven; the use of the knife already qualified the rape and absorbed the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, and abuse of superior strength is inherent in rape. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code fixed the imposable penalty in Criminal Case No. 9510 at reclusion perpetua, not death.
• Civil Liability: The SC held that the RTC erred in not awarding damages to private complainant. In People vs. Catubig, the SC validated the grant of moral damages to rape victims in the amount of ₱50,000 and explained that the award rests on the jural foundation that the crime of rape necessarily brings with it shame, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, moral shock, and social humiliation to the offended party. In each of the two cases, the offended party deserved ₱50,000 civil indemnity, the equivalent of compensatory damages; and in Criminal Case No. 9510, exemplary damages on account of the use of a deadly weapon in the amount of ₱25,000.

• Credibility of Rape Victim — The trial court’s factual findings on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance. Delay in reporting rape due to death threats does not impair credibility; lack of hymenal lacerations or external injuries is not essential to conviction; and positive identification prevails over alibi and denial. The SC applied this by upholding the RTC’s crediting of Papellero despite the delay and the “grossly normal” genital finding.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances Must Be Alleged and Proved — A circumstance that qualifies rape or increases the penalty to death must be alleged in the complaint or information and proven during trial. Minority of the victim, without allegation and proof of her relationship to the accused, is not a qualifying circumstance and is not an aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. The SC applied this by holding that Criminal Case No. 9509 was simple rape and that the minority allegation in Criminal Case No. 9510 did not justify death.
• Use of Deadly Weapon in Rape; Absorption of Abuse of Superior Strength — The use of a deadly weapon qualifies rape under paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed by the use of the knife and is inherent in rape. The SC applied this by holding that Criminal Case No. 9510 was qualified by the use of a knife, but the penalty was reclusion perpetua because no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended.
• Resistance in Rape — A rape victim need not resist unto death. When the victim submits because of fear for her life and personal safety, physical resistance need not be established. The SC applied this by holding that Papellero’s failure to forcefully resist did not negate rape, since Edem used a knife and a pistol and threatened to kill her.
• Alibi — For alibi to be given weight, the accused must show that it was impossible for him to have been present at the place where the crime was perpetrated at the time of its commission. The SC applied this by holding that the 25-minute travel from Tagbilaran City to Bolod made it possible for Edem to be present, and his uncorroborated alibi could not overcome positive identification.
• Civil Liability in Rape — A rape victim is entitled to civil indemnity and moral damages; exemplary damages may be awarded where a deadly weapon was used. The SC applied this by awarding ₱50,000 civil indemnity and ₱50,000 moral damages in each case, and ₱25,000 exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 9510.

• “The allegation and proof of the minority of the victim, without any allegation and proof of her relationship to the appellant, cannot qualify rape as heinous. Neither is minority of the offended party, by itself, an aggravating circumstance that can increase the penalty to death.” — This states the core penalty rule: minority without relationship does not qualify rape or justify death.
• “Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness if the delay is satisfactorily explained.” — This supports the SC’s holding that Papellero’s delayed reporting did not destroy her credibility because it was explained by Edem’s death threats.
• “Medical findings of injuries in the victim’s genitalia are not essential to a rape conviction.” — This supports the SC’s rejection of the defense argument that the “grossly normal” genital finding negated rape.
• “For the defense of alibi to be given weight, it must be shown that it was impossible for the accused to have been present at the place where the crime was perpetrated at the time of its commission.” — This supports the SC’s rejection of Edem’s alibi because the 25-minute travel made his presence in Bolod possible.

• People vs. Sagun, 303 SCRA 382 (1999) — Relied on for the rule that a rape complainant’s tears and willingness to undergo public trial support credibility.
• People vs. Javier, 311 SCRA 122 (1999) — Followed for the rule that delay in filing a rape charge is not fatal when grounded on death threats.
• People vs. Fuensalida, 281 SCRA 452 (1997) — Cited to support that delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not impair credibility if satisfactorily explained.
• People vs. Zaballero, 274 SCRA 627 (1997) — Cited for the rule that medical findings of genital injuries are not essential to a rape conviction.
• People vs. De Leon, 320 SCRA 495 (1999) — Relied on for the rule that use of a knife in rape absorbs abuse of superior strength and that abuse of superior strength is inherent in rape.
• People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842 (2001) — Relied on to validate moral damages and civil indemnity to rape victims.
• People vs. Plana, G.R. No. 128285 (2001) — Cited for the rule that trial court findings on witness credibility are entitled to highest respect absent overlooked facts.
• People vs. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983 (2001) — Cited for the rule that alibi must show it was impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene at the time of its commission.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 — Defines rape and prescribes reclusion perpetua to death when committed with the use of a deadly weapon; applied to qualify the April 1994 rape in Criminal Case No. 9510, while the March 1995 rape in Criminal Case No. 9509 remained simple rape.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Requires the court to choose the specific penalty within a range after considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances; applied to fix reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. 9510 because no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended.
• Article 14, Revised Penal Code — Lists aggravating circumstances; applied to hold that minority is not an aggravating circumstance and that abuse of superior strength was absorbed by the use of a knife.