People vs. Roa

An accused's silence when confronted with a rape accusation, when a denial would naturally be expected and he was free to speak, is admissible as an admission by silence under Section 32, Rule 130, and together with the victim's positive and candid testimony sustains conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Nicanor Roa had resided with the de la Cruz family since 1976 and worked in their family metal craft business. Ma. Nina de la Cruz was a 15-year-old living in the Valenzuela City residence of her adopting parents, Maxima and Melencio de la Cruz.

At around 12:30 a.m. on May 25, 1997, Ma. Nina de la Cruz, then 15 years old, was sleeping in her room on the third floor of the residence of her adopting parents, Maxima and Melencio de la Cruz, at 41 Ilang-Ilang St., Balubaran, Valenzuela City. Her 23-year-old mentally deranged brother slept in the same room on a separate bed. Nicanor Roa, who had resided with the de la Cruzes since 1976 and worked in the family metal craft business, entered the room armed with a bladed weapon. He covered Nina's mouth, held her hand, removed her shorts and panty, removed his pants and brief, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. After satisfying his carnal desire, he warned her not to tell anyone about what happened and left the room.

More than two months later, at around 1:25 a.m. on July 29, 1997, Nina was again sleeping in the same room with her brother. She was awakened when Roa, again armed with a bladed weapon, suddenly entered. As in the May 25 incident, he removed her shorts and panty, removed his pants and brief, and threatened to kill her if she shouted. He then went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. After satisfying his carnal desire, he left the room.

In late July 1997, Nina's mother, after confirming from Nina herself that she was pregnant, confronted Roa about the incidents, but he remained silent. Roa was thereupon asked to leave, and he went to the house of Melencio de la Cruz's father at Iba, Hagonoy, Bulacan. On August 2, 1997, physical examination found at least two lacerations on Nina's genital area and showed that she was fifteen to sixteen weeks pregnant.

Roa, who was 55 when he testified on November 16, 1998, denied raping Nina on May 25, 1997 or July 29, 1997. He claimed that on May 25, 1997, around 12:30 a.m., he was at work in the glass factory of Melencio de la Cruz's niece Dory de la Cruz at Hagonoy; that on July 29, 1997, he was back at the de la Cruzes' house at Balubaran after Melencio rehired him; and that on July 23, 1997, he was confronted about the alleged rape and cursed by Maxima, but he did not retaliate and just remained silent, and on even date he left for the house of Melencio de la Cruz's father at Iba, Hagonoy, Bulacan. He also claimed that Melencio de la Cruz, together with his bodyguard, later maltreated him and haled him into the Hagonoy jail where he was detained, but he did not complain.

On August 4, 1997, two separate informations were filed charging Roa with rape by force and intimidation on July 29, 1997 and May 25, 1997. At trial, the RTC found the prosecution's version established and found Nina's testimony candid and bereft of any indication that it was fabricated.

• Credibility of Complainant: Respondent-appellant Roa argued that Nina's testimony contained inconsistencies going to the very core of her credibility, particularly her claim that she was sleeping when he entered and her later statement that he made her lay down, which he said was not in consonance with the normal course of human nature.
• Pregnancy Before First Rape: He argued that Nina attributed her pregnancy to him but admitted that she was already pregnant before May 25, 1997, the date of the first alleged rape, which undermined her credibility.

• Credibility of Rape Complainant: Whether the alleged inconsistencies in Nina's testimony, including her statement that Roa made her lay down after waking her and her admission that she was already pregnant before May 25, 1997, rendered her testimony incredible and insufficient to sustain Roa's conviction for two counts of rape.
• Admission by Silence: Whether Roa's silence when confronted by Nina's mother about the rape incidents was admissible as an admission by silence under Section 32, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
• Damages: Whether the trial court's award of P75,000 civil indemnity for each count should be modified, and whether moral and exemplary damages may be awarded to Nina.

• Credibility of Rape Complainant: No. The alleged inconsistencies did not impair Nina's credibility; her positive and candid testimony established the sexual assaults, and her error in attributing her pregnancy to the first incident did not negate the rapes.
• Admission by Silence: Yes. Roa's silence when confronted by Nina's mother, when a denial would naturally be expected, was admissible against him as an admission by silence under Section 32, Rule 130.
• Damages: Civil indemnity was reduced to P50,000 for each count; moral damages of P50,000 for each count and exemplary damages of P25,000 for each count were awarded.

• Credibility of Rape Complainant: The SC rejected Roa's argument that it was unnatural to "lay down" one who had been awakened, finding nothing unusual in the account. On the pregnancy issue, the SC held that even if Nina admitted she was already pregnant before the first rape, this did not infirm her credibility; given her youth, she may have erred in attributing her pregnancy to Roa on account of the May 25, 1997 incident, but what mattered was that she was positive in her claim about the occurrence of the sexual assault. The trial court found her testimony candid and bereft of any indication that it was fabricated. The prosecution having prima facie established Roa's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of evidence shifted to him; his evidence was weak and failed to controvert Nina's positive declaration, and she was not shown to have any reason to falsely charge him.
• Admission by Silence: The SC held that Roa's admitted silence when Nina's mother confronted and even cursed him about the incidents betrayed his guilt, just as his passivity did when he was allegedly maltreated and haled into jail by Nina's father. For an innocent man would certainly strongly protest and deny a false accusation and do something positive to spare himself of punishment, but Roa did not. Under Section 32, Rule 130, an act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing, when the act or declaration naturally calls for action or comment if not true and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him; by his silence, Roa was deemed to have admitted the charges.
• Damages: The SC held that, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of P50,000 for each count should be awarded as civil indemnity, modifying the trial court's P75,000 award. Following People vs. Sitao, the victim should also be awarded moral damages of P50,000 for each count. In People vs. Catubig, the SC held that if an aggravating circumstance is not alleged in the information but is established during trial, the complainant may still be entitled to exemplary damages; although the use of a bladed weapon was not alleged in the information, Nina's testimony that Roa used one sufficed to entitle her to exemplary damages of P25,000 for each count.

• Admission by Silence — Under Section 32, Rule 130, an act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing, when the act or declaration naturally calls for action or comment if not true and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. The SC applied this to Roa's silence when Nina's mother confronted and cursed him about the rape incidents; his failure to deny was taken as an admission.
• Credibility of a Rape Victim's Positive Testimony — A rape victim's positive and candid testimony may sustain conviction despite minor inconsistencies or an erroneous attribution of pregnancy, especially where the trial court found the testimony candid and bereft of any indication of fabrication. The SC held that Nina's positive claim about the sexual assault mattered more than her youthful error in attributing her pregnancy to the May 25 incident.
• Damages in Rape — For each count of rape, the victim is entitled to P50,000 civil indemnity and P50,000 moral damages; exemplary damages of P25,000 may be awarded where an aggravating circumstance, such as use of a bladed weapon, is established during trial even if not alleged in the information. The SC modified the RTC's P75,000 indemnity accordingly.

• "This Court fails to see anything unusual or not being "in consonance with the normal course of human nature" to "lay down" one who has been awakened." — The SC rejected Roa's argument that Nina's account was contrary to the normal course of human nature.
• "While, given her youth, she may erred in attributing her pregnancy to appellant on account of the May 25, 1997 incident, what matters is that she was positive in her claim about the occurrence of the sexual assault on her" — The SC held that Nina's erroneous attribution of pregnancy did not destroy her credibility because her positive claim about the sexual assault remained.
• "For an innocent man would certainly strongly protest and deny a false accusation and do something positive to spare himself of punishment. But he did not." — The SC used this to support its treatment of Roa's silence as an admission by silence.
• "if an aggravating circumstance is not alleged in the information but is established during trial, the complainant may still be entitled to exemplary damages." — The SC relied on this rule to award exemplary damages despite the information not alleging the use of a bladed weapon.

• People vs. Villaluna, 303 SCRA 518 (1999) — Cited in support of the SC's treatment of Nina's positive claim about the sexual assault despite her erroneous attribution of pregnancy.
• People vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. 139695, August 26, 2002 — Cited for the prevailing jurisprudence fixing civil indemnity at P50,000 for each count of rape.
• People vs. Sitao, G.R. No. 146790, August 22, 2002 — Cited for the award of P50,000 moral damages for each count.
• People vs. Catubig, 363 SCRA 621 (2001) — Cited for the rule that exemplary damages may be awarded where an aggravating circumstance is not alleged in the information but is established during trial.

• Section 32, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence — An act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing, when the act or declaration naturally calls for action or comment if not true and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him. The SC applied this to Roa's silence when Nina's mother confronted and cursed him about the rape incidents.