Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
*
G.R.No.142985.August6,2002.
333
VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
333
334
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
335
336
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
APPEALfromadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
Pinamalayan,MindoroOriental,Br.42.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
The Solicitor Generalforplaintiffappellee.
337
VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
337
BongabongHospital.TheresultsshowedthatRachellewas
pregnant.ShealsotestifiedthatRachellerefusedtotellher
about it because accusedappellant
threatened to kill her
4
severaltimeswheneverhesawher.
Dr. Ronaldo Fetalberto, the Municipal Health Officer of
BongabongSouth,OrientalMindoro,testifiedthatRachelle
wasbroughttohisclinicbyherrelativesaftertheynoticed
thatherabdomenwasbulging.Rachellealsocomplainedof
irregular bowel movement. The laboratory results showed
thatRachellewaspregnant.UpontherequestofRachelles
5
relatives,heexaminedtheprivatepartsofthepatient.
The
6
MedicoLegalReport statedthefollowing:
GeneralPhysicalExamination:
Conscious, coherent, hearingimpaired, abdomen enlarged fundic
heightof23cm.FHTof130beats/min.locatedatRLQ.
GenitalExamination:
Pubic hair minimal growth, vulva purplish, coaptated labia
majora, laceration in the labia minora at 8 oclock position (+)
whitishdischarge.
Thereisapositivefetusduringtheradiologicalexamination.
xxxxxxxxx
_______________
3TSN,November10,1998,pp.39.
4TSN,September22,1998,pp.1012.
5Ibid.,pp.89.
6Id.,p.4;ExhibitA,Records,p.8.
338
338
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
Remarks:
1. Fetus(+)inradiologicexam
2. xxx.
becausehehadflusinceSeptember14,1997.Herhusband
recoveredonlyonSeptember19,1997.
Remuel Gallos testified that accusedappellant was the
driverofhistricyclesince1996.OnSeptember15,1997,he
wenttothehouseofaccusedappellanttoaskhimtodrive
his tricycle because he had to work at his farm. He found
accusedappellant
lying in his bed and suffering from
8
influenza.
OnAugust5,1999,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentas
follows:
ACCORDINGLY,accusedRAYMUNDOMAGTIBAYyBACHOCO,
is hereby sentence (sic) to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA, together with the accessory penalty provided by law
andtopaythecost.
Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the victim Rachelle
RectotheamountofP50,000.00withoutsubsidiaryimprisonment.
Finally, accused shall be entitled to the full term of his
preventive imprisonment if he has any to his credit, provided that
he shall agree to abide with the disciplinary rules imposed upon
convictedprisoners,other
_______________
7TSN,March3,1999,pp.36.
8TSN,February22,1999,pp.24.
339
VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
339
AccusedappellantappealedtothisCourtandcontendsthat:
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE IMPLAUSIBLE AND REHEARSED
TESTIMONYOFTHEPRIVATECOMPLAINANT.
II
THECOURTA QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT
OF THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT FOR THE CRIME HAS BEEN
10
PROVENBEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.
11
observedtheirdeportmentduringtrial.
After a thorough review of the evidence on record, the
transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonies of the
witnesses,especiallythatofRachelle,andthepleadingsof
both parties in this appeal, we find no cogent reason to
reverse the trial courts judgment of conviction. The
prosecution has established by proof beyond reasonable
doubttheguiltoftheaccusedappellantinthiscase.
Contrarytotheclaimofaccusedappellant,hisguiltwas
provenbeyondreasonabledoubt,asshownbythefollowing:
_______________
9Rollo,p.20.
10Rollo,p.55.
11People
v. Navida,346SCRA821(2000).
340
340
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
Q: OnSeptember15,1997,around8:00oclockinthe
evening,wherewereyou?
A: IwasatthestoreofKaEmma.
Q: WhatisthesurnameofthisKaEmma?
A: Hernandez,sir.
Q: WhywereyouthereinthestoreofEmmaHernandez?
A: Iboughtcigaretteandice,sir.
Q: Whileyouwerebuyingcigaretteandiceinthestoreof
KaEmma,werethereotherpersonsthereat?
A: None,sir.
Q: Howabouttheaccusedyoupointedawhileago,where
washeatthattime?
A: HewasatthestoreofKaEmma,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
FISCAL(Continuing):
Q: Andwhatwashedoinginthestore?
A: Hewasstanding,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Q: Afterbuyingiceandcigarette,wheredidyougo?
A: Ireturnedhome,sir.
Q: HowfaristhehouseofKaEmmatoyourhouse?
A: 40meters,moreorless,sir.
Q: Whileyouwereonyourwayhomecomingfromthe
storeofKaEmma,doyourememberofanunusual
incidentthattranspired?
A: Yes,sir.
Q: Andwhatwasthat?Pleasetellthecourt?
A: Hewasalwayslookingatme,sir.
Q: Whowasthatpersonalwayslookingatyou?
Witness:
A: RaymundoMagtibay,sir.
FISCAL(Continuing):
Q: Afterlookingatyou,whathappenednext?
A: WhenIwasalittlebitfarfromthestore,heapproached
me,sir.
Q: Aftertheaccusedapproachedyou,whatdidhedonext?
A: Hepulledmyrighthand,sir.
341
VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
341
xxxxxxxxx
Q: Youstatedthattheaccusedheldyourrightarmand
coveredyourmouthandthereafterthreatenedyounot
toshoutorelseyouwillbekilled.Afterdoingthese
things,whatelsedidhedotoyouifany?
Witness:
A: Heplacedhimselfontopofmeandinsertedhispenis.
xxxxxxxxx
Q: Washesuccessfulininsertinghispenis?
A: Yes,sir.
Q: Whatdidyoufeelafterhesuccessfullyandforcibly
insertedhispenis?
A: Ifeltpain,sir.
Q: Youstatedthatheplacedhimselfontopofyou,what
wasyourpositionwhenheplacedhimselfontopofyou?
A: Iwaslyingfacedupward.
Q: Inwhatplacewereyoulyingupward?
A: Atthegrassyplacesir(damuhan).
Q: Beforehewasabletosuccessfullyinserthispenis,what
didhedotoyouoryourgarmentsorpantie(sic)?
A: Heremovedmyshortandmypantie.
xxxxxxxxx
FISCAL(Continuing):
Q: HowaboutRaymundoMagtibay,whatdidhedobefore
placinghimselfontopofyou?
A: Heremovedhispantsandbrief,sir.
Q: Becauseofthethreatoftheaccusedthathewillkillyou
ifyouwillrevealthistoanybody,willyoutellthecourt
ifyouaccededtothethreatoftheaccused?
A: No,sir.
342
342
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
Q: Whatdoyoumean,nosir?Didyoureportorreveal
thistoyourmotherorfather?
A: No,sir.
Q: Whydidyounotrevealthistoyourparents?
12
A: Hewasthreateningmetobekilled,sir.
v. Barcelona,325SCRA168(2000).
14People
v. Lustre,330SCRA189(2000).
15People
v. Ramos,345SCRA685(2000).
16 People
546.
17People
v. Cortes,323SCRA131(2000).
343
VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
343
291.
344
344
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
Q: Youwillagreewithmethatyouhavemetthis
RaymundoMagtibaywhileyouwereatthepolice
station?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Thathewaspresentedtoyouamongwithothermale
personsofhisage.AmIcorrect?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Andthatyou were asked by the police officers to point
Raymundo Magtibay but when you cannot point to
Raymundo Magtibay,thepoliceofficersinstructedyou
topointRaymundoMagtibay?
A: Ipointedhim.
Q: But you have pointed to Raymundo Magtibay after the
police officer have instructed you to point Raymundo
Magtibay because initially, you cannot point to him?
A: Yes, mam.
COURT:
Q: Whatdoyoumeanbyyes?
A: Totoopo.
ATTY.JOYA:
Q: BeforeyoutestifiedhereinCourtyouhavehada
chancetotalkwithyourlawyer.Correct?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Andathisoffice,heinterviewedyouaswhatyouare
goingtotestifytoday?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: BeforeyouwenttotheOfficeoftheProvincialFiscal,
alongthewayandinyourhouse,youandyourmother
werediscussingastowhatyouaregoingtotestify
today?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Andyourmothertoldyouthatyoushouldtestifyinthe
manneryoudid,today.Correct?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Shetoldyoutotestifyonthemanneryoudidwhenyou
weredirectlyexaminedbytheprosecutor?
A: Yes,mam.
Q: Thatbecauseyouloveyourparentsverymuch,youwill
followyourparents.AmIcorrect?
345
VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
People vs. Magtibay
A:
19
Yes,mam.
345
Accusedappellantsclaimlacksmerit.Rachellestestimony
on crossexamination did not deviate from, much less
impeach,thecoreofhertestimonyastothegravamenofthe
crimeofrapesexualcongresswithawomanbyforceand
20
without consent. The foregoing crossexamination by
accusedappellantscounselmerelyinjectedinnuendoesofa
fabricated charge but failed to clearly demonstrate
compelling reason why we should render Rachelles
testimony less worthy of belief. Notwithstanding the
ambiguous questions asked by accusedappellants counsel
to Rachelle, we find her testimony convincing and
straightforward.Thecrossexaminationofayounggirl,not
accustomed to public trial, could produce apparent
contradictions on minor details that would nevertheless
keepintactthecredibilityofthevictimastothefactofrape.
Atanyrate,accusedappellantscontentionsarenothingbut
indicia of his desperate attempt to evade liability for the
crimehecommitted.
21
As regards the drafting of Rachelles sworn affidavit,
the defense dismally failed to distinctly establish whether
all the answers supposedly given by Rachelle were indeed
supplied by her mother. It likewise faltered in eliciting
convincing proof that the questions asked by the police
officer to the mother of Rachelle were questions related to
theanswersRachellegaveinheraffidavit.Theinquiryfell
short of exhibiting the verity of its claim that Rachelles
answers in her sworn statement were supplied by her
mother.Bethatasitmay,Rachellesexparteaffidavitwill
generallybeconsideredincompleteandinaccurateandwill
22
notthusprevailoverherstatementsonthestand.
We likewise find nothing objectionable in Rachelles
positiveidentificationofherdefileratthePoliceStationof
Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro. The identification made at
the police station did not foreclose the admissibility of the
independentincourtidentifi
_______________
19Rollo,pp.5860.
20People
v. Dela Cruz,338SCRA582(2000).
21ExhibitC;Records,pp.56.
22People
v. Castillo,335SCRA100(2000).
346
346
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
23
v. Pacistol,284SCRA520(1998).
24People
v. Gallego,338SCRA21(2000).
25ExhibitC,Records,p.5.
26TSN,January26,1999,p.6.
27People
v. Alagon,325SCRA297(2000).
347
VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
347
v. Gopio,346SCRA408(2000).
29TSN,January26,1999,p.6.
30TSN,23March1999,p.7.
31People
People v. Cledoro, Jr., G.R. No. 111860, 29 June 2001, 360 SCRA 338;
People v. De Villa, 351 SCRA 25, (2001); and People v. Juntilla, 314
SCRA568(1999).
32 People
SCRA667.
348
348
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
taken could easily subside the fever. It openly shows that the
sickness accused suffered is not so serious enough for him to be
bedridden and incapacitated to leave his house and do his usual
course. Accused house is around 100 meters from the scene of the
incident,andtherequiredphysicalimpossibilityofbeingpresentat
the situs of the crime therefore becomes unavailing to him.
34
(Citationsomitted)
v. Alayay,G.R.Nos.137199230,23August2001,363 SCRA
603.
34Rollo,p.19.
349
VOL.386,AUGUST6,2002
349
350
350
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Magtibay
parent as the law itself provides for the childs status. Hence,
accusedappellantshouldonlybeorderedtoindemnifyandsupport
thevictimschild.However,theamountandtermsofsupportshall
be determined by the trial court after due notice and hearing in
accordancewithArticle201oftheFamilyCode.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theDecisiondated
August5,1999oftheRegionalTrialCourtofPinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro, Branch XLII, in Criminal Case No. P
5775, finding accusedappellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubtofthecrimeofrapeandsentencinghimtosufferthe
penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that accusedappellant RAYMUNDO
MAGTIBAY y BACHOCO is ordered to pay complainant
Rachelle Recto, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Accused
appellant is further ordered to provide support to the
victims child born out of the rape, subject to the amount
and terms to be determined by the trial court in a proper
proceeding.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan and
AustriaMartinez, JJ.,concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Notes.It is unthinkable for a twelveyear old girl,
especially one from the rural area, to publicly and falsely
accuse an old man of a serious offense as rape and then
undergothetraumaandhumiliationofapublictrialifher
accusations were merely concoctions of a scheming and
maliciousmind.(People vs. Pada,261SCRA773[1996])
The crime of rape committed carries with it, among
others, the obligations to acknowledge the offspring if the
characterofitsorigindoesnotpreventitandtosupportthe
same.(People vs. Namayan,246SCRA646[1995])
o0o
351