Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Members:

SALAZAR-FERNANDO, R.A., J.,

Chairperson,
- versus - LAZARO-JAVIER, A.C. &
AZCARRAGA-JACOB, M.C., JJ.

RODOLFO MASUBAY y Promulgated:

PASAGI,
31 January 2019
Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

AZCARRAGA-JACOB, J.:

At bar is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 15 February 2017 of the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 86, Quezon City, finding accused Rodolfo
Masubay y Pasagi (now appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape in Criminal Case No. Q-05-137304, but dismissing the similar
charge of rape against him in Criminal Case No. Q-05-137303 on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence.
1
Records, pp. 149-161; Rollo, pp. 40-52.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 2 of 15
Decision

The Antecedents

In the two separate Information[s]2 dated 06 June 2005 indicting

appellant of rape, it was alleged, mutatis mutandis, that in the month of
October 2003, appellant, by means of force and intimidation, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA,3 a
sixteen (16) year old minor, against her will and without her consent.4

When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to each of the charge in

the two Information[s]. After pre-trial was conducted, the two cases were
jointly tried.

The facts of the criminal cases a quo, as presented by the prosecution,

are serially narrated by the trial court as follows:

Sometime on [sic] October 2003, at about

noontime, AAA went home from her friend’s place. Her
house is located at x x x.5 When AAA was already at their
doorstep and about to enter their house, accused suddenly
2
Records, pp. 2-3 and 4-5, respectively.
3
Pursuant to Section 29 of R.A. No. 7160, Section 4 of R.A. No. 9262, Section 40 of Administrative Matter
No. 04-10-11-SC, and Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 issued by the Supreme Court, and the ruling in People v.
Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419), the personal circumstances of the victims or any
other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or
household members, shall not be disclosed. The names of such victims and of their immediate family members other
than accused, unless he or she is a minor, shall appear as “AAA”, “BBB”, and so on.
4
The pertinent text of the two Information[s] reads:
“Criminal Case No. Q-05-137303
That on or about the last week of October 2003 in Quezon City[,] Philippines, the above-
named accused[,] with force and intimidation[,] did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA][,] a minor 16 years of age[,] against her will and
without her consent to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
“Criminal Case No. Q-05-137304
That on or about the month of October 2003 in Quezon City[,] Philippines, the above-
named accused[,] with force and intimidation[,] did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of one [AAA][,] a minor 16 years of age[,] against her will and
without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
5
Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 mandates that the geographical location of
the locus criminis shall refer only the name of the province, excluding the specific barangay or town.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 3 of 15
Decision

grabbed her hands and pulled her inside his house. The
accused is AAA’s neighbor whose house is adjacent to that
of AAA. The doors of their house are near and fronting
each other. No one was around the place when AAA went
home.
After having been brought inside the house, the
accused threatened AAA with a knife not to shout.
Helpless and afraid of the threat of the accused, she was
laid down on the floor by the accused who ordered AAA
to remove her clothes. When she resisted, the accused
forcibly removed her shorts and panty. After the accused
successfully removed AAA’s underwear, accused removed
his underwear and immediately thereafter, he laid on top
of AAA and started kissing her cheeks, lips, held her
vagina and then inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina.
AAA was resisting from the start she was being molested
by the accused but with the knife poked on her and the
threat that the accused would kill her, the resolve to resist
was overpowered by fear and she stopped resisting that
gave way to the consummation of the dastardly act of the
accused. The accused having satisfied his carnal desire
released AAA to go home but was given by the accused a
stern warning not to tell anyone lest the accused will kill
her. Gripped by fear and terror that the accused will kill
her if she tells anyone, AAA kept to herself what the
accused has done to her.
Days and months passed by and AAA did not tell
anyone what happened to her in the hands of the accused.
After three months of living in fear, on January 26, 2004,
AAA was able to muster the courage to tell her parents
what the accused did to her. The mother of AAA, upon
knowing what the accused did to AAA, immediately
decided to report the incident to the police and
subsequently accompanied AAA to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for medical and genital examination. The
examination done on AAA shows that there is a deep
healed laceration on her hymen at 8[:00] o’clock position
and shallow healed laceration at 3[:00] & 5[:00] o’clock
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 4 of 15
Decision

positions. AAA[,] together with her mother[,] filed a

complaint for rape at the Police Station 3, CPD, Quirino
Highway, Brgy. Talipapa, Quezon City.
Dr. Reynaldo Dave, the medical doctor who
conducted the medical examination upon AAA at the PNP
Crime Laboratory on January 28, 2004 stated during his
testimony and in the Initial Medico-Legal Report and
Medico-Legal Report No. M-358-04 that there is a deep
healed laceration at 8[:00] o’clock position and shallow-
healed laceration[s] at 3[:00] & 5[:00] o’clock positions;
that the subject minor is in non-virgin state physically and
that there are no external signs of application of any form
of trauma. Further, she stated that the deep healed and
shallow healed lacerations were caused by a blunt
penetrating trauma to the vagina. It could be caused by a
finger, erected [sic] penis or hard object.

In defense, appellant denied sexually molesting AAA. Portraying a

different story, appellant averred that at the time of the alleged incidents he
was at his place of work located twenty (20) kilometers away from his
house. Appellant asserted that he did not go to his house when the alleged
crimes were committed in October 2003. He also stated that he usually goes
home on a weekly basis, and whenever he goes home he would only stay for
a while to get some clothes. Appellant further alleged that the instant
criminal suits were filed by AAA at the instigation of her mother BBB, “who
is mad at him as she owes him money, and every time the accused would
collect payments from her, BBB will only answer that she still has no
money.”6

The Ruling of the Trial Court

In the Decision7 dated 15 February 2017, the trial court disposed of

the two criminal cases a quo in this wise:

6
See paragraph 7, Brief for the Accused-Appellant, Rollo, p. 32.
7
See Note 1.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 5 of 15
Decision

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises,

the accused Rodolfo Masubay y Pasagi, under Criminal
Case No. Q-05-137304, is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape punishable under
Article 266-A (1) paragraph (a) in relation to Article 266-
B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is hereby
sentenced to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. For this
offense the accused is adjudged to pay the victim damages
as follows: (1) One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) by way of civil indemnity ex delicto; (2)
moral damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00); (3) exemplary damages in the
amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) with legal
interest from finality of decision. The charge under
Criminal Case No. Q-05-13730[3] is dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.

The Assigned Errors

Dissatisfied, appellant interposed the instant appeal alleging that the

RTC gravely erred: (i) in giving weight and credence to the dubious,
incredible and inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; (ii) in
disregarding his defense of denial.8

The crux of appellant’s defense is that the testimonies of private

complainant AAA and her witnesses are so incredible in that they cannot
justify a conviction. Appellant specifically assails the testimony of AAA,
which he alleged were inconsistent and contradictory, to wit: AAA stated in
her direct examination and in her sworn statement 9 that she was raped twice;
in her cross-examination, however, she testified that was raped only once.
Appellant also contends that AAA suffered no physical injuries thus
negating her claim that he employed force and intimidation on her. Appellant
likewise wails why AAA did not shout for help when she was allegedly
8
See Assignment of Errors, Brief for the Accused-Appellant, p. 3; Rollo, p. 29.
9
Exhibit “A”, Records, pp. 9-10.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 6 of 15
Decision

pulled from the doorstep of their house to his house in the afternoon of
October 2003. Granting arguendo that AAA was indeed pulled into his
house, appellant avers that “it is quite perplexing how the accused succeeded
without having been seen by other people, considering that it happened in a
public place and in broad daylight.” Appel1lant further asserts that AAA’s
declaration that she was raped is belied by the testimony of Dr. Reynaldo
Dave that no spermatozoa was found in AAA’s hymen during her genital
examination. Lastly, appellant argues that his defense of denial and alibi
should have been given more credence than the frail and effete evidence of
the prosecution identifying him as the one who raped AAA.

The Ruling of this Court

The Court has carefully examined the evidence on record, and is

convinced more than ever that the judgment convicting appellant for rape
must be sustained.

In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of

the complaining witness, provided such testimony is credible, natural,
convincing, and consistent with the human nature and the course of things. 10
The prosecution need not present testimonies of people other than the
offended party herself if her testimony is accurate and credible. 11 As it has
oft been repeated, on the matter of the credibility of witnesses the findings of
the trial court are generally accorded great weight and utmost respect, if not
conclusive effect, because it has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of
witnesses while testifying. Such findings may only be disturbed on appeal if
there is any showing that the trial court overlooked some material or
substantial facts which if given consideration will alter the assailed
decision.12 Quite unfortunate for appellant, the case at bar is no exception.

10
People v. Tabago, G. R. No. 69118, 08 November 1968, 161 SCRA 65; People v. Nuñez; G. R. No. 79316,
10 April 1992, 208 SCRA 34; People v. Sarda, G.R. No. 74479, 24 April 1989, 172 SCRA 651; People v. Monteverde,
G.R. No. 60962, 11 July 1986, 142 SCRA 668; People v. Almenario, G.R. No. 66420, 17 April 1989, 172 SCRA 2681.
11
People v. Calixto, G.R. No. 92355, 24 January 1991, 193 SCRA 303.
12
People v. Cura, G.R. No. 112529, 18 January 1995, 240 SCRA 234; People v. Codilla, G.R. Nos. 100720-
23, 30 June 1993, 224 SCRA 104; People v. Lucas, G.R. Nos. 108172-73, 25 May 1994, 232 SCRA 537; People v.
Navarette, G.R. No. 136840, 13 September 2001.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 7 of 15
Decision

The categorical, direct and straightforward testimony of the private

offended party AAA proved in no uncertain terms that it was appellant who
sexually ravaged her sometime in October 2003. In this light, We need only
quote the following lucid observations and remarks of the trial court,
particularly on the credibility and demeanor of AAA, viz.:

In a very clear and straightforward manner AAA

narrated how accused raped her under threat and
intimidation and succeeded in having intercourse with her.
Pertinent portion of her testimony given in [c]ourt reads as
follows:
Q. What happened on October 2003 when the first
incident of rape?
xxxx
A. I was on my way home that time, [s]ir.
Q. So, what happened to you?
A. When he suddenly pulled me towards his house,
[s]ir.
Q. By whom?
A. Rodolfo Masubay, [s]ir.
Q. The accused in this case?
A. Yes[,] [s]ir.
Q. So, what happened to you when the accused pulled
you inside his house?
A. He forcibly tried to remove my short[s][,] sir.
Q. What else happened?
A. And also my panty, [s]ir.
Q. How about your t-shirt or blouse you were
wearing at that time?
A. He was not able to remove it, [s]ir[,] because I was
struggling.
Q. So, what happened after the accused removed your
short[s] and panty?
A. He poked a knife at me and he uttered for me not
to shout[,] sir.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 8 of 15
Decision

Q. How about the accused[?] [W]hat did he do to

himself after removing your short[s] and panty?
A. He also undressed himself[,] [s]ir.
Q. Then afterwards what happened?
A. Something happened to us, sir[.]
Q. So, what something that you are referring to?
A. He inserted his penis into my vagina, [s]ir.
Q. So, at that particular instance, Madam Witness, the
accused still holding his knife?
A. Yes, [s]ir.
Q. So, what was your reaction when accused [was]
already on top of you?
A. I was terrified, [s]ir.
xxxx
Q. What was your reaction when the accused was
already on top of you?
A. I was afraid, [s]ir.
Q. So, why?
A. Because he is in possession of the knife, [s]ir.
Q. So, what did you feel when the accused inserted
his private part to your private part?
A. It was painful, [s]ir.
Q. How painful?
A. It was really painful, [s]ir.
Q. So, how long did the accused do that act to you?
A. I cannot recall, [s]ir.
Q. So, what happened afterwards?
A. I went out of his house, [s]ir.
Q. So, what did the accused tell you when you go
outside his house?
A. For me not to report to my mother, [s]ir.
Q. And what the accused will do to you in case you
report the matter to your mother?
xxxx
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 9 of 15
Decision

A. That he will kill me, [s]ir.

The foregoing declarations made by AAA was

clear, straightforward and consistent that accused raped
her by force and intimidation. It is credible and worthy of
belief having no sign of concoction, contrivance or
prevarication. When a woman says that she had been
raped, she in effect says all that is necessary to know that
rape was, in fact, committed on her. The private
complainant did not hesitate to have herself physically
examined by a medical doctor in a military facility to
show the genuineness of her desire to seek justice over the
molestation done on her. In People vs. Oscar Tadeo[,] the
High Court articulated that “[n]o woman would be willing
to undergo a public trial, along with the shame,
humiliation, and dishonor of exposing her own
degradation, were it not to condemn an injustice and to
have the offende[r] apprehended and punished. The
embarrassment and stigma of allowing and examination of
her private parts and testifying at a public trial on the
painfully intimate details of her violation effectively rule
out the possibility of a false accusation of rape.
xxxx
The private complainant personally knows the
accused, when she narrated how accused committed
sexual molestation. When the accused approached her and
forcibly grabbed her into his house on October 2003, she
came face to face with the accused and AAA knew it was
the accused as the perpetrator of the crime because she is
familiar to him being their neighbor for about one year. It
is also worthy to note that the incident happened in broad
daylight (noon time) and with no people around because at
that time, AAA’s parents and siblings were out of their
house. The houses of neighbors next to their houses are
likewise far.
…In this case, as the incident happened in daylight,
AAA easily identified the accused and she was positive as
to the identity of the accused because she personally knew
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 10 of 15
Decision

him, being their neighbor for about 1 year before the

incident happened.
xxxx
The testimony of private complainant was
corroborated by the Final Medico-Legal Report and the
doctor’s testimony, Dr. Reynaldo Dave, Jr. who conducted
the genital examination on AAA. The doctor who
examined her found deep healed laceration at 3 and 5
o’clock positions and these were caused by a blunt
penetrating trauma to the vagina which could be caused by
an erected [sic] penis, or a finger or a hard object.
...As stated above, private complainant’s testimony
was credible and convincing. Although there were some
inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA, such as the
month, date and number of times she was raped by the
accused, the same does not affect the credibility of AAA
that she was actually raped by the accused. AAA remained
consistent in her declaration that sometime in October,
2003, the accused armed with a knife and with threat and
intimidation to kill her if she resist, inserted his penis into
her vagina after she was forcefully undressed by the
accused.
xxxx
There were two charges being tried in this case
against accused Masubay, one that allegedly happened on
the last week of October, 2003 and the other one sometime
in October 2003. However, the evidence presented by the
prosecution proved only one count of rape that which first
happened sometime in October, 2003 under Criminal Case
No. Q-05-137304 referred to by AAA in her testimony. No
evidence was presented on the alleged rape that happened
on the second [sic last] week of October, 2003. Under
Criminal Case No. [Q-]05-137303, it was alleged that the
rape was committed on the second [sic] week of October
2003 and under Criminal Case No. [Q-]05-137304, it was
alleged that the rape was committed sometime on [sic]
October 2003. Since AAA testified that she was raped
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 11 of 15
Decision

only once sometime on [sic] October 2003 by the accused,

the [c]ourt finds it proper that the accused be held liable
from the crime of rape (1 count) which happened
sometime on [sic] October 2003 under Criminal Case No.
Q-05-137034.13

Appellant’s argument that the fact that there is absence of physical

abuse or injuries negates AAA’s claim that he forced or intimidated her into
submission does not deserve serious consideration. Proof of physical injuries
is neither an essential element of the crime of rape, nor is it a crucial issue in
determining the culpability of the accused-appellant. The well-settled rule is
that the force or violence required in rape cases is relative; when applied it
need not be too overpowering or irresistible. What is essential is that the
force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose which the offender had in
mind, or to bring about the result.14 In People v. Dulay,15 it was held that
persistent and determined physical struggle on the part of the rape victim is
not necessary, and any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the
rape in any degree is admissible as evidence of lack of consent. Here, the
ambient facts of the case indubitably show that appellant was then armed
with a knife which caused AAA too difficult to resist and ultimately cowed
into his sexual desires.

As regards AAA’s failure to cry for help when she was pulled from the
doorstep of their house to the house of appellant in the afternoon of October
2003, which failure, according to appellant, exhibits the weakness of the
charge, such omission on the part of AAA does not necessarily mean that
she was not sexually desecrated. AAA could have been terrified and shocked
into insensitivity by the bestiality she has been subjected to. To her, she
could suffer in silence, albeit momentarily, if only to avoid humiliation and
embarrassment that may be brought about by the public disclosure of her
being ravished. It is doctrinally settled that people react differently under
emotional stress.16 The workings of the human mind when placed under
13
RTC Decision, pp. 6-9.
14
People v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. 92626-29, 27 May 1991, 197 SCRA 523.
15
G.R. Nos. 144344-68, 23 July 2002, 385 SCRA 155.
16
People v. Hacbang, G.R. No. 75293, 17 August 1988, 164 SCRA 441.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 12 of 15
Decision

emotional stress are unpredictable. There is no standard form of behavior

when one is confronted by a shocking incident. In a given situation, some
may shout, some may faint; some may be shocked into sensibility, as what
happened to AAA, while others may yet welcome the intrusion.17

On appellant’s argument that no spermatozoa was found in AAA’s

medico-legal examination, thus rendering her claim of rape doubtful, the
consistent rule has been that absence of semen in the victim’s vaginal area
does not negate rape.18 The presence or absence of spermatozoa is
immaterial in rape since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes
the crime. Besides, the absence of spermatozoa in the vagina could be due to
a number of factors, such as the vertical drainage of the semen from the
vagina, the acidity of the vagina, or the washing of the vagina immediately
after the sexual assault.19

Lastly, appellant’s alibi that he was at his workplace when the rape
incident took place, cannot prevail over AAA’s testimony positively placing
him at the crime scene. It bears stressing that for the defense of alibi to
prosper, the accused must prove that not only that he was at some other place
at the time the crime was committed, but also that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. 20 Appellant
evidently failed to establish the requisite physical impossibility of his having
been at the locus and tempus of the commission of the crimes imputed. In
fact, as admitted by appellant himself, the locus criminis is merely twenty
(20) kilometer away from his workplace.

It is long ingrained in jurisprudence that alibi is a defense easily

fabricated especially among parents, children and relatives, or even among
17
People v. Abonada, G.R. No. 50041, 27 January 1989, 169 SCRA 530; People v. Fernandez, G.R. No.
80228, 12 September 1988, 165 SCRA 302.
18
People v. Sacapaño, G.R. No. 130525, 03 September 1999; People v. Dones, G.R. No. 108743, 13 March
1996, 325 Phil. 173.
19 See People v. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253, 28 August 2013; People v. Freta, G.R. No. 134451-52, 14 March

2001; People v. Lim, G.R. No. 131861-63, 17 August 1999.

20
People v. Taneo, 284 SCRA 251 (1998), People v. Barte, 230 SCRA 401 (1984), People v. Aninon, 158
SCRA 701 (1988); People v. Pelopero, G.R. No. 126119, 15 October 2003; People v. Taboga, 376 SCRA 500 (2002);
People v. Blanco, 324 SCRA 280 (2002).
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 13 of 15
Decision

those not so related, so that great caution must be exercised in accepting it.
For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the accused was
somewhere else when the crime was committed but it must likewise be
demonstrated that he was so far away that he could not have been physically
present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission.21

In fine, We hold that the trial court correctly rejected the defense of
alibi proffered by appellant which is not only inherently weak and feeble, but
which became more dubious when it was sought to be established only by
appellant himself, and not by disinterested, unbiased person who would, in
the natural order of things, be best situated to support the denial.

By and large, this Court fully subscribes to the ruling of the trial court
finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under
Criminal Case No. Q-05-137304 with the qualifying circumstance of use of
a deadly weapon, imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and
ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of
P100,000.00 each. However, this Court increased the trial court’s award of
exemplary damages from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00 in order to conform to
the ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Jugueta.22

WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby

DENIED.

Accordingly, the Decision dated 15 February 2017 of the Regional

Trial Court, Branch 86, Quezon City, convicting accused-appellant Rodolfo
Masubay y Pasagi of the crime of rape under Criminal Case No. Q-05-
137304, is AFFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of
exemplary damages is increased to P100,000.00.

21
People v. Cadag, G.R. No. 93899, 8 May 1992, 208 SCRA 781.
22
G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 14 of 15
Decision

Pursuant to the pronouncement in Nacar v. Gallery Frames and

Felipe Bordey, Jr.,23 accused-appellant is further ORDERED to pay legal
interest on all awarded damages at 6% per annum from the filing of the
Information on 19 October 2005 until the finality of this Decision, and
another 6% per annum from such finality until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

MARIE CHRISTINE AZCARRAGA-JACOB

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER

Associate Justice Associate Justice

23
G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013, 703 SCRA 439.
CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 09516 Page 15 of 15
Decision

C E R T I FI CAT I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.

REMEDIOS A. SALAZAR-FERNANDO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division