G.R. No. 93709 - People vs. Rabanes

On September 15, 1989, around 11:00 in the morning, Angelina M. Naallatan, a 26-year-old barrio housewife, filed a sworn complaint alleging that on or about that time and at sitio Cabiao, Barangay Luyong Bonbon, Municipality of Opol, Misamis Oriental, she was raped.
The complaint charged Joseph Rabanes alias “Bado” with committing rape “by means of force, violence, threat and intimidation,” in violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
The information detailed that the accused, using physical force, caught up with the victim while she was returning from procuring a chicken for her daughter’s birthday celebration.

Angelina described being suddenly accosted by a man who caught up with her along a trail.
The accused allegedly slapped her, squeezed her neck causing her to fall, threatened to hit her with a stone, and ultimately raped her after she lost consciousness.
Physical evidence included a torn and soiled blouse, skirt, and panty that were presented by the victim.
Witnesses such as Felicito Cabasan (a 13-year-old who observed the accused’s actions) and Belen Paclar (the victim’s sister-in-law) corroborated the chain of events, including the rush to report the incident and the physical state of the victim when she sought help.
Barangay Kagawad Roman Ibajay also testified, recounting his assistance in apprehending the accused and noting signs of physical trauma (e.g., mud on the victim’s clothes).

Two examinations were conducted at the Northern Mindanao Regional Training Hospital.
Dr. Aziel Diel reported findings of “confluent abrasion on the anterior right neck” and noted injuries consistent with the victim’s account of having been physically subdued.
Dr. Mario Lao’s examination yielded “multiple linear abrasions on the left forearm” and documented the absence of extra-genital injuries on the face, with an explanation regarding individual variations in bruise formation.

Joseph Rabanes admitted to having sexual intercourse with Angelina but asserted that it was consensual and based on an agreement for a fee of P100.00.
He provided an account that included events of drinking beer and being invited by his cousin to the barangay captain’s office.
The accused claimed that after accompanying his common-law wife, he encountered a woman whom he initially presumed he knew, later engaging in a consensual act following her apparent misidentification.

Testimony from the victim indicated that the accused had been previously charged for a similar rape incident involving neighbors (Florita Sajol and Editha Sajol-Pabayok), although that earlier case was dismissed.
The victim’s immediate actions after the incident (seeking help from her sister-in-law and reporting to local authorities) and her physical condition (bruises, disarrayed hair, trembling) were emphasized as indicative of the traumatic experience.

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
The court sentenced Joseph Rabanes to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In addition to the custodial sentence, the accused was ordered to pay:

The accused appealed the decision, raising several assignment of errors regarding evidentiary credibility and the consideration of mitigating circumstances.

Whether the evidence presented, particularly the medical certificates and physical evidence (torn clothing and abrasions), sufficed to establish that the accused employed force and intimidation in the commission of the rape.

The accused contended that the medical report did not corroborate the use of force or intimidation, noting the absence of facial injuries despite the victim’s claim of being slapped.
The inconsistency in the victim’s detailed account (for example, differences in describing the location and sequence of the assault) was raised to challenge her credibility.

Whether the trial court erred in giving total credence to the victim’s testimony despite alleged inconsistencies.

The accused argued that the discrepancies within the victim’s direct testimony and her affidavit should have mitigated the weight assigned to her statements.
The issue centered on whether these inconsistencies were substantial enough to challenge the overall credibility of the testimony.

Whether the trial court improperly considered the accused’s previous criminal charge for a similar offense.

The accused maintained that the prior charge, which had been dismissed for failure to prosecute, should not have influenced the trial court’s determination.
The issue involved the admissibility and effect of evidence regarding the accused’s past criminal record.

Whether the trial court failed to appreciate the accused’s state of intoxication as a mitigating circumstance in determining the penalty.

The defense argued that the accused’s consumption of a limited amount of beer should have been viewed as affecting his mental faculties.
The question was whether such intoxication constituted a mitigating factor under the existing jurisprudence.

Whether the imposition of exemplary damages was proper given that no aggravating circumstances warranting such an award were proved.

The accused contended that exemplary damages in a criminal case should be reserved for instances where aggravating circumstances are clearly established.
The issue examined the appropriateness of awarding P20,000.00 in exemplary damages.