G.R. No. 170477 - People vs. Cabierte

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170477)

Factual Background

The prosecution alleged that at around 11:00 p.m. on December 2, 1997, AAA sneaked out to meet her boyfriend. Near the meeting place, she saw a bonfire, a makeshift tent, and five members of her barkada, including Recario, Villasanta, and the three accused—Cabierte, Macabio, and Viernes. After AAA whistled to signal her presence, Recario invited her to join the group. AAA asked for her boyfriend, and Viernes told her to wait. She conversed with the group while they drank.

As the night progressed, appellant, Viernes, Macabio, and Villasanta entered the tent and teased one another by removing each other’s pants. While Viernes was inside, he offered AAA a cigarette. When AAA approached the tent entrance to take it, Viernes put it at his crotch. AAA initially indicated she would not take it, but Viernes waved it at her, prompting her to take it and return to the bonfire to smoke. AAA later proceeded to the tent together with Recario. Viernes was pushed toward AAA and bumped his nape with the cigarette.

Enraged, Viernes grabbed AAA and pulled her inside the tent, causing her to fall on her knees. As AAA tried to stand, Viernes pushed her and pinned her down with his body (dinaganan). Appellant then held AAA’s hands while Macabio held her legs. Viernes had sexual intercourse with AAA despite her protests and despite her physical struggles. After Viernes, appellant followed by Macabio likewise had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will and despite her physical struggles. After the boys left the tent, AAA went home and arrived before 3:00 a.m. on December 3, 1997.

On the following day, or December 4, 1997, AAA’s boyfriend confronted her after he learned that she had been sexually abused. AAA then told her mother, and with her mother’s accompaniment she executed a sworn statement at the Baguio City Police Office. On December 8, 1997, Dr. Ronald R. Bandonill, a medico-legal officer, examined AAA and recorded both extragenital and genital findings, including injuries that he concluded were compatible with the alleged date of commission.

Medical Evidence and Its Significance

Dr. Bandonill documented physical injuries on AAA at the time of examination. Extragenital injuries included contusions on the right forearm and left knee, and multiple linear abrasions in the posterior trunk area, with an abrasion with scab formation on the chest posteriorly on the left side. For genital examination, Dr. Bandonill noted that the hymen was annular with old-healed lacerations at specified positions and that the hymenal orifice admitted a tube with slight difficulty; the vaginal walls were described as slightly lax.

Dr. Bandonill expressly concluded that the injuries noted on the body were compatible with the alleged date of commission and that there were old-healed complete hymenal lacerations. In testimony on the nature and possible cause of the injuries, Dr. Bandonill explained that contusions could be caused by a hard blunt object and that abrasions could result from contact with a hard rough surface. He further testified that the contusions could be produced if a person attempted to immobilize the victim by applying pressure and heavy weight, including by pinning her down with a knee, legs, or the person’s entire body. He confirmed that such mechanisms were consistent with AAA’s narration that Viernes pushed her down and pinned her with his body and that she struggled but could not push him away because he was heavy.

Defense Theories and Counter-Evidence

The defense conceded that appellant and his co-accused had sexual intercourse with AAA on December 2, 1997, but claimed that AAA consented. The defense presented two members of the barkada, Wilma Fagyan and Sharon Caballes, who testified that when they met AAA on December 5, 1997, she bragged about having sexual intercourse with appellant and his co-accused and of enjoying it. The defense also attempted to portray AAA as a “pokpok girl” who was allegedly willing to have sexual intercourse with anybody. Further, the defense attributed AAA’s extragenital injuries to her alleged fall down a concrete staircase during Viernes’ birthday party on November 14, 1997.

The trial court found these explanations unpersuasive in light of Dr. Bandonill’s findings on the age of the injuries and the overall compatibility of the injuries with the victim’s account. It also disregarded the “bragging” testimonies as unreliable, given the witnesses’ relationship to the accused and the resulting probability of bias.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

By Decision of January 4, 1999, Branch 6 of the Baguio RTC found that appellant and his co-accused conspired in the commission of three separate crimes of rape as charged in Criminal Case Nos. 15542-R, 15594-R, and 15595-R. The trial court ruled that the elements of rape were satisfied through proof that sexual intercourse occurred with force. The court imposed reclusion perpetua on appellant and imposed graduated penalties on the minors, Jerry Macabio and Norbert Viernes, whose sentences were suspended and who were placed under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare through the Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youthful Offenders until they reached the age of 21. AAA was awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in each case, with costs against the accused. Appellant’s detention status entitled him to preventive imprisonment credits as provided by law.

Appellate Review and the Issue on Appeal

Because the imposed penalty on appellant was reclusion perpetua, the case records were transmitted to the Court. Consistent with People v. Mateo, the Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. By Decision of August 25, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the monetary award by adding P50,000.00 as moral damages. It also granted appellant full time credit for preventive suspension.

The present appeal then raised a single issue: whether force attended the sexual intercourses.

The Parties’ Contentions on Force

Appellant argued, in effect, that AAA consented to the sexual intercourse and that force was not established. He attempted to undermine the credibility of AAA by invoking her supposed reputation as a “pokpok girl,” by emphasizing her conduct after the incident, and by stressing alleged delay in reporting. He also insisted that the extragenital injuries could have come from a separate incident, namely her alleged fall down a staircase during a prior birthday party.

The prosecution maintained that the narration of the incident showed coercion and physical restraint. It anchored the proof of force on AAA’s testimony of being pulled inside the tent, pinned down, restrained by appellant and Macabio, and subjected to repeated sexual intercourse despite resistance, and it supported the claim through Dr. Bandonill’s medical findings consistent with a scenario of immobilization by heavy pressure and physical struggle.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court treated the statutory element of rape under Article 266-A as requiring that carnal knowledge be committed through force, threat, or intimidation. It reiterated the settled doctrine that it was not necessary to show that irresistible force or intimidation accompanied the crime. It sufficed that force or intimidation was present and did result in the accused copulating with the offended woman against her will.

On the medical and testimonial record, the Court held that the injuries observed by Dr. Bandonill corroborated the victim’s account of force. The doctor’s testimony linked contusions and abrasions to blunt impact, rough surface contact, and pressure capable of immobilizing a person. The Court found it significant that Dr. Bandonill also affirmed that contusions could result if an accused pinned the victim with his body and applied pressure in a manner consistent with AAA’s statement that she was pinned down with heavy weight and could not resist effectively because the accused was heavy.

The Court also rejected appellant’s attempt to discredit the victim by reference to her alleged “pokpok girl” reputation. It reaffirmed the doctrine that the victim’s character in rape was immaterial and that unchaste character did not constitute a defense where rape was proved to have been committed with force and violence. The Court further considered AAA’s decision to stay with the group despite the absence of her

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 170477)

Parties and Procedural Posture

AAA filed a complaint leading to the prosecution of accused-appellant Harold Wally Cabierte with Jerry Macabio and Norbert Viernes for rape.
The cases were instituted before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15542-R, for rape in an Information.
After reinvestigation, the prosecution filed two additional informations, docketed as Criminal Cases No. 15594-R and No. 15595-R, with substantially similar wording, based on a finding of three counts of rape.
By Decision of January 4, 1999, the RTC, Branch 6, found all three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as conspirators and confederates of rape (three counts).
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, and because the penalty imposed on Harold Cabierte was reclusion perpetua, the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Appeals by Resolution of August 30, 2004 due to People v. Mateo, which mandated intermediate review for cases imposing death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua.
By Decision of August 25, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction, modified the award to include P50,000.00 as moral damages, and granted full time credit for preventive suspension.
The appeal before the Court raised the sole issue of whether force attended the sexual intercourses.
The Court denied the appeal and affirmed the challenged decision with costs against appellant.

Key Factual Allegations

The Informations alleged that on December 2, 1997, in Baguio City, the accused, acting through conspiracy, dragged AAA into a tent, held her hands, spread her legs after stripping her, and then had carnal knowledge with her against her will and consent.
AAA’s account placed the incident at about 11:00 p.m. on December 2, 1997, when she went out to meet her boyfriend and encountered a barkada group near a bonfire and a makeshift tent.
Recario invited AAA to join the group, and Viernes told her to wait while the others drank.
As the evening progressed, the group members entered the tent and teased each other by removing one another’s pants.
Viernes offered AAA a cigarette; when AAA approached the tent entrance, Viernes placed the cigarette at his crotch, which led AAA to take and smoke it after initially signaling she would not.
AAA later proceeded with Recario toward the tent entrance while Viernes was inside.
Viernes was pushed toward AAA, striking his nape against her cigarette, and upon becoming enraged Viernes grabbed AAA, pulled her inside the tent, and caused her to fall on her knees.
Viernes then pushed AAA and pinned her down with his body, described as “dinaganan,” while appellant held AAA’s hands and Macabio held her legs.
Viernes had sexual intercourse with AAA over her protests and despite her physical struggles, followed by appellant and then Macabio, each committing sexual intercourse against AAA’s will despite her physical struggles.
After the boys left the tent, AAA went home, arriving before 3:00 a.m. of December 3, 1997.
On December 4, 1997, AAA’s boyfriend, upon learning she was “ginalaw ng tatlo,” urged her to inform her parents, leading her to report the incident to her mother and to execute a sworn statement at the Baguio City Police Office.
The defense did not deny sexual intercourse but asserted that AAA consented.

Medical and Physical Evidence

Dr. Ronald R. Bandonill examined AAA on December 8, 1997, and he documented both extragenital injuries and genital findings.
The doctor noted extragenital contusions on AAA’s right forearm and left knee, and multiple linear abrasions over the posterior trunk area, plus an abrasion with scab formation on the posterior left chest.
The doctor found genital findings including slightly gaping labia majora and minora, a slightly gaping fourchette, and a slightly congested vestibular mucosa.
The doctor reported old-healed lacerations of the hymen at six o’clock and nine o’clock, and concluded that these injuries were compatible with the alleged date of commission.
The Court relied on the doctor’s testimony that the contusions and abrasions could be caused by a hard blunt object, and, depending on circumstances, could also be consistent with the victim being pressed and pinned.
The doctor clarified during testimony that abrasions could be caused by contact with a hard rough surface, and he described plausibility that friction and movement while on a rough surface could cause the “gasgas” or abrasion lines.
The doctor also testified that contusions could result from heavy weight placed on the area, including scenarios involving immobilization by body placement or pressure.
The Court treated the injuries as consistent with AAA’s testimony that Viernes pushed her down and pinned her with his body, preventing her from struggling effectively, while the other accused restrained her limbs.

Defense Theory and Witness Credibility

The defense acknowledged sexual intercourse with AAA on December 2, 1997, but claimed it occurred with AAA’s consent.
The defense presented Wilma Fagyan and Sharon Caballes to testify that when they met AAA on December 5, 1997, she bragged about having sexu