Case Summary (G.R. No. 133250)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Offense: June 9, 1994.
Arraignment: September 5, 1994.
Decision on appeal: March 30, 1998.
Constitutional and procedural basis: Decision applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post‑1990). Relevant procedural rules and authorities invoked include Rule 132, Section 13 of the Rules of Court (on impeachment by prior inconsistent statements), Rule 112, Section 8 (regarding records of preliminary investigation not forming part of the trial court record), and cited jurisprudence (e.g., People v. Resabal; People v. Escosura; Villaruel v. Bascon).
Factual Narrative of the Offense
The information alleged that on or about June 9, 1994 in Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental, appellant, with lewd designs and by means of force, violence and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of Jovelyn Geram against her will. The prosecution’s evidence recounts that Jovelyn was alone in the family residence in the afternoon, was awakened by the weight of something on top of her, saw appellant naked and seated on her thighs, attempted to shout but was silenced by appellant who covered her mouth and threatened to kill her if she resisted. A physical struggle occurred; Jovelyn lost consciousness at a point and later discovered she had been undressed, found blood on her vagina and white fluid on her abdomen and thighs, and felt pain in her genital area.
Medical and Physical Evidence
A municipal resident physician, Dr. Divina Lopez, examined Jovelyn and issued a medical certificate reflecting: (1) positive blood clots on the labia minora; (2) ruptured hymen; and (3) redness around the vulvar area. These findings were introduced as Exhibit A in the folder of exhibits and constituted direct medical corroboration of physical injury consistent with sexual assault.
Prosecution Witnesses and Corroboration
Several witnesses corroborated crucial aspects of Jovelyn’s account and appellant’s presence near the scene. Genesis Delgado testified he observed appellant enter the Geram residence through the rear kitchen door at about 2:00 p.m. and leave about two hours later while Delgado was watching television in the neighboring house. Neighbor Florami Bayno arrived in the evening and Jovelyn later recounted the incident to Florami and to Mauricia and Hugo Bayno. Teacher Enecita (Aniceta) dela Cruz Torion testified she saw appellant with two companions seated on the Geram porch at about 1:00 p.m. These witness accounts placed appellant in the immediate vicinity of the locus criminis during the relevant time frame and supported Jovelyn’s immediate out‑of‑court disclosures.
Defense and Alibi
Appellant raised a denial and alibi defense. He claimed to have been in Davao City from June 6 through June 9, 1994, assisting his mother with a hospitalized sister‑in‑law (an incomplete abortion) and then staying at his sister Christy’s home in Sasa, Davao City, where he allegedly cleaned the house on June 9. He asserted a return to Monserrat only early on June 10. The sole witnesses presented to corroborate the alibi were appellant’s parents, Raul and Violeta De Guzman. Raul additionally claimed to have seen Jovelyn borrow a VHS cassette on the afternoon in question.
Trial Court Findings and Sentence
The trial court credited Jovelyn’s testimony and rejected appellant’s denial and alibi. The trial court relied on Jovelyn’s immediate revelation of the assault, the medical findings, and the testimony of neighbors and other prosecution witnesses who located appellant near the Geram residence at the relevant time. Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, ordered to indemnify Jovelyn in the amount of P40,000.00, and to pay costs.
Grounds of Appeal — Alleged Inconsistency
On appeal, appellant contended that Jovelyn’s credibility was undermined by alleged inconsistencies between statements she made during the preliminary investigation and her trial testimony. Specifically, appellant argued that during the preliminary investigation Jovelyn had stated that odorous chemicals were applied to her nose and mouth to induce sleep, whereas at trial she testified the assault was accomplished by force, violence and intimidation. Appellant argued that this inconsistency should destroy her credibility and warrant reversal.
Legal Standard for Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements
The Court reiterated the mandatory procedural rule under Rule 132, Section 13: before a witness may be impeached by proof of prior inconsistent statements, the statements must be related to the witness with particulars (times, places, persons present), the witness must be asked whether he or she made such statements, and the witness must be afforded an opportunity to explain. If the prior statements are in writing, they must be shown to the witness before questioning on them. This foundation (predicate) is essential and is supported by established Philippine and cited foreign jurisprudence. Failure to lay this predicate forecloses impeachment by extrajudicial declarations.
Application of the Impeachment Rule to the Case
The Supreme Court found that the defense failed to comply with the predicate requirement. Although the entire transcript of Jovelyn’s preliminary examination was offered and admitted, the specific portions alleged to contain the “sleep‑inducing chemicals” statements were never identified to Jovelyn during her trial testimony, nor were they read to her and she was not asked to explain them. The complaint containing related statements was not formally offered as evidence at trial and was not part of the exhibits considered by the trial court. Moreover, under Rule 112, Section 8 (1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure), records of the preliminary investigation do not automatically form part of the trial court record; consequently, the trial court properly refused to treat those un‑confronted extrajudicial statements as impeaching evidence. The Court emphasized that it would be unjust to declare Jovelyn an incredible witness on the basis of unpresented or unproved prior statements when she was not given the opportunity at trial to account for any alleged discrepancies.
Evaluation of the Alibi and Credibility Determinations
The Court sustained the trial court’s credibility assessments: Jovelyn’s prompt reporting o
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 133250)
Citation and Panel
- Reported at 351 Phil. 587, decided by the Second Division of the Supreme Court on March 30, 1998 (G.R. No. 122740).
- Decision penned by Justice Regalado.
- Justices Melo, Puno, Mendoza, and Martinez concurred.
Trial Court and Procedural Posture
- Case prosecuted as Criminal Case No. 2584 before the Regional Trial Court of Mati, Branch 5, Davao Oriental, presided over by Judge Ricardo M. Berba. [1]
- Accused-appellant Winston de Guzman arraigned September 5, 1994, and pleaded not guilty. [3]
- After trial, the trial court convicted appellant of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered indemnity of P40,000.00 and costs. [15]
- Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court contesting the trial court’s acceptance of the complainant’s testimony and the resulting conviction. [16]
Indictment and Statutory Charge
- Information charged appellant with rape, alleging that on or about June 9, 1994, in Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental, “with lewd designs, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Jovelyn A. Geram, against her will.” [2]
Facts as Presented by the Prosecution (Summary of Complainant’s Account)
- Victim: Jovelyn A. Geram, age 14 at time of incident. [4]
- Date/time/place: Afternoon of June 9, 1994, at the Geram residence in Barangay Monserrat, Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental.
- Circumstances: Complainant was sleeping around two o’clock in the afternoon when awakened by weight on top of her; upon opening her eyes she saw appellant naked and sitting on her thighs.
- Appellant silenced her by covering her mouth and nose and warned she would be killed if she resisted; a struggle followed.
- Complainant felt weak and faint; on regaining consciousness she found herself undressed, saw blood on her vagina, observed white fluid on abdomen and thighs, and felt pain in her genitals and other parts of her body.
- Appellant was gone after the incident; complainant cried and later related the incident to neighbors and relatives that same evening and the following morning. Witnesses she told included Florami Bayno, Mauricia and Hugo Bayno, and Genesis Delgado. Complainant’s mother, Evelyn Geram, was informed on the morning of June 10, 1994. [see narrative]
Witnesses Who Heard Complainant and Immediate Reporting
- Florami (Floramias) Bayno: neighbor who visited the Geram house in the evening of June 9; complainant accompanied her when Florami left and later recounted the ordeal in front of Mauricia and Hugo Bayno.
- Mauricia and Hugo Bayno: friends of the Gerams who were told of the incident in their presence.
- Genesis Delgado: neighbor who was told by complainant on the morning of June 10 and who earlier reported seeing appellant enter the Geram house on June 9 at around two o’clock and leave two hours later while Delgado was watching television at his house next door. [8]
- Complainant’s mother, Evelyn Geram, was notified upon arrival from Barangay Tambo; they then consulted the barangay captain, reported to police in Sigaboy, and went to the municipal hospital for examination. [5]
Medical Examination and Physical Evidence
- Examining physician: Dr. Divina Lopez, resident physician of the Municipal District Hospital of Governor Generoso. [6]
- Medical certificate findings (Exhibit A):
- Positive blood clots on both labia minora.
- Positive ruptured hymen.
- Redness around the vulvar area. [7]
- Complainant reported observable bleeding, white fluid, and pain consistent with forcible sexual assault as described in her testimony.
Prosecution Corroboration of Presence of Appellant
- Genesis Delgado testified he saw appellant enter the Geram house through the rear kitchen door around two o’clock and exit through the same door two hours later, observations made from his house next to the Gerams. [8]
- Rebuttal witness Enecita (Aniceta) dela Cruz Torion, a teacher at Monserrat Elementary School, testified she saw appellant with two companions sitting on the front porch of the Geram house at about one o’clock in the afternoon of June 9, 1994, as she passed from the school in front of the Geram residence. [10]
Defense Case: Denial and Alibi (Appellant’s Version)
- Appellant’s defense was categorical denial of the rape charge and an alibi that he was in Davao City at the material time.
- Alibi particulars:
- Appellant alleged he went to Davao City on June 6, 1994 with his mother to attend to his sister-in-law confined at Davao Medical Center for incomplete abortion, who was discharged June 8 (Exhibit 6).
- After discharge on June 8 they went to appellant’s sister Christy’s house in Sasa, Davao City, where appellant claimed he stayed and cleaned the house all day June 9.
- Appellant stated he left Davao City at 4:30 A.M. on June 10, arriving in Monserrat between 8:30 and 9:00 A.M. [11], [12]
- Defense corroboration was limited to appellant’s parents:
- Father Raul De Guzman claimed to have seen complainant borrow a VHS tape on June 9, supporting appellant’s presence elsewhere. [13]
- Mother Violeta De Guzman testified she decided to bring appellant to Davao City to assist his daughter-in-law. [14]
- Trial court found the alibi and parental corroboration contrived and insufficient, noting availability of non-related corroborating witnesses was lacking.