People v. Cabuntog
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Nelson Cabuntog was charged with multiple rape for an incident allegedly occurring on May 6, 1995, in Surigao City. The victim, Edna Durero, was a deaf-mute househelper. The prosecution presented Vevencia Pareja, Durero's employer, who testified that Cabuntog and his companions ordered drinks from her store. Pareja noticed Cabuntog brush against Durero. Later, Durero went missing, as did Cabuntog and one companion. Durero was eventually found with Cabuntog and the companion emerging from a pastoral office. Through signs, Durero conveyed to Pareja that Cabuntog had pulled her into the office, pushed her against a wall, molested her, and had sexual intercourse with her. Durero testified in court using signs, detailing the assault. Dr. Desiree Chong examined Durero and found no external injuries but confirmed the presence of spermatozoa in a vaginal smear, indicating sexual intercourse. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Nelson Cabuntog guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion perpetua maximum, with damages. Cabuntog appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increased the damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for review due to the penalty imposed. The Petition: Appellant Nelson Cabuntog argued that the trial court gravely erred in finding that he had carnal knowledge with the complainant by means of force and against her will and consent, and in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony of a deaf-mute witness, communicated through signs, is competent and sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. Whether the absence of external physical injuries on the victim negates the commission of rape. Whether the alibi of the accused is sufficient to overcome the positive identification by the victim and other corroborating evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Nelson Cabuntog for rape, with modifications to the penalty and damages. The Court ruled that the testimony of a deaf-mute witness is admissible and competent, and that the absence of external injuries does not disprove rape. The alibi presented by the accused was found to be weak and insufficient to overcome the prosecution's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the competency of a deaf-mute witness: The Court reiterated that the testimony of a deaf-mute witness is competent and admissible, citing People vs. Sasota. The capacity of such a witness is not diminished by their inability to communicate like a normal person, as long as they possess the requisite intelligence and can communicate their ideas through signs or writing. In this case, Durero, despite being deaf-mute, was able to convey her ordeal through signs, which were interpreted by an official interpreter and recorded by the court. The Court found her capable of recounting the events, and her testimony was corroborated by other evidence. The difficulties encountered during cross-examination were attributed to the complexity of the questions and the limitations of sign language interpretation, not to the witness's inherent incompetence. On the absence of external physical injuries: The Court held that the absence of abrasion or contusion on the victim's body does not negate the crime of rape. Proof of physical injury is not an essential element of rape. The law does not require the victim to prove resistance, and intimidation, which can be subjective, may lead to non-resistance due to fear of greater harm. The Court emphasized that even without physical resistance, if the victim's mind is overpowered by intimidation, the consummation of the sexual act constitutes rape. The medical finding of spermatozoa was conclusive evidence of sexual intercourse, irrespective of external injuries. On the alibi of the accused: The Court found the alibi of Nelson Cabuntog to be inherently weak and insufficient to overcome the positive identification made by the victim and the corroborating testimony of Vevencia Pareja. Alibi requires not only proof of absence from the crime scene but also physical impossibility of being there. Cabuntog's claim of being at his house preparing fishing nets was corroborated by Samson Camposano, but the distance and circumstances did not render it physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. The Court stated that alibi cannot prevail against affirmative evidence, especially the testimony of a rape victim.
Main Doctrine
The testimony of a deaf-mute witness, when communicated through signs or writing, is admissible and competent, provided the witness possesses the requisite intelligence and the mode of communication is satisfactory. The absence of external physical injuries does not negate the crime of rape, as proof of physical injury is not an essential element, and intimidation can be subjective, leading to non-resistance due to fear.