View full case

PEOPLE v. GENER DE GUZMAN Y SICO

FACTS:

Complainant Gilda Ambray filed a complaint against accused Gener de Guzman for rape allegedly committed on 31 March 1992 in Bacoor, Cavite. The accused was arrested but released on bail. He did not submit a counter-affidavit. The Municipal Trial Court found a prima facie case and forwarded the record to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. An information was filed charging the accused with rape. The accused pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed.

After several witnesses testified for the prosecution, the trial court cancelled the accused's bail bond and re-arrested him. Two more witnesses were presented, and their testimonies revealed that complainant encountered the accused at the gate of Meadow Wood Subdivision and later agreed to ride his tricycle. The accused took a different route and stopped near an unfinished house where he assaulted and raped the complainant. The accused warned her not to tell anyone, or he would harm her and her family.

Gilda Ambray reported the incident to her mother and husband immediately after the incident. They decided to report the rape to Tony Antonio, the President of the Homeowners' Association and President of the National Press Club. Antonio then contacted the police, and PO3 Efren Bautista and Sgt. Saguisame responded to the call. Gilda provided a description of her assailant, including his physical appearance and the details of his tricycle. The police went to the accused's house and brought him to Antonio's residence, where Gilda identified him as her rapist. Gilda underwent a medical examination, which revealed physical injuries and evidence of recent sexual intercourse.

The accused presented the defense of alibi, claiming that he was with witnesses and his tricycle malfunctioned at the time of the incident. The trial court found the accused guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

In this case, the accused was charged with rape and acts of lasciviousness. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty of both crimes and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for rape and imprisonment of six months to two years for acts of lasciviousness. The RTC also ordered the accused to pay the victim, Gilda Ambray, various amounts as damages, including moral damages, civil indemnity, exemplary damages, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees including appearance fees for the private prosecutor. The RTC gave weight to the testimony of Gilda Ambray, considering her endurance in recalling her harrowing ordeal and her credibility in narrating the incident.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accused utilized force and intimidation during the commission of rape.

  2. Whether the trial court erred in affirming the positive identification of the accused by the victim.

  3. Whether the accused was indeed drunk at the time of committing the rape, as held by the trial court.

RULING:

  1. On the use of force and intimidation: The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the accused did use force and intimidation. The Court emphasized that force need not be irresistible but should be sufficient to consummate the accused's purpose. Intimidation is determined based on the victim's perception at the time of the crime, and threats to her life during the assault supported this finding.

  2. On positive identification: The Supreme Court rejected the accused's argument against positive identification. The Court confirmed the trial court's finding that the victim had ample opportunity to recognize the assailant, as the crime scene was well-lit and the victim had previously interacted with the accused. The accused’s identification by the victim in a categorical and straightforward manner during the trial fortified his culpability.

  3. On the state of drunkenness: The Supreme Court deemed the conclusion that the accused was drunk during the commission of the crime as uninformed by evidence. However, the Court noted that this error was harmless and did not affect the overall finding of guilt based on the weight of evidence proving the commission of rape.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Rape as a Crime of Secrecy: Rape is uniquely characterized by secrecy and is typically committed out of the public eye, usually substantiated primarily by the victim's testimony.

  2. Credibility of Rape Victims: The credibility of a rape victim is crucial; her testimony alone may suffice for conviction if found truthful and credible through scrutiny.

  3. Force and Intimidation in Rape: It is sufficient that the force employed by the accused was capable of achieving his unlawful purpose, and intimidation must be assessed from the victim's view at the time of the assault.

  4. Role of Positive Victim Identification: Positive identification of the accused by the victim plays a pivotal role in rape cases and can significantly influence the case's outcome.

  5. Use of Alibi: The defense of alibi is generally weak and cannot prevail over a positive and credible identification of the accused by the victim.

  6. Plea for Forgiveness as Implied Admission of Guilt: In criminal cases, seeking forgiveness can be considered an implied admission of guilt, indicating acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

  7. Compensation and Damages in Rape Cases: The Supreme Court adheres to established jurisprudence relating to the award of indemnity and moral damages to rape victims, adjusting the awards in line with prevailing legal standards and evidence of actual psychological and emotional harm.