Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 191261               March 2, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, 

vs.
JENNY TUMAMBING y TAMAYO, Appellant.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This case is about how the credibility of the rape victim’s identification of her
attacker often depends on her spontaneous actions and behavior following the
rape.

The Facts and the Case

The city prosecutor charged the accused Jenny Tumambing (Tumambing) with
rape in Criminal Case 04-227897 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.

DK,1 the complainant, testified that at around 2:00 a.m. on June 26, 2004 she
went to sleep, leaving the lights on, at her cousin’s rented room. She was
startled when somebody entered the room after she had turned off the lights.
The intruder, a man, poked a knife at DK and threatened to kill her if she made
any noise. He removed DK’s clothes and undressed himself. He then succeeded
in ravishing her. When the man was about to leave, DK turned the light on and
she saw his face. DK recognized him as the same person who passed by her
cousin’s room several times in the afternoon of the previous day, June 25, 2004.
Later, she identified the accused Jenny Tumambing as her rapist.

On June 27, 2004 the doctor who examined DK found no bruises, hematoma, or
any sign of resistance on her body but found several fresh lacerations on her
genitals.

Tumambing denied committing the crime. He claimed that on June 26, 2004 he
slept at the house of his employer, Nestor Ledesma. He went to bed at about
9:00 p.m. and woke up at 6:00 a.m. Tumambing swore that he never left his
employer’s house that night. Ledesma corroborated his story. Barangay officials
summoned Tumambing and he went, thinking that it had something to do with a
bloodletting campaign. He was shocked, however, when he learned that he had
been suspected of having committed rape.

On June 27, 2006 the RTC found Tumambing guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. The RTC also ordered him to indemnify DK of ₱50,000.00 and pay
her ₱50,000.00 as moral damages.

On November 12, 2009 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in CA-G.R. CR-
HC 02433 the decision of the RTC in its entirety, prompting Tumambing to
appeal to this Court.

The Issue Presented

The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA and the trial court
erred in finding that accused Tumambing raped DK under the circumstances she
mentioned.

The Ruling of the Court

A successful prosecution of a criminal action largely depends on proof of two

things: the identification of the author of the crime and his actual commission of
the same. An ample proof that a crime has been committed has no use if the
prosecution is unable to convincingly prove the offender’s identity. The
constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys is not
demolished by an identification that is full of uncertainties.2

Here, both the RTC and the CA gave credence to DK’s testimony. They
maintained that DK categorically and positively identified her rapist. The CA
invoked People v. Reyes3 where the Court ruled that it would be easy for a
person who has once gained familiarity with the appearance of another to
identify the latter even from a considerable distance.4 Ordinarily, the Court
would respect the trial court and the CA’s findings regarding the credibility of
the witnesses.5 But the courts mentioned appear to have overlooked or
misinterpreted certain critical evidence in the case. This compels the Court to
take a look at the same.6

DK’s identification of accused Tumambing as her rapist is far from categorical.

The Court’s reading of her testimony shows that she was quite reluctant at the
beginning but eventually pointed to him when it was suggested that it might be
him after all. Several witnesses attested to DK’s uncertainties regarding the
rapist’s identity when the barangay chairman arranged for her to meet
Tumambing. PO2 Crispulo Frondozo, one of the apprehending officers, testified
as follows:
Q: Now in the barangay, do you have any occasion to see whether the
complainant pinpointed accused as the person who abused her person?

A: No, Sir.

Q: What about in any precinct or agency, do you have any occasion to see
complainant positively identified the accused?

A: No, Sir.7

Pedrito Yacub, Sr., the Barangay Chairman to whom DK initially reported the
incident testified:

Q: When the accused enter the barangay hall upon invitation, what happened

next?

A: Correction Sir. Not at the barangay hall. In my residence.

Q: Then what happened?

A: He was surprised and [I] told him that he is a suspect of rape and his reply
was "akala ko pakukunan niyo ako ng dugo."

Q: What was the reaction of the accused?

A: As we sat down in a table, a confrontation ensued. I assured the complainant.

Don't be afraid. Tell me. I will protect you.

I called her two cousins. Then she stare upon the suspect. I ordered the suspect
to turn left, right and backways.

Q: After you told the suspect to pose left, right and backways, what happened
next?

A: The suspect told the complainant "huwag kang magtuturo. Ninenerbyus na

ako." So she could not pinpoint the suspect.

I said, "Iha, [i]to ba?" But she cannot point to.8 (Underscoring supplied)

DK’s above behavior during her initial confrontation with accused Tumambing
gives the Court no confidence that, as she claimed in her testimony, she was
familiar with the looks of her rapist because she saw him on the previous day as
he passed by her cousin’s rented room many times. If this were the case, her
natural reaction on seeing Tumambing would have been one of outright fury or
some revealing emotion, not reluctance in pointing to him despite the barangay
chairman’s assurance that he would protect her if she identified him. In
assessing the testimony of a wronged woman, evidence of her conduct
immediately after the alleged assault is of critical value.9

The barangay chairman continued:

Q: As barangay captain who has the duty to enforce law and city ordinances,
you came to know that there were other suspect, what did you do?

A: I invited the suspect.

Q: Do you remember the person whom you invited known as the second
suspect?

A: His name is Alvin Quiatcho. For confrontation with the complainant. And
confrontation ensued between her and the suspect. I asked her is this the
suspect?

Q: What was her answer?

A: She said, she could not recall. Chairman pa doctor kaya natin siya. It
mean[s] "makunan ng cells."

The complainant told me chairman padoktor natin [sic] na lang natin siya.

Q: Presumably to get some sperm?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: What did you do if any with the suggestion of [DK]?

A: I told the complainant, it would be difficult to do.

Q: After that what happened?

A: So since she could not pinpoint also the other suspect, I released the other
suspect. She could not pinpoint.10(Underscoring supplied)

That DK wanted the sperm of Alvin Quiatcho (Quiatcho), the second suspect,
tested and presumably compared with that found in her clearly indicates that she
entertained the possibility that it was Quiatcho, rather than accused Tumambing,
who raped her. The Court cannot thus accept DK’s testimony that she had been
familiar with the looks of the man who violated her and that she could not
possibly be mistaken in identifying him as Tumambing.
Crispin Dizon, the executive officer of the same barangay, corroborated
the barangay chairman’s testimony:

Q: So what was the question?

A: The question was that, "Is this the person you saw and who rape you?"

Court: Referring to?

Interpreter: Referring to Jenny Tumambing.

Q: What was the reply of the victim, if any?

A: She did not answer, Sir.

Q: What happen next when [DK] did not answer?

A: And [DK] was again asked by the Chairman and told her not to fear
and tell who raped her and point to him.

Q: What was the reply of [DK] if any?

A: She did not reply, Sir.

Q: Now if you remember how many times did the Chairman asked [DK]?

A: Four times, Sir.11

The RTC and the CA thought that DK was quite sure it was Tumambing who
sexually attacked her. They pointed out her insistence at the police precinct that
it was Tumambing who really raped her and that she positively identified him in
open court. But this came about much later. The fact is that she did not refute
the testimonies given by neutral witnesses that she could not point to accused
Tumambing as her rapist during their initial confrontation at the barangay
chairman’s residence. These witnesses had no motive or reason to fabricate a
story for the defense.

By the nature of rape, the court has to, quite often, rely on the sole testimony of
the victim.  For this reason, the court is always reminded to subject her
lawphi1

testimony to a most rigid and careful scrutiny. It cannot afford to overlook

details that are essential to an understanding of the truth.12 Here, as shown
above, DK’s testimony is anything but believable and consistent.

Although she categorically said on cross-examination that she saw her attacker
enter the room,13 she did not shout or raise an alarming call. Nor did she try to
escape.14 She just lay in bed.15 In fact, she maintained that position in bed even
when her attacker was standing before her and removing his clothes.16 She did
not shout nor struggle when he penetrated her.17

There is one thing that DK appeared sure of. Her rapist wore a yellow
shirt.18 But this is inconsistent with her testimony that after the stranger in her
room was done raping her, "bigla na lang po siyang lumabas x x x sinundan ko
siya ng tingin."19 Since DK did not say that the man put his clothes back on, it
seems a certainty that he collected his clothes and carried this out when he left
the room. Since DK then turned on the light for the first time, she had a chance
to see him clearly. But, if this were so and he walked out naked, why was she so
certain that he wore a yellow shirt?

With such serious doubts regarding the true identity of DK’s rapist, the Court
cannot affirm the conviction of accused Tumambing.

WHEREFORE, the Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated November 12, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 02433 as well as the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, in Criminal Case 04-227897,
and ACQUITS the accused-appellant Jenny Tumambing y Tamayo of the crime
charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court orders his immediate
RELEASE from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

The Court further ORDERS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to

implement this Decision forthwith and to inform this Court, within five days
from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually released from
confinement. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T