PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SILVINO (SILVERIO) SALARZA, JR. accused-appellant.

DEATH, the punishment in extremis, was imposed on Silvino Salarza Jr. for rape. We now review his conviction. Zareen Smith, British, was 30, single, a television and stage actress. Sometime in 1994 she came to the Philippines and chose Boracay in Aklan and Port Barton in Palawan for her vacation retreats. In Port Barton she met Enrico de Jesus, Filipino, 26, caretaker of Elsa's Place, a resort owned by his parents. Soon enough a mutual attraction developed between them which ripened into an intense love affair that they would have sex almost every night. On 30 April 1994 Enrico brought Zareen to Mary's Cottage in Sitio Sabang, Bgy. Cabayugan, and introduced her to his granduncle Rogelio Maraon and grandaunts Nenita Maraon and Maria Ausan who collectively owned and managed the resort. Enrico and Zareen occupied Cottage No. 1. They spent the day at the beach where they drank and swam. They were later joined in by Enrico's friend Silvino Salarza Jr., a tourist guide, a press relations officer and a fisherman. In the evening Enrico and Zareen went to Sabang Centro together with Silvino, Julio Morales and a certain Tonton to attend a dance. The dance however was canceled so they proceeded to Coco Grove Restaurant and drank a bottle of rhum. Zareen did not drink as she preferred red wine which was not available. At eleven o' clock the group returned to Mary's Cottage where Enrico awakened his grandaunt Nenita and asked her for two (2) more bottles of rhum, after which, they went back to the beach and continued drinking. This time Zareen opted for a bottle of beer. After a while Zareen said she felt tired and sleepy so she excused herself and retired to the cottage. She was accompanied by Enrico who left her there to sleep. Back at the beach Enrico asked his friends to go spearfishing. Although Silvino went with them he later returned to the beach because he could not stand the cold and was feeling dizzy. From this point on the prosecution and the defense presented varying versions. According to the prosecution, at two o'clock in the morning of 1 May 1994 Zareen woke up when she felt somebody take off her underwear.i[1] The room was dark as the resort management switched off the lights at ten o'clock. Zareen said she did not stop the man from removing her panties as she thought it was Enrico, her boyfriend, and she was half-asleep. The man in turn removed his briefs and placed himself on top of her, spread her legs, penetrated her and executed push-and-pull movements. Later, the man softly whispered: "Zareen, it's not Ricky; it's Jun. I love you." According to Zareen, when she heard those words, she pushed him aside. She cried and became hysterical. She went to the bathroom and washed herself, at the same time telling Silvino, "Why? Why did you do that to me? You have ruined everything. You know that Ricky and I are trying to have a baby of our own, what will happen now? I might get impregnated by what you did to me." Silvino however assured her that pregnancy was out of the question as he did not ejaculate. Maria Ausan heard Zareen cry so she awakened Nenita. Thinking that Enrico was forcing himself on Zareen, Nenita went near Cottage No. 1 and pleaded, "Rico, please naman, kung ayaw huwag mong pilitin." But she did not enter the cottage. At this moment she noticed a lighted petromax approaching. It was Enrico with Julio and Tonton coming from the beach. Enrico hurriedly walked to the cottage. He saw Silvino coming out. At once he assumed that Silvino must have molested Zareen. Upon nearing Silvino, Enrico punched him even before Zareen could narrate what happened to her. Rogelio Maraon and Julio Morales then reported the incident at the police station and Patrolmen Eleazar and Rodillo immediately responded. On the other hand, Silvino claims that it was Zareen who was flirting with him. His version is that while at Coco Grove Restaurant, whenever Enrico was not looking, Zareen would whisper to him and place her arm on his shoulder. She would talk to him about her stay in Boracay with her sister Lucila and the men she met there. In turn, he spoke to her about his former girlfriends. When Enrico invited him to go spearfishing he went with the group but after a while he returned to the beach saying he was feeling cold and dizzy having imbibed one too many. He even stumbled and fell on the sand. As a result, he got sand all over his body so he proceeded to the public restroom for a shower. On the way to get his t-shirt and cigarettes he saw Zareen lying on the hammock. She asked him for a cigarette and insisted that he take his shower inside her cottage instead of the public restroom which was about a hundred meters away. He hesitated for a while but finally acceded.

After emerging from his shower he was surprised to see Zareen on the bed. She pulled him towards her and asked him to make love to her. She embraced him tightly and kissed him lustfully. He was surprised with the turn of events and felt uncomfortable because of Enrico whom he did not wish to offend, much less betray, so he pushed her away. In her exasperation she shouted, Sh---t you, you are stupid!" Then she rushed to the bathroom and washed herself. He heard the voice of Nenita Maraon coming from outside Cottage No. 1 calling for Enrico and inquiring what was happening, apparently thinking it was her grandnephew with Zareen having a lover's quarrel. So Silvino answered, "This is not Ricky, Tiyay, this is me, Jun." He informed her that he had just taken his shower inside. While Silvino and Nenita were talking, Zareen was simply keeping quiet. As he went out of the cottage he met Enrico on the way. Nenita shouted, "Jun, Ricky is coming; you're dead!" True enough Enrico boxed Silvino. Tonton and Julio ganged up on him, beat him, poured pepper on his body and pulled him towards the river. Fearful that they would eventually kill him, Silvino crawled towards the coconut grove and upon reaching the road leading to Sabang Centro he walked to the police station to lodge his complaint. On his way, he met Policemen Eleazar and Rodillo. Rodillo brought him to the police station while Eleazar continued his way towards Mary's Cottage to conduct an investigation. But the trial court was not persuaded by Silvino's story. It pronounced him guilty of rape and imposed upon him the supreme penalty of death. The court threw out his declaration that Zareen had been flirting with him earlier and was the one who even proposed that they engage in sex that night. It found incredible that Zareen would fall for Silvino and substitute him for Enrico, rationalizing that Zareen was 30 years old, Enrico 26, and Silvino already 35, and that Enrico was 5'8" tall, handsome, with a wellshaped face and nose, while Silvino was not generously endowed and standing only at 5'2". Besides, it argued that a woman would not charge a person with the heinous crime of rape if it were not true, for she would not allow the examination of her private parts and subject herself to a public trial which are both embarrassing if her accusation was merely fabricated. It quoted People v. Selfaison,ii[2] where it was held that it was difficult to believe that the complainants, who were young and unmarried, would tell a story of defloration, allow the examination of their private parts and thereafter permit themselves to be the subject of a public trial if they were not motivated by an honest desire to have the culprits apprehended and punished. Obviously the court did not find it pertinent that Zareen was already 30, a stage and television actress, by her admission had several boyfriends in the past with whom she had sexual relations, and was possessed with a vigorous appetite for sex as she was indulging in intercourse with Enrico almost every night without benefit of marriage. Quite interestingly, the Information alleges that Silvino had carnal communication with Zareen while she was asleep, with the use of force, against her will and without her consent. We do not find the facts substantiating the Information. We must acquit. Under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 11, RA 7659, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and, (c) when the woman is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented. The facts of this case do not by any means show the existence of any of these circumstances; thus we cannot see how the trial court could have convicted and, worse, sentenced the accused to die. First, the complaining witness was not below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the alleged commission of the offense. She was already thirty (30) years old. Neither was she demented. Second, the Information avers use of force but the evidence negates any use of force, nay, not even intimidation, in the commission of the offense charged. In fact, as discussed hereunder, the sexual advances of the accused were done with the consent of the complaining witness although she claimed she thought that the man who laid with her was her boyfriend Enrico. Here it may be argued that consent to the sexual act was given by Zareen only because of her erroneous belief that the man on top of her was Enrico, thus implying that had she known it was someone else she would have resisted. The explanation is not persuasive. The evidence shows that this mistake was purely a subjective configuration of Zareen's mind - an assumption entirely contrived by her. Our impression is that Silvino had nothing to do with the formulation of this belief; he did nothing to mislead or deceive Zareen into thinking that he was Enrico. In fact, Silvino precisely, and confidently, told her, "Zareen, it's not Ricky; it's

Jun. I love you." It is thus obvious that whatever mistake there was could only be attributable to Zareen - and her inexcusable imprudence - and to nobody else. Clearly, the fault was hers. She had the opportunity to ascertain the identity of the man but she preferred to remain passive and allow things to happen as they did. Silvino never used force on her and was even most possibly encouraged by the fact that when he pulled down her panties she never objected; when her legs were being parted she never objected; and, when he finally mounted her she never objected. Where then was force? Third, Zareen was not deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious when the accused had intercourse with her. Her lame excuse was that she was half-asleep. However she admitted that in the early morning of 1 May 1994 she woke up to find someone removing her underwear. Thuswise it cannot be said that she was deprived of reason or unconscious. She knew, hence was conscious, when her panties were being pulled down; she knew, hence was conscious, when her legs were being parted to prepare for the sexual act; she knew, hence was conscious, when the man was pulling down his briefs to prepare himself likewise for the copulation; she knew, hence was conscious, when the man mounted her and lusted after her virtue. Her justification was that she never objected to the sexual act from the start because she thought that the man was her boyfriend with whom she was having sex almost every night for the past three (3) weeks as they were getting married and wanted already to have a baby. In other words, her urge could not wait for the more appropriate time. The prosecution would have the accused convicted of rape under its hypothesis that the complaining witness was half-asleep, ergo unconscious, when the sexual assault took place. Obviously, it had in mind the doctrine enunciated in 1929 in People v. Corcino,iii[3] and later in 1935 in People v. Caballero.iv[4] These cases however do not apply because the offended parties there were unquestionably fast asleep and not just half-asleep as in the instant case - when the act was perpetrated. Consequently, there was no opportunity for them to either object or give their consent as they were in deep slumber at the time of the coition. It was only some time after they woke up that they realized that the men having sex with them were not their husbands they thought them to be. In convicting the accused, this Court held, as the trial courts did, that the crime of rape had already been consummated even before the offended parties woke up from their sleep. In Caballero it was found that x x x when Consorcia, the offended party, awoke the appellant had already introduced his organ into her genitals and in fact he was already having sexual intercourse with her. We mention this fact on account of a certain doubt arising from the offended party's testimony during the direct examination relative to this detail, but in the attempt of the attorney for the defense to clarify this point during his crossexamination, the offended party categorically affirmed that she had been unaware when the appellant introduced his organ into hers x x x x when the offended party awoke, the crime of rape committed by the appellant was already consummated, having had carnal knowledge with the offended party while she was unconscious for being asleep. The offended party's consent to the act was subsequent thereto and it was given on the belief that the man lying with her was her own husband (underscoring supplied).v[5] The import of this pronouncement is that it was no longer relevant, much less significant, that after waking up the offended party continued to have sex with the man she thought was her husband. Her "consent" to the act was subsequent to the rape, or after the crime was already committed; the fact that the consent - even if only implied - was given on the belief that the man was her spouse, was inconsequential. In the case of Zareen, her "consent" was given prior to the carnal act, i.e., the act was done because of her passivity, if not consent. The record abounds with indicia to discredit the theory of the prosecution that Zareen was dead drunk when the alleged rape took place. Having consumed only a small quantity of rhum during the day, according to her, and a bottle of beer in the evening on a normal pace, she could not have been so drunk as to be deprived of reason or otherwise rendered unconscious. When she returned to her cottage she immediately fell asleep as she was tired and remained so for some time. When she was supposedly molested at around two-thirty the following morning she must have already been, as we believe she was, in full possession of her mental and physical faculties. Whatever intoxicating effect the rhum and beer might have had on her would have already worn off.

Zareen herself claimed that she woke up when she felt someone removing her panties. This means she was fully conscious when somebody approached her bed, removed her panties, spread her legs although not far apart but just enough to get her underwear off, and then proceeded to perform coital movements with her. Her testimony that she knew that the "intruder" removed his own briefs; that his penis was already erect; that no effort at foreplay was made before penetrating her in his first attempt; that the man did not kiss her nor touch her breasts; that she did not even guide his penis into the trough of her femininity; and, that he pushed-and-pulled on top of her for approximately less than a minute, all validate our conviction that she was fully conscious - not asleep nor even half-asleep - of what was being done to her from the beginning. She was also aware that there was no light as the gas lamp inside the cottage was not lighted and the electricity was already shut off. Most significantly, Zareen was acutely aware of the manner by which Silvino identified himself - "Zareen, it's not Ricky; it's Jun" - because she testified that " x x x it was not preceeded by a question. It was as if Jun wanted to wake me up fully."vi[6] To repeat, all these details vividly recalled and recounted by her ineluctably indicate that she was awake all the time and capable of comprehending the nature of the sexual act and of exercising her own free will as to yield to or resist a Lothario's libido. Zareen had known Enrico for three (3) weeks and since then had been making love with him almost every night. It strains credulity and understanding that she could have mistaken Silvino for Enrico. Their constant lovemaking and togetherness would have already made her familiar with the physical attributes of Enrico and accustomed to his fornicating peculiarities. Zareen even asserted that Enrico was not inclined to sexual intercourse when drunk and would usually indulge in foreplay before actual copulation. These oddities are cues which reasonably engender suspicion that the man she was having carnal communication with was not her lover but someone else. She had the moral responsibility not only to herself but to society itself to ascertain first the identity of her "ravisher" before yielding completely to him. It can hardly be said that she was not imprudent, reckless and irresponsible in giving in to her own sexual impulses. Moreover, being almost a stranger in the place, Zareen should have been leery of her surroundings especially at night. In this regard, she should not have left her cottage door unlocked as much as she did leave pregnable and unshielded the portals of her womanhood. In People v. Bacalzo,vii[7] the accused boxed his victim into unconsciousness. When the victim regained her consciousness she felt the flaccid penis of her ravisher still inside her vagina and that thereafter he removed his sexual organ. He then warned her not to divulge what had happened or else she and her family would be killed. Force, which was used to knock the victim into unconsciousness, was employed before the act was done to ensure its consummation. In People v. Corcinoviii[8] the complaining witness was totally asleep and when she woke up the organ of the accused was already inside her genitalia. In People v. Caballeroix[9] the victim was fully asleep when the accused had carnal communication with her, such that when she woke up the crime of rape was already consummated. The same was true in People v. Inot.x[10] In People v. Dayo,xi[11] the rapist's organ was already in the vagina of the offended party when she woke up, so she pushed him away and screamed. But the accused pulled out his revolver and threatened to kill her if she made any further outcry. She fainted, and the accused continued having sex with her. In fine, in all these cases rape was already consummated before the offended parties could even exercise their volition to grant or deny access to erotic consortium. Under the circumstances we cannot help entertaining serious doubts on the culpability of the accused. Rape is a charge easy to make, hard to prove and harder to defend by the party accused, though innocent. Experience has shown that unfounded charges of rape have frequently been proferred by women actuated by some sinister, ulterior or undisclosed motive. Convictions for such crime should not be sustained without clear and convincing proof of guilt. On more than one occasion it has been pointed out that in crimes against chastity the testimony of the injured woman should not be received with precipitate credulity. When the conviction depends on any vital point upon her uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from suspicion. A little insight into human nature is of utmost value in judging matters of this kind.xii[12] But even from the narration of Zareen, the elements of the crime of rape are, regretfully, miserably wanting. There was no force nor intimidation; Zareen was not deprived of reason nor otherwise unconscious; and, she was not below twelve nor demented.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and accused-appellant SILVINO SALARZA JR. is ACQUITTED of the crime charged; consequently, he is ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement unless held for some other lawful cause. Costs de oficio. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MULLER BALDINO, accused-appellant. DECISION GONZAGA-REYES, J.: The Decisionxiii[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 15635-R convicting Muller Baldino of rape and imposing the death penalty is before this Court on automatic review. Muller Baldino was charged on May 4, 1998 under the following Informationxiv[2]: "The undersigned accuses MULLER BALDINO of the crime of RAPE, at the instance, relation and written complaint of ABRELINDA SILAM. Copies of her written complaint are hereto attached and made an integral part of this information, committed as follows: That on or about the 4th day of March, 1998, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force or intimidation have carnal knowledge of the complainant ABRELINDA SILAM, a minor-13 years old, against her will and consent. CONTRARY TO LAW." The complainant Abrelinda Silam was thirteen years old when the incident happened. The accused is her brother-in-law, being the husband of her elder sister Judith. Abrelinda was staying with another sister Marcelet Silam-Danglosen at the latter's house in Irisan, Baguio City. The house of the accused also in Irisan was 50 to 60 meters away. The following narration of the rape incident by the trial court is not disputed: "On March 4, 1998 at about 6:00 p.m., Abrelinda left the house of Marcelet and went to the house of accused and Judith nearby. She was requested by her sister Judith to spend the night thereat to take care of the children of Judith while the latter is in Buguias, Benguet. At that time Judith and accused had 3 children; Jomar, 5 years old; Janice, 3 years old; and Muller Jr., 1 year old. Judith testified that she brought along with her to Buguias Janice but left Jomar and Muller in Irisan with their father, the accused. At around 9:00 p.m., while Abrelinda was sleeping, the accused suddenly grabbed her hands by the wrists. He sat on her legs. He removed her pants and panty. She struggled and pushed him and shouted for help to no avail. He told her to keep still because there is nothing she could do. He spread her legs and mashed her breasts. She continued struggling and resisting. But the accused, who was naked, was able to insert his penis in her vagina and made pumping motions, consummating sexual intercourse with her. She felt pain. After he satisfied his lust, he threatened her not to tell her sister what he did otherwise he will get angry. She cried and pounded her right hand on accused but he just kept quiet. Then he moved away and slept. Immediately Abrelinda left and returned to the house of Marcelet. Crying, she reported to Marcelet and the latter's husband that the accused raped her or had sexual intercourse with her against her will. She told them she will sue the accused. It appears that this was the second time accused raped Abrelinda. The first happened sometime 1997 in their hometown in Buguias, Benguet. Apparently, she can no longer endure or take the repeated sexual assault on her by accused, who is considered a member of the family being her brother-in-law. She thus went home to Buguias, Benguet to report to her father where she filed her complaint of rape against the accused on March 11, 1998 assisted by her father Teligo Silam on the first incident. (See statement of Abrelinda dated March 11, 1998 attached to the Information for Rape filed in Benguet, Exh. C). Then she came back to Baguio to file her complaint on the incident that happened in Baguio. On March 13, 1998, Abrelinda went to the NBI, Baguio where she was examined by Dr. Ronald Bandonill who submitted a report (Exh. B), the pertinent portion of which reads: 'GENITAL EXAMINATION: *PUBIC HAIR: Absent, LABIA MAJORA and MINORA: both slightly gaping.

*FOURCHETTE: moderately lax. VESTIBULAR MUCOSA: pinkish. *HYMEN: originally annular, tall, thin with old-healed, complete lacerations at 6:00 o'clock and 8:00 o'clock positions corresponding to the face of a watch, edges of which are rounded, retracted and non coaptible. HYMENAL ORIFICE: admits a tube 2.5 cms. in diameter with slight difficulty *VAGINAL WALLS: tight. RUGOSITIES: prominent. CONCLUSIONS: 1) No extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination. 2) Old-healed, complete hymenal lacerations noted.' (Exh. B) Dr. Bandonill explained that the old-healed hymenal lacerations could have been inflicted more than three (3) months previous to the examination on the person of Abrelinda on March 13, 1998. He added that once the hymen is lacerated, it will not be lacerated again or there will be no new lacerations even if there is another sexual contact. This is consistent with the declaration of Abrelinda that there were two incidents of rape; one in Buguias, Benguet sometime 1997 and the second on March 4, 1998 in Irisan, Baguio as the first incident happened more than 3 months before examination. On the same day of March 13, 1998, Abrelinda gave her Sworn Statement (Exh. A) to the Baguio Police charging the accused of Rape committed against her on March 4, 1998 in Baguio City. On the basis of her said complaint, an Information for Rape was filed by the Prosecutor's Office of Baguio against the accused which is now the case at bar. In respect to the first incident of rape that happened sometime in 1997 in Buguias, Benguet, an Information for Rape (Exh. C) was also filed by the Prosecutor's Office of Benguet against the accused with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Buguias, Benguet. Further, an Information (Exh. D) for Violation of Sec. 10 (b) of RA 7610, as Amended (Child Abuse Law), was likewise filed against the accused by the Prosecutor's Office of Baguio with Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Baguio City with Edwina Silam as the complainant."xv[3] The accused denied the charge and claims that the accusation was fabricated. He testified that on the day in question, he slept together with his wife, who had returned from a visit to her parents in Buguias , Benguet, the day before. During the period from February 20 to March 3, 1998, when his wife was in Buguias, he personally took care of the needs of the two children left with him, and brought the children to his place of work at Irisan, where he was assigned as security guard. He insisted that neither he nor his wife requested Abrelinda to take care of the children while his wife was in Buguias and that while Abrelinda went to their house about four times during his wife's absence, it was only for the purpose of getting rice and other things after which she immediately left. He claimed that he did not sign the deed of "Amicable Settlement" dated July 6, 1998 because there was no truth to the rape charged against him. Judith Baldino, wife of the accused and sister of the complainant corroborated the statement of the accused, that on the alleged date of the crime, the accused was with her.xvi[4] The trial court found the accused liable as charged for the following reasons: "First, the accused had carnal knowledge of Abrelinda. The evidence shows that on the night of March 4, 1998 after the accused spread the legs of Abrelinda, he inserted his penis in her vagina and made pumping motions consummating sexual intercourse with her. She felt his penis inside her vagina. And she felt pain. There is therefore no doubt that there was carnal knowledge. Second, the carnal knowledge was consummated by means of force and against her will. While Abrelinda was sleeping, the accused pinned her on the bed by holding her hands by the wrists and sitting down on her legs. He undressed her by removing her pants and panty. She resisted by pushing him. She struggled and shouted for help and kept moving. But he told her to keep still because there is nothing that she could do. She continued struggling but the accused succeeded in penetrating her. Abrelinda did not therefore freely and willingly submit to the carnal act. There was force used on her. True, the accused was not armed at the time. He did not have to. For his size, weight and strength were enough for him to attain his evil design. At a tender age of 13, innocent to the ways of the world, Abrelinda was no match to the size and strength of accused who is 20 years her senior and married. In

addition to all these, the accused enjoyed an ascendancy over Abrelinda being the husband of her oldest sister. 'It bears repeating that the force and violence required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible. What is essential is that the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose which the offender had in mind, or to bring about the result. The force and violence necessary in rape is naturally a relative term, depending on the age, size and strength of the parties and their relation to each other. All consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.' (People vs. Errojo, 229 SCRA 49) Third, the fact that the Medico-Legal Report (Exh. B) shows that there were no extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of Abrelinda at the time she was examined does not negate her claim of rape. Neither does it mean lack of resistance on her part. The mere size, weight and strength of the 33 year old accused rendered the 13 year old Abrelinda virtually immobilized. Besides, it is unreasonable to expect the young Abrelinda to put up resistance with all her might considering her age and her relationship to the much older accused who was her brother-in-law. Fourth, after the sexual act, Abrelinda returned that same night to the house of her sister Marcelet crying and disclosed to Marcelet and the latter's husband that the accused raped her and had sexual intercourse with her and that she would sue him. If the sexual intercourse was with her consent, Abrelinda would have kept it to herself especially so that the accused is married to her older sister Judith. Fifth, it is unnatural and highly improbable that an artless and guileless 13 year old barrio lass like Abrelinda would fabricate matters about the bestial acts committed on her person by the accused knowing fully well the seriousness and consequences of her charges. More so, that the accused is her brother-in-law. She would be the last person to bring sorrow and pain on her elder sister Judith and the latter's children who would be deprived of the love, company and support of the accused by his incarceration or death. This can only mean Abrelinda had no choice but to bare it all as the beastly acts were true and she can no longer endure them as accused repeated the despisable deed, one in Buguias and the other in Baguio. Sixth, the Court was impressed with the total naivette and lack of sophistication of Abrelinda. She was candid, natural and straightforward in her answers without any intention to evade or concoct. Her answers were utterly simple and sincere and ring with truth as the record will show. They were not embellished. She could not have possibly imputed and fabricated such a serious offense of rape if it were not true. She is yet a young girl and does not have the designing mind of a scheming woman. xxx xxx xxx Seventh, the claim of the accused that the charges against him were fabricated which is the reason why Abrelinda was willing to have the instant case settled and even sought his forgiveness is incredible. The accused cannot point to any dark or sinister motive that Abrelinda may have in filing the instant case. As already discussed above, she was impelled by no other reason than to vindicate an offense committed against her. There is nothing on record to prove that Abrelinda sought the forgiveness of accused and wanted to have the instant case settled except his self-serving, gratuitous and preposterous assertion. More, it is the malefactor who asks normally for forgiveness and a settlement, not the victim. The signature of Abrelinda in the Amicable Settlement (Exh. 1; E) was sufficiently explained by no other than Judith, the wife of the accused himself, who admitted that Abrelinda signed the said document, although she did not understand its contents, after she was erroneously made to believe by Maria Delias, an auntie of Judith and accused, that if she does not sign, the instant case will not push through. Abrelinda's having signed the said document on the false belief that if she does not, the instant case will not push through only shows that she is very interested in pursuing this case. In fact, after the signing, she testified in Court about her harrowing experience in the hands of the accused. If she really knew or understood what she signed, she would have desisted from testifying in Court against the accused. And granting arguendo that Abrelinda signed the Amicable Settlement despite knowing its contents, this does not detract from the fact that the accused raped her. Nowhere in the document does it state that

the charge of rape against the accused is not true. In fact the amicable settlement proceeds on a premise that the rape was true. It is worth noting that the Amicable Settlement (Exh. 1; E) was prepared with the intercession of the uncle of Judith as admitted by her and the Office of the Barangay Captain of Poblacion, Buguias, Benguet. The amicable settlement prepared shows that Judith, the wife of accused, their relatives, common friends and Barangay Officials, about 61 in all, tried to patch things up but failed. This is normal in the countryside or rural areas where common relatives, friends and elders in the community try to intercede between the accused and victim. Eighth, the Court believes the version of Abrelinda that on March 4, 1998, she was called by her sister Judith to take care of the latter's children as Judith is going to Buguias, Benguet. This was the reason why Abrelinda had to go to the house of Judith and the accused which was just 60 meters away from the house of Marcelet in Irisan where she stays. And that was when the rape incident happened. These declarations of Abrelinda were corroborated by Marcelet who testified that Abrelinda slept in the house of the accused on the night of March 4, 1998 because she was called by Judith to take care of her children while Judith is in Buguias, but in the early dawn of March 5, 1998, Abrelinda returned to Marcelet's house crying complaining that she was raped by the accused. The testimony of Marcelet on what Abrelinda reported could even be considered as part of the res gestae as when Abrelinda made said spontaneous utterances while crying to her sister she was still under the influence of the startling occurrence that happened to her just a few hours before. Like Abrelinda, Marcelet would not testify on these facts if they were not true. Both sisters, Abrelinda and Marcelet, knew that they will be causing great pain and sorrow to their elder sister Judith and the latter's children in doing so but they had no other choice but to tell the truth. Ninth, it is hard to believe that accused can baby sit his children Jomar and Janice, ages 5 and 3 respectively while doing his work at the same time. Accused could not possibly change their clothes, wash them, feed them, have them defecate and urinate and take care of them while he was on duty for 24 hours as security guard. His claim (that) he brought them to his work where electric transformers and installations are being guarded by him, a dangerous place ordinarily is not plausible and credible. Hence the need for someone in his house to take care of his very young children while his wife is away is more believable."xvii[5] The dispositive portion of the judgment reads: "WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Muller Baldino Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, defined and penalized under Section 2 of Rep. Act 8353, as charged in the Information, with the aggravating qualifying circumstance of the victim, Abrelinda Silam, being a 13 year old minor and the offender Muller Baldino, being her brother-in-law and relative by affinity within the third civil degree (husband of her elder sister Judith Silam-Baldino) and sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of Death to be implemented in accordance with law; to indemnify the offended party, Abrelinda Silam, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and the sum of P50,000.00 as Moral damages, both without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED."xviii[6] The Public Attorney's Office filed a brief for the accused-appellant raising a lone assignment of error, namely: "THE COURT OF ORIGIN HAS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR IN METING OUT ON THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF THE APPLICABLE RULINGS IN THE CASES OF PEOPLE VERSUS GARCIA (281 SCRA 463, 489) (1997) AND PEOPLE VERSUS RAMOS (G. R. No. 129439, SEPTEMBER 25, 1998).xix[7] Accused-appellant prays that the judgment of conviction be modified so as to reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Solicitor-General filed a Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Appellee's Brief. He agrees that it was "palpable error" on the part of the trial court to have imposed the death penalty, and takes exception to the award of "the measly amount of P50,000.00 as indemnification."

The Public Attorney's Office filed a Manifestation in lieu of Reply Brief, reiterating that the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. The appeal has merit. We find from our own examination of the evidence no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court and being in full agreement in its ratiocination, we affirm the findings of the trial court that the accused-appellant raped the private complainant Abrelinda. The absence however, of an allegation in the Information of the qualifying circumstance of relationship, precludes a conviction for qualified rape. Republic Act No. 8353, insofar as pertinent, reads: "ART. 266-B. Penalties.- Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed. The penalty shall be death. The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: 1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; 2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution; 3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity. 4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime; 5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old; 6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim; 7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime; 8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability; 9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime and; 10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. " xxx xxx xxxx The above-quoted provision is a reenactment of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as then amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which introduced seven attendant qualifying circumstances that would justify imposition of the death penalty. The seven attendant circumstances above-quoted, first introduced in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 partake of the nature of "qualifying circumstances" which would increase the penalty by degree and make the crime punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death. It has long been the rule that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment; if the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstance.xx[8] Indeed it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due

process, if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form punishable by death, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in the capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.xxi[9] It was established that the accused-appellant is the brother-in-law of the private complainant Abrelinda, being the husband of the latter's older sister Judith, and consequently, a relative by affinity within the third civil degree. This circumstance was never mentioned in the Information, which charges merely simple rape. The trial court therefore erred in convicting the accused-appellant of qualified rape. The crime committed under the circumstances is simple rape attended by generic aggravating circumstance of relationship. The proper penalty imposable, as it is hereby imposed is reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court is in order, as the conviction is not for qualified rape and since the proven relationship of the accused-appellant as the brother-in-law of the victim, makes him a brother by affinity, the circumstance of relationship may be considered as an aggravating circumstance which justifies the award of exemplary damages.xxii[10] WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 15635-R against accused-appellant Muller Baldino is affirmed with the modification that the accused-appellant is convicted of simple rape and is accordingly meted the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. The civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and the award for moral damages also for P50,000.00 are hereby affirmed and in addition thereto, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is granted. SO ORDERED. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO DELA CRUZ y CARIZZA, accused-appellant. DECISION KAPUNAN, J.: Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision dated August 13, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 6, in Criminal Cases Nos. 15163-R, 15164-R and 15368-R finding accused-appellant Danilo dela Cruz y Carizza guilty of two (2) counts of rape and one (1) count of acts of lasciviousness. On August 29, 1997, two informations for rape were filed against accused-appellant in the RTC of Baguio City. The informations alleged: Criminal Case No. 15163-R That sometime in the month of September, 1990, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his daughter, JEANNIE ANN DELA CRUZ, a minor, then 11 years of age, against her will and consent. CONTRARY TO LAW. xxiii[1] Criminal Case No. 15164-R That sometime in the month of July, 1995, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation, have carnal knowledge of his daughter, JEANNIE ANN DELA CRUZ, a minor, then 16 years of age, against her will and consent. CONTRARY TO LAW.xxiv[2] On December 11, 1997, another information was filed against accused-appellant charging him with violation of Republic Act No. 7610 (The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The information stated: That on or about the 2nd day of August, 1997, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness on her, which has debased, degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of his daughter, JEANNIE ANN DELA CRUZ as a human being.CONTRARY TO LAW.xxv[3] This case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 15368-R. Upon motion of the prosecution, the trial court ordered the consolidation of the three cases. When arraigned, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to each of the charges. Thereafter, a joint trial of the cases ensued.

The prosecution presented as its witnesses complainant Jeannie Ann dela Cruz; Dr. Ronald R. Bandonill, the medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation-Cordillera Administrative Region (NBICAR); Mrs. Jean dela Cruz, mother of complainant and spouse of accused-appellant; and SPO2 Melchor Ong of the Baguio City Police. The prosecution established that accused-appellant married Jean dela Cruz in civil rites on 14 April 1977 and again in Catholic rites on 27 December 1978. They begot four children, namely: Jeanie Ann (the private complainant), Divine Grace, Daniel Jay and Gerard Nio.xxvi[4] Accused-appellant, a teacher, worked at the Don Bosco Technical Institute in Tarlac from 1978 to 1986. He transferred to the Don Bosco Elementary School in Baguio City sometime in 1986 and taught there until the following year. In 1987, he worked at the Saint Louis Center in Baguio City until his dismissal therefrom in 1993. Accused-appellant again taught at the Don Bosco Technical Institute in Tarlac from 1993 until his arrest in August 1997.xxvii[5] While working there, he and his son Daniel stayed in Sto. Cristo, Tarlac on weekdays and went home every 15 days or every payday. They would go home to Baguio City, where the rest of their family stayed, on Friday evening and return to Tarlac on Sunday afternoon.xxviii[6] Jeannie Ann dela Cruz (Jeannie Ann) testified that she was born to accused-appellant and Jean Aquidela Cruz on April 18, 1979 in Tarlac, Tarlac. Not long after her birth, her family transferred to the house of her maternal grandmother in No. 2 Sumulong Street, Baguio City. Her family lived in an extension of her grandmothers house which had a basement, a second floor and an attic. The second floor had four rooms and a stairs leading to the attic, which served as a stockroom. Jeannie Anns parents and her two brothers, Daniel and Nio, stayed in the basement while she and her sister, Divine stayed in the second floor.xxix[7] Jeannie Ann revealed that accused-appellant started molesting her when she was seven years old. While he helped do her homework at night, accused-appellant would on occasion make her hold his penis and masturbate him. There were also instances when he would put his penis inside her mouth and withdraw the same when a white liquid came out.xxx[8] Accused-appellant warned Jeannie Ann not to tell her mother what he was doing to her and told her that it was a normal thing between father and daughter. He further warned Jeannie Ann that her mother might kill them should she learn about the things that they did. Jeannie Ann believed accused-appellant and did not tell anyone about the sexual acts he performed on her. As she was growing up, accused-appellant continued to engage in the aforementioned sexual activities with her, and continuously threatened to hurt her, her siblings or her mother if she did not give in to his desires. Jeannie Ann still refrained from complaining because she was convinced by the accused-appellant that the sexual activities which he performed on her were proper.xxxi[9] She recounted before the trial court three particular occasions when accused-appellant molested her. Jeannie Ann said that sometime in September 1990, she was sexually abused by accused-appellant in their house in No. 37 Leonard Wood Road, Baguio City. She was only 11 years old then. According to Jeannie Ann, their family had moved to said house when her grandmothers house in Sumulong St. was destroyed in the July 16, 1990 earthquake that hit Baguio City.xxxii[10] They occupied the basement of the house in Leonard Wood Road. The basement had two bedrooms, a comfort room and a living room. Nobody stayed in the second floor thereof but during the day they stayed in the main house.xxxiii[11] Sometime that month, Jeannie Ann, her three year-old brother Nio and accused-appellant were left in the house while her mother and her sister Divine went to market. She was in the living room with Nio when her father undressed her. Her father removed his pants and she was made to lie down on a cushion. Her father played with her genitalia and rubbed his penis against her private part until a white liquid came out of his penis. Jeannie Ann said that after said incident, she felt pain in her vagina whenever she would urinate (mahapdi). She did not resist because she thought that what her father was doing to her was a normal act.xxxiv[12] Jeannie Ann narrated that accused-appellant again abused her one night in July 1995 when she was 16 years old. She was watching television with her siblings in the living room. At that time, their mother was attending a meeting in church. Accused-appellant called her three times but she refused to respond to his call as she was watching television. Exasperated, accused-appellant pulled her inside one of the

bedrooms and asked her to lie down on the bed saying, "This is only for a while." Accused-appellant then undressed her, removed his pants and underwear, inserted his finger inside her vagina, mashed her breasts and licked her vagina. Accused-appellant proceeded to rub his penis against her vagina and thereafter inserted his penis therein and kept it there until his semen started to come out. Accusedappellant placed his penis on Jeannie Anns stomach where he made his semen flow. While all this was happening, Jeannie Ann could only cry, as she was afraid of accused-appellant, because he threatened her that he would kill her or her mother and siblings.xxxv[13] The third incident recounted by Jeannie Ann occurred in their house in No. 2 Sumulong Street, Baguio City on August 2, 1997. She was then 18 years old. When she came home at around 10:30 in the morning after her classes at Saint Louis University, she saw accused-appellant at the door. He told her to proceed to the attic shortly. She ignored him and went directly to her room and started cleaning the same. While she was cleaning the outer portion of her room, she saw accused-appellant go up the attic. While he was there, he repeatedly called her and asked her to go there. When Jeannie Ann remembered that her mother had earlier instructed her to clean the attic, she went up when she was done cleaning her room.xxxvi[14] Accused-appellant lay on the bed in the attic as Jeannie Ann swept the floor. When she was done, accused-appellant asked her to join him on the bed. He went near her and again asked her to sit on the bed when she refused to heed his call. Accused-appellant whispered to her that he was running out of time. He talked in whispers so that the other people in the house at that time would not be able to hear what he said. Sensing that accused-appellant would again molest her, Jeannie Ann became nervous and started to cry. He told her to stop crying and to relax, as what he was about to do would only take a while. Accused-appellant then lifted Jeannie Anns t-shirt and brassier, mashed her breasts with his left hand and inserted his right hand inside her pants. Jeannie Ann resisted, but accused-appellant proceeded to insert a finger of his right hand inside her vagina. While he performed the aforementioned acts on his daughter, accused-appellant told her, I love you very much. Promise me that I will be the only one who will do this to you.xxxvii[15] Accused-appellant only stopped what he was doing when he heard Aileen, a boarder in their house, calling Jeannie Ann. He immediately fixed her clothes and hair, then moved away from her. Accusedappellant instructed Jeannie Ann not to go down and to keep quiet about the incident. When accusedappellant noticed that Aileen had left because Jeannie Ann did not respond to her, accused-appellant embraced Jeannie Ann and said: "Please cooperate with me and trust me. I have given you my life. Promise that I will be the only one who will touch you." Accused-appellant began touching her again. He inserted his fingers inside her vagina. As he touched her, he said, Please cooperate with me and trust me. This is for your own good and for the good of our family. If you will not follow me, you might regret it. I want you to have a bright future. And after you finish, I can already die and you will no longer have any problem.xxxviii[16] Although Aileen, Divine, Nio and Rogel, another boarder in their house were also there at the time of the incident, Jeannie Ann did not have the courage to call for help because she was very much afraid of accused-appellant, and she saw anger in his eyes.xxxix[17] When accused-appellant was done with her, Jeannie Ann insisted on going down. She cried as she returned to her room to fix herself. Thereafter, she went out of the house to deal with what had just happened to her. While walking outside toward the bridge, she saw a white L-300 van belonging to the police. She flagged down the vehicle and narrated to the two police officers riding therein, SPO2 Bravo and SPO2 Ong, what accused-appellant had just done to her. The policemen accompanied her back to their house where they met accused-appellant whom Jeannie Ann identified as the person who had raped her. Accused-appellant voluntarily went with the policemen to the Baguio City Police Station.xl[18] When they arrived at the Baguio City Police Station, Jeannie Ann narrated her experience to the police officer stationed at the Womens Desk. In her statement, Jeannie Ann described what accused-appellant did to her on August 2, 1997.xli[19] Jeannie Ann also denied accused-appellants claim that she had sexual relations with her boyfriend Charles, and that she accused her father of rape to get back at him for causing her breakup with Charles.xlii[20]

Dr. Ronald R. Bandonill, the NBI-CAR medico-legal officer who conducted a physical examination of Jeannie Ann on August 8, 1997, testified that he found two old healed lacerations at 5 o'clock and 7 o'clock positions on Jeannie Anns hymen. He said that the lacerations could have been inflicted more than three months prior to the date of the examination and considering the proximity of their location, could have been inflicted at the same time. A hard rigid instrument like an erect male organ, a rigid wood or a finger could have caused these lacerations. Dr. Bandonill also opined that the positions of the lacerations did not rule out the possibility that the victim had sexual intercourse less than three months prior to his examination of her, since intercourse would not create further lacerations when done in the same position. He likewise noted that the vaginal walls were lax and the vaginal rugosities were slightly flattened and smoothed. The victim's hymenal orifice admitted a tube 2.4 cm. in diameter with ease. Dr. Bandonill said it was possible that penetration happened several times. He further testified that the frequent insertion of a finger or other rigid object, with a diameter of more than an inch, could cause the lacerations as well as the lax condition of vaginal walls.xliii[21] Jean dela Cruz (Mrs. dela Cruz), Jeannie Anns mother and wife of accused-appellant, testified that she learned that accused-appellant had sexually abused their daughter Jeannie Ann on August 2, 1997 when she arrived at home after her marketing chores. She was told by her daughter Divine that accusedappellant was picked up by the police. Mrs. dela Cruz followed accused-appellant to the police station and found Jeanie Ann crying while the latter was reporting what had happened to her at the Women's Desk. Upon seeing her daughter, Mrs. dela Cruz hugged her and they cried together.xliv[22] Mrs. dela Cruz further stated that she was shocked upon hearing Jeannie Anns statement before the police that accused-appellant had been performing oral sex on their daughter Jeannie Ann since the latter was seven years old, as it was the first time that she learned about it. In her anger, she rushed to the other room where the accused-appellant was being questioned and slapped him, kicked him and scratched his face. She said accused-appellant denied all the accusations against him. When accusedappellant was already incarcerated, Mrs. dela Cruz received several lettersxlv[23] from him asking for forgiveness from her and from Jeannie Ann.xlvi[24] She also informed the trial court that after accusedappellants incarceration, she went to Tarlac to get her husband's things since he usually stayed there on weekdays while he taught at Don Bosco.xlvii[25] She discovered several love letters by a certain Emily addressed to accused-appellant,xlviii[26] Emilys photographxlix[27] and accused-appellants draft love letters to Emily, dated March 21, 1995,l[28] September 4, 1995,li[29] and March 7, 1996.lii[30] Mrs. dela Cruz also found a letter from a certain Maureen telling accused-appellant that he had a chance of winning her heart,liii[31] and a photograph of Maureen.liv[32] She said that the tenor of the letters indicated that accused-appellant was having relations with other women.lv[33] Mrs. dela Cruz also denied accused-appellants claims that she had a paramour and that she helped Jeannie Ann file the complaints against him because she (Mrs. dela Cruz) wanted to get back at him for being unfaithful to her.lvi[34] SPO2 Melchor Ong, the police officer assigned to the Baguio City Mobile Group, also testified that on August 2, 1997, between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon, while he and his companion inside an L-300 van of the Baguio City police were passing along Sumulong St., Baguio City, they saw Jeannie Ann walking towards them. The latter stopped them and tearfully reported to them that her father had just sexually molested her. They accompanied Jeannie Ann to her house and there the latter pointed to accusedappellant as the person who mashed her breasts and inserted his finger inside her vagina. SPO2 Ong and his companion approached accused-appellant, introduced themselves as policemen and invited him to the police station. He said that accused-appellant readily agreed to go with them to the police station.lvii[35] The defense presented as witnesses the accused-appellant, Camilo Estepa, Barangay Chairman of Barangay Holy Ghost, Baguio City, Fr. Exequiel Veloso, Principal of the Don Bosco Technical Institute, and Fr. Jean Marie Tchang, Director of the Don Bosco in Trancoville, Baguio City. Accused-appellant testified that he was a teacher at the Don Bosco Technical Institute in Tarlac, Tarlac from 1978 to 1986. In 1987, he transferred to Don Bosco in Trancoville, Baguio City and worked there for a year. From 1988 to 1993, he taught also in Saint Louis School Center. In 1994, he went back to the Don Bosco Technical Institute in Tarlac, Tarlac and had taught there until his incarceration in August

1997.lviii[36] On weekdays, he and his son Daniel stayed in Sto. Cristo, Tarlac, Tarlac and they would go home to their family in Baguio City every 15th and 30th of each month to give his salary to his wife. When these dates fell on a weekday, they would go home to Baguio City the following Friday and return to Tarlac on Sunday afternoon.lix[37] He denied all the accusations hurled against him by his daughter Jeannie Ann.lx[38] According to him, he tried to provide for the needs of his family, especially his wife whom he loved very much. He maintained that even when he was already in jail, he asked his mother and his sister to support his daughter's education. He admitted to having gone home to Baguio City in the evening of August 1, 1997, which he recalled was a Friday. That night, his wife asked him to clean the attic the following day as there was a dead rat therein.lxi[39] The following day, August 2, 1997, accused-appellant removed the decomposing body of the rat from the attic as requested by his wife. He called his daughter Jeannie Ann who was cleaning her room on the second floor of the house to come to the attic and help him. It took a while before Jeannie Ann heeded his call. When she finally went up, she merely swept one third of the floor area of the attic, away from where the dead rat was. When she was done sweeping the floor, accused-appellant asked her to come near him, as he wanted to apologize for having scolded her earlier and to remind her that she should not have ignored him when he commanded her to go up the attic, or to at least tell him that she could not obey his command immediately. While he was talking to her, they heard someone calling her name. Jeannie Ann told accused-appellant that that person was her classmate. She then went down while accused-appellant stayed on to fix the things in the attic. Not long afterwards, his daughter Divine informed him that they had some visitors downstairs. On his way down from the attic, he looked out of the window and saw Jeannie Ann walking beyond the bridge.lxii[40] Accused-appellant went down to meet the visitors who were looking for Rogel, one of their boarders. After leading these visitors to Rogel, two policemen arrived in their house with Jeannie Ann. Accusedappellant identified the policemen as SPO2 Leonardo Cruz Bravo and SPO2 Melchor Ong. The former asked for accused-appellants name and thereafter invited him to the police station. He freely went with them, without asking the purpose of the invitation.lxiii[41] At the station, SPO2 Leonardo Cruz Bravo interviewed accused-appellant. The interview was reduced to writing and he was asked to sign the same. He did not read the document, as he did not have his eyeglasses with him at that time. At first, accused-appellant refused to sign the document without the presence of his counsel. SPO2 Leonardo Cruz Bravo, however, told him that his refusal to sign the document may be interpreted as a sign of resistance on his part. Accused-appellant thereafter decided to sign the document.lxiv[42] Accused-appellant admitted that he transferred to the Don Bosco Technical Institute in Tarlac, Tarlac because he was dismissed from the Saint Louis Center in Baguio City. He acknowledged that while teaching in Saint Louis Center, a student named Freda Miguel filed a caselxv[43] against him because accused-appellant allegedly embraced her (Miguel) in the Science Laboratory Room of the school, and that he signed an amicable settlement of the complaint. However, he denied the truth of that complaint against him and said that the filing thereof was not the cause of his dismissal from Saint Louis Center.lxvi[44] He also admitted that the letters from Emily and Maureen addressed to him were his but insisted that they were only his friends, and that Emilys reference to him as her boyfriend in one of her letterslxvii[45] was only a joke. Accused-appellant claimed that his wife and Jeannie Ann conspired to file the cases against him because they had resentments against him. He said Jeannie Ann blamed him for having caused her breakup with her boyfriend Charles. His wife, on the other hand, wanted him out of her life because she had a paramour. According to him, his wife admitted to him that she had an illicit relationship with a man named Alfredo dela Cruz, a namesake of his brother. His wife had a second relationship with a person named Alfredo Aquino against whom he filed a case before the barangay.lxviii[46] Camilo Estepa, Barangay Captain of Barangay Holy Ghost, Baguio City, told the trial court that sometime in 1993, accused-appellant filed a case for malicious mischief against a certain Alfredo or Federico

Aquino, a boarder in the house of Mrs. Aqui, the mother of Mrs. dela Cruz. Accused-appellant alleged that Aquino was courting his wife. However, the case was settled amicably when Aquino agreed to leave the boarding house of Mrs. Aqui.lxix[47] Fr. Exequiel Veloso, Principal of the Don Bosco Technical Institute in Tarlac from 1994 to 1998, testified that he had known accused-appellant since 1994 and was not aware of any untoward incident involving the latter. He said that accused-appellant and his son Daniel would go home to his family in Baguio City every weekend and returned to Tarlac either on Sunday evening or Monday morning. He would come to school on time and attended the flag ceremony regularly. Fr. Veloso said that none of the lady teachers ever complained about accused-appellant.lxx[48] Fr. Jean Marie Tchang, Director of the Don Bosco Elementary School in Trancoville, Baguio City, testified that accused-appellant was a very competent teacher in Science and had a very good relationship with the other teachers. He said he regretted that accused-appellant left his teaching job at the Don Bosco Elementary School after only one year.lxxi[49] On August 13, 1998, the trial court promulgated its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. In Criminal Case No. 15163-R, the Court finds the accused Danilo dela Cruz y Carizza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape (committed in September 1990) as charged in the Information defined and penalized under paragraph No. 3 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (Statutory Rape) and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the offended party, Jeannie Ann dela Cruz the sum of P50,000.00 as Moral Damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. The accused Danilo dela Cruz being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. 2. In Criminal Case No. 15164-R, the Court finds the accused Danilo dela Cruz y Carizza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of incest rape (committed in July 1995) as charged in the Information defined and penalized under Section 11 of Republic Act 7659 (Heinous Crime Law) which amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of Death to be implemented in accordance with law; to indemnify the offended party Jeannie Ann dela Cruz the sum of P50,000.00 as Moral Damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. 3. In Criminal Case No. 15368-R, the Court finds the accused Danilo dela Cruz y Carizza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code instead of violation of RA 7610 (Child Abuse Law) as charged in the Information and hereby sentences him, applying the indeterminate sentence law, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from two (2) months and one (1) day of Arresto Mayor as Minimum to two (2) years four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as Maximum; to indemnify the offended party Jeannie Ann dela Cruz the sum of P5,000 as Moral Damages without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. The accused Danilo dela Cruz being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Law.SO ORDERED In his brief, accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of Jeannie Ann and in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness. He alleges that Jeannie Anns testimony was fabricated and inconsistent.lxxii[51] Accused-appellant points out that Jeannie Ann failed to immediately notify the authorities, or at least her mother, of her harrowing experience. Notwithstanding the fact that he was often away from their home because he stayed in Tarlac where he worked on weekdays, and Jeannie Ann was with her mother in Baguio City, it took her eleven years to disclose the sexual abuses which accused-appellant allegedly committed against her.lxxiii[52] Moreover, he claims that considering Jeannie Anns tender age at the time he allegedly raped her, she must have suffered great pain and should have complained about it to her mother or told the latter what accused-appellant had been doing to her. Accused-appellant argues

that the delay in the reporting of the sexual acts he performed on his daughter is not normal and is indicative of the untruthfulness of complainants charges.lxxiv[53] The Court finds that the trial court did not err in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping his daughter Jeannie Ann in September 1990 and July 1995. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which defined the crime of Rape prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997), and which is the applicable law for the rape incidents of September 1990 and July 1995, states: When and how rape is committed. --Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. In reviewing the cases at bar, the Court observed the following guidelines it had previously formulated for the review of rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, but it is difficult to prove, and even more difficult for the accused to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.lxxv[54] In rape cases, the issue invariably boils down to the credibility of the victims testimony. The trial courts evaluation of the credibility of the victims statements is accorded great weight because it has the unique opportunity of hearing the witnesses testify and observing their deportment and manner of testifying. The trial court judge is indisputably in the best position to determine the truthfulness of the complainants testimony. Thus, unless it is shown that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that would otherwise affect the result of the case, its findings will not be disturbed on appeal.lxxvi[55] The Court has adhered to the rule that when the testimony of a woman who states under oath that she has been raped meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis of such testimony. A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and who remains consistent, is a credible witness.lxxvii[56] In the cases at bar, the trial court found Jeannie Anns testimony to be "natural, coherent and touching as she recounted her harrowing experience in the hands of her father,"lxxviii[57] as follows: q Now, sometime in the month of July, 1995, Madame Witness, do you remember if there was anything unusual which took place again in your house at Sumulong St., Baguio City? a There was, sir. q What was that incident? [a] On that night I was watching TV with my brothers and sisters. While I was watching TV my father was calling me but I did not heed his call because I said I was watching TV. So, three times he called me and I know that he was already angry. Then he went near me and pulled me into the other room. And in that other room, he did bad things that I cannot imagine. q Now, you said that you and your brothers and sisters were watching TV on that night of July, 1995. Where was your mother at that time? a She was not in the house at that time because she attended a meeting in our church. COURT: (to witness) q That is why we already excluded the public. Dont let the Court speculate. Will you tell us straight. What did your father actually do which you said (sic) he did things which you cannot imagine? a When we were in the room he let me sit on the bed. And he asked me to lie down. And he said, This is only for a while. And after that he put down my pants and my underwear. Then he undressed, lowered his pants and removed his brief. Then he started touching my vabina (sic). COURT:

Continue from there. Make it of record that at this point the witness is crying. PROS. CENTENO: q Now after your father had removed your pants and your underwear as you said, and he also removed his pants and his brief and started holding your vagina, what else happened? a He fingered my vagina and also mashed mybreasts (sic). And with his tongue he licked my vagina. After that he used his penis and rubbed it into my vagina. And he played with my vagina. q What did you do when your father was doing that to you? a I was just crying, sir. q Did you not fight back? a No sir, because I was afraid of my father. q Why are you afraid of your father? a Because when I was still young, one time he told me that either I will be killed or our family will be killed. q On what occasion was that when your father old (sic) you that it is either you or the family that will be killed? a I cannot remember, sir. But that was when I was still young. q Now, aside from rubbing his penis to your vagina, what else did your father do? a When he was rubbing his penis against my vagina there was a white liquid that came out. And when that white liquid came out he placed his penis on my stomach where the white liquid was placed. COURT: (to witness) q Will you tell us what you mean by his rubbing his penis to your vagina? What was being done actually? a I felt that half of the head of his penis was inside my vagina. That is what I felt. (At this point the witness again broke into tears) COURT: Continue. PROS. CENTENO: q Now, when you felt that as you said half of the penis of your father was inside your vagina, what did you do? a None, sir. q Why did you not do anything? a Because I didnt know what to do, sir. q Did you not try to fight your father? a No, sir, because I am really afraid of my father. Because when he gets mad at my mother, my brothers and sisters would be involved. q Now, before July 1995, Madame Witness, particularly in September of 1990, several months after the earthquake of July 16, 1990, will you tell us where you were residing? a We were residing then at No. 37 Leonard Wood Road, sir. q How old were you? a I was 11 years old. q When you were staying at Leonard Wood Road, Baguio City, together with your father, your mother, your sister and your brothers in September of 1990, do you remember if there was any unusual incident which happened to you? a Yes, sir. q What was that incident? a I was with my father and brother Nio at the sala. And at the sala he undressed me and did the same. He removed his pants. Then he took a cushion from the sala and asked me to lie down. And there he played with my vagina. Then he rubbed his penis against my vagina. Nio was still a baby at that time. q Where was your mother at that time?

a My mother was not in the house at that time. What I know is that she went to the market. q How about you sister Divine? a She was with my mother, sir. COURT: (to witness) q Again, in this incident will you describe actually to us the motions that took place with the rubbing of his penis into your vagina? a It is like this, sir. For example this is my vagina (witness showing her left hand, palms up) and this is his penis (witness demonstrating with her right forefinger), he made a push and pull movement on my vagina. PROS. CENTENO: q What did you feel while your father was doing that to you which you term as rubbing his penis into your vagina? a I felt pain, sir. PROS. CENTENO: May we put the word mahapdi which was the term used by the witness, in the record. (to witness) q How long did your father rub his penis into your vagina? a It was for quite a long time until a white liquid came out. q Did you not fight back when your father did that to you? a No, sir. q Why did you not fight back? a Because I thought that what he was doing to me was a normal act. xxxlxxix[58] The trial court judge saw "from the face of the victim the anguish and the pain and the shame and the embarrassment as she broke down and cried several times in the course of her testimony every time she was asked [about] the despicable acts of her father."lxxx[59] Moreover, no woman would fabricate charges of sexual abuse, allow an examination of her private parts and endure the humiliation of a public trial where she would be forced to recount the details of her unfortunate experience had she not really been raped. This is especially true in cases of incestuous rape, as in these cases where Jeannie Ann accused her own father of abusing her, since reverence and respect for ones parents and other elders is deeply ingrained in Filipino children.lxxxi[60] The delay in reporting a rape incident does not necessarily impair the credibility of the victim where the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, especially when made by a person who exercised moral ascendancy over the victim. It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal for sometime the assault on her virtue because of the rapists threat on her life, or on the life of the other members of her family. lxxxii[61] In the cases at bar, Jeannie Ann repeatedly explained that accused-appellant threatened to hurt her, her mother or her siblings if she did not give in to his desires.lxxxiii[62] Her fear of what accused-appellant would do to her, her mother and siblings if she revealed his evil deeds was what compelled her to suffer in silence for a long time. In People v. Nicolas,lxxxiv[63] the Court stated: The pattern of instilling fear, utilized by the perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission, is evident in virtually all cases that have reached this Court. It is through this fear that the perpetrator hopes to create a climax of extreme psychological terror which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and force her to submit to repeated acts of rape over a period of time. The relationship of the victim and the perpetrator magnifies this terror, because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim.lxxxv[64] On the other hand, the trial court found accused-appellant to be evasive in his narration of his story. All that he offered in his defense were his bare denials. Denial, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. A mere denial constitutes negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.lxxxvi[65]

Accused-appellant's assertion that his daughter made up the charges against him to get back at him for causing her breakup with her boyfriend Charles is likewise unbelievable. It is not likely that a complainant in a rape case would fabricate a story of defloration against her own father and put to shame not only herself but her whole family as well, unless it was the plain truth and her motive was purely to obtain justice.lxxxvii[66] Neither does the Court believe accused-appellant's claim that his wife urged their daughter to file rape charges against him because she (his wife) wanted to get him out of the way of her extra-marital relationship. It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject them to embarrassment and even stigma.lxxxviii[67] No mother would have the courage to expose an ignominious act of her husband that could lead to a breakup of the family unless she was prompted by a desire to obtain justice for her daughter.lxxxix[68] The trial court committed no error in imposing upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the rape he committed in September 1990, since the offense was committed prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 (the Death Penalty Law).xc[69] However, the Court finds that the lower court erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death upon him for the rape committed in July 1995. R.A. No. 7659, which was already in force at that time, requires that the circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender must concur for the death penalty to be imposable. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 provides: xxx The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances. 1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. xxx The Court has previously explained that the circumstances of minority and relationship are considered as special qualifying circumstances because they alter the nature of the crime of rape and thus warrant the imposition of the death penalty. These circumstances must be alleged in the information and established during trial for the court to be able to impose the death penalty.xci[70] It was, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to satisfactorily prove both circumstances of minority and relationship. In Criminal Case No. 15164-R, the father-daughter relationship was alleged in the information and proven in the course of the trial. However, Jeannie Anns minority, although likewise alleged in the information, was not sufficiently proved. All that was offered to establish her age was her bare testimony that she was born on April 18, 1979. The prosecution failed to present her birth certificate, or in lieu thereof, other documentary evidence such as her baptismal certificate, school records which would have aided the court in verifying her claim that she was a minor when she was raped by accusedappellant in July 1995. In the absence of adequate proof of Jeannie Anns minority, the penalty imposable for the offense in Criminal Case No. 15164-R is reclusion perpetua.xcii[71] The Court also finds that accused-appellant cannot be convicted of rape or acts of lasciviousness under the information in Criminal Case No. 15368-R, which charges accused-appellant of a violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness.xciii[72] It is readily apparent that the facts charged in said information do not constitute an offense. The information does not cite which among the numerous sections or subsections of R.A. No. 7610 has been violated by accused-appellant.xciv[73] Moreover, it does not state the acts and omissions constituting the offense, or any special or aggravating circumstances attending the same, as required under the rules of criminal procedure. Section 8, Rule 110 thereof provides: Designation of the offense. The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.

The allegation in the information that accused-appellant willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter [Jeannie Ann] either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness on her is not a sufficient averment of the acts constituting the offense as required under Section 8, for these are conclusions of law, not facts.xcv[74] The information in Criminal Case No. 15368-R is therefore void for being violative of the accused-appellants constitutionally-guaranteed right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.xcvi[75] Although accused-appellant failed to call the attention of both the trial court and this Court regarding the defects of the information in Criminal Case No. 15368-R, the Court may motu proprio dismiss said information at this stage, pursuant to its ruling in Suy Sui vs. People,xcvii[76] because the information is a patent violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and of the basic principles of due process. Moreover, an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review, and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as might be found in the appealed decision, whether these errors are assigned or not. It is likewise necessary to increase the award of damages by the trial court. The lower court in its decision ordered accused-appellant to indemnify the complainant in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) only in each of the cases, representing moral damages. It failed to award the prescribed amounts for civil indemnity, the award of which is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.xcviii[77] This civil liability ex delicto is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law.xcix[78] It is not to be confused with moral damages, which is awarded upon a showing that the victim endured physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury.c[79] Under prevailing jurisprudence, when the penalty imposed on the accused is reclusion perpetua, the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) should be awarded as civil indemnity to the rape victim.ci[80] Thus, in Criminal Case Nos. 15163-R and 15164-R, an award of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity for each count of rape is proper. In addition to civil indemnity, moral damages are automatically granted to the victim in rape cases without need of proof for it is assumed that the private complainant has sustained mental, physical and psychological suffering.cii[81] The Court affirms the award by the trial court of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages in Criminal Cases Nos. 15163-R and 15164-R, since said amounts are in accord with its current rulings.ciii[82] WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 6 in Criminal Cases Nos. 15163-R and 15164-R is hereby MODIFIED, as follows: 1. In Criminal Case No. 15163-R, the accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the victim the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages; 2. In Criminal Case No. 15164-R, the appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay the amounts of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. 3. The Information in Criminal Case No. 15368-R is declared null and void for being violative of the accused-appellant's constitutionally-guaranteed right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Hence, the case against him is DISMISSED.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PASTOR JERUSALEM MEDEL, accusedappellant.Appellant Jerusalem Medel seeks to reverse the Decisioni[1] of the trial court, dated October 4, 1995, finding him guilty of raping complainant Axel Rose Rula.i[2] The complainant and the appellant were members of the Student Missionary Outreach (SMO), a Christian organization conducting bible studies in different schools and universities. At the time of the incident, complainant was the national treasurer of SMO while appellant was the Officer-in-Charge and member of the SMO Board of Trustees. Complainant was twenty five (25) years old, unmarried and had

10

a boyfriend, Orly. Appellant, on the other hand, was thirty (30) years old and married to Dinah Medel, a physician, with whom he has two children.i[3] There is no question that appellant and complainant had coitus at Veny's Inn in Baguio City on November 9, 1993. The issue is whether appellant forced the complainant to have sex or whether they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. The prosecution evidence show that on November 7, 1993, appellant, complainant, and Reverend Alejo Calopes,i[4] went to Tadian, Mountain Province, to resolve a conflict involving two (2) members of their organization. They took the 11:00 p.m. bus and arrived in Baguio at 5:00 a.m. the following day. They boarded another bus bound for Tadian which they reached at 4:00 p.m. They met with the members of their organization and successfully settled their dispute.i[5] The next day, November 9, at about 7:30 a.m., appellant, complainant, and Rev. Calopes headed back to Baguio City. They reached Baguio at about 4:00 p.m. Appellant suggested that they roam around the city and buy some "pasalubong" before going home. Complainant agreed as it was her first time in Baguio. Rev. Calopes begged off for he had to attend to important matters. He took the 4:30 p.m. trip to Manila.i[6] After Rev. Calopes left, appellant told complainant that their trip to Manila would be at 11:00 p.m. They inquired from an employee at the bus station if they could temporarily leave their things for safekeeping. They were told that the bus company would not take any responsibility for lost baggage. Appellant then suggested that they deposit their things in a lodging house. Complainant rejected the suggestion. She said: "Pastor, ayoko po sa ganyang lugar, hindi po magandang tingnan, Kristiyano pa naman tayo." To allay her fears, he replied: "Huwag kang mag-alala, at bakit tayo magi-guilty? Basta alam nating wala naman tayong ginagawang masama, hindi tayo dapat mahiya." In jest, he said he had no plan to rape her.i[7] Appellant and complainant checked in at Veny's Inn along Session Road at about 5:45 p.m. Complainant registered her name on the registry book on appellant's instruction. They kept their belongings in their room. After a while, they proceeded to the public market and bought "pasalubong." They also went sight-seeing, took pictures and, later in the evening, dined in a restaurant. All those times, appellant did not convey any evil desire towards complainant.i[8] At about 8:30 p.m., they returned to Veny's Inn. Their room was small -- it had only a bed, a table and a small private bathroom. Complainant sat on the bed to rest. She stayed awake for their 11:00 p.m. trip. Appellant refreshed himself by taking a shower.i[9] At about 9:20 p.m., appellant emerged from the bathroom clad in brief. He then told her: "Alam mo, noong una palang, crush na kita, matagal na kitang gustong maangkin." She was stunned as he continued saying: "Kapag nakikita kita, palagi akong nag we-wet dreams." Finally, complainant was able to retort: "Ang bastos-bastos mo. Pastor ka pa naman." She walked towards the door but appellant locked it. He grabbed her upper arms and laid her down on the bed. She struggled as she pled: "Huwag, ayoko, maawa ka." Appellant sat on her belly, choked her with his right hand and delivered a strong blow on her left shoulder. He kissed her on the face, lips and neck and then forcibly took off her pants and underwear. The pants' zipper was torn in the process. They wrestled for an hour before he managed to subdue her. She felt excruciating pain when he penetrated her. He was done in fifteen (15) minutes.i[10] Complainant picked up her pants and underwear and went to the bathroom. She cried but could not shout due to exhaustion. When she came out of the bathroom, appellant threatened her with death if she would reveal the incident. At about 10:45 p.m., complainant and appellant checked out of Veny's Inn. They proceeded to the bus terminal. Complainant cried throughout the trip.i[11] She was again warned not to tell anyone of the incident because nobody would listen to her. Appellant boasted that their congregation would believe whatever he would tell them. He also showed her a military badge and bragged about his "connections" in the military. The threats cowed her into silence.i[12] Since then, complainant started to avoid the appellant. Allegedly, she would hurriedly fix her things and leave when she sensed she was left alone in the office with appellant. However, on four (4) occasions,

appellant obliged her to go to his house because his wife, Dr. Dinah Medel,i[13] would give her vaccines for Hepatitis B.i[14] Complainant's first visit to Dr. Medel happened on November 18, 1993, nine (9) days after the rape. On said date, appellant accompanied her to his house. Complainant's next visits to Dr. Medel took place on December 9, 1993, January 18, 1994 and February 17, 1994.i[15] On March 29, 1994, complainant was at the SMO office doing some paper work. She found herself alone in the office with appellant. When appellant closed the door, she hid under her table. Appellant forced her out and said: "Huwag kang tatanggi, sandali lang ito." He then molested her for about fifteen (15) minutes.i[16] On April 11-14, 1994, the SMO held a convention in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. Complainant's boyfriend, Orly, accompanied her to avert appellant's advances. Appellant, however, told complainant that the other pastors were displeased by her boyfriend's presence and they would discuss the matter with her. He warned her not to reveal the Baguio incident, otherwise, he would throw her in a cliff.i[17] One week after the convention, complainant decided to relate her misfortune to her aunt, Gloria Trayco. Gloria Traycoi[18] s also a missionary at the SMO. She testified that complainant's eyes were swollen when she came home from Baguio in the early morning of November 10, 1993. She thought complainant was just tired from her trip so she left her in her room to rest. Gloria sorted out complainant's dirty clothes for laundry and saw blood stains on her pants and underwear. Complainant attributed them to her menstrual period. Gloria washed complainant's clothes but the blood stains appeared redder than usual. She returned to complainant's room and found her crying. Complainant was hiding her face under a pillow. Gloria took the pillow and noticed a hematoma on her left shoulder. Complainant claimed that the hematoma was due to a bad fall in Baguio. Gloria did not discuss the issue any further.i[19] Gloria noted that complainant's behavior changed after her trip to Baguio. She was no longer jolly. Her zest to work at the SMO vanished. Nonetheless, she just let things be in view of complainant's refusal to open up to her.i[20] On April 22, 1994, Gloria persuaded complainant to report to the SMO office because she had been absent for two (2) consecutive days. When complainant refused, she repeatedly asked her why she did not want to work. Complainant then tearfully revealed that she had been raped by appellant. The following day, they reported the rape to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila.i[21] Complainant was medically examined by NBI Medico-Legal Officer Aurea Villena. Dr. Villena found an "old-healed complete hymenal laceration" on complainant's genitalia. The laceration was approximately more than three (3) months old. She opined that the age of the laceration was consistent with the date of the rape.i[22] Complainant's close friend and co-worker Mirasol Valdez also testified for the prosecution. Mirasol lives with complainant and Gloria at the SMO staff house in Cavite. She declared that Dr. Dinah Medel visited them in the staff house and tried but failed to convince complainant to withdraw the rape case against appellant. When Dr. Medel came a third time, complainant did not give her an audience. Dr. Medel then requested Mirasol and Gloria to help her talk to complainant for her children's sake. Complainant was unbending.i[23] Appellant denied the charge. He claimed that complainant developed a crush on him when she saw him in his office in Taytay in 1988. In 1992, he became the secretary general of SMO and transferred to its national office in Quezon City where complainant was working as its national treasurer. He was temporarily designated as officer-in-charge of SMO later that year when its national director travelled abroad. Appellant's transfer to the national office brought him closer to complainant. She confided to him her personal problems, including her sexual adventures with a former boyfriend, Rolly. They took turns in paying the bills whenever they go out to eat. She also gifted him a desk calendar.i[24] On November 7, 1993, appellant and Reverend Calopes were to go to Tadian, Mountain Province, for a mission trip. Complainant volunteered to join them when she learned that they would pass by Baguio City. Appellant told complainant that they could not accommodate her due to their limited budget. Complainant offered to pay her fare so she was able to join the trip.i[25]

11

Their mission to Tadian was successful. On November 9, at about 7:30 a.m., they headed back to Baguio City. The bus arrived in Baguio at about 4:30 p.m. Rev. Calopes left the duo and took the 5:00 p.m. trip to Manila. As it was complainant's first time in Baguio, complainant and appellant decided to stay in the city for a few more hours. They bought tickets for the 11:00 p.m. trip to Manila.i[26] Appellant and complainant strolled along Session Road. Complainant asked if they could leave their luggage in a lodging house. They passed by Veny's Inn and inquired for its short time rate, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. They were informed that the inn had only whole day rates. Appellant then told complainant that the rate was high and it was impractical for them to get a room. Complainant, however, volunteered to take care of the payment. She registered her name on the registry book, took the key from the receptionist and handed it over to appellant. After putting their belongings in the room, they went to the public market. They bought vegetables, fruits and brooms. At about 7:00 p.m., they returned to Veny's Inn for a brief rest.i[27] That evening, complainant and appellant dined in a restaurant across Burnham Park. They then strolled, exchanged jokes, and soon were holding hands. They decided to see a movie. They engaged in kissing, necking and petting inside the movie house. They returned to Veny's Inn and had sex for about fifteen (15) or twenty (20) minutes. They rested for some minutes and had sex a second time. During that brief rest, complainant confessed that she had gone to a motel before with a former boyfriend named Rolly. She even described the motel's room.i[28] At about 9:30 p.m., complainant and appellant checked out of Veny's Inn and went to the bus terminal. Complainant stayed at the bus station to look after their luggage while appellant sauntered within the vicinity. He watched a televised PBA basketball game in a nearby store. They took the 11:00 p.m. trip to Manila. They slept and barely talked to each other throughout the trip.i[29] Complainant and appellant's relationship became more intimate after their trip to Baguio. On one occasion, complainant invited appellant to a lunch date. Thereafter, they went to Delta Theater where they engaged in kissing, necking and petting. They repeated it several days later.i[30] Complainant also went to appellant's house four (4) times because his wife, Dr. Dinah Medel, gave her vaccines for Hepatitis B. She was accompanied by appellant on her first two visits on November 18, 1993 and December 9, 1993. They came ahead of Dr. Medel and she helped prepare the lunch. Dr. Medel and their children came at past twelve. Complainant ate lunch with the family and washed the dishes.i[31] In December, 1993, the SMO held a Christmas party at their office. Complainant served food and refreshment on appellant and the other guests. She gave him a planner calendar. On another occasion, appellant brought his wife's electric fan to the SMO office. Complainant borrowed the electric fan from him and used it.i[32] On January 6, 1994, complainant and appellant had lunch at McDonald's in Monumento. They proceeded to Sunshine Lodge afterwards. They had sex two (2) times that afternoon. While resting, complainant spoke about her new boyfriend, Orly. She confessed that she went to bed with Orly three (3) days after she became his girlfriend.i[33] During the Bukidnon convention on April 11-14, 1994, Orly accompanied complainant. The members of the SMO Board of Trustees were displeased by his presence. They asked appellant to discuss the problem with complainant. Appellant relayed the board's sentiment to complainant. He also ended their illicit affair as he and his family would settle down in Cagayan de Oro City.i[34] After the convention, appellant received reports from their office secretary and Rev. Clacio that complainant and Orly were always in their office. He scolded complainant.i[35] She did not report for work for two days. Appellant learned later that Orly, complainant and Ms. Trayco were looking for him. They appeared furious. Appellant was advised by Rev. Clacio to avoid the office. After a few days, appellant reported to the office and he found his things stored up in a box placed atop the desk of a security guard. He could not enter their office as its lock had been changed. A note at the door stated that their national director ordered its temporary closure. On May 1, 1994, an SMO worker informed appellant that Ms. Trayco reported to a group of SMO missionaries that he had sexually abused complainant. He went into hiding when he was told that NBI

agents would arrest him. He met with other pastors and members of Valenzuela Gospel Church to seek a meeting with Ms. Trayco and complainant. Their efforts were unsuccessful.i[36] He was dismissed from the SMO Board of Trustees.i[37] Dr. Dinah Medel, wife of appellant, also testified for the defense. She declared that after appellant's trip to Tadian, she went to the SMO office and offered to examine its members for Hepatitis B. Complainant availed of her offer. They agreed to meet at Dr. Medel's house for her blood test and vaccination. Complainant's first visit to the Medels was on November 18, 1993. When Dr. Medel came home for lunch, complainant was already inside the house talking to appellant. There was nothing unusual in their behavior as they lunched together. After lunch, Dr. Medel took blood samples from complainant who was wearing a collarless short sleeved blouse. Dr. Medel did not see any hematoma or bruise on complainant's upper arm or neck.i[38] After Dr. Medel received the results of the blood test, she asked appellant to inform complainant that she could have the Hepatitis B vaccine in their (Medels') house. Thus, on December 9, 1993, complainant saw Dr. Medel for her first injection. Again, complainant and appellant were already inside the house when Dr. Medel arrived from work. They ate lunch together and thereafter, complainant washed the dishes. Dr. Medel gave complainant her first shot. Dr. Medel then requested complainant to sell some pieces of jewelry from Bangkok. Complainant gladly agreed.i[39] Complainant's next visit to Dr. Medel was on January 18, 1994. Again, appellant and complainant were already inside the house when Dr. Medel came from work. Complainant assisted the Medels in preparing their lunch. Dr. Medel teased complainant about her weight. Complainant answered that someone is making her healthy. On February 17, 1994, complainant received her last vaccine shot from Dr. Medel. When Dr. Medel arrived home, she found complainant alone in their house. Appellant had entrusted the key to complainant as he could not accompany her. Complainant surrendered the key to Dr. Medel.i[40] Dr. Medel confirmed that during the SMO's Christmas party in December 1993, complainant served food on her and appellant. Complainant also gave appellant a desk calendar.i[41] In March 1994, Dr. Medel dropped by the SMO office. She saw her electric fan on complainant's table. Appellant explained to her that complainant borrowed it from him. Dr. Medel noticed complainant and her husband exchanging glances. On another occasion, she found cassette tapes in their house. Appellant claimed the tapes belonged to complainant.i[42] On May 17, 1994, the day before the Medels were to go to Cagayan De Oro, Dr. Medel learned from Rev. Clacio that complainant wanted to talk to her. Without her husband's knowledge, Dr. Medel met with complainant at the SMO staff house in Cavite. Dr. Medel was presented complainant's affidavit/complaint against appellant. Dr. Medel confronted appellant in their house. They had a heated argument before appellant admitted his liaison with complainant.i[43] Dr. Medel tried to convince complainant to withdraw the rape case against appellant but to no avail. She asked prosecution witnesses Valdez and Trayco to help her persuade complainant not to proceed with the case. They told Dr. Medel that it would be difficult to talk to complainant about the case.i[44] Araceli Cueto, a volunteer worker at SMO, testified that she attended the SMO's Christmas party in December, 1993. She confirmed that complainant served food and refreshments to appellant and his companions.i[45] In February, 1994, Araceli and her boyfriend went to the SMO office and saw a note posted at the door stating that appellant and complainant would be back at 2:30 p.m. When they were about to leave, they encountered appellant and complainant at the lobby. The two told them that they ate lunch and bought groceries together.i[46] Araceli also attended the Bukidnon convention. She and complainant stayed in one room. On April 12, 1994, at about lunch time, she saw complainant crying in their room. Complainant told her that the board members would talk to her about her boyfriend. Complainant threatened that if they push her against the wall, she would implicate appellant. Asked what she meant, complainant answered: "Huwag na lang, ate."i[47]

12

Reverend Noel Clacio also testified for the defense. Sometime in February or March, 1994, he had lunch with appellant and complainant at Cabalen Restaurant in West Avenue, Quezon City. She exchanged jokes with them and paid the bill. Clacio did not sense any feeling of intimacy between appellant and complainant. He described their relationship as business-like. In March, 1994, Clacio and complainant dined at Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) along North EDSA, Quezon City. Complainant told him that KFC is her favorite place because she and appellant also dine in said fastfood chain.i[48] Rev. Clacio confirmed that some pastors disliked seeing complainant with her boyfriend during the SMO convention in Bukidnon in 1994. They asked appellant to inform complainant about her indiscretion.i[49] On the basis of the evidence, the trial court convicted appellant. In this appeal, appellant contends: "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; and "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLES IN REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN A PROSECUTION FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE AS CITED IN ITS DECISION REITERATING THE CASE OF PEOPLE VS. CALIXTO (277 SCRA 33);" We acquit the appellant.The key issue is whether appellant used force and intimidation in having sex with the complainant. To prove force and intimidation complainant testified as follows:i[50] "ATTY. BERNABE: "Q: At the time that you were about to stand up and Pastor Medel closed the door, what did you do next, if any? "(RULA): "A: He grabbed both my hands and forced me down on the bed, Ma'am. "Q: What happened next, if any? "A: When I struggled to free from him, he suddenly held me by the neck and tried to strangle me Ma'am. "Q: And how did you feel at that time? "A: I was very nervous and scared, Ma'am. "Q: And what happened while he was choking you, what else did Pastor Medel do? "A: He tried to open my pants and punched me on the left shoulder, Ma'am. "Q: ... what happened next, if any? "A: He tried to pull my pants and because my feet were tired from travel and from roaming around, I developed cramps, Ma'am. "Q: When he forced to take off your pants, what happened next, if any? "A: Because he was sitting on top of me, he reached for my panty, Ma'am. "Q: After Pastor Medel was able to take off your panty, what happened next, if any? "A: And then he penetrated his penis on my vagina, Ma'am. "Q: When he inserted his penis into your vagina, what were you doing, if any? "A: It was very painful, I almost died and I almost lost my breath when he inserted his penis in my vagina. "ATTORNEY BERNABE: Your Honor, may we put on record that the victim is crying? "COURT: I'm observing. (Witness is crying) "ATTORNEY BERNABE: "Q: May we know if the witness could still answer? "WITNESS: "A: Yes, Ma'am. "Q: And what happened next, if any? "A: Blood came out from my vagina, Ma'am.

"Q: And what did you do next, if any ? "A: After that, I got my panty and my pants and went to the comfort room, Ma'am. "Q: When you went to the comfort room, what was Pastor Medel doing at that time? "A: He was taking a rest Ma'am. "ATTY. BERNABE: "Q: And while you were inside the comfort room, what were you doing, if any? "A: I cried, I wanted to shout but I was not able to do it because I (was) so weak, Ma'am." It is our ruling case law that the testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received with precipitate credulity for the charge can be easily concocted. We exercise the greatest degree of care and caution before giving full faith and credit to the testimony of complainant.i[51] We have not hesitated to reverse judgments of conviction when there are strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charges were false. Nor have we sustained convictions when the complainant's conduct towards her alleged offender runs counter to human nature or appears uncharacteristic of a victim of such an abominable act.i[52] In the case at bar, complainant's conduct is contrary to the natural reaction of a woman outraged and robbed of her honor.i[53] Appellant was unarmed during the alleged sexual assault. Yet, during and after the rape, complainant did not shout nor run for help. She just picked up her pants and underwear, proceeded to the bathroom and cried. She could have rushed to the door after she had put her clothes on since appellant was then resting on bed almost naked. We note that the place where the alleged rape was committed is an inn. It would not have been difficult nor impossible for complainant to call the attention of others to her plight. More perplexing was her silence in the bus station in Baguio while waiting for their 11:00 p.m. trip to Manila. She could have revealed her ordeal to anyone at the said station when appellant left her to watch a televised PBA basketball game. She was even free to go but did not. When she arrived home, she again remained mum. She even made up excuses on why her pants and underwear were stained with blood and how she got the bruise on her left shoulder. By that time, she was certainly no longer under threat by the appellant. Yet, this is not all. The records show that barely nine (9) days after the incident in Baguio, she went with appellant to his house. She had lunch with him and his family and even agreed to sell on a commission basis some pieces of jewelry for appellant's wife, Dr. Medel. Complainant went to appellant's house not just once but four (4) times, quite frequent for someone who claims to have been ravished against her will. On those occasions, she managed to keep her composure in front of appellant and his family that even his wife did not notice anything unusual in their behavior. The evidence show, further, that during the SMO's Christmas party in December, 1993, complainant acted as if nothing untoward happened between her and the appellant. She served food and refreshments on him and his wife. Complainant also testified:i[54] "ATTY. BERNABE: Q: Was there an occasion, Miss witness, when you saw Pastor Medel at the office? "WITNESS (RULA): "A: December, during the Christmas party, Ma'am. "Q: And how did you relate with Pastor Medel during that time? "A: I acted normally and when we meet he always threatened me not to report what happened, Ma'am. "Q: And was there any other occasion that you saw him? "A: Yes, Ma'am. "Q: How did you and Pastor Medel relate with each other? "A: Just the same, I acted normally, Ma'am." (emphasis ours) Furthermore, Dr. Medel went to the SMO office a few months after complainant was allegedly raped by appellant. Dr. Medel saw her electric fan on complainant's office table. By way of explanation,

13

complainant merely said that she did not use it and that it was appellant who placed the electric fan on her table. Rape is a heinous crime which can be punished by death. It can be easily concocted and has been concocted for ignoble purposes. In this age of permissiveness, the virtuous Maria Claras who need only to shout rape to get a conviction are now rare breeds. Courts should thus be wary in according undue credulity to claims of rape especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated and whose conduct during and after the rape is susceptible to different interpretations. In all prosecutions, especially prosecutions for heinous crimes, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. Unless the presumption is overcome by evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to mandatory acquittal. In the case at bar, the story of the complainant failed to prove that she was forced by the appellant to engage in sex. While the appellant can be condemned for immorality, he cannot be convicted for rape. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant JERUSALEM MEDEL is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and his immediate release is ordered, unless there is any other valid cause for his continued incarceration. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.ALEJO TAROY y TARNATE, Appellant. Apart from the question of credibility of testimonies in a prosecution for rape, this case resolves the question of proof of the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The public prosecutor charged Alejo Taroy y Tarnate (Taroy) with two counts of rape in Criminal Cases 02-CR-4671 and 02-CR-4672 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet.1 DES2 was the eldest daughter of MILA3 by her first marriage. MILA married Taroy in 1997 upon the death of her first husband.4 The couple lived with MILAs children in Pucsusan Barangay, Itogon, Benguet, at the boundary of Baguio City.5 DES testified that she was alone in the house on August 10, 1997 doing some cleaning since her mother was at work and her two siblings were outside playing. When Taroy entered the house, he locked the door, closed the windows, removed his clothes, and ordered DES to remove hers. When she resisted, Taroy poked a knife at her head and forced her to submit to his bestial desires. Taroy warned her afterwards not to tell anyone about it, lest MILA and her siblings would suffer some harm. DES was 10 years old then.6 DES testified that Taroy sexually abused her again in September 1998. This time, he entered her room, locked the door, closed the windows, undressed himself, and ordered her to do the same. When she refused, Taroy pointed a knife at her. This compelled her to yield to him. Four years later or on November 1, 2002, when DES was 15, she told her aunt and MILA about what had happened between Taroy and her. They accompanied DES to the National Bureau of Investigation to complain. MILA and a certain Alumno testified that they later accompanied DES to the hospital for examination. MILA corroborated DES testimony regarding how she revealed to her and an aunt the details of the rape incidents. The doctor who examined DES testified that the latter had two narrow notches in her hymen at three oclock and five oclock positions. She explained that these notches or V-shaped or sharp indentions over the hymenal edges suggested a history of previous blunt force or trauma possibly caused by the insertion of an erect male penis. For the defense, Taroy denied raping DES on the occasions mentioned. He averred that the testimony was a fabrication made upon the prodding of her aunt who disliked him. The RTC found Taroy guilty of two counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also ordered him to pay DES for each count: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.7 The RTC found the testimony of DES credible and worthy of belief. Taroy challenged the Benguet RTCs jurisdiction over the crimes charged, he having testified that their residence when the alleged offenses took place was in Pucsusan Barangay, Baguio City. The RTC held, however, that Taroys testimony that their residence was in Baguio City did not strip the court of its jurisdiction since he waived the jurisdictional requirement.

On January 19, 2010 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC.8 The CA gave weight to the RTCs assessment of DES credibility and found no evil motive in her. The CA also held that the prosecution has sufficiently established the jurisdiction of the RTC through the testimony of MILA, DES, and Alumno. Taroy seeks his acquittal from this Court. The Issues Presented The issues presented to the Court are: 1. Whether or not the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, has jurisdiction to hear and decide the cases of rape against Taroy; and 2. Whether or not the prosecution has proved his guilt in the two cases beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts Rulings One. Venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases. It can neither be waived nor subjected to stipulation. The right venue must exist as a matter of law.9 Thus, for territorial jurisdiction to attach, the criminal action must be instituted and tried in the proper court of the municipality, city, or province where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients took place.10 The Informations11 filed with the RTC of La Trinidad state that the crimes were committed in the victim and the offenders house in City Limit, Tuding, Municipality of Itogon, Province of Benguet. This allegation conferred territorial jurisdiction over the subject offenses on the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. The testimonies of MILA and DES as well as the affidavit of arrest12 point to this fact. Clearly, Taroys uncorroborated assertion that the subject offenses took place in Baguio City is not entitled to belief. Besides, he admitted during the pre-trial in the case that it was the RTC of La Trinidad that had jurisdiction to hear the case.13 Taken altogether, that RTCs jurisdiction to hear the case is beyond dispute. Two. What is necessary for the prosecution to ensure conviction is not absolute certainty but only moral certainty that the accused is guilty of the crime charged.14 Here, the prosecution has sufficiently proved the guilt of Taroy beyond reasonable doubt. DES testimony is worthy of belief, she having no ill-motive to fabricate what she said against her stepfather.1avvphil1 More, contrary to the claims of Taroy, there is nothing in the testimony of DES that would elicit suspicion as to the veracity of her story. For one thing, the fact that she did not shout for help or resist the sexual advances of Taroy does not disprove the fact that he raped her. Women who experience traumatic and terrifying experiences such as rape do not react in a uniform pattern of hysteria and breakdown. Lastly, there is nothing unusual for DES to remain in the family dwelling despite the incidents that had happened to her. She was just a child. Where else would she go except stay with her mother who happened to be married to the man who abused her? While we do affirm the guilt of Taroy for the crime of rape, we modify the award of exemplary damages in accordance with People v. Araojo.15 The prosecution has sufficiently established the relationship of Taroy to the victim, as well as the minority of DES necessitating the increase of the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. WHEREFORE, this Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CRHC 03510 dated January 19, 2010 with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages be increased from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00. SO ORDERED. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CAMILO SORIANO, accused-appellant. For automatic review is the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, of Baguio City, dated 21 February 2000, imposing, among other penalties, multiple death sentences on Camilo Soriano for the crime of rape, on several counts, perpetrated against his own 11-year old daughter. Four Informations for statutory rape through sexual intercourse said to have been committed on 15 October 1998, 28 October 1998, and twice on 29 October 1998, all similarly worded, except for the different dates of commission, thusly That on or about the 15th day of October 1998, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,

14

and feloniously have carnal knowledge of his daughter Maricel Soriano, a minor, eleven years of age, against her will and consenti[1] and thirteen lnformations for rape through sexual assault averred to have been committed on 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 October of 1998, all likewise similarly worded, except for the different dates of commission, thusly That on or about the 14th day of October, 1998, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously insert his finger inside the private organ of Maricel Soriano y Espino, his daughter who is a minor, 11 years of age, against her will and consenti[2] were filed against Camilo Soriano before the court a quo. When arraigned, the accused pled not guilty to all the charges. From the prosecutions version of the case, sometime in 1982, Leonora Espino and her husband, with whom she had four children, went on separate ways. Two years later, she began to live with accused Camilo Soriano, the scion of the household where she worked as a housemaid. Whether or not Leonora was ultimately married to the accused remained unclear although, from her testimony, it might be possible that she had merely cohabited with him. According to the accused, however, he married Leonora on 23 July 1984. The birth certificate of Maricel Soriano did indicate that her parents, Leonora and Camilo were married to each other, not on 23 July 1984 but on 24 April 1984. Leonora had eight children with the accused but only four survived - Michael, private complainant Maricel who was born on 22 February 1987, Leonard and Marilou. The familial bliss was interrupted when, on 13 December 1991, Camilo Soriano was confined at the Lingayen Provincial Jail in Pangasinan for the murder of a cousin of Leonora. Determined to keep her family intact, Leonora stayed with Camilo inside the prison premises with her four children in tow. On 29 October 1993, upon his conviction, Camilo Soriano was transferred to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, leaving his family behind, this time in Baguio City. Since then, it was Leonora who fended for her brood, struggling to earn a living by washing clothes and selling cosmetics and underwear. On 29 May 1998, the accused was released on probation. He dampened the enthusiasm of his family by opting to stay with his parents bringing with him another woman by the name of Lala Esguerra, whom he had met while in the national penitentiary. When Esguerra left for abroad on 10 September 1998, Camilo at last returned to his family. A cramped space in a house designed to accommodate lodgers was home to the Soriano children. It was one of two rooms on the first floor. The second room on the ground floor and all the rooms on the upper floor were occupied by boarders. Due to the small quarters, two of Leonoras children from her previous marriage slept in the kitchen, one under the table and the other beside it, while Leonora, Camilo and their four children, including Maricel, used the lone 4x5-meter bedroom. The couple slept on the lower portion of a double-decked bed while their children stayed on the upper deck. On 14 October 1998, Leonora went to San Fernando, La Union, to collect the proceeds of her sales of cosmetic and underwear items. She stayed in La Union until the 16th of October 1998. Unbeknownst to her, her absence had provided accused with an occasion to be alone with the children. On 28 October 1998, her son Michael reported to her, Mama, papa is raping Maricel and we (referring to her two other children, Leonard and Marilou), saw it. The unbelieving Leonora confronted her daughter about it, and the latter confirmed it, explaining to her mother that the accused had warned her not to tell on him or he would kill them all. That same night, Camilo, drunk as usual, pick on Leonora, and the ensuing quarrel led Leonora to leave and stay with a neighbor. The next morning, she reported her daughter's rape before the barangay captain. Maricel had to be clandestinely spirited out of the house with the aid of helpful neighbors to avoid arousing the suspicions of the accused, a known troublemaker in the vicinity, for an interview with the barangay captain. Maricel was referred to the DSWD where she was questioned by a social worker. From there, Maricel was brought to the Women and Children Desk Section at the Baguio City Police Station where her statement was taken. Forthwith, appellant was apprehended.

In her statement, Maricel Soriano confirmed to her being a virtual sex-slave of her own father from 14 October 1998 to 28 October 1998. On four occasions, the accused forced his own penis into her daughters vagina, once on 15 October 1998, another on 28 October 1998, and twice in the early morning of 29 October 1998. On thirteen other occasions, specifically on 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 October, the accused, she said, inserted his finger into her private organ. At the trial, Maricel Soriano gave further details. She testified that on the night of 14 October 1998, there was a power failure at her house at Teachers Camp in Baguio City where she was staying with her brother Leonard, her sister Marilou, and the accused. Her elder brother Michael had gone with her mother to La Union. That night, Maricel, Marilou and Leonard, slept on the lower deck of the bed together with the accused while her stepbrother occupied the upper deck by himself. At about ten oclock that evening, the accused told Leonard and Marilou to move to the other end of the bed. Soon, the accused started kissing her on the lips. He undressed her and sucked her breast. He also sucked and fingered her vagina. She felt pain, and she cried. Her younger brother and sister also cried with her while they helplessly looked on. The power failure continued the next day. On the evening of 15 October 1998, the accused again undressed the private complainant, kissed her cheeks, breasts, and her vagina. Her father asked her to spread her legs. She resisted by trying to close her thighs but he forced them open. She tried to shout but he covered her mouth. He went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Her brother and sister were crying at the rear end of the bed, vainly trying to pull her away but they were no match for the accused. His lust sated, the accused went to sleep. During the entire time, her older stepbrother was sleeping at the upper deck, seemingly oblivious to the monstrosity happening below him. The arrival of his common-law wife from La Union did not deter the accused from his perversity, not even when Leonora had returned to her original place at the first deck beside him. For fear that her younger siblings who were staying at the upper deck with her would fall to the floor, Maricel stayed at the edge of the upper bunk. While the rest of the household slept, the accused rose from bed and lasciviously reached for the private complainant on the second deck and inserted his finger into her vagina. This perversion would continue every day until the early morning of 29 October 1998. On 28 October 1998, Leonora left the house following an altercation with the accused. That night, the accused asked Maricel to sleep with him on the lower deck where again the accused ravished her by inserting his penis into her vagina. Not satisfied, he would repeat the lewd act twice, before the onset of dawn, at one oclock and then again at three oclock that morning of 29 October 1998. Michael Soriano, the elder brother of Maricel, testified that his younger brother Leonard had earlier told him, Kuya Michael, our father is doing something bad to our sister Maricel. Forewarned, Michael became more observant. On the night of 28 October 1998, Michael tried not to sleep and to remain watchful, but the accused had barred the door and would not let anyone inside the bedroom. Still Michael was able to get a peep through a hole in the door. From his vantage point, he could only see half of the bedroom and only half of the lower deck of the bed. Despite his limited view, Michael was able to see his father, fully clothed in a red T-shirt and black pants, on top of his crying sister, who was lying flat on the floor. The latter was struggling to stand up but the accused held her breasts, and held her down. When he saw his father on top of Maricel, Michael hurried to Sister Neneng, who was then at the second floor of the house. The husband of Neneng told him to return downstairs. When he returned, he saw that the accused had already gone out of the room. When Michael entered the room Maricel was back at the upper deck of the bed. The results of the medical examination conducted by medico-legal Vladimir Villacorte Villasenor corroborated Maricels loss of virginity.FINDINGS: x x x Genital: There is absence of growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex, congested and gaping, with the light brown and abraded labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same, is disclosed a congested hymen with shallow healing lacerations at 3, 6, 8 and 9 oclock positions. External vaginal orifice offers strong resistance to the introduction of the smallest finger of the examiner. Vaginal canal is narrow with prominent rugosities.

15

Conclusion: Findings are compatible with recent loss of virginity. There are no external signs of recent application of physical violence.i[3] At the stand, the accused raised the defense of denial and alibi. He claimed that he could not have committed the bestial acts against his daughter because he loved her very much. He asseverated that the complaints were filed against him at the instigation of his wife, who had a paramour and had incited her daughter to twist the truth in order to be able to get out of the relationship with him. He presented before the court a love letter addressed to Leonora and authored by a certain Tony Penullar, a fellow inmate at the provincial jail, which was intercepted by Maricel and handed over to him. The accused admitted that while Leonora was in La Union, he had occupied the lower deck with his two daughters. When his wife arrived, the four - he, Leonora, Maricel and then Marilou - slept side by side. He denied having been awake in the early morning of 29 October 1998, his waking hour being 6:00 in the morning. Upon getting up, he prepared food for the children. On 21 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court Branch 6 of Baguio City, rendered its decision finding the accused guilty as charged and so decreeing the penalties therefor -WHEREFORE, Judgment is rendered as follows: 1. In Criminal Case Nos. 16125-R, 16126-R, 16140-R, and 16141-R, the Court finds accused Camilo Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape (carnal knowledge of his 11 year-old daughter Maricel Soriano) as defined and penalized under letter (d) paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of R.A. 8353 with the qualifying circumstance under number 1 of Art. 266-B of Republic Act 8353 that the victim is under 18 years old of age and the offender is a parent as charged in the Informations and hereby sentences him to the supreme penalty of DEATH in each of the four (4) cases; to indemnify the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 in each of the 4 cases without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of the suit in each of the 4 cases; and 2. In Criminal Cases Nos. 16127-R, 16128-R, 16129-R, 16130-R, 16131-R, 16132-R, 16133-R, 16134-R, 16135-R, 16136-R, 16137-R, 16138-R and 16139-R, the Court finds the accused Camilo Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Rape (insertion of his finger into the vagina of his 11-year old daughter Maricel Soriano) as defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of Republic Act 8353 with the qualifying circumstance under number 1 of Article 266-B of Republic Act 8353 that the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a parent as charged in the Informations and hereby sentences him, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to imprisonment ranging from 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum in each of the 13 cases; to indemnify the offended party Maricel Soriano the sum of P30,000.00 in each of the 13 cases without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs in each of the 13 cases. The accused Camilo Soriano being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited with 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code in the 13 cases.i[4] The death penalty having been imposed, the conviction of the accused is now before the Court for an automatic review. In his brief, appellant contends that THE TRIAL COURT *HAS+ ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CONSIDERING THAT: (1) THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES HAVE SPAWNED SERIOUS DOUBTS ON THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE INCIDENTS OF RAPE BY THE ACCUSED. (2) THE LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE ACCUSED AND OTHER FACTORS SUSTAIN THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED. (3) THE SCENE OF THE CRIME MAKES THE COMMISSION OF THE INCIDENTS OF RAPE IMPROBABLE IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE.i[5] Appellant would have the testimony of his daughter Maricel discredited. He would consider to be highly improbable that Leonora did not immediately confront him upon learning of the rape incidents but waited until the next day to report the matter to the barangay captain. This brief delay would not dent a

bit the credibility of Leonora. She explained how she and her children were terrified of the violent outbursts appellant would often display. On the stand, Leonora related how she was not exempted from his brutal ways and how her children from her first marriage had left her because of the ill treatment they had received from him. Leonora described the accused as, and appellant himself admitted to, being a habitual drunkard. That her daughter Maricel had to be secretly spirited out of their house with the aid of helpful neighbors so that she could personally file her complaint before the barangay captain without arousing Camilos suspicion would reveal Leonoras disinclination towards a direct confrontation with her husband. Appellant needlessly embarked on a lengthy discourse on the possible motivation of the corroborating witnesses in supposedly fabricating their accounts against him. Appellant might have forgotten that the testimony of his common-law wife Leonora Soriano and his eldest son Michael Soriano, indeed corroborative to the case of private complainant, were not solely determinative of the verdict rendered by the trial court against him. Rather, it was clearly the unwavering, candid, and straightforward narration made by the victim herself on her harrowing 16-day nightmare that ultimately established his guilt. Criminal Case No. 16127-R-14 October 1998 Q. What happened on that night of October 14, 1998? A. At about 10:00 p.m. my father kissed me on my lips. Q. Aside from that, what else did your father do? A. He undressed me, sir. Prosecutor Vergara: Q. What happened next after your father undressed you? A. He sucked my breast and he fingered my vagina. Q. Now, will you please describe to us how your father fingered your vagina on the night of October 14, 1998? A. He inserted his fingers in my vagina. Q. Which finger? Court Interpreter: Witness is showing her right forefinger. Prosecutor Vergara: Q. And aside from that, what else happened on that night of October 14, 1998? A. That is all, sir. Q. When your father was doing that to you, what did you do? A. I was just crying, sir. Q. Aside from crying, what else did you do if any? A. After he did that to me, I put on my dress and he put on his dress and we slept. Q. While your father was inserting his finger into your vagina, what did you feel? A. I felt pain, sir. COURT: Where did this happen, what you just narrated? A. At No. 211, Teachers Camp, Baguio City. Q. How many rooms are there in your residence? A. Only one, sir. Q. So in that residence of yours, there is only one room? A. There are other rooms but we only sleep in one room. Q. Who else are sleeping in your room? A. My brother and sister and my father, sir. Q. You are telling this Court then that your father, your brother and sister and you were all sleeping in one room? A. Yes, sir, including my mother and my brothers. Court:

16

Continue Prosecutor Vergara: Q. Now, on that night of October 14, 1998, while your father was doing that to you, what were your brother and sister doing? A. They were crying while looking. Q. After you dressed up yourself on that night of October 14, 1998, what else happened? A. After I dressed up, I went to sleep, sir. Court: How wide is this room, can you describe to us? A. From the window of the courtroom up to the edge of the witness box and from the wall to the left up to the wall to the right. Court Interpreter: Witness is demonstrating an area of about 31/2 meters by 6 meters. Q. Were there beds in that room? A. Yes, sir, it is a double-deck bed. Q. And where do you sleep? A. At the lower deck. Q. Aside from you, who else was sleeping on the lower deck on the night of October 14, 1998? A. My brother and sister, sir, and my father. Q. So yourself, your brother, and your sister and your father, the four of you slept on the lower deck in your room on that night of October 14, 1998? A. Yes, sir. Q. And who was with you on the lower deck of that double deck bed inside the room before your father kissed your lips on that night of October 14, 1998? A. My brother and my sister, sir. Q. And how was he able to kiss you, undress you and do what you said your father did to you on that night of October 14, 1998 when you were sleeping on that lower deck of the bed with your brother and sister aside from your father? A. He asked them to leave and they transferred. Q. Did they transfer? A. Yes, sir. Court: Where did they transfer? A. We were at the other end of the bed and he asked them to go to the other end of the bed. Court: Continue. Prosecutor Vergara: Q: How about on the upper deck, who slept there on that night of October 14, 1998? A. My stepbrother.i[6] Criminal Case No. 161 25-R -15 October 1998 Q. What happened that night of October 15, 1998? A. He first kissed me and then undressed me and he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q. What part of your body did your father kiss? A. My breast, sir. Q. Aside from your breast? A. My vagina. Q. Aside from that, what else did he kiss? A. On my cheeks, sir. Q. And you said your father undressed you, which clothing that you were wearing on the night of October 15, 1998 did he remove? A. My shirt, my shorts and my panty, sir.

Q. And you said your father inserted his penis into your vagina, will you describe to us how he did that? A. He inserted his penis. Q. What was the position of your body when he did that? A. He asked me to spread my legs. Q. What was the position of your body aside from your legs open? A. I was lying at that time, sir. Q. Face up? A. Yes, sir. Q. When your father told you to spread your legs, did you spread your legs? A. Of course, because he was spreading it. Q. And what did you do? A. I was trying to close my legs but he was forcing it. Q. Aside from trying to close your legs, what else did you do if any? A. I pushed him, sir. Q. And when you pushed him, what happened? A. Because he was strong, I could not push him. Q. Aside from trying to push him, what did you do, if any? A. If I try to shout, he covers my mouth. Q. Now, you said your father spread your legs apart and inserted his penis into your vagina on that night of October 15, 1998. When your legs were already spread apart, will you describe to us how your father inserted his penis into your vagina? A. He went on top of me, sir. Q. And after he went on top of you, what happened next? A. That is all, sir. Q. What did you feel in your vagina when your father went on top of you? A. I felt pain, sir. Q. Why did you feel pain? A. Because he inserted his penis into my vagina, sir. Q. You said you felt pain when he inserted his penis into your vagina, when you felt pain, what did you do? A. I was just crying, sir. Court: How about your brother and sister, where were they at this time? A. They were just there crying, sir. Q. How far were your brother and sister from you while your father was on top of you on that night of October 15, 1998? A. They were just at the other end of the bed. Atty. Cario: May we just put the word paanan. Prosecutor Vergara: Q. With that situation that your brother and sister were at your paanan, which you mentioned in tagalog, what else did they do, if any, aside from crying? A. They were pulling me, sir. Q. Your stepbrother? A. He was also there, sir. Q. By the way, on the night of October 15, 1998, do you know if your stepbrother was awakened? Atty. Cario: Leading already, your Honor. Court:

17

Reform. Where was your stepbrother on the night of October 15, 1998? A. He was asleep, sir.i[7] Criminal Case No. 16128-R 16 October1998 Q. You mentioned that on October 16, 1998, on the evening, your father, brother and sister, yourself and your stepbrother were there with you, without your mother and brother Michael. What happened that night of October 16, 1998? A. He kissed my neck and he fingered my vagina. Q. Who did that? A. My father. Q. Aside from kissing your neck and fingering your vagina, what else did he do that night of October 16, 1998? A. He also kissed my cheeks, sir. Q. Aside from that, what else? A. No more, sir. Q. What finger did your father use in doing that to you? A. This one, sir. Court Interpreter: Witness is pointing to her right forefinger.i[8] Criminal Case No. 16130-R 18 October 1998 Q. How about on the night of October 17, 1998? A. They already came back, sir. Q. When your mother and brother Michael arrived already in the night of October 17, 1998 in your house at Teachers Camp, what happened? A. None sir. Q. Now, while you were sleeping on the night of October 17, 1998 at your house at Teachers Camp, what happened? A. From October 17, to 27, 1998, my father kissed my lips, mashed my breasts and fingered me. Court: Q. Are you telling the Court that on the night of October 17, when your mother was already there sleeping with you in that room, your father still kissed your lips and mashed your breasts? A. Yes, sir, whenever he wakes up early in the morning and wash the dishes and cooks, my father will do that to me, he will kiss me and suck my breast. Q. You are telling the Court then that on the night itself of October 17, when your mother was there already sleeping with you, your father did not do anything but the next morning, when your mother would wake up early to wash the dishes, that is the time your father would do that? Is that what you are saying? A. No, sir. On the following morning at dawn, when my father would wake up and wash the dishes and cooks, and after he washes and cooks, he would kiss my breast and finger me and while my mother was asleep. Prosecutor Vergara: Q. So you are referring to the early dawn of October 18, 1998 that while your mother was asleep, your father kissed you, sucked your breast and fingered your vagina? A. Yes, sir.i[9] Criminal Case No. 16131-R -19 October 1998 Q. So how about during the early dawn of October 19, 1998 while you were asleep at your house at Teachers Camp, what happened? A. He kissed my cheeks, mashed by breast and fingered my vagina. Q. With your clothes on? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how did your father insert his finger into your vagina during the early dawn of October 18, 1998 with your clothes on?

A. He removed my shorts. Court: Q. How was your father able to do this when by that time, your mother was already there as she had already arrived earlier by October 17? A. Whenever my mother sleeps, and also my brother, my father does that to me. Court: But you have only one room you said and a bed, are you telling this Court that when your father did this to you on October 19, your mother was asleep in the same bed where your father was doing this to you? A. My mother and my father sleep on the floor while I sleep at the first deck. Court: So you are telling this Court that you have a double-deck bed inside that room and your father and mother sleeps on the floor while you sleep with your sister and brother on the first deck and your stepbrother sleeps on the second deck. Is that what you are trying to explain to the court? A. Like this sir, we have a double deck bed, my father and mother sleeps at the lower deck while we sleep at the upper deck. Court:Continue. Pros. Vergara: Q. With whom do you sleep at the upper deck? A. My brother and sister. Q. The younger ones? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about your older brother Michael? A. He sleeps in the house of a classmate. Q. Where? A. At Mabini, sir. Q. How about your stepbrother? A. He sleeps outside the room at the kitchen.i[10] Criminal Case No. 16132-R - 20 October 1998 Q. Now, do you remember what time of the night your father kissed you, mashed your breast and inserted his finger to your vagina on the night of October 19, 1998? A. It was early in the morning sir. I do not know the time. Q. So it was actually during the early morning of October 20, 1998? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you tell us how your father kissed you, sucked your breast and inserted his finger into your vagina during the early morning of October 20, 1998? A. Whenever he wakes up early and wash the dishes and he cooks, he comes to my bed and it is there where he caresses me. Prosecutor Vergara: May we quote the vernacular, Niroromansa. Q. Will you tell us how your father made that romansa to you during the early morning of October 20, 1998? A. He mashed my breast and fingered my vagina. Q. What finger did he use in doing that? A. This one, sir. Court Interpreter: Witness raised her right forefinger. Prosecutor Vergara: Q. And how did he do that when you were sleeping on the upper deck of the double deck during the early morning of October 20, 1998? A. It is not so high, he could reach me and my mother was sleeping at that time.

18

Q. How about your brother and sister who were sleeping with you on the upper deck, what did they do when your father was doing that to you on the early morning of October 20, 1998? A. My brother and sister were pulling me, sir. Q. How wide is that bed? A. Like this, sir. Court Interpreter: Witness demonstrating with her two arms a width of about 11/2 meters. Q. And what did you feel when your father inserted his finger into your vagina on that early morning of October 20, 1998? A. I felt pain, sir. Q. With your clothes on? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about your panty? A. He removes it, sir. Pros. Vergara: Q. And after your father kissed you, mashed your breast and inserted his finger into your vagina on that early morning of October 20, 1998, what did you do? A. Whenever my father would do that to me and if ever I would move, he thought I do not know what he was doing, he would leave. Q. On that early morning of October 20, 1998, while your father was doing that to you, did you move? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did you move? A. When I am sleeping and if I turn to my side and again when I turn at the other side, he would leave. Court: Q. Since at this point, your mother was already there, why did you not shout? A. Whenever I call my mother, Nang, Nang, my mother thought my father was just playing with me because my father was in jail for a long time. Pros. Vergara: Q. On the following night of October 20, 1998, while you were asleep, what else happened if any? A. None, sir. It is only at dawn that something happens.i[11] Criminal Case No. 16133-R -21 October 1998 Q. What happened during the early morning of October 21, 1998 while you were asleep at your house at Teachers Camp? A. The same sir, he kissed me and fingered my vagina. That is what he is always doing. Q. What part of your body did your father kiss during the early morning of October 21, 1998? A. My breast, sir. Q. Aside from the breast, what else did he kiss, if any? A. No more, sir. Q. And you said on that early morning of October 21, 1998, your father inserted his finger into your vagina, which finger did he use in fingering your vagina? A. This one, sir. Court Interpreter: The witness raised her right forefinger. Pros. Vergara Q. And where were you lying down when your father did that? A. At the upper deck, sir. Q. How did you know that it was your father who did that to you on the early dawn of October 21, 1998?

A. Because I wake up whenever my father kiss me and finger my vagina. Q. And what did you feel when your father inserted his finger into your vagina in the early morning of October 21, 1998? A. I felt pain, sir. Q. With your clothes on? A. Yes, sir. Q. How about your panty? A. He removes it, sir. But my panty is not totally removed, it is lowered up to my knee.i[12] Criminal Case No. 16134-R 22 October 1998 Q. And with that situation, during the early morning of October 22, 1998, how did your father mash your breast and insert his finger into your vagina? A. He goes to my bed, sir. Q. And when he inserted his finger into your vagina on that early morning of October 22, 1998, what did you feel? A. I felt pain, sir. Q. With your panty on? A. No, sir. Q. Who removed your panty? A. My father, sir. Court: So that the Court can also visualize what you are describing and narrating, since you said the bed is a double-decked bed and the lower deck is where your mother and father sleep and the upper deck is where you, your sister and your brother sleep, how high is the upper deck of the bed, so that we can see or at least visualize. From the floor, how high is the upper deck? A. It is quite low, sir. Atty. Cario: With the demonstration of the witness your Honor, I would manifest that the upper deck and the lower deck has a distance between them of about 1-1/2 feet.i[13] Criminal Case No. 16135-R - 23 October 1998 Q. Now, on the night of October 23, 1998, will you please tell us what happened? A. That night my father sucked my breast and inserted his finger into my vagina. Q. Will you please describe to us how your father, Camilo Soriano, sucked your breasts and inserted his finger into your vagina on that night? A. While my mother and my brothers were sleeping, my father went to where I was sleeping and there he sucked my breasts and fingered me. Q. And how did your father suck your breasts when you were wearing your T-shirt? A. He raised my T-shirt and pulled down my shorts together with my panty. Q. When your father raised your T-shirt, how did he suck your breasts? A. Like this, sir (witness stopping down). And he sucked my breasts. Q. And how did he insert his finger into your vagina after pulling down your shorts and panty? A. He inserted his finger (witness demonstrating with her right forefinger). Q. What did you do? A. I cried, sir. Q. And when you cried, what happened? A. None, sir. I did not make him aware that I was crying. Q. And why did you not make him aware that you were crying because of what he did? A. He might scold me, sir.i[14] Criminal Case No. 16136-R-24 October 1998 Q. Will you tell us what happened during the early dawn of October 24, 1998? A. The same, sir. He sucked my breasts, put his finger into my vagina and he kissed my neck.

19

Q. Now, do you remember the time when your father did that to you during the early dawn of October 24, 1998? A. What I know is that it was early dawn of that date, sir. Q. And will you please tell us who were present in your house when your father did that to you? A. My mother, my sister, and my brothers, sir. Q. Now, you said that on that early dawn of October 24, 1998, your father kissed you, sucked your breasts and inserted his finger into your vagina. What were you wearing at that time? A. I was still in my shorts and my T-shirt, sir. Q. How did he suck your breasts when you were wearing your T-shirt? A. He raised my T-shirt and pulled down my shorts. Q. How about your panty? A. He also put down my panty, sir. Q. After he raised your T-shirt, what did he do? A. I tried to put down my T-shirt and pull up my pants and panty but he kept on raising my Tshirt and pulling down my shorts and panty. Q. And when your father kept on raising your T-shirt and pulling down your pants and your panty, what else did you do? A. I just cried and pushed him. Q. What did your father do when you pushed him? A. He would not leave and he insisted on what he wanted.i[15] Criminal Case No. 16137-R -25 October 1998 Q. Will you tell us what happened during the early dawn of October 25, 1998 while you were in your house? A. In the early dawn of October 25, 1998 while I was sleeping, I was awakened because I felt my father sucking my breasts. And when I moved, he left. Q. And what were you wearing at that time? A. I was wearing a skirt and a sweatshirt. Q. And how did your father suck your breasts when you were wearing those things? A. My sweatshirt has a zipper at the middle, sir. Q. And what did your father do in order to suck your breasts? A. He pulled down the zipper, sir. Q. After sucking your breasts, what did your father do? A. He also fingered me, sir. Q. And how did your father do that when you were wearing a skirt? A. The zipper of my sweatshirt goes up to the hem of my skirt. Q. Were you wearing a panty at that time on the early dawn of October 25, 1998? A. Yes, sir. Q. What happened to your panty? A. He pulled down my panty, sir. Q. After your father pulled down your panty, what did he do next? A. He fingered me, sir. Q. How did he do that? A. He inserted his finger into my vagina sir (witness again showing her right forefinger).i[16] Criminal Case No. 16138-R - 26 October 1998 Q. How about on the following night of October 25, 1998? Was there an unusual incident that happened there in your house? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was that? A. He inserted his finger in my vagina, he sucked my breasts and kissed my neck. Q. What time was that on the night of October 25, 1998 when that happened? A. I cannot remember the time, sir. I did not look at the clock.

Q. It was not early dawn? A. It was early dawn when he did that, sir. Q. Now, what were you wearing at that time during that early dawn of October 26, 1998 when your father inserted his finger into your vagina, sucked your breasts and kissed your neck? A. I was wearing shorts and T-shirt, sir. Q. You said you were wearing T-shirt and pants. How did your father suck your breasts when you were wearing a T-shirt? A. He raised my T-shirt, sir. Q. And how did he insert his finger into your vagina when you were wearing your shorts and panty? A. He pulled down my shorts and panty, sir. Q. After he pulled down your shorts and your panty, what did your father do? A. that was the time when he inserted his finger into my vagina, sir. Q. And what did you feel when your father inserted his right forefinger into your vagina? A. I felt pain, sir. Q. When you felt pain, what did you do? A. I turned my back and put on my shorts and panty. And I cried, sir. Q. And when you turned your back an then put on your clothes and you cried, what did your father do? A. He left, sir. Q. Where did he go? A. He went to bed with my mother.i[17] Criminal Case No. 16139-R -27 October 1998 Q. On the following night of October 26, 1998, was there any unusual incident that happened to you in your house? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was that? A. My father again sucked my breasts, put his finger into my vagina and he kept on kissing me. Q. Do you remember the time of the night on October 26, 1998 when your father did that to you in your house? A. No, sir. Q. It was not early dawn? A. He always did that to me at early dawn, sir. Q. So this incident now that you are referring to is in the early dawn of October 27, 1998? A. Yes, sir.i[18] Criminal Case No. 16126-R-28 October 1998 Q. Now, did your mother sleep in your house that night of October 28, 1998? A. No, sir because my father quarreled with my mother that is why my mother left. Q. Where did your mother go? A. To our neighbor, sir. Q. Do you remember the time when your father quarreled with your mother on that night of October 28, 1998? A. Maybe, around 8:00 in the evening. Q. And what time did you sleep that night of October 28, 1998 in your house? A. Maybe, around *ten+ oclock, sir. Q. Were you awakened on that night of October 28, 1998 from your sleep? A. Yes, sir. q. Why were you awakened? A. Because my father carried me, sir. Q. From where did your father carry you? A. From the upper deck, sir.

20

Q. And where did he bring you? A. He brought me to the lower deck, sir. Q. How did your father carry you from the upper deck to the lower deck? A. He pulled me. Then he put his arms on my back and my legs, then he put me on the lower deck, sir. Q. What were you wearing at that time when he carried you and put you to the lower deck? A. I was wearing a dress with a zipper that goes down up to the hem. Q. And when he put you down to the lower deck, what did you do? A. I wanted to stand up but he pulled me down, sir. Q. Then what happened after he was able to put you down to the lower deck of the bed? A. There he undressed me, sir. Q. After he was able to remove your clothes and your panty, what happened next? A. First, he sucked my breasts. Then he kissed my neck and after that he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q. What was the position of your body at the lower deck of the bed when he did that? A. I was lying down and he separated my two legs, sir. Q. You were face down or face up? A. I was lying face up, sir. Q. And when your father spread your two legs, what did he do next? A. While he was inserting his penis into my vagina, he was sucking my breasts, sir. Q. And what did you feel when he was inserting his penis into your vagina? A. I felt pain, sir. Q. What did your father do aside from inserting his penis into your vagina? A. He was kissing my vagina, sir. Q. Now, while your father was inserting his penis into your vagina, what was the position of his left and right hands? A. They were put on the mattress like this, sir (witness demonstrating with her two hands spread apart).i[19] Criminal Case No. 16141-R-29 October 1998 (1:00 a.m.) Q. After your father did that to you, what else did he do? A. No more, sir. After that I went to my bed. And at about *one+ oclock he again carried me and brought me to the bed of my mother. Q. That was, as you said, about *one+ oclock in the early dawn of October 29, 1998? A. Yes, sir. Q. You said your father put you again to the bed of your mother. Was he able to bring you down from the upper deck and put you on the bed of your mother? A. Yes, sir. Q. And after your father was able to bring you down to the bed of your mother at about [one] oclock in the morning of the early dawn of October 29, 1998 in your house, what happened next? A. He again undressed me and put his penis into my vagina, sir. Q. You were then wearing the same clothing where the zipper goes down to the hem? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were also wearing your panty? A. Yes, sir. Q. After he was able to put you down to the bed of your mother, before he inserted his penis into your vagina, what happened to your clothes and your panty? A. He removed my clothes and my panty, sir. Q. What did he do regarding his pants, if any? A. he removed his pants, his brief and his T-shirt. Q. What was the position of your body on the bed of your mother on that early dawn of October 29, 1998?

A. My legs were wide apart. Q. Who spread your legs? A. My father, sir. Q. When your father spread your legs, what did you do? A. I tried to close my legs but he kept on spreading them, sir. Q. Aside from spreading your legs, what else did your father do? A. He inserted his penis into my vagina, sucked my breasts and kissed my neck. Q. What was the position of his body when he inserted his penis into your vagina? A. He was like this, sir. He was on top of me (witness demonstrating by putting her body downward). Q. How about his right and left hands? A. They were on the mattress like this, sir. (witness demonstrating with her two hands spread apart.) Q. And what did you feel when your father inserted his penis into your vagina? A. My vagina was painful, sir.i[20] Criminal Case No. 16140-R -29 October 1998, 3:00 a.m. Q. While you were asleep during that early dawn of October 29, 1998 after what your father did to you at about *one+ oclock in the morning, was there anything else that happened? A. Yes, sir. At about *three+ oclock my father carried me again and put me on the lower deck of the bed on the bed of my mother. Q. And when your father carried you and put you again on your mothers bed at about *three+ oclock in the morning of October 29, 1998 in your house, what happened? A. He embraced me, removed my clothes and my panty, and he also removed his pants, his Tshirt and brief. Then he inserted his penis into my vagina. Q. What was the position of your body after your father removed your clothes and your panty? A. He spread my legs apart while my back was on the mattress. Q. What did you do when your father spread your legs? A. I tried to close my legs and stretch them. But he forced my legs open. Q. Aside from trying to close your legs and trying to stretch them, what else did you do? A. I tried to go up to my bed but he pulled my legs and laid me on the bed. Q. After he laid you again on the bed, what happened next? A. Then he inserted his penis into my vagina. Then he kissed my neck and sucked my breasts. Q. Aside from crying what else did you do? A. I put on my dress and went to my bed and slept, sir. Q. What about your father? When you dressed up, what did he do? A. He put on his clothes and afterwards he drank gin. Q. What else happened on that early dawn of October 29 1998 after that *three+ oclock in the morning incident? A. No more, sir. Q. By the way, you mentioned that the two incidents of October 29, 1998 during the early dawn happened at about *one+ oclock in the morning and the other at about *three+ oclock in the morning. How were you able to determine the time? A. The incidents happened at *ten+ oclock, then *one+ oclock then *three+ oclock. I know the time because I kept on looking at the clock because I was waiting for the arrival of my mother.i[21] It is well-settled that in rape cases the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony, as and when sufficiently credible, given by the rape victim.i[22] The spontaneity with which Maricel Soriano has detailed the incidents, the tears she has shed at the stand while recounting her experience, and her consistency almost throughout her account dispel insinuations of a rehearsed testimony. Her eloquent testimony, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her recent non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm her claim that she has truly been raped by her own father. Not to be taken lightly is the evaluation made by the trial court in giving credence to her testimony. In criminal cases of this nature,

21

the only evidence that can really be offered to establish the guilt of the accused, more often than not, is the testimony of the complainant herself.i[23] Appellant smugly stated that while in prison, and even more so after his discharge therefrom, there had been no dearth of females willing to satisfy his sexual urges, implicitly saying, in effect, that he could not have been so sexually deprived as to vent his lust upon his own minor daughter. It is not for this Court to delve into personal motives or strive to understand the inner workings of the minds of malefactors; it is enough that positive evidence is not wanting on the authorship of the crime. Appellant calls our attention of the small space of the family room and the constant presence of the members of the family that would make the commission of the crime most unlikely. Time and again it has been said that lust is no respecter of place and time. Indeed, it would seem that a pervert can give vent to bestial impulses without much thought to decency. The prosecution filed a total of 13 cases for rape through sexual assault, one of which was Criminal Case No. 16129-R where it was alleged, on 17 October 1998, that appellant inserted his finger in the genitalia of Maricel Soriano. In her testimony, however, Maricel clarified that no rape on said date occurred, but that she was actually referring to the rape committed against her on the early dawn of the following day of 18 October 1998 Q. You are telling the Court then that on the night itself of October 17 when your mother was there already sleeping with you, your father did not do anything but the next morning when your mother would wake up early to wash the dishes, that is the time that your father would do that? Is that what you are saying? A. No, sir, on the following morning at dawn, when my father will wake up and wash dishes and he cooks, and after he washes and cooks, he kisses my breast and finger me and while my mother was asleep. Q. So you are referring to the early dawn of October 18, 199(8) that while your mother was asleep, your father kissed you, sucked your breast and fingered your vagina? A. Yes, sir.i[24] Hence, of the thirteen informations for rape through sexual assault filed against appellant, only twelve were clearly proved. All told, the evidence would establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellant indeed committed rape by sexual intercourse against private complainant on four separate occasions once on 15 October, another on 28 October, and twice on 29 October, 1998, and rape through sexual assault in twelve instances on 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 October, 1998. Republic Act No. 8353, also known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, expanding the definition of the crime of rape and reclassifying the offense as a crime against persons, provides Art. 266-A. Rape; when and how committed.-Rape is committed. 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Rape under paragraph 1, characterized by the contact of the penis with the pudendum of the womans vagina or rape by sexual intercourse, and rape under paragraph 2, also referred to as rape through sexual assault, are respectively penalized, as follows Art. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity. Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor. Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article. As so testified by her mother, Leonora, and confirmed by her birth certificate, private complainant Maricel Soriano was born to Leonora Soriano and appellant Camilo Soriano on 22 February 1987. She then was approximately eleven (11) years old and eight (8) months when the several rape incidents occurred. The aggravating circumstances of relationship between appellant and his victim, as well as the minority of the latter (but not the added fact that the offenses were committed in full view of the younger brother and sister of complainant which was not alleged in the informations), having been alleged in the informations and established in evidence, the court a quo did not err in finding appellant Camilo Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, on four counts, through sexual intercourse in Criminal Cases No. 16125-R, No. 16126-R, No. 16141-R and No. 161-40-R, and imposing upon him the penalty of death in each of said cases. Consistent with recent jurisprudence, the civil indemnity for the victim should be in the increased amount of P75,000.00;i[25] in addition, she should be entitled to recover P75,000 moral damages, considered innate in crimes of rape, plus P30,000.00 exemplary damages for each count of rape through sexual intercourse. The trial court was also correct in finding appellant guilty of rape through sexual assault in Criminal Cases No. 16127-R, No. 16128-R, No. 16130-R, No. 16131-R, No. 16132-R, No. 16133-R, No. 16134-R, No. 16135-R, No. 16136-R, No. 16137-R, No. 16138-R and No. 16139-R. Under Article 266-B, rape by sexual assault, if attended by any of the aggravating circumstances under paragraph 1 of Article 266-B, would carry the penalty of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to be imposed is prision mayor, in any of its periods, being the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code, with reclusion temporal, in its maximum period, as maximum penalty considering the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship both alleged in the informations and proved during trial. Hence, the imposable penalty may be anywhere from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to anywhere from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years of the maximum period of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in each of the 12 cases. The minimum penalty, but not the maximum penalty, imposed by the trial court is thus within the range prescribed by the Code. In each of the cases of rape, through sexual assault, private complainant is entitled to recover civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00, moral damages of P30,000.00 and P15,000.00 exemplary damages. In Criminal Case No. 161 29-R, appellant is acquitted of the crime charged for lack of sufficient proof. Three Justices of the Supreme Court maintain their position that the law, insofar as it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty could be imposed by the Court. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6 of Baguio City, finding appellant Camilo Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, on four counts, through sexual intercourse and sentencing him to suffer the extreme penalty of death for each count, is AFFIRMED with modification on the civil liability adjudged in that appellant is hereby ordered to pay the offended party civil indemnity in the increased amount of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P30,000.00, in each of the four cases. The judgment of the trial court, finding appellant guilty of twelve counts of rape through sexual assault and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in each of the 12 cases, is AFFIRMED with modification by increasing the maximum period of the penalty imposed to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision temporal, as well as by ordering appellant, furthermore, to indemnify the offended party civil indemnity of P30,000.00,

22

moral damages of P30,000.00 and exemplary damages of P15,000.00, in each of the 12 counts of rape through sexual assault. In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, ET AL., defendants. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, BASILIO PINEDA, JR., alias "BOY," EDGARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO and ROGELIO CAAL Y SEVILLA, defendants-appellants. The amended complaint filed in this case in the court below, reads as follows: The undersigned complainant accuses JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, BASILIO PINEDA, JR. Alias "BOY," EDUARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO alias "EDDIE" and ROGELIO CAAL Y SEVILLA alias "ROGER," as principals, WONG LAY PUENG, SILVERIO GUANZON Y ROMERO and JESSIE GUION Y ENVOLTARIO as accomplices, of the crime of Forcible Abduction with rape, committed as follows: That on or about the 26th day of June, 1967, in Quezon City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named principal accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design, forcibly abduct the undersigned complainant against her will, and did, then and there take her, pursuant to their common criminal design, to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, where each of the four (4) accused, by means of force and intimidation, and with the use of a deadly weapon, have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against her will, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded to her under the provisions of the civil code. That WONG LAY PUENG, SILVERIO GUANZON y ROMERO, and JESSIE GUION y ENVOLTARIO without taking a direct part in the execution of the offense either by forcing, inducing the principal accused to execute, or cooperating in its execution by an indispensable act, did, then and there cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, that is, by cooperating, aiding, abetting and permitting the principal accused in sequestering the undersigned complainant in one of the rooms of the Swanky Hotel then under the control of the accused Wong Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon y Romero and Jessie Guion y Envoltario, thus supplying material and moral aid in the consummation of the offense. That the aforestated offense has been attended by the following aggravating circumstances: 1. Use of a motor vehicle. 2. Night time sought purposely to facilitate the commission of the crime and to make its discovery difficult; 3. Abuse of superior strength; 4. That means were employed or circumstances brought about which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act; and 5. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for the commission. CONTRARY TO LAW. Upon arraignment, Basilio Pineda, Jr. pleaded guilty to the charge imputed in the above-quoted amended complaint; however, in an order dated July 11, 1967, the court reserved judgment "until such time as the prosecution shall have concluded presenting all of its evidence to prove the aggravating circumstances listed in the complaint." Upon the other hand, the rest of the defendants went to trial on their respective pleas of not guilty. After the merits, the court below rendered its decision on October 2, 1967, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Jaime Jose, Rogelio Caal, Eduardo Aquino and Basilio Pineda, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of forcible abduction with rape as described under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences each of them to the death penalty to be executed at a date to be set and in the manner provided for by law; and each to indemnify the complainant in the amount of ten thousand pesos. On the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against the accomplices Wong Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon y Romero, and

Jessie Guion y Envoltario, the Motion to Dismiss filed for and in their behalf is hereby granted, and the case dismissed against the aforementioned accused. Insofar as the car used in the abduction of the victim which Jaime Jose identified by pointing to it from the window of the courtroom and pictures of which were submitted and marked as Exhibits "M" and "M1," and which Jaime Jose in his testimony admitted belonged to him, pursuant to Art. 45 of the Revised Penal Code, which requires the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime, the Court hereby orders its confiscation. This case is now before us by virtue of the appeal interposed by Basilio Pineda, Jr., Edgardo Aquino, and Jaime Jose, and for automatic review as regards Rogelio Caal. However, for practical purposes all of them shall hereafter be referred to as appellants. The complainant, Magdalena "Maggie" de la Riva, was, at the time of the incident, 25 years old and single; she graduated from high school in 1958 at Maryknoll College and finished the secretarial course in 1960 at St. Theresa's College. Movie actress by profession, she was receiving P8,000.00 per picture. It was part of her work to perform in radio broadcasts and television shows, where she was paid P800.00 per month in permanent shows, P300.00 per month in live promotional shows, and from P100.00 to P200.00 per appearance as guest in other shows. So it was that at about 4:30 o'clock in the morning of June 26, 1967, Miss De la Riva, homeward bound from the ABS Studio on Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, was driving her bantam car accompanied by her maid Helen Calderon, who was also at the front seat. Her house was at No. 48, 12th Street, New Manila, Quezon City. She was already near her destination when a Pontiac two-door convertible car with four men aboard (later identified as the four appellants) came abreast of her car and tried to bump it. She stepped on her brakes to avoid a collision, and then pressed on the gas and swerved her car to the left, at which moment she was already in front of her house gate; but because the driver of the other car (Basilio Pineda, Jr.) also accelerated his speed, the two cars almost collided for the second time. This prompted Miss De la Riva, who was justifiably annoyed, to ask: "Ano ba?" Forthwith, Pineda stopped the car which he was driving, jumped out of it and rushed towards her. The girl became so frightened at this turn of events that she tooted the horn of her car continuously. Undaunted, Pineda opened the door of Miss De la Riva's car and grabbed the lady's left arm. The girl held on tenaciously to her car's steering wheel and, together with her maid, started to scream. Her strength, however, proved no match to that of Pineda, who succeeded in pulling her out of her car. Seeing her mistress' predicament, the maid jumped out of the car and took hold of Miss De la Riva's right arm in an effort to free her from Pineda's grip. The latter, however, was able to drag Miss De la Riva toward the Pontiac convertible car, whose motor was all the while running. When Miss De la Riva, who was being pulled by Pineda, was very near the Pontiac car, the three men inside started to assist their friend: one of them held her by the neck, while the two others held her arms and legs. All three were now pulling Miss De la Riva inside the car. Before she was completely in, appellant Pineda jumped unto the driver's seat and sped away in the direction of Broadway Street. The maid was left behind. The complainant was made to sit between Jaime Jose and Edgardo Aquino at the back seat; Basilio Pineda, Jr. was at the wheel, while Rogelio Caal was seated beside him. Miss De la Riva entreated the appellants to release her; but all she got in response were jeers, abusive and impolite language that the appellants and threats that the appellants would finish her with their Thompson and throw acid at her face if she did not keep quiet. In the meantime, the two men seated on each side of Miss De la Riva started to get busy with her body: Jose put one arm around the complainant and forced his lips upon hers, while Aquino placed his arms on her thighs and lifted her skirt. The girl tried to resist them. She continuously implored her captors to release her, telling them that she was the only breadwinner in the family and that her mother was alone at home and needed her company because her father was already dead. Upon learning of the demise of Miss De la Riva's father, Aquino remarked that the situation was much better than he thought since no one could take revenge against them. By now Miss De la Riva was beginning to realize the futility of her pleas. She made the sign of the cross and started to pray. The

23

appellants became angry and cursed her. Every now and then Aquino would stand up and talk in whispers with Pineda, after which the two would exchange knowing glances with Caal and Jose. The car reached a dead-end street. Pineda turned the car around and headed towards Victoria Street. Then the car proceeded to Araneta Avenue, Sta. Mesa Street, Shaw Boulevard, thence to Epifanio de los Santos Avenue. When the car reached Makati, Aquino took a handkerchief from his pocket and, with the help of Jose, blindfolded Miss De la Riva. The latter was told not to shout or else she would be stabbed or shot with a Thompson. Not long after, the car came to a stop at the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City The blindfolded lady was led out of the car to one of the rooms on the second floor of the hotel. Inside the room Miss De la Riva was made to sit on a bed. Her blindfold was removed. She saw Pineda and Aquino standing in front of her, and Jose and Caal sitting beside her, all of them smiling meaningfully. Pineda told the complainant: "Magburlesque ka para sa amin." The other three expressed their approval and ordered Miss De la Riva to disrobe. The complainant ignored the command. One of the appellants suggested putting off the light so that the complainant would not be ashamed. The idea, however, was rejected by the others, who said that it would be more pleasurable for them if the light was on. Miss De la Riva was told to remove her stocking in order, according to them, to make the proceedings more exciting. Reluctantly, she did as directed, but so slowly did she proceed with the assigned task that the appellants cursed her and threatened her again with the Thompson and the acid. They started pushing Miss De la Riva around. One of them pulled down the zipper of her dress; another unhooked her brassiere. She held on tightly to her dress to prevent it from being pulled down, but her efforts were in vain: her dress, together with her brassiere, fell on the floor. The complainant was now completely naked before the four men, who were kneeling in front of her and feasting their eyes on her private parts. This ordeal lasted for about ten minutes, during which the complainant, in all her nakedness, was asked twice or thrice to turn around. Then Pineda picked up her clothes and left the room with his other companions. The complainant tried to look for a blanket with which to cover herself, but she could not find one. Very soon, Jose reentered the room and began undressing himself. Miss De la Riva, who was sitting on the bed trying to cover her bareness with her hands, implored him to ask his friends to release her. Instead of answering her, he pushed her backward and pinned her down on the bed. Miss De la Riva and Jose struggled against each other; and because the complainant was putting up stiff resistance, Jose cursed her and hit her several times on the stomach and other parts of the body. The complainant crossed her legs tightly, but her attacker was able to force them open. Jose succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the complainant. He then left the room. The other three took their turns. Aquino entered the room next. A struggle ensued between him and Miss De la Riva during which he hit, her on different parts of the body. Like Jose, Aquino succeeded in abusing the complainant. The girl was now in a state of shock. Aquino called the others into the room. They poured water on her face and slapped her to revive her. Afterwards, three of the accused left the room, leaving Pineda and the complainant After some struggle during which Pineda hit her, the former succeeded in forcing his carnal desire on the latter. When the complainant went into a state of shock for the second time, the three other men went into the room again poured water on the complainant's face and slapped her several times. The complainant heard them say that they had to revive her so she would know what was happening. Jose, Aquino and Pineda then left the room. It was now appellant Canal's turn. There was a struggle between him and Miss De la Riva. Like the other three appellants before him, he hit the complainant on different parts of the body and succeeded in forcing his carnal lust on her. Mention must be made of the fact that while each of mention must be made the four appellants was struggling with the complainant, the other three were outside the room, just behind the door, threatening the complainant with acid and telling her to give in because she could not, after all, escape what with their presence. After the appellants had been through with the sexual carnage, they gave Miss De la Riva her clothes, told her to get dressed and put on her stockings, and to wash her face and comb her hair, to give the impression that nothing had happened to her. They told her to tell her mother that she was mistaken by a group of men for a hostess, and that when the group found out that she was a movie actress, she was

released without being harmed. She was warned not to inform the police; for if she did and they were apprehended, they would simply post bail and later hunt her up and disfigure her face with acid. The appellants then blindfolded Miss De la Riva again and led her down from the hotel room. Because she was stumbling, she had to be carried into the car. Inside the car, a appellant Jose held her head down on his lap, and kept it in that position during the trip, to prevent her from being seen by others. Meanwhile, the four appellants were discussing the question of where to drop Miss De la Riva. They finally decided on a spot in front of the Free Press Building not far from Epifanio de los Santos Avenue near Channel 5 to make it appear, according to them, that the complainant had just come from the studio. Pineda asked Jose to alight and call a taxicab, but to choose one which did not come from a wellknown company. Jose did as requested, letting several taxicabs pass by before flagging a UBL taxicab. After they warned again Miss De la Riva not to inform anyone of what had happened to her, appellant Canal accompanied her to the taxicab. The time was a little past 6:00 o'clock. When Miss De la Riva was already inside the cab and alone with the driver, Miguel F. Campos, she broke down and cried. She kept asking the driver if a car was following them; and each time the driver answered her in the negative. It was 6:30 o'clock or some two hours after the abduction when Miss De la Riva reached home. Her mother, her brother-in-law Ben Suba, as well as several PC officers, policemen and reporters, were at the house. Upon seeing her mother, the complainant ran toward her and said, "Mommy, Mommy, I have been raped. All four of them raped me." The mother brought her daughter upstairs. Upon her mother's instruction, the complainant immediately took a bath and a douche. The older woman also instructed her daughter to douche himself two or three times daily with a strong solution to prevent infection and pregnancy. The family doctor, who was afterwards summoned, treated the complainant for external physical injuries. The doctor was not, however, told about the sexual assaults. Neither was Pat. Pablo Pascual, the police officer who had been sent by the desk officer, Sgt. Dimla, to the De la Riva residence when the latter received from a mobile patrol a report of the snatching. When Miss De la Riva arrived home from her harrowing experience, Pat. Pascual attempted to question her, but Ben Suba requested him to postpone the interrogation until she could be ready for it. At that time, mother and daughter were still undecided on what to do. On the afternoon of June 28, 1967, the complainant family gathered to discuss what steps, if any, should be taken. After some agonizing moments, a decision was reached: the authorities had to be informed. Thus, early on the morning of June 29, 1967, or on the fourth day after the incident, Miss De la Riva, accompanied by her lawyer, Atty. Regina O. Benitez, and by some members of the family, went to the Quezon City Police Department Headquarters, filed a complaint and executed a statement (Exh. "B") wherein she narrated the incident and gave descriptions of the four men who abused her. In the afternoon of the same day, the complainant submitted herself ito a medico-internal examination by Dr. Ernesto Brion, NBI Chief Medico-Legal Officer. During the physical examination of the complainant by Dr. Brion on June 29, 1967, Pat. Pascual was also at the NBI office. There he received a telephone call from the police headquarters to the effect that one of the suspects had been apprehended. That evening, the complainant and Pat. Pascual proceeded to the headquarters where Miss De la Riva identified appellant Jaime Jose from among a group of persons inside the Office of the Chief of Police of Quezon City as one of the four men he abducted and raped her. She executed another statement (Exh. "B-1") wherein she made a formal identification of Jose and related the role played by him. At about 9:00 o'clock of the same evening, appellant Jose executed a statement (Exh. "I") before Pat. Marcos G. Vias. In his statement, which was duly sworn. Jose admitted that he knew about, and was involved in, the June 26 incident. He named the other line appellants as his companions. Jose stated, among other things, that upon the initiative of Pineda, he and the other three waited for Miss De la Riva to come out of the ABS Studio; that his group gave chase to the complainant's car; that it was Pineda who blindfolded her and that only Pineda and Aquino criminally assaulted the complainant. After Exh, "I" was executed by Jose, an informant furnished Pat. Vinas with a picture of appellant Edgardo Aquino. The picture was shown to Miss De la Riva, who declared in her sworn statement (Exh.

24

"B-3") that the man in the picture was one of her abductors and rapists. The same picture was shown to Jose, who, in another sworn statement (Exh. "I-l"), identified the man in the picture as appellant Aquino. After the apprehension of Jose, the other three soon fell into the hands of the authorities: Pineda and Caal on July 1, 1967, in Lipa City, and Aquino on July 5, 1967, in the province of Batangas. On the evening of July 1, 1967. Miss De la Riva pointed to Pineda and Caal as among the four persons who abducted and raped her. She picked them out from among several person in the Office of the Chief of Police of Quezon City. Later in the same evening, Miss De la Riva executed a sworn statement (Exh. B2)wherein she made the same identification of the two appellants from among a group of persons in the Office of the Chief of the Detective Bureau, adding that appellant Caal had tattoo marks on his right hip. After the identification, one of the policemen took appellant Caal downstairs and undressed him, and he saw, imprinted on the said appellant's right hip, the words "Bahala na Gang." Appellant Caal and Pineda executed and swore to separate statements on the day of their arrest. In his statement (Exh. "G"), appellant Caal confirmed the information previously given by Jose that the four of them waited for Miss De la Riva to come down from the ABS Studio, and that they had planned to abduct and rape her. Appellant Caal admitted that all four of them participated in the commission of the crime, but he would make it appear that insofar as he was concerned the complainant yielded her body to him on condition that he would release her. Pineda executed a statement (Exh. "J") stating that he and his other three companions wept to the ABS Studio, and that, on learning that Miss De la Riva was there, they made plans to wait for her and to follow her. He admitted that his group followed her car and snatched her and took her to the Swanky Hotel. He would make it appear, however, that the complainant voluntarily acceded to having sexual intercourse with him. In his medical report (Exh. "K"), Dr. Brion noted the presence of multiple contusions and bruises on different parts of the complainant's body, as well as of genital injuries. On the witness stand the doctor was shown several photographs of the complainant taken in his presence and under his supervision. With the aid of the photographs and the medical reports, the doctor explained to the court that he found contusions or bruises on the complainant's chest, shoulders, arms and fore-arms, right arm index finger, thighs, right knee and legs. He also declared that when he was examining her, Miss De la Riva complained of slight tenderness around the neck, on the abdominal wall and at the sites of the extragenital physical injuries, and that on pressing the said injuries, he elicited a sigh of pain or tenderness on the part of the subject. The injuries, according to Dr. Brion, could have been caused blows administered by a closed fist or by the palm of the hand, and could have been inflicted on the subject while she was being raped. It was the doctor's opinion that they could have been sustained on or about June 26, 1967. In connection with the genital examination, the doctor declared that he found injuries on the subject's genitalia which could have been produced by sexual intercourse committed on June 26, 1967. He said that he failed to find spermatozoa. He explained, however, that spermatozoa are not usually found in the vagina after the lapse of three days from the last intercourse, not to mention the possibility that the subject might have douched herself. The three appellants who pleaded not guilty (Jose, Aquino and Caal) took the witness stand. We quote hereunder the portions of the decision under review relative to the theory of the defense: Their story is that they and their co-accused Pineda had gone to the Ulog Cocktail Lounge somewhere in Mabini street in Manila, and there killed time from 9:30 in the evening of June 25 until closing time, which was about 3:30 in the early morning of the next day. At the cocktail lounge they had listened to the music while enjoying some drinks. Between them they had consumed a whole bottle of whisky, so much so that at least Aquino became drunk, according to his own testimony. They had been joined at their table by a certain Frankie whom they met only that night. Come time to go home, their new acquaintance asked to be dropped at his home in Cubao. The five men piled into the red-bodied, black topped two-door convertible Plymouth (Pontiac) car of Jaime Jose, and with Pineda at the wheel repaired to Cubao After dislodging their new friend, Pineda steered the car to Espaa Extension to bring Aquino to his home in Mayon Street. But somewhere in Espaa Extension before the Rotonda a small car whizzed to them almost hitting them. They saw that the driver was a woman. Pineda gave chase and coming abreast of the small car he shouted, "Putang ina mo, kamuntik na kaming mamatay." The woman

continued on her way. Now Pineda saying "let us teach her a lesson," sped after her and when she swerved ostensibly to enter a gate, Pineda stopped his car behind being hurriedly got down, striding to the small car, opened the door and started dragging the girl out. Both Jose and Aquino confirm the presence of another woman inside the girl's car, who helped the girl struggle to get free from Pineda's grip; and that the struggle lasted about ten minutes before Pineda finally succeeded in pushing the girl into the red convertible. All the three accused insist they did nothing to aid Pineda: but they also admit that they did nothing to stop him. Now the defense contends that Pineda cruised around and around the area just to scare the girl who was in truth so scared that she begged them to let her be and return her to her home. She turned to Jose in appeal, but this one told her he could net do anything as the "boss" was Pineda. Aquino heard her plead with Jose "do you not have a sister yourself?" but did not bear the other plea 'do you not have a mother?' Then Pineda stopped at the corner of the street where he had forcibly snatched the girl presumably to return her, but then suddenly changing his mind he said, 'why don't you do a strip tease for us. I'll pay you P1,000.00 and the girl taunted, 'are you kidding?': that after a little while she consented to do the performance as long as it would not last too long and provided the spectators were limited to the four of them. Pineda sped the car until they got to Swanky Hotel where he and Maggie alighted first, but not before Maggie had borrowed a handkerchief from one of them to cover her face as she went up the Hotel. The three followed, and when they saw the pair enter a room, they quickly caught up. All the three accused testify that as soon as they got into the room, Maggie de la Riva asked the boys to close the windows before she. undressed in front of them. They themselves also removed their clothing. Two of them removed their pants retaining their briefs, while Boy Pineda and Caal stripped to the skin "because it was hot." The three accused declared that they saw Boy Pineda hand P100.00 to Maggie and they heard him promise her that he would pay the balance of P900.00 later. Whereupon, the show which lasted about 10 minutes began with the naked girl walking back and forth the room about 4 to 5 times. This accomplished, all of them dressed up once more and the three accused (Jaime Jose, Eduardo Aquino and Rogelio Caal) left the room to wait in the car for Boy Pineda and Maggie de la Riva who were apparently still discussing the mode of payment of the balance. Three minutes later Maggie de la Riva and Boy Pineda joined them. Now, the question of how and where to drop Maggie came up and it is testified to by the accused that it was Maggie's idea that they should drop her near the ABS Studio so that it would appear as if she had just come from her work. Jaime Jose was picked by the police on the morning of June 29 along Buendia Avenue. Aquino testifies how, on June 29 Pineda went to him with a problem. He did not have the P900.00 with which to pay Maggie the balance of her "show" and he was afraid that if he did not pay, Maggie would have her goons after him. He wanted Aquino to go with him to Lipa City where he had relatives and where he could help raise the money. Aquino readily obliged, and to make the company complete they invited Caal to join them. They used another car of Jaime Jose, different from the one they had used the day before. At Lipa, Aquino detached himself from his compassions and proceeded alone to the barrio allegedly to visit his relatives. In the meantime his two companions had remained in the City and had, according to Canal, gone to live in a house very close to the municipal hall building. They later moved to another house where the PC and Quezon City police posse found and arrested them. Aquino was the last to be apprehended, when having read in the newspapers that he was wanted, he surrendered on July 5 to Mrs. Aurelia Leviste, wife of the governor of Batangas. The striptease-act-for-a-fee story on which the defense theory is anchored, defies one's credulity and reason, and had utterly to counteract the evidence for the prosecution, particularly the complainant's testimony and Dr. Brion's medical report and testimony. We quote with approval the able dissertion of the trial judge on this point: As main defense in the charge of rape, the three accused advance the proposition that nothing happened in Swanky Hotel except a strip-tease exhibition which the complaint agreed to do for them for fee of P1,000.00, P100.00 down and the balance to be paid "later." The flaw in this connection lies in its utter inverisimilitude. The Court cannot believe that any woman exists, even one habitual engaged in this

25

kind of entertainment (which Maggie de la Riva has not been proven to be) who would consent (and as easily and promptly as defense claims) to do a performance, not even for all money in the worlds after the rough handling she experienced from these wolves in men's clothing who now hungered for a show. There is no fury to match a woman stirred to indignation. A woman's pride is far stronger than her yen for money, and her revenge much more keen. The Court cannot believe that after the rudeness and meanness of these men to her, Maggie would in so short an interval of time forget her indignation and so readily consent to satisfy their immoral curiosity about her. The woman in her would urge her to turn the men's hankering as a weapon of revenge by denying them their pleasure. Besides, the manner of payment offered for the performance is again something beyond even the wildest expectations. Assuming that the woman whom the accused had abducted was in this kind of trade assuming that the price offered was to her satisfaction, whom woman would be willing to perform first and be paid later? It is simply preposterous to believe that Maggie de la Riva should have consent to do a striptease act for a measly down-payment of P100.00 and the balance to be paid God knows when. Since when are exposition of the flesh paid on the installment basis? By the very precautious nature of their pitiful calling, women who sell their attractions are usually very shrewed and it is to be expected that they could demand full payment before curtain call. How was Maggie to collect later when she did not even know who these man were, where they lived, whether they could be trusted with a promise to pay later (!) whether she could ever find them again? If there is anything that had struck the Court about the complaint, it is her courage, her intelligence and her alertness. Only a stupid woman, and a most stupid one that, could have been persuaded to do what the defense want this Court to believe Maggie de la Riva consented to do. Finally, it is odd that not one of these men should have mentioned this circumstances during their interview with anyone, either the press, their police interrogator, the person who negotiated their surrender (as in the case of Aquino) or even their counsel. One cannot escape the very strong suspicion that this story is a last ditch, desperate attempt to save the day for the accused. It truly underscores the hopelessness of their stand and projects all the more clearly their guilt. Then there is the incident of the men's stripping themselves. Why was there need for this? The Court realizes that in its desperate need of an explanation for Maggie's positive identification of Caal as the man with the tattoo mark on his right buttock, the defense concocted the sickeningly incident story that the four men removed their underclothing in the presence of a woman simply "because it was hot." What kind of men were these who were so devoid of any sense of decency that they thought nothing of adding insult to injury by not only inducing a woman a strip before them, but for forcing her to perform before a naked audience? And then they have gall to argue that "nothing" happened. For males of cold and phlegmatic blood and disposition it could be credible, but not for men of torrid regions like ours where quick passions and hot tempers are the rule rather than the exception! All of these consideration set aside, notwithstanding, it is quite obvious that the version of the defense has not been able to explain away a very vital piece of evidence of prosecution which, if unexplained, cannot but reduce any defense unavailing. The result of the physical (external and internal) examination conducted on the person of Maggie de la Riva in the afternoon of June 29, the pertinent findings of which quoted earlier in this decision, establish beyond doubt that at the time that Maggie de la Riva was examined she bore on her body traces of physical and sexual assault. The only attempt to an explanation made by the defense is either one of the following: (1) the insinuation that when Maggie de la Riva and Boy Pineda were left behind in the hotel room the bruises and the sexual attack could have taken place then. But then, the defense itself says that these two persons rejoined the three after three or four minutes! It is physically impossible, in such a short time, for Boy Pineda to have attacked the girl and inflicted on her all of these injuries; (2) it was suggested by the defense that Maggie de la Riva could have inflicted all of those injuries upon herself just to make out a case against the accused. The examining physician rules out this preposterous proposition, verily it does not take much stretch of the imagination to see how utterly impossible this would be, and for what purpose? Was P900.00 which she had failed to collect worth that much self-torture? And what about all

the shame, embarrassment and publicity she would (as she eventually did) expose herself to? If she really had not been raped would she have gone thru all of these tribulation? A woman does not easily trump up rape charges for she has much more to lose in the notoriety the case will reap her, her honor and that of her family, than in the redress she demands (Canastre 82-480; Medina, C.A. 1943 O.G. 151; Medina y Puno, CA O.G. 338; CA 55 O.G. 7666; Galamito, L-6302, August 25, 1954); (3) it could also be argued that the contusions and bruises could have been inflicted on Maggie during her struggle with Pineda when the latter pulled and pushed her into the red convertible car. The telltale injuries, however, discount this possibility, for the location in which many of the bruises and traumas were located (particularly on the inner portion of her thighs) could not have been cause by any struggle save by those of a woman trying to resists the brutal and bestial attack on her honor. In their Memorandum the accused contend that Maggie's sole and uncorroborated testimony should not be rated any credence at all as against the concerted declaration of the the accused. In the first place, it is not correct to say that Maggie's declaration was uncorroborated she has for corroboration nothing less than the written extra-judicial statements of Jose and Canal. But even assuming that Maggie stood alone in her statements, the cases cited by the accused in their Memorandum notwithstanding which the Court does not consider in point anyway, jurisprudence has confirmed the ruling that numbers is the least vital element in gauging the weight of evidence. What is more important is which of the declarations is the more credible, the more logical, the more reasonable, the more prone to be biased or polluted. (Ricarte 44 OG 2234; Damian CA-GR No. 25523, April 24, 1959). Besides, it should be borne in maid that in the most detestable crime of rape in which a man is at his worst the testimony of the offended party most often is the only one available to prove directly its commission and that corroboration by other eyewitnesses would in certain cases place a serious doubt as to the probability of its commission, so trial courts of justice are most often placed in a position of having to accept such uncorroborated testimony if the same is in regards conclusive, logical and probable (Landicho, VIII ACR 530). We shall now consider the points raised by the appellants in their briefs. 1. Appellants Jose, Aquino and Caal deny having had anything to do with the abduction of Miss De la Riva. They point to Pineda (who entered a plea of guilty) as the sole author thereof, but they generously contend that even as to him the act was purged at any taint of criminality by the complainant's subsequent consent to perform a striptease show for a fee, a circumstance which, it is claimed, negated the existence of the element of lewd design. This line of defense has evidently leg no to stand on. The evidence is clear and overwhelming that all the appellants participated in the forcible abduction. Miss De la Riva declared on the witness stand, as well as in her sworn statements, that they helped one another in dragging her into the car against her will; that she did not know them personally; that while inside the car, Jose and Aquino, between whom she was seated, toyed with her body, the former forcing his lips on hers, and the latter touching her thighs and raising her skirt; that meaningful and knowing glances were in the meanwhile being exchanged among the four; and that all of them later took turns in ravishing her at the Swanky Hotel. This testimony, whose evidentiary weight has not in the least been overthrown by the defense, more than suffices to establish the crimes charged in the amended complaint. In the light thereof, appellants' protestation that they were not motivated by lewd designs must be rejected as absolutely without factual basis. 2. The commission of rape by each of the appellants has, as held by the court below, likewise been clearly established. Jose, Aquino and Canal contend that the absence of semen in the complainant's vagina disproves the fact of rape. The contention is untenable. Dr. Brion of the NBI, who testified as an expert, declared that semen is not usually found in the vagina after three days from the last intercourse, especially if the subject has douched herself within that period. In the present case, the examination was conducted on the fourth day after the incident, and the complainant had douched herself to avoid infection and pregnancy. Furthermore, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the important consideration being, not the emission of semen, but penetration (People vs Hernandez, 49 Phil., 980). Aquino's suggestion that the abrasions on the cervix were caused by the tough tip of a noozle deliberately used by the complainant to strengthen her alleged fabricated

26

tale of rape, is absurd, if not cruel. It is difficult to imagine that any sane woman, who is single and earning as much Miss Dela Riva did, would inflict injuries on her genital organ by puncturing the same with a sharply-pointed instrument in order to strike back at four strangers who allegedly would not pay her the sum of P900.00 due her for a striptease act. Besides, Dr. Brion testified that the insertion of such an instrument in the genital organ would not result in the kind of injuries he found in the mucosa of the cervix. 3. Other evidence and considerations exist which indubitably establish the commission of successive rapes by the four appellants. Upon Miss De la Riva's arrival at her house in the morning of June 26, 1967, she immediately told her mother, " Mommy Mommy, I have been raped. All four of them raped me." This utterance, which is part of the res gestae, commands strong probative value, considering that it was made by the complainant to her mother who, in cases of this nature was the most logical person in whom a daughter would confide the truth. Aquino and Canal would make capital of the fact that Miss De la Riva stated to the reporters on the morning of June 26, that she was not abused. Her statement to the press is understandable. At that time the complainant, who had not yet consulted her family on a matter which concerned her reputation as well as that of her family, and her career, was not then in a position to reveal publicly what had happened to her. This is one reason why the complainant did not immediately inform the authorities of the tragedy that befell her. Another reason is that she was threatened with disfiguration. And there were, of course, the traumas found by Dr. Brion on different parts of the complainant's body. Could they, too, have been self-inflicted? Or, as suggested, could they possibly have been inflicted by appellant Pineda alone, when the story given by the other three is that Pineda and the complainant were left in the hotel room for only three or four minutes, and that they came out to join them in what they would picture to be a cordial atmosphere, the complainant even allegedly suggesting that she be dropped on a spot where people would reasonably presume her to have come from a studio? Equally important is the complainant's public disclosure of her tragedy, which led to the examination of her private parts and lay her open to risks of future public ridicule and diminution of popularity and earnings as a movie actress. 4. Jose and Canal seek the exclusion of their extrajudicial statements from the mass of evidence on the grounds that they were secured from them by force and intimidation, and that the incriminating details therein were supplied by the police investigators. We are not convinced that the statements were involuntarily given, or that the details recited therein were concocted by the authorities. The statements were given in the presence of several people and subscribed and sworn to before the City Fiscal of Quezon City, to whom neither of the aforesaid appellants intimated the use of inordinate methods by the police. They are replete with details which could hardly be known to the police; and although it is suggested that the authorities could have secured such details from their various informers, no evidence at all was presented to establish the truth of such allegation. While in their statements Jose and Canal admitted having waited together with the two other appellants for Miss De la Riva at the ABS Studio, each of them attempted in the same statements to exculpate himself: appellant Jose stated that only Pineda and Aquino criminally abused the complainant; while appellant Canal would make it appear that the complainant willingly allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her. Had the statements been prepared by the authorities, they would hardly have contained matters which were apparently designed to exculpate the affiants. It is significant, too, that the said two appellants did not see it fit to inform any of their friends or relatives of the alleged use of force and intimidation by the police. Dr. Mariano Nario of the Quezon City Police Department, who examined appellant Canal after the latter made his statement, found no trace of injury on any part of the said appellant's body in spite of the claims that he was boxed on the stomach and that one of his arms was burned with a cigarette lighter. In the circumstances, and considering, further, that the police officers who took down their statements categorically denied on the witness stand that the two appellants were tortured, or that any detail in the statements was supplied by them or by anyone other than the affiants themselves, We see no reason to depart from the trial court's well-considered conclusion that the statements were voluntarily given. However, even disregarding the in-custody statements of Jose and Canal, We find that the mass of evidence for the prosecution on record will suffice to secure the conviction of the two.

The admissibility of his extrajudicial statements is likewise being questioned by Jose on the other ground that he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogations. He cites the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Messiah vs. U.S. (377 U.S. 201), Escobedo vs. Illinois (378 U.S. 478) and Miranda vs. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). The provision of the Constitution of the Philippines in point is Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 1, par. 17 of which provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall ... enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel ..." While the said provision is identical to that in the Constitution of the United States, in this jurisdiction the term criminal prosecutions was interpreted by this Court, in U.S. vs. Beecham, 23 Phil., 258 (1912), in connection with a similar provision in the Philippine Bill of Rights (Section 5 of Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) to mean proceedings before the trial court from arraignment to rendition of the judgment. Implementing the said constitutional provision, We have provided in Section 1, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court that "In all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall be entitled ... (b) to be present and defend in person and by attorney at every stage of the proceedings, that is, from the arraignment to the promulgation of the judgment." The only instances where an accused is entitled to counsel before arraignment, if he so requests, are during the second stage of the preliminary investigation (Rule 112, Section 11) and after the arrest (Rule 113, Section 18). The rule in the United States need not be unquestioningly adhered to in this jurisdiction, not only because it has no binding effect here, but also because in interpreting a provision of the Constitution the meaning attached thereto at the time of the adoption thereof should be considered. And even there the said rule is not yet quite settled, as can be deduced from the absence of unanimity in the voting by the members of the United States Supreme Court in all the three above-cited cases. 5. Appellant Pineda claims that insofar as he is concerned there was a mistrial resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. He contends that because the charge against him and his co-appellants is a capital offense and the amended complaint cited aggravating circumstances, which, if proved, would raise the penalty to death, it was the duty of the court to insist on his presence during all stages of the trial. The contention is untenable. While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is capital, for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime (People vs. Boyles, et al., L-15308, May 29, 1964, citing People vs. Ama, L-14783, April 29, 1961, and People vs. Parete, L-15515, April 29, 1961). Because of the aforesaid legal effect of Pineda's plea of guilty, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to receive his evidence, much less to require his presence in court. It would be different had appellant Pineda requested the court to allow him to prove mitigating circumstances, for then it would be the better part of discretion on the part of the trial court to grant his request. (Cf. People vs. Arconado, L16175, February 28, 1962.) The case of U.S. vs. Agcaoili (31 Phil., 91), cited by Pineda, is not in point, for there this Court ordered a new trial because it found for a fact that the accused, who had pleaded guilty, "did not intend to admit that he committed the offense with the aggravating circumstances" mentioned in the information. We are not in a position to make a similar finding here. The transcript of the proceedings during the arraignment shows that Pineda's counsel, Atty. Lota prefaced his client's plea of guilty with the statement that . I have advised him (Pineda) about the technicalities in plain simple language of the contents of aggravating circumstances and apprised him of the penalty he would get, and we have given said accused time to think. After a while I consulted him for three times and his decision was still the same. Three days after the arraignment, the same counsel stated in court that he had always been averse to Pineda's idea of pleading guilty, because "I know the circumstances called for the imposition of the maximum penalty considering the aggravating circumstances," but that he acceded to his client's wish only after the fiscal had stated that he would recommend to the court the imposition of life imprisonment on his client. To be sure, any such recommendation does not bind the Court. The situation here, therefore, is far different from that obtaining in U.S. vs. Agcaoili, supra.

27

6. Two of the appellants Jose and Caal bewail the enormous publicity that attended the case from the start of investigation to the trial. In spite of the said publicity, however, it appears that the court a quo was able to give the appellants a fair hearing. For one thing, three of the seven (7) original accused were acquitted. For another thing, Jose himself admits in his brief that the Trial Judge "had not been influenced by adverse and unfair comments of the press, unmindful of the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence and to fair trial." We are convinced that the herein four appellants have conspired together to commit the crimes imputed to them in the amended information quoted at the beginning of this decision. There is no doubt at all that the forcible abduction of the complainant from in front of her house in Quezon City, was a necessary if not indispensable means which enabled them to commit the various and the successive acts of rape upon her person. It bears noting, however, that even while the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of forcible abduction had already been consummated, so that each of the three succeeding (crimes of the same nature can not legally be considered as still connected with the abduction in other words, they should be detached from, and considered independently of, that of forcible abduction and, therefore, the former can no longer be complexed with the latter. What kind of rape was committed? Undoubtedly, it is that which is punishable by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, under paragraph 3, Article 335, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111 which took effect on June 20, 1964, and which provides as follows: ART. 335. When and how rape committed.Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. As regards, therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first of the crimes committed, the latter is definitely the more serious; hence, pursuant the provision of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period. Consequently, the appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. In this regard, there is hardly any necessity to consider the attendance of aggravating circumstances, for the same would not alter the nature of the penalty to be imposed. Nevertheless, to put matters in their proper perspective and for the purpose of determining the proper penalty to be imposed in each of the other three crimes of simple rape, it behooves Us to make a definite finding in this connection to the effect that the commission of said crimes was attended with the following aggravating circumstances: (a) nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes; (b) abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another (Cf. People vs. De Guzman, et al., 51 Phil., 105, 113); (c) ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating; and (d) use of a motor vehicle. With respect to appellants Jose, Aquino and Ca__al, none of these aggravating circumstances has been offset by any mitigating circumstance. Appellant Pineda should, however, be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, a factor which does not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be imposed, for the reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances

remaining. As a result, appellants should likewise be made to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each of these three simple crimes of rape. (Art. 63, par. 2, Revised Penal Code.) In refusing to impose as many death penalties as there are offenses committed, the trial court applied by analogy Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that "the maximum duration of all the penalties therein imposed upon the appellant shall not be more than threefold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon the appellant, which should not exceed forty years." The said court is of the opinion that since a man has only one life to pay for a wrong, the ends of justice would be served, and society and the victim would be vindicated just as well, if only one death penalty were imposed on each of the appellants. We cannot agree with the trial court. Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code can only be taken into account in connection with the service of the sentence imposed, not in the imposition of the penalty (People vs. Escares, 55 Off. Gaz., 623). In holding that only one death penalty should be imposed because man has only one life, the trial court ignored the principle enunciated in the very case it cited, namely, U.S. vs. Balaba, 37 Phil., 260, where this Court, in affirming the judgment of the trial court, found the accused guilty of two murders and one homicide and imposed upon him two death sentences for the murders and a prison term for the homicide. In not applying the said principle, the court a quo said that the case of Balaba is different from the present case, for while in the former case the accused was found to have committed three distinct offenses, here only one offense is charged, even if complex. As We have explained earlier herein, four crimes were committed, charged and proved. There is, therefore, no substantial difference between the two cases insofar as the basic philosophy involved is concerned, for the fact remains that in the case of Balaba this Court did not hesitate to affirm the two death sentences imposed on the accused by the trial court. In People vs. Peralta, et al., L-19060, October 29, 1968, in which this Court imposed on each of the six accused three death penalties for three distinct and separate crimes of murder, We said that "since it is the settled rule that once conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator is attributable to all, then each conspirator must be held liable for each of the felonious acts committed as a result of the conspiracy, regardless of the nature and severity of the appropriate penalties prescribed by law." In the said case (which was promulgated after the decision of the court a quo had been handed down) We had occasion to discuss at length the legality and practicality of imposing multiple death penalties, thus: The imposition of multiple death penalties is decried by some as a useless formality, an exercise in futility. It is contended, undeniably enough, that a death convict, like all mortals, has only one life to forfeit. And because of this physiological and biological attribute of man, it is reasoned that the imposition of multiple death penalties is impractical and futile because after the service of one capital penalty, the execution of the rest of the death penalties will naturally be rendered impossible. The foregoing opposition to the multiple imposition of death penalties suffers from four basic flaws: (1) it fails to consider the legality of imposing multiple capital penalties; (2) it fails to distinguish between imposition of penalty and service of sentence; (3) it ignores the fact that multiple death sentences could be served simultaneously; and (4) it overlooks the practical merits of imposing multiple death penalties. The imposition of a penalty and the service of a sentence are two distinct, though related, concepts. The imposition of the proper penalty or penalties is determined by the nature, gravity and number of offenses charged and proved, whereas service of sentence is determined by the severity and character of the penalty or penalties imposed. In the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties, the court does not concern itself with the possibility or practicality of the service of the sentence, since actual service is a contingency subject to varied factors like the successful escape of the convict, grant of executive clemency or natural death of the prisoner. All that go into the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties, to reiterate, are the nature, gravity and number of the offenses charged and proved and the corresponding penalties prescribed by law. Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will have to be executed simultaneously. A cursory reading of article 70 will show that there are only two moves of serving two or more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or successively. The first rule is that two or more penalties shall be served simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit. In the case of multiple capital

28

penalties, the nature of said penal sanctions does not only permit but actually necessitates simultaneous service. The imposition of multiple death penalties, far from being a useless formality, has practical importance. The sentencing of an accused to several capital penalties is an indelible badge of his extreme criminal perversity, which may not be accurately projected by the imposition of only one death sentence irrespective of the number of capital felonies for which he is liable. Showing thus the reprehensible character of the convict in its real dimensions, the possibility of a grant of executive clemency is justifiably reduced in no small measure. Hence, the imposition of multiple death penalties could effectively serve as deterrent to an improvident grant of pardon or commutation. Faced with the utter delinquency of such a convict, the proper penitentiary authorities would exercise judicious restraint in recommending clemency or leniency in his behalf. Granting, however, that the Chief Executive, in the exercise of his constitutional power to pardon (one of the presidential prerogatives which is almost absolute) deems it proper to commute the multiple death penalties to multiple life imprisonments, then the practical effect is that the convict has to serve the maximum forty (40) years of multiple life sentences. If only one death penalty is imposed, and then is commuted to life imprisonment, the convict will have to serve a maximum of only thirty years corresponding to a single life sentence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the existence of conspiracy among them and of our finding as regards the nature and number of the crimes committed, as well as of the presence of aggravating circumstances, four death penalties should be imposed in the premises. Before Us is a petition for intervention filed by Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation asking for reversal of that portion of the judgment of the court below ordering the confiscation of the car used by the appellants in abducting the complainant. The aforesaid car is a 1965 two-door Pontiac sedan with Motor No. WT-222410, Serial No. 2376752110777, Plate No. H-33284, File No. 11584171, alleged by the intervenor to be in the custody of Major Ernesto San Diego of the Quezon City Police Department. The car is registered in the name of Mrs. Dolores Gomez. On April 4, 1967, Mrs. Dolores Gomez, mother of an appellant Jaime G. Jose, bought the car from the Malayan Motors Corporation and simultaneously executed a chattel mortgage thereon to secure payment of the purchase price of P13,200, which was stipulated to be payable in 24 monthly installments of P550 beginning May 4, 1967 up to April 4, 1969. The mortgage was duly registered with the Land Transportation Commission and inscribed in the Chattel Mortgage Registry. The mortgage lien was annotated on the motor registration certificate. On April 17, 1967, for value received and with notice to Mrs. Gomez, the Malayan Motors Corporation assigned its credit against Mrs. Gomez, as well as the chattel mortgage, to the intervenor. The assignment was duly registered with the Land Transportation Commission and annotated on the registration certificate. Mrs. Gomez failed to pay any of the installments due, in view of which the intervenor filed on July 5, 1967, an action for replevin against her (Civil Case No. 69993, Court of First Instance of Manila) as a preliminary step to foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. On July 7, 1967, the court issued an order for the seizure of the car. The sheriff, however, could not enforce the writ of replevin because the car was not in Mrs. Gomez' possession, the same having been used by her son, appellant Jaime G. Jose, together with the other appellants in this case, in the abduction of Miss De la Riva, as a result of which the car was seized by the Quezon City police and placed in the custody of Major San Diego, who refused to surrender it to the sheriff on the ground that it would be used as evidence in the trial of the criminal case. During the pendency of that criminal case in the court below, or on July 26, 1967, the intervenor filed with the said court a petition for intervention. The said petition was not, however, acted upon. On October 2, 1967, the trial court rendered its judgment in the present case ordering the car's confiscation as an instrument of the crime. Although not notified of the said decision, the intervenor filed, on October 17, 1967, a motion for reconsideration of the order of confiscation; but the same was denied on October 31, 1967, on the ground that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case in view of the automatic elevation thereof to this Court. The intervenor then filed a petition for relief from judgement, but the same was also denied.

On February 5, 1968, judgement was rendered in the replevin case ordering Mrs. Gomez to deliver the car to the intervenor so that the chattel mortgage thereon could be foreclosed, or, in the alternative, to pay the intervenor the sum of P13,200 with interest thereon at 12% per annum from July 5, 1968, the premium bond, attorney's fees, and the costs of suit. The judgment became final and executory. Attempts to execute the judgment against the properties of Mrs. Gomez were unavailing; the writ of execution was returned by the sheriff unsatisfied. On July 26, 1968, the present petition for intervention was filed with this Court, which allowed the intervenor to file a brief. In his brief the Solicitor General contends, among others, that the court a quo having found that appellant Jose is the owner of the car, the order of confiscation is correct. Considering that the car in question is registered in the name of Mrs. Dolores Gomez, who, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, must be considered as the lawful owner thereof; that the only basis of the court a quo in concluding that the said car belongs to appellant Jose were the latter's statements during the trial of the criminal case to that effect; that the said statement were not, however, intended to be, nor could constitute, a claim of ownership over the car adverse to his mother, but were made simply in answer to questions propounded in court for the sole purpose of establishing the identity of the defendant who furnished the car used by the appellants in the commission of the crime; that the chattel mortgage on the car and its assignment in the favor of the intervenor were made several months before the date of commission of the crimes charged, which circumstance forecloses the possibility of collusion to prevent the State from confiscating the car; that the final judgement in the replevin case can only be executed by delivering the possession of the car to the intervenor for foreclosure of the chattel mortgage; and the Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code bars the confiscation and forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the commission of the crime if such "be the property of a third person not liable for the offense," it is the sense of this Court that the order of the court below for confiscation of the car in question should be set aside and that the said car should be ordered delivered to the intervenor for foreclosure as decreed in the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in the replevin case, Civil Case No. 69993. Before the actual promulgation of this decision, this Court received a formal manifestation on the part of the Solicitor General to the effect that Rogelio Caal, one of the herein appellants, died in prison on December 28, 1970. As a result of this development, this case is hereby dismissed as to him alone, and only insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, with one-fourth (1/4) of the costs declared de oficio. WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows: appellants Jaime G. Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr., and Edgardo P. Aquino are pronounced guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and each and every one of them is likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is hereby sentenced to four (4) death penalties; all of them shall, jointly and severally, indemnify the complainant of the sum of P10,000.00 in each of the four crimes, or a total of 40,000.00; and each shall pay one-fourth (1/4) of the costs. Insofar as the car used in the commission of the crime is concerned, the order of the court a quo for its confiscation is hereby set aside; and whoever is in custody thereof is hereby ordered to deliver its possession to intervenor Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation in accordance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 69993 thereof.

29

30

31

32

33