3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.Nos.11081722.June13,1997]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. MARCELINO A. BUGARIN, accused

appellant.
DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:

Thisisanappealfromthedecision,[1]datedFebruary11,1993,whichtheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch97ofQuezonCity
rendered in Criminal Cases Nos. Q9228785 to 86 and Q9231157 to 31160, finding accusedappellant Marcelino Bugarin
guiltyoffourcountsofconsummatedrapeandonecountofattemptedrapeandsentencinghimasfollows:
WHEREFORE,thisCourtfindstheaccusedGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtaschargedofmultiple(3Counts)rapeandonecountof
attemptedrape,andinaccordancewithArticle335oftheRevisedPenalCodesentenceshimtoprisontermsasfollows:
1)Foreachofthefourcountsoftheaboverape,reclusionperpetua.
2)Fortheattemptedrape,two(2)yearsandfour(4)monthsintheminimumpenaltytofour(4)yearsinthemaximumperiodandto
indemnifytheprivatecomplainantintheamountofP50,000.00asmoraldamagesandexemplarydamagesofP50,000.00todetersexual
crimesofthesortcommittedbyaccused.
SOORDERED.
The complainant, Maryjane Bugarin, is the daughter of accusedappellant. On February 22, 1992, accompanied by her
mother,ReginaBugarin,andhermaternalaunt,NenaPadecio,shecomplainedtotheCentralPoliceDistrictCommandthat
she had been repeatedly raped by accusedappellant. In her sworn statement she related how, on nine different occasions
between November 1989 and January 17, 1992, her father entered the common sleeping area of their house in Payatas,
QuezonCityand,afterholdingherkneesandspreadingherlegs,succeededininsertinghispenisintohervaginaandkissed
herbreasts.Sheclaimedthat,onJanuary17,1992,herfathermolestedherbykissinghervaginaandthatonlybyrepeatedly
kickinghimdidhedesistfrommolestingheranyfurther.
ComplainantwasexaminedonthesamedatebyEmmanuelI.Aranas,PNPMedicoLegalOfficer,whofoundthatshewas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

1/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

in nonvirgin state physically.[2] On February 25, 1992, she returned to the police station to file formal charges against her
father.ThecasewasreferredtotheOfficeoftheQuezonCityProsecutorwhichfoundprobablecauseandaccordinglyfiled
chargesforconsummatedrapeandattemptedrapebymeansofforceandintimidationcommittedonDecember23,1991and
January 17, 1992 against accusedappellant Marcelino Bugarin.No bail was recommended considering that the evidence of
guiltoftherespondentisstrong.ThecasesweredocketedasCriminalCasesNos.Q9228785andQ9228786andraffledto
Branch88oftheQuezonCityRegionalTrialCourt.
OnMay7,1992,fourmorechargesforrapebymeansofforceandintimidationcommittedonNovember1989,May1990,
June1990,andMarch14,1991werefiledagainstaccusedappellant.DocketedasCriminalCasesNos.Q9231157to31160,
theadditionalcaseswereraffledtoBranch97ofthesamecourt.Thesecaseswereeventuallyconsolidatedandassignedto
Branch88.
Theinformationsinthesixcasesallegedasfollows:
Crim.CaseNo.9231157
ThatonoraboutthemonthofJune1990inQuezonCity,Philippines,thesaidaccusedbymeansofforceandintimidation,didthenand
there,wilfullyandfeloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgeoftheundersignedMARYJANEBUGARINyASUNCION,aminor,15yearsof
age,withoutherconsentandagainstherwill,tothedamageandprejudiceofthelatter.
Thecrimewasattendedbytheaggravatingcircumstanceofrelationship.
Crim.CaseNo.9231158
ThatonoraboutthemonthofNovember,1989inQuezonCity,Philippines,thesaidaccused,bymeansofforceandintimidation,didthen
andthere,wilfullyandfeloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgewiththeundersignedMARYJANEBUGARINyASUNCIONwithouther
consentandagainstherwill,tothedamageandprejudiceofthelatter.
Thecrimewasattendedbytheaggravatingcircumstanceofrelationship.
Crim.CaseNo.9231159
Thatonoraboutthe14thdayofMarch,1991inQuezonCity,Philippines,thesaidaccused,bymeansofforceandintimidation,didthen
andthere,wilfullyandfeloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgeoftheundersignedMARYJANEBUGARINyASUNCION,aminor,15yearsof
age,withoutherconsentandagainstherwill,tothedamageandprejudiceofthelatter.
Thecrimewasattendedbytheaggravatingcircumstanceofrelationship.
Crim.CaseNo.9231160
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

2/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

ThatonoraboutthemonthofMay1990inQuezonCity,Philippines,thesaidaccusedbymeansofforceandintimidation,
didthenandtherewilfullyandfeloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgeoftheundersignedMARYJANEBUGARINyASUNCION,a
minor,15yearsofage,withoutherconsentandagainstherwill,tothedamageandprejudiceofthelatter.
Thecrimewasattendedbytheaggravatingcircumstanceofrelationship.
Crim.CaseNo.9228785
Thatonoraboutthe17thdayofJanuary,1992,inQuezonCity,MetroManila,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court,theabovenamedaccused,withlewddesignsandbymeansofforceandintimidation,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyand
feloniouslycommencethecommissionofthecrimeofRapedirectlybyovertacts,bythenandtherekissingthenipplesandthevaginaof
theundersignedMARYJANEBUGARINYASUNCION,aminor,andabouttolayontopofher,allagainstherwill,however,thesaid
accuseddidnotperformalltheactsofexecutionwhichwouldhaveproducedthecrimeofRapebyreasonofsomecausesotherthanhis
ownspontaneousdesistance,thatis,undersignedcomplainantpushhimaway,tothedamageandprejudiceoftheundersignedinsuch
amountasmaybeawardedtoherundertheprovisionsoftheNewCivilCode.
Crim.CaseNo.9228786
Thatonoraboutthe23rddayofDecember,1991,inQuezonCity,MetroManila,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court,theabovenamedaccused,withlewddesignsandbymeansofforceandintimidation,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyand
feloniouslyhavesexualintercoursewiththeundersignedMARYJANEBUGARINYASUNCION,aminor,withoutherconsentand
againstherwill,toherdamageandprejudiceinsuchamountasmaybeawardedtoherundertheprovisionsoftheNewCivilCode.
Uponarraignment,accusedappellantpleadednotguiltyineachcase,afterwhichtrialensued.Under questioning by the
prosecutor,MaryjaneBugarinnarratedhowherfathersexuallyassaultedherintheirfamilyscommonsleepingareawhileno
onewasathomeandthreatenedherifshetoldanyoneaboutwhathappened.
Accusedappellant denied the charges against him.He claimed to beGod fearing and morally upright and that his wife,
ReginaBugarin,musthaveinducedtheirdaughtertofilethecomplaintsagainsthimbecausehiswifeblamedhimforfinancially
neglectingtheirfamilysince1989.
In rebuttal, the prosecution presented Regina Bugarin who testified that a good mother would not expose her child to
humiliationjusttogetbackatherhusband.Shefurtherclaimedthatherdaughter,whohadbeenraisedproperlyandtaughtto
behonest,couldnothavefabricatedthechargesagainsttheaccusedappellant.
Inatwopagedecision,promulgatedonFebruary11,1993,thetrialcourt,aftergivingasummaryofthetestimoniesofthe
complainantandaccusedappellant,laconicallyruled:
Theissueissimple.Istheprivatecomplainantcredibleinherstoryofhowshewasraped?TheanswerofthisCourtisanundoubtfulanda
definiteyes.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

3/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

Accusedappellant questions the trial courts decision on the ground that: (1) the testimony of Maryjane Bugarin is not
credible(2)theelementsofforceandintimidationhadnotbeenprovedand(3)thedecisionofthetrialcourtdoesnotstatethe
factsandlawuponwhichitwasbased.
Ontheotherhand,theSolicitorGeneral,representingtheprosecution,contendsthatcomplainant,whowasonly15years
oldwhenshereportedthecrime,wasnotlikelytoconcoctchargesagainstherfatherandthatthemoralascendancyofthe
fatheroverhertooktheplaceofforceandintimidationinrape.
Wetakeupfirstaccusedappellantschargethatthedecisionofthetrialcourtdoesnotstatethegroundstherefor.Indeed,
the Constitution provides in part in Art. VIII, 14 that No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein
clearlyanddistinctlythefactsandthelawonwhichitisbased.This requirement is reiterated and implemented by the 1985
RulesofCriminalProcedurewhichprovidesinRule120,2:
Sec.2.Formandcontentsofjudgment.Thejudgmentmustbewrittenintheofficiallanguage,personallyanddirectlypreparedbythe
judgeandsignedbyhimandshallcontainclearlyanddistinctlyastatementofthefactsprovedoradmittedbytheaccusedandthelawupon
whichthejudgmentisbased.
Ifitisofconviction,thejudgmentshallstate(a)thelegalqualificationoftheoffenseconstitutedbytheactscommittedbytheaccused,and
theaggravatingormitigatingcircumstancesattendingthecommissionthereof,ifthereareany(b)theparticipationoftheaccusedinthe
commissionoftheoffense,whetherasprincipal,accomplice,oraccessoryafterthefact(c)thepenaltyimposedupontheaccusedand(d)
thecivilliabilityordamagescausedbythewrongfulacttoberecoveredfromtheaccusedbytheoffendedparty,ifthereisany,unlessthe
enforcementofthecivilliabilitybyaseparateactionhasbeenreservedorwaived.
Incaseofacquittal,unlessthereisaclearshowingthattheactfromwhichthecivilliabilitymightarisedidnotexist,thejudgmentshall
makeafindingonthecivilliabilityoftheaccusedinfavoroftheoffendedparty.
Thedecisionofthetrialcourtfallsshortofthisrequirementinatleastthreerespects.First,itdoesnotcontainanevaluation
oftheevidenceofthepartiesandadiscussionofthelegalquestionsinvolved.Itdoesnotexplainwhythetrialcourtconsidered
thecomplainantstestimonycredibledespitethefactthat,asaccusedappellantpointsout,complainantcouldnotrememberthe
time of the day when she was allegedly raped. It does not explain why accusedappellants licking of complainants genital
constitutedattemptedrapeandnotanothercrime.Second,thecomplainanttestifiedthatshehadbeenrapedfivetimes,towit,
inNovember1989,onDecember24,1989,inJune1990,onMarch14,1991,andonDecember23,1991,andthatonce,on
January 17, 1992, she was molested by her father who licked her private part, for which reason six informations were filed
againsthim,butthedecisionfoundtheaccusedappellantguiltyofonlyfourcountsofrape(whichthetrialcourterroneously
saidthreecounts)andonecountofattemptedrape,withoutexplainingwhetheraccusedappellantwasbeingacquittedofone
charge of rape. Third, the decision is so carelessly prepared that it finds the accusedappellant guilty of three counts of
consummatedrapebutsentenceshimtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaforeachofthefourcountsof...rape.
MaryjaneclaimedshehadbeenrapedonDecember24,1989,buttheinformationinCriminalCaseNo.Q9231160isfor
rapeallegedlycommittedinMay1990.Itmustbeforthisreasonthatthetrialcourtconvicted accusedappellant of only four
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

4/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

counts of rape, instead of five. But the trial court should have explained so, if this was really the reason, and expressly
acquittedtheaccusedappellantofthechargeunderthisinformation.
Therequirementthatthedecisionsofcourtsmustbeinwritingandthattheymustsetforthclearlyanddistinctlythefacts
and the law on which they are based serves many functions.It is intended, among other things, to inform the parties of the
reasonorreasonsforthedecisionsothatifanyofthemappeals,hecanpointouttotheappellatecourtthefindingsoffactsor
the rulings on points of law with which he disagrees.More than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in
reachingjudgment,thejudgedidsothroughtheprocessesoflegalreasoning.Itis,thus,asafeguardagainsttheimpetuosityof
the judge, preventing him from deciding by ipse dixit. Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by the Constitution but
nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of passing judgment on the life, liberty or property of his fellowmen, the
judge must ultimately depend on the power of reason for sustained public confidence in the justness of his decision. The
decisionofthetrialcourtinthiscasedisrespectsthejudicialfunction.
Wewouldnormallyremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforcompliancewiththeconstitutionalrequirementfordecisions.But
this case has been pending for sometime and further delay can be avoided if the Court simply reviews the whole evidence.
After all, the records of the trial court contain the transcript of stenographic notes, the complainants sworn statement dated
February22,1992,theresolutionoftheprosecutor,andthestatementofthearrestingofficer,onthebasisofwhichtheCourt
mayproperlydecidethecase.[3]ForthisreasontheCourthasdecidedtoreviewthiscasedespitethefailureofthetrialcourtto
makedetailedfindingsoffactsandastatementofthereasonsunderlyingitsdecision.
Nowitissettledthatwhenthecomplainantinarapecase,moresoifsheisaminor,[4]testifiesthatshehasbeenraped,
she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove the commission of the crime.[5] Care must be taken, however, that her
testimonyiscredibleforaconvictiontobejustifiedbasedonhertestimonyalone.[6]Inthiscase,MaryjaneBugarintestifiedon
November25,1992[7]asfollows:
QOnNovember1989,wasyourfatherresidingwithyouorwashelivingwithyou?
AYes,sir.
QNow,onNovember,1989doyourememberanyunusualincidentthathappened,ifany?
AYes,sir,whenheenteredtheroom.
QWhenyousayhe,areyoureferringtoMarcelinoBugarin?
AYes,sir.
QIfMarcelinoBugarinispresenttoday,wouldyoubeabletoidentifyhim?
AYes,sir.(witnessispointingtoamanwearingagreentshirtwhoanswersbythenameMarcelinoBugarinwhenaskedbythe
Court).
QOnNovember1989,youwerementioningthathe,referringtotheaccused,enteredyourroom,whathappened?
A(witnesscrying)Whenheenteredtheroom,heembracedmeandtouchedthedifferentpartsofmybodyandheinformedmethat
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

5/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

whenIgrowup,Iwouldnotbecomeinnocent.
QWhatdoyoumeanbythosewordsthathetoldyouthatwhenyougrowupyouwouldnotbeinnocent?
ASothatwhenIgrowupIwillknowwhathewillbedoing.
QWhatdidhedo?
AHetouchedmykneesandspreadthemoutandthenholdingmybreastandheputhissexorganinsideme.
QWhenyousayinsideme,whatdoyoumean?
AHissexorganenteredmywhat,Iamfertile.
QWhatdoyoumeanbywhat?
AMysexorgan,sir.
QWhatdidyoudowhenyourfathertriedtoputhissexorgantoyoursexorgan?
AIwastryingtopushhisbodyawayfromme,andIsaidtohim,father,Idontlikeit,ayokopo.
QDespiteyourpleas,whathappenednext?
AHestillcontinuedwhatheisdoing,andwhenIfainted,hesuddenlymovedback.
QAfterhemovedback,whattranspiredafterwards?
AHewentoutandIwasleftcrying.
QAfterthisfirstincident,werethereanyothersimilarincidentwhichhappened,ifany?
AThereare,sir,butIcantrecallwhen.
QHowmanytimesmoreorless?
AAroundfour(4)times.
QAfterNovember1989?
AIncludingNovember1989.
QHowaboutonDecember24,1989,doyourememberwhereyouwere?
AYes,sir.Iwasinourhouse.
QDoyourememberanyunusualorextraordinaryincidentthathappenedonDecember24,1989?
AYes,sir.Itisthesamethingthathedidtome.
QPleaseexplainwhatthesamethinghedotoyou?
AHeembracedandkissedmeonmycheek,myneckandalsomybreast.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

6/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

QWhathappenednext?
AHewasspreadingmylegs.
QThen,afterspreadingyourlegs,whatdidtheaccuseddo?
AHelethissexorgantouchedmysexorgan.
QAfterthat,whathappenednext?
AIcriedagain.
QWhenyoucriedagain,whatdidyourfatherdo,ifany?
AHisfacebecamescaring.
QNow,afterDecember24,1989incident,doyourememberwhereyouweresometimeinJune1990?
AIwasinourhouse.
QSpecifically,inJuneof1990,doyourememberanyunusualincidentthathappened?
AThesamethinghappened,overandover.
QWhatdoyoumeanbythesamethinghappened,overandover?
AHewouldembracedmeandthenkissedmeandtouchedmybreastandkissedmynipples.
QAnd,besidesinembracing,kissingandkissingyournipples,whatelsedidyourfatherdoonJune1990?
AHekissedalsomysexorgan.
QBesidekissingyoursexorgan,whatelsedidhedo,ifany?
AHeplacedinsidemysexorganhissexorgan.
QInMarch14,1991,wherewereyou?
AIwasalsoinourhouse.
QDoyourememberwhathappened,ifany,OnMarch14,1991?
AThatsitagain,Iwasintheroomandagainheembracedmemademeliedownthenkissmysexorganandthen,heplacedagain
hissexorganinsidemysexorgan.
QHowaboutDecember23,1991,doyourememberwhereyouwere?
AIwasalsointhehouse.
QWhathappened?
AIwaslyingdownandheliedtherebesidemeandtoldmetoaccedetohisdesire.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

7/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

QWhatdoyoumeantoaccedetohisdesire?
AHewantedtousemeagain.
QThen,heactuallyusedyou?
AYes,sir.
QNow,onJanuary17,1992,doyourememberwhereyouwere?
AIwasalsoinourhouse.
QWouldyoukindlytellwhathappenedinyourhouseonthisday?
AHelickedmysexorgan.
QAfterthat,whatdidhedonext?
AHewasthreateningme.
QWhatdidyoudowhenhethreatenedyou?
AIwassoafraid.(witnessiscrying)
QWhatdidtheaccusedtoafterthreateningyou?
AHewasdoingnothing.Hewasjustwalkingbesideme.
QWhathappenedafteryousawhimwalkingjustbesideyouonthatdate?
ANone,sir.Iwasjustcrying.

The accusedappellant claims that Maryjanes testimony contains inconsistencies which indicate that the charges against
himwerefabricated.Hepointstothefailureofcomplainantoncrossexaminationtostateinsomeinstancestheexactdateand
time she was allegedly raped, and to the fact that it took complainant two years before reporting the incidents and that the
prosecution did not present the medicolegal officer who examined the complainant. Accusedappellant also claims that no
evidencewasadducedtoprovethattherapewascommittedbyforceandintimidation.
Thefailureofthecomplainanttostateinsomecasestheexactdateandtimeofthecommissionofrapeisaminormatter
andcanbeexpectedwhenawitnessisrecountingthedetailsofahumiliatingexperiencewhicharepainfulanddifficulttorecall
inopencourtandinthepresenceofotherpeople.[8]Indeed,thisCourthasruledthatcomplainantsfailuretorecallsomedetails
ofthecrime,insteadofsuggestingprevarication,preciselyindicatesspontaneityandistobeexpectedfromawitnesswhoisof
tenderageandunaccustomedtocourtproceedings.
Besides,thedateofthecommissionoftherapeisnotanessentialelementofthecrime.[9]Theprecisetimeofthecrime
hasnosubstantialbearingonitscommission,[10]especiallysinceinthiscasethedateandtimeofthecommissionofthecrime
isnotmaterialtotheaccusedappellantsdefense.Indeed,accusedappellantscontentionisonlythathecouldnothaveraped
hisdaughterinthecommonbedroomatnighttimebecausetheplacewheretheysleepisshutofffromtherestoftheirhouseby
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

8/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

acurtain.
Sufficeittostatethatlustisnorespecteroftimeandplace.[11]Ourcasesrecordinstancesofrapecommittedinsidefamily
dwellings when other occupants are asleep.[12] In the case at bar, Maryjane testified that the accusedappellant was able to
rapeherbysendingouthersiblingstoplaywiththeirneighborschildren,andwhilehermotherwasatworkfrom3p.m.to11
p.m.Complainantexplainedherapparentinabilitytorecalltheexactdatesoftheassaultsuponher,thus:
QMadam witness, you mentioned that you were raped sometime November 1989, June 1990, December 24, 1989, March 14,
1991,December23,1991,howcomethatyouknewverywellthedateasDecember24,March14,December23orrather,
howcomethatyourcomplaintisonlysometimeintheearlypartof1991?
AIrememberbecausethatwasclosedtothebirthdayofmybrother.
QHowaboutMarch14,howcomeyouknewverywellthatyouweremolestedbyyourfather?
ABecauseatthattime,ourclasswillalmostendandweweregivenclearances.
QWhatdayisyourlastschoolday?
AIcannotremember,sir.
QIsitusualthatyouknewverywellMarch14,andyoudonotknowverywellyourlastdayofyourschoolday?
ABecauseMarch14isourclearance.

Neither does the delay in making a criminal accusation impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily
explained.[13]InPeoplev.Coloma,[14]wherethecomplainantwasalsoonly13yearsoldwhenfirstmolestedbyherfather,the
Court adverted to the fathers moral and physical control over the young complainant in explaining the delay of eight years
beforethecomplaintagainstherfatherwasmade.Inthiscase,Maryjanemusthavebeenoverwhelmedbyfearandconfusion,
andshockedthatherownfatherhaddefiledher.Afterall,shehadbeenveryclosetohim.Shealsotestifiedthatshewasafraid
totellhermotherbecausethelattermightbeangered,sothatshefinallyconfidedtoheraunt.Indeed,asurveyconductedby
theUniversityofthePhilippinesCenterforWomensStudiesshowedthatvictimsofrapecommittedbytheirfatherstookmuch
longerinreportingtheincidentstotheauthoritiesthandidothervictims.Manyfactorsaccountforthisdifference:thefactthat
thefatherliveswiththevictimandconstantlyexertsmoralauthorityoverher,thethreathemightmakeagainsther,thevictims
fearofhermotherandotherrelatives.
Norisitentirelytruethatnoevidenceofforceandintimidationhadbeenadducedduringthetrial.Maryjanetestifiedthat
shetriedtoresistherfathersadvancesbut,onseveraloccasions,shewasoverpoweredbyhim.Shewasembracedandthus
preventedfromescaping.[15]Atothertimesshewasintimidatedbymenacinglookscastonher[16]andbythreatsofharm.[17]
Indeed, even if there was no violence or force employed against her, the moral influence of accusedappellant over the
complainantsufficedtomakethecrimerape.[18]
Norisamedicalexaminationanindispensableelementinprosecutionsforrape.[19]Thattheprosecutiondidnotpresentthe
medicolegalofficeris,therefore,notanobstacletoafindingofguiltinthiscase.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

9/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

WethinktheevidenceinthiscaseprovesbeyondallreasonabledoubtthatMaryjanehadbeenrapedonfouroccasionsby
accusedappellant: November 1989, June 1990, March 14, 1991, and December 23, 1991. Complainant has no motive to
incriminateherfather.Tothecontrary,shetestifiedthatshewasclosetohim.Theabsenceofamotivelendsgreatercredence
tohertestimony.[20]NeitherdoeshermotherhaveanyreasontofalselyaccuseMarcelinoBugarin.ReginaBugarinsuspected
herhusbandofhavinganaffairwithhersisterin1980andconfrontedhim,butshecontinuedtolivewithhim.Thisfactmakesit
unlikelythatshewoulduseherdaughtertodestroyherhusbandmorethantenyearslater.A mother would not expose her
childtopublictrial,ifthechargesshemakesarenottrue.[21]
Wefindnoevidence,however,tofindaccusedappellantguiltyofthechargeinCriminalCaseNo.Q9231160foralleged
rape committed in May 1990. There is no evidence to prove that accusedappellant raped complainant on that date. Her
testimonyistotheeffectthatshewasrapedonanotherdate,December24,1989.Butaccusedappellantcannotbeconvicted
for this as no complaint was formally filed regarding it. Accusedappellant must accordingly be acquitted of the charge in
CriminalCaseNo.Q9231160.
NordowethinkthataccusedappellantisguiltyofattemptedrapecommittedonJanuary17,1992asthetrialcourtheld.
Maryjanetestified:
QNow,onJanuary17,1992,doyourememberwhereyouwere?
AIwasalsoinourhouse.
QWouldyoukindlytellwhathappenedinyourhouseonthisday?
AHelickedmysexorgan.
QAfterthat,whatdidhedonext?
AHewasthreateningme.
QWhatdidyoudowhenhethreatenedyou?
AIwassoafraid.(witnessiscrying)
QWhatdidtheaccusedtoafterthreateningyou?
AHewasdoingnothing.Hewasjustwalkingbesideme.
QWhathappenedafteryousawhimwalkingjustbesideyouonthatdate?
ANone,sir.Iwasjustcrying.

Theintenttocommitrapeisnotapparentfromtheactdescribed.Itcannotbeinferredfromthisact(lickingcomplainants
genital)alonethathisintentionwastohavesexualintercoursewithherbecauseithasnotbeenshownthathehadatleast
placed himself on top of the complainant.[22] The act imputed to him cannot be considered a preparatory act to sexual
intercourse.[23]Accusedappellantisinsteadguiltyofactsoflasciviousness.Itcanatleastbeinferredfromhisactofkissingthe
genitalofthecomplainantthathewasmovedbylewddesigns.[24]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

10/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

Althoughrelationship,asanaggravatingcircumstance,isallegedonlyinCriminalCasesNos.Q9231157 to 31160, this

circumstance was nonetheless proved during the trial in Criminal Case No. Q9228785 and, therefore, should also be
appreciatedinthatcasetojustifytheimpositionofthepenaltyinitsmaximumperiod.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 11, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is SET ASIDE and
another one is RENDERED finding accusedappellant Marcelino Bugarin GUILTY of four counts of consummated rape in
Criminal Cases Nos. Q9228786, Q9231157, Q9231158, and Q9231159 and SENTENCED to reclusion perpetua and
ORDEREDtoINDEMNIFYthecomplainantMaryjaneBugarinintheamountofP30,000.00indamagesforeachcountofrape
committed and of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. Q9228785, for which he is SENTENCED to suffer
imprisonmentfrom6monthsofarrestomayor,asminimum,tosix6yearsofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.
InCriminalCaseNo.Q9231160,accusedappellantisherebyACQUITTED.
SOORDERED.
Regalado,(Chairman),Romero,Puno,andTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

[1]PerJudgeOscarL.Leviste.
[2]Records,Vol.II,p.14.
[3]SeePeoplev.Escober,157SCRAat541(1988).
[4]Peoplev.Vitor,245SCRA392(1995).
[5]SeePeoplev.Tabao,240SCRA757(1995)U.S.v.Ramos,1Phil.181(1906).
[6]Peoplev.Ching,240SCRA267(1995)Peoplev.Biendo,216SCRA626(1992).
[7]TSN,pp.34,Nov.25,1992.
[8]Peoplev.Cruz,240SCRA234(1995)Peoplev.Pascual,220SCRA440(1993).
[9]Peoplev.Quinones,222SCRA249(1993).
[10]Peoplev.Empleo,226SCRA454(1993).
[11]E.g.,Peoplev.Codilla,224SCRA104(1993)Peoplev.Guibao,217SCRA64(1993).
[12]Peoplev.Codilla,supra.
[13]Peoplev.Abandao,242SCRA531(1995)Peoplev.Juinio,233SCRA826(1994)Peoplev.Rostata,Jr.,218SCRA657(1993).
[14]222SCRA255(1993).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

11/12

3/12/2016

PeoplevsBugarin:11081722:June13,1997:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

[15]TestimonyofMaryjaneBugarin,November25,1992,TSN,p.3SwornStatement,Records,Vol.I,p.11.
[16]Id.,p.4.
[17]Ibid.
[18]Peoplev.Mabunga,215SCRA694(1992).
[19]Peoplev.Saldivia,203SCRA461(1991).
[20]Peoplev.Matamorosa,231SCRA509(1994).
[21]Peoplev.Padree,249SCRA422(1995).
[22]SeePeoplev.Tayaba,62Phil.559(1935).
[23]Peoplev.Abarri,242SCRA39(1995).
[24]Ibid.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/110817_22.htm

12/12