G.R. No. 75294. December 14, 1987
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO PARTULAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
GANCAYCO, J.:
In an information that was filed in the
Court of First Instance of Leyte and docketed therein
as Criminal Case No. 5030, Rogelio Partulan was
charged with the crime of rape for wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously having carnal knowledge, by means of force, violence
and intimidation, of Nonita Dasigan,
against her will and consent.
On April 16, 1986,
the said Court rendered a decision convicting the accused as charged with the
following dispositive portion:
“WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court finds the accused Rogelio Partulan GUILTY of rape and there being no modifying
circumstances to consider, the use of a deadly weapon not having been
established to the satisfaction of the court (sic), he is hereby sentenced to reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the complainant Mrs. Nonita Dasigan of Matam-is, Hubang, Alangalang, Leyte in the amount of P30,000, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.”[1]
Not satisfied therewith, the accused interposed this appeal
alleging that the trial court committed the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED ROGELIO PARTULAN GUILTY OF
RAPE CONSIDERING THAT HIS GUILT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[2]
The records of the case disclose the following facts:
Nonita Dasigan,
30, complainant in this case is married to Doming Dasigan
with whom she has two (2) children. They
reside in Sitio Matam-is, Alang-alang, Leyte. Doming Dasigan
works as a farmer for Antonio and Helen Enoviso.
Accused Rogelio Partulan, also married,
is the nephew of Antonio Enoviso and the compadre of the Dasigans. He had a very close friend and helper by the
name of Reynaldo Daclitan.
The Alang-alang town fiesta was held on
June 19, 1982. As requested of her, Nonita
went to the Enoviso house at eight o’clock in the morning to help in the cooking,
washing, and cleaning. At about six o’clock in the evening, she left for home
bringing along some viand given to her by Helen Enoviso. When she was by the dike they always passed
by on their way home, she met the accused who was together with his friend
Reynaldo Daclitan.
Suddenly, the accused embraced her, then held her two arms and dragged
her towards the bushes. While Reynaldo
stood on guard, Nonita and the accused grappled with
each other until Nonita fell down. She shouted and slapped the accused twice but
the accused pointed a small bolo at her chest and threatened to kill her if she
did not submit to his desires. Again,
she tried to resist and even pleaded with him not to harm her but the accused
continued with his threats. Then, he
took off her panty, took off his pants, inserted his penis and did the push and
pull movement. Upon consummation of the
sexual act, the accused stood and pulled up his pants while Nonita
picked up her panty and ran away towards home.
When Nonita reached their house, she
immediately told the whole incident to her husband who advised her to file a
complaint with the police. Since her
husband could not accompany her as he had to look after the children, Nonita sought the help of the Enovisos.
As testified to by Helen Enoviso, Nonita went back to the Enoviso
residence at around seven o’clock in the evening, with the front portion of her
dress torn, the buttons thereof missing, her clothing and bag full of mud. Nonita then told
Helen that she was raped by the accused.
Then and there, the Enoviso couple accompanied
Nonita to the police headquarters where an
investigation was conducted. They also
went to the Municipal Health Office for an examination but unfortunately the
rural health officer Dr. Trinidad was drunk so he could not attend to
them. That night Nonita
stayed in the house of the Enovisos because she was
scared to go home alone. The following
morning, Nonita went to the DZRM
Regional Hospital
where she finally had a physical examination this time accompanied by the
mother-in-law of Helen Enoviso.
Based on the above set of facts, the lower court found the
accused guilty of rape. Upon a review of
the whole record, We find no sufficient justification
to reverse this finding.
Anent the first assigned error, We hold
that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of private
complainant Nonita.
We find, as the record reveals, that she is a plain, sincere and honest
woman who went through all the shame and humiliation of appearing in a public
trial in order to exact justice for what she suffered from the hands of the
accused-appellant.
To convince Us that Nonita
is not a credible witness, accused-appellant enumerates several inconsistencies
in her testimony.[3]
He also points to the conflict between the story of Nonita
that she was raped in a grassy area and that of Helen Enoviso
who said that Nonita arrived in her house all muddy.[4]
Furthermore, he asserts that she should have left the bag containing food to
her husband and children before going back to the poblacion. According to him, her failure to leave the
bag is not natural and not in accordance with the experience of mankind.[5]
We do not agree. A careful
analysis of the alleged inconsistencies in Nonita’s
testimony mentioned by the accused-appellant does not diminish the firm
conviction of this Court that she was indeed a victim of accused-appellant’s uncontrolable lust for her body which led to the commission
of this horrible crime. Said
inconsistent statements are too minor to affect her credibility. Moreover, her allegations are substantiated
by the medical findings and by the testimony of Helen Enoviso
who is related to accused-appellant, the latter being the nephew of her
husband.
The testimonies of Nonita and Helen Enoviso are not irreconcilable. Nonita’s complete
testimony discloses that she was first attacked beside the dike before she was
dragged to the grassy area.[6]
The area surrounding the dike must be muddy.
Also, the grassy part could have been wet by rain. The crime happened in the later part of June,
during the rainy season.
As regards the bag containing food, We
find it more believable for Nonita to have forgotten
all about it after the gruelling experience that she
had. She was hurt, confused, and angry
at the same time. Remembering the viand
inside her bag is the least to be expected from her.
At this point, it is timely to reiterate the oft-repeated
principle that conclusions as to credibility in rape cases lie
heavily on the trial court.[7]
Next, accused-appellant contends that use of force as an element
of rape was not established by the prosecution.
We find no merit in this contention.
Use of force is very clear in the following excerpts from Nonita’s testimony:
“Q You stated that you were met or accosted by the accused,
what did he do if ever he did anything to you?
A He embraced me and
dragged me and brought me to the bushes.
Q How were you brought to
the bushes after you were dragged?
A We grappled with each
other.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Q From the place where you
were dragged, what happened in that place?
A I was embraced then I
fell down.
Q After you fell down, what
did he do next?
A His small bolo was pointed to my
chest and I was held by the neck.
Q At
that moment while he was pointing his small bolo to your chest, what was your
position, were you standing or lying down?
A I was lying down.
Q While
you were lying down on the ground, what happened next?
A He
took off my pantie.
Q While
your pantie was taken off from you what happened
next?
A He
took off his pants; and placed himself on top of me.
Q Now,
while he was already on top of you, what did he do next?
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx
A He
placed inside his penis inside my vagina.
Q Was
it able to penetrate?
A Yes
sir.
Q While
his penis was inside your vagina, what did he do?
A He
made a push and pull movement. (pp. 5-6,
tsn, March 7,
1983)
On cross-examination:
Q How
did the accused wrestle with you?
A He
held me from behind with his two arms?
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Q How
did he hold you as you said you were being dragged?
A He
held me with his two arms around me while he was behind and dragged me towards
the grassy place.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Q As
you were being dragged, did you not care to shout?
A I
shouted, but because it was very noisy while we were wrestling with each other
because there were many people in their house and they were very noisy.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Q Of
course you shouted many times?
A I
was able to shout only once because he immediately pointed to me a small bolo.
Q When
you shouted the accused drew his small bolo and pointed at you?
A Yes, sir.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Q So
when you were laid on the ground did you not shout again for help?
A I
was not able to shout anymore because I was afraid he might kill me.
Q So
you shouted only once?
A Yes, sir. (pp. 3-5, tsn, April 21, 1983).”[8]
The truthfulness of the above can be seen in the result of the
medical examination of Nonita which the lower court
aptly found –
“The physicians
who examined Nonita Dasigan
in their Physical Injuries Report, dated June 21, 1982, Exh. A, state
that the complainant was examined and treated on June 20, 1982, at 10:49 in the
morning, and she had multiple linear abrasions on the right arm, on her right
forearm, right thigh, and tenderness over her anterior neck which injuries
require medical attendance for a period of five to seven days. That force was used is therefore amply
supported by physical evidence.”[9]
Far from the assertions of the accused-appellant, it is his
testimony which We find incredible. His allegation that he and Nonita were in fact sweethearts for more than a year[10]
is not supported by any letter, notes or other tokens. His theory that Nonita’s
wounds could have been brought about by his biting her during their lovemaking[11]
is preposterous. His claim that he and Nonita agreed on their tryst in the presence of Nonita’s husband[12]
is difficult to believe. He did not
present any witness to prove that Nonita went to his
house, signalled to him and even talked to him before
they met when he himself declared that he was with more than five visitors at
that time.[13]
He failed to explain how he knew where and what time to meet her when according
to him, they did not agree as to any place and time.[14]
Also, he made inconsistent statements as to whether they went through with the
sexual act or not.[15]
That Nonita filed the complaint against
the accused-appellant in order to vindicate her honor and that of her husband
since Reynaldo caught them in the act[16]
is absurd. If they really had an
adulterous affair, Nonita would just have kept silent
inasmuch as going to the courts would expose and unduly publicize their
relationship.
Lastly, We can not agree with the
accused-appellant’s desperate assertion that it was Reynaldo, and not he, who
violated Nonita.[17]
If this allegation is true, then Nonita would have
charged Reynaldo in the complaint for rape instead of accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto, with costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Cruz, and Paras,
JJ., concur.
[1] Page 9, Decision; page 20, Rollo.
[2]
Page 1, Appellant’s brief; page 39, Rollo.
[3] Pages 8-13, Appellant’s brief; pages 46-51, Rollo.
[4]
Page 16, Appellant’s brief; page 53, Rollo.
[5]
Page 15, Appellant’s brief; page 53, Rollo.
[6]
Pages 23 and 34 TSN, March 7, 1983
and April 21, 1983.
[7] People vs. Malate, 116 SCRA 193.
[8]
Pages 5-7, Appellee’s brief.
[9] Page 9, Decision; page 20, Rollo.
[10]
Pages 71 & 73, TSN, June 21, 1985.
[11]
Page 72, TSN, June 21, 1985.
[12]
Page 80, TSN, June 21, 1985.
[13] Pages 80-82, TSN, June 21, 1985.
[14]
Pages 80 & 85, TSN, June 21, 1985.
[15]
Pages 68, 70 & 74, TSN, March 14,
1984.
[16] Page
16, Appellant’s brief; page 54, Rollo.
[17]
Page 16, Appellant’s brief; page 59, Rollo.