G.R. No. 88403. August 30, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGAR TIMBANG Y AUGUES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PADILLA, J.:
This is an appeal interposed by the accused Edgar Timbang y Augues from the judgment* rendered in Criminal Case No. 32433 of the Regional
Trial Court at Caloocan City, finding him guilty of
the crime of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim the amount of P25,000.00 as damages, and to pay the costs.
The facts of the case, according ,to the Solicitor General, are
as follows:
“Complainant Mary Jane Langga was
residing with her brother Estelita Langga and the latter’s wife and two children of two (2)
years old and eight (8) months old, respectively, at No. 577 Baesa Road, Sta. Quiteria, Caloocan City, Metro Manila (pp. 20-21, April 10,
1989; pp. 3-4. April 11, 1989), Appellant Edgar Timbang,
a first cousin of Estelito’s wife, also resided with
them sis the spouses’ houseboy (pp. 21 & 25, tsn,
April 10, 1989; pp. 3-4, tsn. April 11. 1989).
“On January 16, 1989, while complainant’s brother and
sister-in-law were both out for work and while she was inside her brother’s
room taking care of her two nephews, appellant knocked at the door and
requested permission to get inside the room on the pretext of getting something
(pp. 4-5. 14, tsn, April 11, 1989). Once inside the room, appellant held
complainant’s arms and forced her to lie on the wooden bed (pp. 5, 14-15, tsn, ibid.).
“Despite appellant’s poking a knife upon her complainant
fought back to free herself; but appellant was stronger than she (pp. 5 &
7, 15, 18, 19, 26, tsn, ibid.). She could hardly breathe, for appellant was
forcing himself on her and at the same time strangling her (p. 18, tsn, ibid.). He even
boxed her on the stomach, placed himself on top of her and continued kissing
her face, lips and neck (p. 5, tsn, ibid.).
“Then, he forcefully removed her skirt and panty and likewise
removed his short pants (pp. 5-6, 17-18, tsn, ibid.). He laid on top of her and inserted his finger
in her vagina followed by his penis (pp. 5-6, tsn,
ibid.). When he made a push and pull
movement, she felt extreme pain as if her hips were being torn apart (pp. 6-7,
24, tsn, ibid.).
“After a while, appellant stood up, wore back his short pants
and left complainant lying (p. 6, tsn. ibid.).
Because of the pain she was suffering on her private part, she could not stand
up (p. 7, tsn,
ibid.). Since she could do nothing, she
just cried (p. 7, tsn, ibid.).
“After her brother and sister-in-law arrived in the early
evening of that day, complainant did not tell them what happened to her,
because she was afraid of appellant’s threat that if she reveals what he had
done to her, he would kill her, her brother, sister-in-law and two nephews (pp.
8 & 9, 22-23. 27, ibid.).
“From January 16, 1989 up to February 25, 1989, except on
Sundays, appellant did the same thing on complainant (p. 20, tsn, ibid.). When she could no longer bear his sexual
assaults, she decided to go to his other brother Fidel Langga
who was residing at Sapang Palay,
San Jose, Bulacan, in the afternoon of February 25,
1989 (pp. 8-9, 23, tsn, ibid.). Upon arrival thereat, she narrated to her sister-in-law, Zenaida Langga, the wife of his
brother Fidel, her horrible experience in the hands of appellant (pp.
11-12, tsn, April 10, 1989; pp. 8-9, tsn, April 11, 1989).
“On February 26, 1989, complainant, accompanied by her
brothers Estelito and Fidel and sister-in-law Zenaida, filed a complaint, of Rape against appellant at
the Caloocan Police Headquarters (pp. 4-5, tsn, April 10, 1989; pp. 9-10, tsn,
April 11, 1989).”[1]
The accused, Edgar Timbang, admitted
having sexual intercourse with the complainant on 16 January 1989 and on
several occasions thereafter. But he
denied using force or intimidation. He
claimed that he and the complainant were lovers and that the act complained of
was done voluntarily or with the consent of the complainant. His version of the incident is as follows:
“x x x that he (appellant) became a houseboy of the Langga family sometime September 1988; that it was on (sic)
that house at No. 577 Baesa Road, Sta. Quiteria, Kalookan City where he
came to know the complainant, the sister of his employer Estelito
Langga and who is likewise residing in that house;
that September 1988 (he) started courting the complainant and on October 1988
they became sweethearts when his love proposal was accepted by her by telling
him ‘oo, sinasagot na kita’; at around 9:00 o’clock
in the morning of January 16, 1989 while she was taking care of the younger
child of Estelito in one of the rooms of that house,
she (he) saw complainant Mary Jane entered (sic) the room bringing with her
folded clean clothes; the latter then sat at the edge of the wooden bed and
while sitting thereat, he asked permission from her that he will kiss her and
because the former did not reply (he) kissed Mary Jane on the lips thereafter
both of them removed their respective clothes; he kissed her on her neck and
downward and after about two hours of making love with each other they both
wore back their respective clothes and resumed doing their unfinished household
chores; after that incident, they made love everyday ‘Inaaraw-araw
ko siya‘: that their
relationship became so intimate in fact, he wag even giving the complainant
additional allowance whenever the latter goes to school; that he did not force
Mary Jane into making love with him; that all the sexual
congress they have done was with her consent until finally on February 25, 1989
when complainant asked permission from him to go to Bulacan
as it was the birthday of her sister-in-law when he even advised her to take
care of herself; for that reason he got surprised on the morning of February
26, 1989 when complainant’s brother arrived in the house where he was residing
and confronted him if he was Edgar Timbang; after
admitting that he was Edgar Timbang, the former boxed
him on his face and on his body, he asked for a peace talk but instead he was
kicked by Fidel and because of the force he was thrown in one of the rooms of
the house; he could not stand as he lost his balance so he has (sic) to kneel
down; while he was on (sic) that position, Estelito,
Fidel and Zenaida Langga
took their breakfast and after eating he was brought by them at the Sangandaan Police Sub-station; thereat they .were told to
proceed instead at (sic) the Sangandaan Police
Headquarters in Kalookan City; while on their way to
the upper portion of the headquarters he was again kicked by the brother of
Mary Jane; at the Sangandaan Police Headquarters, he
was detained without the benefit of an investigation; that a picture of Mary
Jane was voluntarily given to him by the former however it bears no dedication
as she, despite his request, did not put a dedication on the said picture;
however, he could no longer produce said picture as his wallet and other
personal belongings were lost as an after result of his being detained at the
City Jail.” [2](Decision,
ibid, on pages 4-5)
We have examined the record of the case with great care and find
nothing therein that would justify a change in the findings of the trial
court. The complainant, Mary Jane Langga, an 18-year old college student, categorically
denied that she and the appellant were sweethearts.[3]
and declared that appellant had threatened her with a knife and then forcibly
had sexual intercourse with her. Her
testimony reads:
“Q Will you please tell this
court what was that unusual incident that happened?
A On January 16, 1989,
while I was inside the room of our house, taking care of my two nephews, Edgar Timbang went inside the room telling me that he will get
something inside the room, sir
Q And whose room is that?
A The room of my brother,
sir.
Q Was the accused able to
enter the room?
A Yes, sir.
Q While he was already
inside the room of your brother, what happened?
A He was knocking, sir,
and in the pretext that he will get something inside that room, I opened the
door.
Q After opening the door,
what happened?
A He suddenly held my arms
and he was forcing me to lie down in our wooden beb,
‘papag’, sir.
Q And what did you do?
A I was struggling, sir,
and I wanted to fight but he was very strong, sir, and then he poked a knife at
me, sir.
Q Now, you said that he forced
you to lie down on the ‘papag’, were you able to lie
down on the wooden beb?
A When I became weak, sir,
and lost my energy because he boxed me on my stomach, ‘sinikmuraan’.
Q How many times did he box
you in your stomach?
A Only once, sir.
Q Now, after you felt that
you were already weak, you were already being laid down on the wooden bed, what
happened?
A He was struggling me,
sir, placed his body on top of me and kissed me several times, sir, and he held
my arms.
Q Now, what were you
wearing at that time?
A T-shirt and skirt, sir.
Q What about the accused?
A T-shirt and short pants,
sir.
Q After kissing you, as you
said, what happened next?
A He forcefully removed my
skirt, sir, and then my panty and at first he inserted his finger on my private
part.
Q You said of that (sic) he
was kissing you, in what part of your body was he kissing you?
A On my face, my lips and
neck, sir.
A Now, after you said that
your panty was already removed by him, and your skirt, what happened, next?
A He first inserted his
finger on me, sir, and then he inserted his private part on my private organ.
Q You said that the accused
was wearing t-shirt and short (pants), what happened to his clothing?
A He first removed his
short (pants), followed by his brief before he inserted his private part to my
private organ, sir.
Q Do you mean to say, after
your panty and your skirt were removed and (he) fingered you, he removed his
short pants or which is ahead?
A He removed his short
pants, sir.
Q And then after he laid on
top of you?
A No, sir, he first
inserted his finger and then he laid on top of me.
Q You said that he inserted
his private organ in to your private part, in what position at that instance?
A He was on top of me,
sir.
Q Face to face with each
other?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you feel when,
as you said, he inserted his private organ into your private organ?
A It was very painful,
sir, as a matter of fact, my hips as if it was (sic) torn apart, sir.
Q And what did you do?
A I was struggling, sir, and
even pleading to him not to do that after (sic) me but he contineoulsy
(sic) did that to my person.
Q After inserting his penis
to your private organ, what
happened?
A He stood up, wore back
his short, he left me lying down because I cannot (eic)
stand up, sir, I still feel (sic) the pain, sir.
Q How many seconds or
minutes was he on top of you?
A Close to 30 minutes,
sir.
Q And what happened after
30 minutes?
A After raping me, sir, he
stood up and left, sir.
Q Court:
In those 30 minutes, what was the accused doing?
A He was raping me, sir.
Fiscal:
Q You mean to say these 30
minutes, you are referring to, at the time he kissed you, he removed your
parity, he removed your skirt and then lie
on top of you and inserted his penis?
A Yes, sir.
Q You said you felt pain,
what else did you feel aside from feeling pain?
A I have difficulty in
walking because o£
the pain that I have experienced and I saw blood stain, sir.
Q Blood from what?
A From my private organ,
sir.
Q That was your first
experience having relation with a man?
A Yes, sir.
Q Court:
“After inserting his private organ on (sic) yours, what else
did you feel, if any?
A There was, your honor.
Court:
Q What was it?
A He was inserting his
organ to my private organ, sir, several times, ‘pinapasok-pasokV
Q Fiscal:
What do you mean by ‘pinapasok-pasok‘?
A What I mean by that,
sir, is this, that his buttocks was moving up and down, air.
Q Now, while he was doing
this to you, did you not shout or make sounds?
A I was trying to shout, sir,
but I cannot (sic) because he was struggling me, sir, and he was threatening
me.
Q Now, after 30 minutes,
you said that he went up and put on his short (sic) and then left, what did you
do after he left?
A I cried, sir.
Q Now. while he was still
doing this to you. while he was kissing you and trying to remove your skit,
(sic) your panty and your short, were you already crying?
A No, sir.
Q Now, after he left the
room what happened?
A I cried and cried,
air.”[4]
The trial court found that the complainant, while testifying on
the witness stand, sounded sincere, appeared candid and honest and was direct
to the point and her answers and her testimony were logical, straight-forward
and probable. Her credibility was not shaken despite the vigorous, exhausting and
humiliating cross-examination. The appellant has not shown compelling grounds
to overturn said findings. Well settled
is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, which had all the
opportunity to observe the behavior and demeanor of the witnesses and weigh all
the evidence presented, are accorded great respect, in the absence of a clear
showing of arbitrariness and misapprehension of the facts.[5]
Besides, it would appear that the complainant had no malicious
motive to falsely charge the appellant with the commission of so grave an
offense. If the complainant and the
appellant were sweethearts and the complainant had consented to have sex with
the appellant voluntarily, as the appellant claims, the complainant’s most
natural reaction’ would be to accept the offer of marriage of the appellant
since she had become pregnant as a result of their liaison.[6]
She would not have denounced the appellant for having raped her if such were
not the fact, considering the dishonor, the shame and the social humiliation
that accompany the accusation and the adverse effect upon her future and that
of her unborn child.
The filing of the complaint for rape belies consent. At any rate, the appellant’s claim that he
and the complainant were sweethearts is not supported by substantial evidence.
And even if they were sweethearts, that fact would not exempt the man from
criminal liability if the sexual intercourse with the woman was against the
latter’s will.[7]
The appellant claims that the complainant was influenced by her
relatives, particularly, her sister-in-law Zenaida Langga, in filing the case against him. The complainant declared, however, that the
filing of this case against the appellant was of her own free will. Her testimony reads:
“Court:
Q Is it true that you filed this case of rape against the accused
because your brothers, Fidel and Estelito ordered you
to do the same?
A No, your honor.
Fiscal:
Q So that in filing this case before the police it was in (sic)
your own voluntary will?
A Yes, sir.
Q Nobody forced you to file the same?
A Yes. sir.”[8]
The appellant further contends that the failure of the
complainant to report the incident immediately after its commission and their
continued sexual relationship after the commission of the act complained of,
for more than a month after its commission, militate against the complainant’s
claim that she was raped.
But this has also been satisfactorily explained by the
complainant. She declared that the
appellant was threatening to kill her, her two nephews, and her brother if she
should report the incident, and she was afraid.[9]
As for having sexual relationship with the appellant after the
commission of the act complained of, the complainant explained that she also
struggled and resisted the advances of the appellant. She would hide from the appellant, but the
appellant would follow her wherever she went.
She even tried to lock herself inside the room, but to no avail since
she had to go out of the room sometime.[10]
Besides, it would appear from the appellant’s testimony that the
subsequent sexual congresses with the complainant were the unilateral acts of
the appellant. His testimony is as
follows:
“Q After that incident,
did any other incident occur between you and Mary Jane?
A Yes, sir.
Q What?
A I make (sic) love with
her everyday, ‘Inaaraw-araw ko
na siya‘.[11]
If the complainant had voluntarily consented to the subsequent
sexual acts, the appellant would have said that they, and not I,
made love everyday, since lovemaking is, by its nature, a consensual act.
The trial court did not commit any reversible error in finding
the appellant guilty of the crime for which he was charged. The indemnity to be
paid to the victim, however, should be reduced to P20,000.00,
in line with recent decisions of the Court.
WHEREFORE, the
judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
modification that the indemnity to be paid to the victim is reduced to P20,000.00. With costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
*
Penned by Judge Antonio J. Fineza
[1]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 2-5
[2]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 3-5
[3]
tsn of April
26, 1989, p. 6
[4]
tsn of April
11, 1989, pp. 4-7
[5]
People vs. Demecillo, G.R. No. 83186, June 4, 1990
[6]
Exhibit F. However, the complainant had a miscarriage a few days after she
filed the complaint in this case. (Please see tsn of
April 11. 1989, p. 22)
[7]
See People vs. De Dios, G.R. No. 58174, July 6, 1990
[8]
tsn of April
26, 1989, p. 8
[9]
tsn of April
11, 1989, pp. 8-9
[10]
Id., pp. 20-21
[11]
tsn of April 24, 1989. p. 7