PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEO PEREZ, AND LUIS MELENDRES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

The woman was raped five
times in one night, and by two sets of rapists. After the first two men had raped her, she sought the help of
three other men who had appeared on the scene. They also raped her.

This was the finding in
general of the trial court on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution
against the herein appellants. (Their
co-acccused, Leo Amolong, has not been tried and remains at large.)

The Information against them
reads as follows:

That in the evening of May 27, 1987, in the municipality of
Nabunturan, Province of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together
and helping one another, by means of force and intimidation, using a handgun
and a hunting knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take turns, one after the other, in having carnal knowledge of Marlene Jaictin.

Marlene Jaictin was 20
years old when the incident happened.

She testified that on May
27, 1987, at about seven o’clock in the evening, she and her boyfriend, Nestor
Sarpamones, were on their way to her house when they were confronted by three
men near the Nabunturan Central Elementary School. One of them took Nestor away while the other two stayed with
her. They took her to the grandstand,
then to the garden, where they boxed and kicked her and then threw her to the
ground. Then they took turns in raping
her. One of the men wanted to kill her,
but the other dissuaded him.^[1]

It was at this point that
the three other men came, and she cried out to them to save her. The men who had raped her fled. Two of the three men chased them but they
escaped. The third man who stayed
behind was Luis Melendres. He pointed a
knife at Marlene and then dragged her to the oval ground, where he made her lie
down. His two companions came back then
and, seeing what was afoot, immediately concurred in his plan.^[2]

The first of the three to rape her was Melendres, who forced
himself on her while Perez held her legs. Perez followed suit, with Melendres assisting this time. Amolong stood guard and watched the outrage
to the helpless woman. Then he himself
pulled her to the back of the grandstand and raped her there.^[3]

Their lust satisfied, the three men took Marlene to the house of
Perez, where she stayed the night. The
following morning, they took her to the house of her employer, threatening her
with death if she spoke about the incident. Two days later, the three men again saw her and told her that her
sweetheart Nestor was already dead. They repeated their threat and warned her to keep quiet.^[4]

She said she knew Leo
Amolong by face and name.^[5] She knew the other two because she
frequently saw them at the store where she was working and came to know later that
their names were Leo Perez and Luis
Melendres.^[6] She said she was able to recognize them on
the night in question because there was an electric light in the building
nearby and the moon was bright.^[7]

Despite the threat, she
decided to report the incident to the police three days later and submitted to
a medical examination. She was found
with inter alia “contusions
and abrasions x x x on the upper and lower extremities, buttocks and anterior
cervical region (neck)” and “laceration of the vulvar mucous
membrane.”^[8]

Both Perez and Melendres
denied the charge. They claimed that as
members of a rover patrol, they went out that night in search of certain
suspected robbers and chanced upon Marlene and the two men who had apparently
just raped her. They ran after the men
but failed to catch them. Thereafter,
they took the girl to Perez’s house, where she spent the night with his sister. The following morning they took her to her
employer’s house.^[9] Nelly Perez testified to corroborate her
brother.^[10]

After a lengthy
discussion of the evidence, Judge Eugenio R. Valles of the Regional Trial Court
of Davao disposed as follows:

PREMISED ON ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, and finding both
accused Luis Melendres and Leo Perez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of RAPE, the Court hereby imposes on each one of them, TWO (2) RECLUSION
PERPETUA and to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law.

Further, both accused are hereby condemned to pay the complainant,
Marlene Jaictin, jointly and severally the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand
(P75,000.00) Pesos as moral damages and another Twenty-Five Thousand
(P25,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages.

Let alias warrant of arrest issue for the apprehension of the remaining
accused, Leo Amolong. Meanwhile,
pending his arrest, send the records of this case to the archives.

In their separate briefs,
the appellants ask for reversal of their conviction on the ground that their
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Melendres faults the trial court for disregarding his defense and
giving credence to Marlene’s testimony, especially as it is flawed by Exhibit
1. Perez also focuses on Exhibit 1 and
his sister’s testimony and claims no conspiracy had been proved between him and
the other defendants.

We have said often enough that when it comes to the evaluation of
the credibility of witnesses, much weight must be given to the conclusions of
the trial court. The reason is its
direct opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand and to
detect those tell-tale signs in their testimonies that attest the truth or
expose the lie.

In the case at bar, the trial court saw fit to believe Marlene
rather than the defendants, observing that she would not have undergone such
“tribulations” if she were not really telling the truth. We accept its assessment that the
“complainant’s version is more consistent with the truth. Her testimony is clear and free from serious
contradiction; her sincerity and candor likewise free from contradiction.”

It is true that she made
no mention of having been raped by the defendants in the affidavit she executed
on June 1, 1987, and presented by Perez as his Exhibit 1. Nevertheless, we hold that as between that
affidavit and her testimony in court on the same subject, it is the testimony
that should prevail. The rationale of
this ruling is explained in People v. Andaya;^[11]
thus:

The contradictions, if any, may be explained by the fact that an
affidavit will not always disclose the whole facts, and will oftentimes and
without design, incorrectly describe, without the deponent detecting it, some
of the occurrences narrated, and being taken ex parte is almost always
incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestions, and
sometimes from the want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which
the witness may be unable to recall the corrected collateral circumstances
necessary for the correction of the first suggestions of his memory and for his
accurate recollection of all that belongs to the subject.

The minor inconsistencies
in Marlene’s narration do not detract from its essential veracity. We have said often enough that total recall
of an incident is not expected of a witness, or even possible, especially if it
is the victim himself who is
testifying. The traumatic effect of the
successive rapes on Marlene evidently caused not a little confusion in her mind
and prevented her from recollecting every single detail of her harrowing
experience.

Her delay in reporting
the incident – for only 3 days – is easily explained. She was under threat of death. And it was not unnatural that she did not tell Nelly Perez that her brother had raped her, as she was in
the rapist’s own house and surrounded by his family.

Marlene’s supposed motive
in accusing the defendants, viz, that she was prodded by Nestor’s
parents on pain of being charged with his death, is also not acceptable. If she had not really been abused by the
defendants, she would not have exposed herself to the stigma of a raped maiden
and implicated persons she hardly knew in a charge that could forfeit their
liberty for life.

In light of the evidence for the prosecution, the defense must
fail for lack of credibility. The bare denials
of the appellants are not convincing. Neither is the testimony of Nelly Perez, who was obviously manifesting
her loyalty to her brother rather than the truth.

The Court is convinced that when the three men came upon the
naked Marlene, who apparently had just been violated, their own lusts were
aroused. Given the defenselessness of
the girl and the secluded place, they saw an opportunity to ravish her also,
thinking cynically that another slice or two would not much matter to the cut
loaf. Thus persuaded, they carried out
their wicked plan, one after another and each assisting the others, in the
defilement of the girl.

The circumstances of the successive rapes by the defendants prove
that there was a conspiracy among them. A common plan, concerted action, and cooperation among the three
attended the ravishment of the helpless victim. As one raped the woman, the others restrained her legs or stood
guard and watched. The act of one was
the act of the others, who were therefore equally guilty with him.

However, the third
accused not having been tried and found guilty, the conspiracy must apply only
to Perez and Melendres with respect to the rapes they each committed.

Rape is an inherently detestable crime, but it became even viler
in the case at bar because of the defendants’ callousness to the helpless
woman’s plaintive cry for assistance. They did not help her; they attacked her instead. Even as
she was already agonizing over the first two rapes, they heartlessly
ignored her despair and instead deepened it further by imposing their own
animal lusts upon her. This was not
mere libido. It was a shameless act of
lechery that degraded them to the level of the beast.

WHEREFORE, the appeals are DISMISSED and the challenged
decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the award
for moral damages is changed to P50,000.00
for each of the two rapes, and the award for exemplary damages is
disallowed. Costs against the
appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Griño-Aquino, Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, September 11, 1989, pp. 21-25.

^[2]
TSN, September 11, 1989, pp. 27-31.

^[3]
TSN,
September 11, 1989, pp. 30-36.

^[4]
TSN,
September 11, 1989, p. 43.

^[5]
TSN,
September 11, 1989, p. 28.

^[6]
TSN,
September 12, 1989, p. 25.

^[7]
TSN,
September 11, 1989, p. 28.

^[8]
Exhibit
A, Records, p. 20.

^[9]
TSN,
July 2, 1990, pp. 7-10.

^[10]
TSN, July 3, 1990, pp. 7-10.

^[11]
152 SCRA 570.