THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GENARO MENDIGUARIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Genaro Mendiguarin
appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Lingayen Branch I,
find­ing him guilty of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay Virginia Oliveros an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos (Criminal
Case No. L-1055).

Instead of filing a brief, the Solicitor General submitted a
manifestation recommending the acquittal of the accused on the ground that his
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Complainant Virginia Oliveros, 21, an
elementary school graduate, testified that on November 20, 1973 the spouses Genaro
Mendiguarin and Teodora
Fernandez went to her parents’ house located at Barrio Caloocan
Sur, Binmaley, Pangasinan.  They hired her as a helper to sell glassware
in their store located at Santa Cruz,
Zambales at a salary of one hundred pesos a month
with free board and lodging.

As a helper, she used to accompany Genaro
in selling glassware in Palauig, Masinloc
and other towns in Zambales.  She admitted that on one occasion or on
December 3 or 17, 1973, after selling glassware, she and Genaro
stayed in a room of the Holy Family Hotel at Masinloc
where Genaro tried to embrace her but she allegedly
pushed him.  They dallied in that room
for fifteen minutes (45-47 tsn November 29, 1978).  However, at the preliminary investigation,
she admitted that she was embraced and kissed by Genaro
inside the hotel room where they stayed for thirty minutes (70-72 tsn Feb. 12, 1975,
Exh. F).

On September 12, 1974,
Virginia allegedly accom­panied Genaro and his wife to the house of his father located at
Barrio Pallas, Binmaley, arriving there at three o’clock in the afternoon.  Genaro’s father and
wife left the house.  Virginia and Genaro found themselves alone in the house like Adam and
Eve in the garden of Eden.

Genaro was resting in the room
upstairs.  Virginia (Bebing)
was in the sala. 
Genaro called Virginia:  “Bebing, gala
pa to oala so ibagat od sika”
or “Bebing, come over and I will tell you
something” (19 tsn Dec. 26, 1974, Exh. F).  Upon entering the
room in answer to his call, he pulled her, grabbed the collar of her dress and
told her to lie down on the floor.

She resisted, kicked Genaro and pushed
him away but she did not shout.  As she
was trying to get up, Genaro, who was unarmed, boxed
her on the thighs and abdomen several times. 
He threatened to kill her.  He
stripped her of her bikini-type panty
over her resistance.  He removed his
brief, went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina.

According to Virginia’s
version, by that time, she was already weak and no longer able to resist
him.  He was able to consummate the
sexual intercourse.  She allegedly felt
pain and she cried.  After about half an
hour, she told Genaro that he was a beast.  He retorted that she should not shout because
the deed was already accomplished.  She
told Genaro’s wife that he had raped her but his wife
did not say anything.

On the following day, Virginia,
Genaro, his wife and his father consulted a lawyer in
the town of Binmaley
and inquired whether Virginia and Genaro could get
married.  The lawyer said that they could
not get married because Genaro was already married.

Virginia did not
attempt to escape or leave the house although her parents lived in Barrio Caloocan Sur in the same municipality
of Binmaley.  From the place where she was alle­gedly
raped, she could go to her barrio by means of a calesa
or tricycle which passed on the road near the house of Genaro’s
father.  She explained that Genaro allegedly guarded her or was always following her.

She admitted in her testimony and affidavit that on the night of
the following day, September 13, she had voluntary sexual intercourse with Genaro two times in the same house.  On the succeeding night of September 14, she
consented to have sexual intercourse with him two times (42, 43 and 47 tsn Novem­ber 29,
1978; 108 tsn. Feb. 13, 1975, Exh. F).

On that same day, September
14, 1974, she signed
in the municipal building a statement in English typed by a policeman.  In that statement she declared that she had
voluntary sexual intercourse with Genaro and that she
regarded him as her common-law husband. 
Roger Salomon, Gil Guarin and Carmelita Guarin signed as witnesses in the said statement (Exh. 1 or D).

On September 17, 1974 or five days after the alleged rape, Jose Oliveros, the father of Virginia, accompanied by two
policemen and a councilor, fetched Virginia and brought her to their home in Caloocan Sur.  Virginia
at first did not want to go with her father. 
In fact, she tried to hide behind the kitchen door (150 and 183 tsn Feb. 13, 1975,
Exh. 3 and F).

On the following day, September 18, she was examined by the
municipal health officer.  He found that
two fingers could be inserted into her vagina, that her hymen was lacerated at
the four and ten o’clock positions, that there was bleeding in her vaginal
wall, that there were blood clots near the vaginal ori­fice and that she
complained of chest and epigastric pains.

The local police did not
file any complaint for rape most probably because she had already signed a
statement on September 14, 1974 admitting that she had voluntary sexual
intercourse with Genaro (Exh.
1).  So, her father reported the alleged
rape to the Constabulary detachment at Lingayen, Pangasinan.

She executed a statement
before Sergeant N. Galsim wherein she stated that she
was allegedly raped by Genaro in the afternoon of
September 12, 1974; that his wife told her not to worry because Genaro would marry her; that, however, a lawyer told
her that they could not get married because Genaro
was already married; that she signed an affidavit wherein she stated that she
was willing to live with Genaro as his common-law
wife and that she had sexual intercourse with Genaro,
twice on September 12, twice on September 13 and twice on September 14, 1974 (Exh. 2).

On October 10, 1974
she filed a complaint for rape against Genaro with
the fiscal’s office. 
The information for rape was filed on July 21, 1975.  Genaro was arrested only on October 18, 1978 at Iba, Zambales.  At his
arraignment on November
9, 1978, he pleaded
not guilty.

Genaro’s defense at the trial was that
he and Virginia were sweethearts; that he had sexual intercourse with her on
December 17, 1973 at the Holy Family Hotel in Masinloc;
that he had several trysts with her in the house of Manuel Aquino
at Masinloc whenever they went to that place to sell
glassware and that he and Virginia eloped on September 12, 1974 and went to his
father’s house at Barrio Pallas where they had sexual intercourse daily up to
September 16.  The chief of police and a
policeman testified at the preliminary investigation as to the signing by Virginia
of her statement regarding her elopement with Genaro
(Exh. 3).

Valentin de Vera, a neighbor of Genaro’s father, tes­tified at the preliminary
investigation that on September 18,
1974 when Virginia and her father returned to the house of Genaro’s father to get her clothes, he saw Genaro embracing her (176 and 178 tsn
Feb. 13, 1975, Exh. 3).

When Virginia
testified on November 22, 1978,
she was already twenty-five years old; she was residing at Caloocan
Sur and she was living with her common-law husband,
Guillermo de Guzman, a married man with six children.  Virginia
had be­gotten a child with him.  They
started living together on July 31,
1976.

The issue is whether Virginia Oliveros
was raped by Genaro Mendiguarin.  We hold that the trial court erred in
rendering the judgment of conviction. 
The rape was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.  There are significant indications in the
record that Genaro and Virginia
committed simple fornication which is not a crime.

The circumstances that Virginia admitted that she and Genaro embraced and kissed each other in a hotel room long
before the alleged rape, that she did not tenaciously resist the alleged
ravishment, that there were no external injuries on her body to show that actual physical violence was used against her, that
she did not shout, that she did not run or escape, that she continued to have
sexual intercourse with Genaro in the house where his
wife was staying and that she did not want to leave that house when her father
fetched her, point to the conclusion that their sexual intercourse was induced
by the chemistry and electricity of mutual attraction and desire.

This Court already observed that the books disclose many
instances of trumped-up charges of rape. 
In rape cases the testimony of the offended woman should not be received
with precipitate credulity.  Her
uncorroborated testimony 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
(People vs. Fausto, 51 Phil. 852; People vs. Ramos,
35 Phil. 671, 676).

In this case, the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant as
to the rape is not convincing and trustworthy. 
Her behavior after the alleged rape was not that of a woman who had
suffered a shameful and grievous outrage. 
(See People vs. Cueto,
L-46697, August 25, 1978, 84 SCRA 774.)

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment is
reversed.  The accused is acquitted
because his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.  Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., and
Guerrero*, JJ., concur.

Santos and Abad Santos, JJ., are abroad.

*
Justice Guerrero was designated to sit in the Second Division.