G.R. Nos. L-36428-29. August 30, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDDIE GAMEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Batangas, 8th Judicial District, Branch VII, convicting
Eddie Gamez of the crime of Acts of
Lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 153 and for the crime of Rape, in Criminal
Case No. 152. The trial court conducted a
joint hearing and rendered a joint decision for the two cases. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, the Court
hereby sentences the accused to suffer an indeterminate sentence of TWO (2)
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Arresto Mayor
to TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision
Correcional, and to pay the costs.
“As regards criminal case No. 152 (Rape), the accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to pay the costs.”
The criminal complaint for rape filed against the
defendant-appellant alleged:
xxx xxx xxx
“That on or about the 4th day of November, 1970 at about 2:30
o’clock in the morning, in Barrio Guinhawa,
Municipality of Tuy, Province of Batangas,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with violence and intimidation, forcibly dragged and took
the undersigned offended party to a sugarcane plantation and while thereaft, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have carnal knowledge of her against
her will and consent.” (Original Records, Criminal Case No. 152, p. 3)
xxx xxx xxx
The criminal complaint for acts of lasciviousness reads:
xxx xxx xxx
“That on or about the 3rd day of November, 1970 between 11:00
and 12:00 o’clock at night, in Barrio
Guinhawa, Municipality of Tuy,
Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, married man with
intent to satisfy his lust, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of lasciviousness on my person by then
and there approaching me while I was lying down asleep and thereafter embracing
and kissing me against my will and consent and by means of force.”
(Original Records, Criminal Case No. 153, p.
2)
The facts established by the prosecution and accepted by the
trial court as basis for the decision are summarized by the court as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
“According to the complainant Perlita
Abraham, she is a native of Bauan, Batangas, but she taught in Juan
Sumulong Elementary
School in Manila.
On November 2, 1970 she
went to the house of the accused in Guinhawa, Tuy, Batangas
for a brief vacation. She was accompanied by her mother, an aunt, a teenage
girl and a small boy. She knew the accused very well because he is her compadre,
she being the godmother of the youngest child of the accused. The following
day, Nov. 3, her mother, aunt and the teenage girl left Tuy
for Bauan, Batangas, so
that only the small boy was left with her in the house of the accused. About midnight of November 3 she was suddenly awakened
because someone laid beside her. Upon opening her eyes
she recognized the intruder to be her compadre the
herein accused. Suddenly, he kissed her on the lips. She pushed him and tried
to free herself from his hold. At this juncture, the accused threatened to kill
her if she causes an alarm. Thereafter the accused started to kiss her again
but she tried her best to evade his kisses. Notwithstanding the threat of the
accused, complainant shouted and called for the wife of the accused who, upon
being awakened, admonished her husband saying ‘Why? Are you not ashamed to do
this to our comadre?’ Instead of making a reply, the
accused stood up and started to maltreat his wife. This naturally caused a
commotion and all the children of the accused were awakened. Even the mother of
the accused who was at the ground floor was disturbed in her sleep and she
called for the accused. The latter however arrogantly shouted back and told her
not to interfere. Several other persons arrived but they were met by the
accused who told them, ‘Huwag kayong
makikialam.’ The complainant finally decided to go to
the street believing it to be a safer place for her. While there, she met a certain Ka Pendong who invited her to his house. She readily agreed. She was joined by the two
children of the herein accused. In the house of Ka Pendong
she was given water and was told
by the wife of Ka Pendong that she should take a
rest. The wife of Ka Pendong also informed her that
the companions of the accused in the house were all crying.
Much later, Ka Pendong informed her that the accused
was no longer in the house and upon suggestion of the former she agreed to go
to the house of the accused to fetch the small boy whom she left in the house. On
the way she noticed the accused approaching them. When already near each other
the accused tried to hold her again but she tried to evade him by going around
Ka Pendong whom she asked to help her. Her request
for help seemed to fall on deaf ears because she noticed that Ka Pendong did nothing. Finally the accused caught her hands
and because she lost her balance she fell to the ground. As she was trying to
stand while shouting, the accused gave her fist blows. Then the accused dragged
her. She again resisted. For making the situation hard for the accused, the
latter gave her more fist blows and again dragged her. When they reached in
front of the house of the brother of the accused, she shouted for help. For
doing so, she received more fist blows, one of which landed on her stomach and
she became unconscious. When she regained her consciousness she realized that she
was in the cane field with the accused on top of her and having sexual intercourse
with her. She struggled to free herself but the accused gave her fist blows in
the thigh. The accused did not release her until he had fully consummated his
bestial lust. Then the accused advised her to put on her jeans. She tried to
stand but realized that she was too weak to do so. She also felt pains all over
her body. In such condition, the accused brought her to his house, advising her
however that she should not create any scandal otherwise, he will kill her. Once
in the house of the accused the wife of the accused attended to her up to November 5. The whole day of November
4, she was feverish and suffering from pains in her body. The following day,
November 5, she went to Bauan, Batangas
accompanied by the wife of the accused. She had not informed anyone, including
the wife of the accused, about her harrowing experience in the cane field. Her reasons for the silence, according to her, was that she had
to deliberate carefully what course of action to take. She could not immediately
confide the matter to her mother because she was suffering from heart ailment. She
was also afraid of the possible drastic action her father and brothers might
do. Thus according to the complainant, it was only when her mother went to
Manila and told her not to be afraid to confide her troubles to her that she
decided to reveal the truth. Hence, on November 12, she went to the P.C. and
executed her affidavit. xxx“
xxx xxx xxx.
On November 12, 1970,
Dr. Benjamin M. Aguado, a resident physician of the Batangas Provincial
Hospital examined Perlita. The medico legal certificate (Exh. “A”) contained the following
findings:
“Internal examination-With old laceration at
1:00 O’clock
2:00 O’clock
9:00 O’clock
10:00 O’clock
11:00 O’clock
“Physical Examination:
1. Multiple abrasion left scapular region.
2. Multiple abrasion left forearm middle 3rd
posterior aspect
3. Multiple abrasion neck supra sternal notch
4. Hematoma posterior
lateral aspect distal 3rd arm right
5. Hematoma antero-lateral aspect distal 3rd left arm
6. Hematoma supra
patellar region left thigh
7. Hematoma anterior
portion middle 3rd left thigh
8. Multiple abrasions right iliac region”
(Folder of Exhibits, p. 6).
On the other hand, the defendant-appellant presented his own
version of the facts as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
“He had known Perlita for the past
three years. He met her for the first time when he went to Manghinaw,
Bauan to look for a job. The father of Perlita, a contractor of gravel and sand requested him to
stay in his house. Perlita was then staying in the
said house of her father. She was then jobless but schooling in Batangas. On numerous occasions Perlita
rode the truck he was driving because he used to bring sand to Batangas. After graduation, she taught in Bauan. On several occasions, he also took Perlita to school where she was teaching. Then Perlita was transferred to another school and as before, he
used to take her there. This friendship developed into love and soon thereafter
they became sweethearts. Perlita must have been so
much in love with him because she even approached him while in bed. Hence,
their relationship became more intimate and they cohabited as husband and wife.
“The first time Perlita went to his
house in Tuy was during a barrio fiesta in 1968. Thereafter
she occasionally visited his place. On November
2, 1970 he found Perlita, the mother, an
aunt and a boy in his house upon his arrival. That evening they slept in his
house. The following day Perlita’s companions left
except the boy. On November 3 Perlita slept in the sala as per their agreement so they could have an
opportunity to be together, they being sweethearts. That evening of November 3
he came from a mahjong game and when he was on his way to their room to see if
his wife was asleep, Perlita tripped him and said
that his wife was already asleep. So he laid beside
her and had carnal knowledge of her. As they were having intercourse, his wife
came out of the room with a club and started to hit him and Perlita.
In the course of the attack, Perlita fell down the
stairs and they left the house and went to a side of a river. Perlita suggested that they leave the barrio but on second
thought, they realized that he was only wearing his undershirt and shorts,
while Perlita only her T-shirt without anything underneath.
They went back to the house and against the protest of his wife,
he managed to get some clothes which a child of his gave to Perlita,
while he was holding his wife.
“They asked for forgiveness and prevailed upon the wife not to
file a case against them. However, his wife rejected the proposal of Perlita that she live with them in the same house. Finally, they agreed that Perlita
should leave and he will turn a new leaf. The following morning the wife of the
accused accompanied Perlita to Bauan.”
xxx xxx xxx
The defendant-appellant
made the following assignments of errors in his appeal:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BELIEVING THE VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OF THE
CRIMES OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS AND RAPE ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS,
INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE
CRIMES OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS AND RAPE.
The appellant begged leave to discuss the above assigned errors
together in one joint argument.
The appellant’s contentions hinge on credibility of witnesses. We
have gone carefully over the records especially on the points stressed by the
appellant but find no reason to depart from the general rule of according
respect to the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the persons
who testified before it. (See People v. Santos, L-60055, April 28, 1983; People
v. Mercado, 97 SCRA 232) The lower court did not overlook any facts of
substance and value which, if considered, might have affected the result of the
proceedings.
That there was sexual intercourse is established. The appellant
claims that he and Perlita had sex on various
occasions with her consent. The incident on November 3 when the appellant’s
wife allegedly caught them was, according to the appellant, the fifth sexual intercourse between them. Dr. Aguado,
the medico legal officer of the Batangas
Provincial Hospital
testified, on the other hand, that the five lacerations of Miss
Abraham’s hymen could have been sustained in only one sexual intercourse and it
was possible for these lacerations to have been sustained between midnight of November 3 and early morning of November 4, 1970.
The incidents happened shortly before midnight and on the early morning of November 4. The
medical examination was conducted on November 12 or eight days later. It is
significant that in addition to the lacerations of the hymen in five different
places, the complainant still bore signs of multiple abrasions in the left
scapular region, similar abrasions in the left forearm, multiple abrasions
above the neck’s sternal notch, multiple abrasions in
the right iliac region, and hematomas in four
separate parts of the left arm and left thigh. The injuries are clearly more
compatible with the violent attacks of a rapist than the alleged beatings of an
aggrieved wife.
The appellant argues that if the victim was raped she should not
have returned to his house. The records show that at this point there was no
rape yet. After being subjected to acts of lasciviousness, Perlita
fled to the street. It was then almost midnight. A certain Ka Pendong aroused by the commotion, the shoutings,
and the crying of children invited Perlita to his
house. Later on, Ka Pendong told her that the
appellant was no longer around or in his house and that she should fetch the
small boy, her only companion in the appellant’s barrio, who was crying. On her
way she met the accused who dragged her while Ka Pendong
did nothing. Only then was rape committed. She returned to the house to fetch
her boy companion, thinking that after the outcry and commotion Gamez had fled and it was already safe.
The appellant asks why Perlita left his
house only the day after the alleged rape. He states that if Perlita was raped, she should not have allowed his wife to
escort her to Bauan, Batangas.
The records show that the complainant was aching all over after
the rape in the cane field. She was so weak she could not even stand up to put
on her jeans. She had been given repeated fist blows, until she became
unconscious from a blow in the stomach. It was the appellant who brought her up to his house,
telling her that if she created a scandal he would kill her.
As to why she did not go home to Bauan
immediately but waited until the following morning, the complainant stated:
“Q Now
according to you, you left the house of Eddie Gamez
on November 5. Could you tell us why you remained up to that time in the house
of Eddie Gamez until you left?
“A Because the whole day of November 4
my body was aching. I had a fever and I could hardly move.
xxx xxx xxx
“Q And
the following morning you had your breakfast in the house of Eddie Gamez?
“A I
was not able to take my breakfast then.
“Q Because you were then very tired?
“A I was not able to take my breakfast because
my mind was confused and my body was aching.
“Q How about your lunch?
“A I
was not able to take my lunch.
“Q How about your supper?
“A I took a little in my supper.
xxx xxx xxx
“Q As
a matter of fact, on the night of November 4 you slept in the house of Eddie?
“A Yes, sir, because he did not want me to
leave.”
The wife of appellant Gamez accompanied
the complainant because of the latter’s condition. Mrs. Gamez
had run to Perlita’s help when the appellant lay down
beside her and committed the lascivious acts. For her trouble, Mrs. Gamez was beaten up by her husband, boxed several times and
her head banged against the window. There was no inconsistency or incongruity
in her bringing the complainant away from her husband’s vicious reach.
The assigned errors have no merit. We also agree with the
following findings of the lower court:
xxx xxx xxx
“After a close study of the two versions presented in this
case, the Court is more inclined to believe the version given by the
prosecution. In the first place, the accused had pictured Perlita
to have been very much in love with him. In fact Perlita
was also pictured not only as the passionate type but even the aggressive type.
Thus the accused claimed that it was Perlita who
approached him while in bed in Bauan, Batangas; that several sexual intercourses that followed
were committed without the slightest resistance or objection on the part of Perlita; that on the night in question Perlita
was so in a hurry to cohabit with him that she even tripped him while he was
trying to see if his wife was already asleep in the room. On top of this all,
the wife of the accused tried to further picture Perlita
as a very daring and highly immodest woman because according to the wife of the
accused Perlita was completely naked while having
intercourse with the accused just outside of the room of their house. Indeed if
these were all true Perlita must be madly in love
with the accused so much that she would risk unfavorable consequences just to
maintain her relationship with the man she loved. Such a situation as pictured
by the defense runs counter to the fact that barely a week after the incident
in question, and with the accused having done nothing
to displease her, she filed not only one criminal charge but two.
“Aside from the fact that the version of the accused in its
entirety appears to be incredible, an examination of the evidence for the
defense would also show vital contradiction which would affect the credibility
of the version presented by the defense. For example, according to the accused
when he and Perlita went down the house and proceeded
to a side of a river, Perlita was wearing only a
T-shirt without clothing underneath. On the other hand, the wife of the accused
testified that when Perlita left her house after she
was caught having intercourse with accused, she was completely naked. In this
connection, it would not be an exaggeration to again brand this portion of the
evidence for the defense as utterly incredible and absolutely contrary to human
decency. The Court has observed the behavior of Perlita
while on the witness stand and the Court is convinced that she is not the type
of a woman who would dare, under similar circumstances, to be out in the street
completely nude.
“Secondly as already stated above the defense claims that
after the wife of the accused have caught Perlita and
the accused in the act, the wife of the accused clubbed Perlita
and beat her mercilessly until she fell down the stairs. Yet in another part of
the story of the defense, it is said
that both went back to the house begging for forgiveness from the wife of the
accused and at the same time proposed that she be allowed to share the house
of the spouses. This again is highly incredible because no person in his right
senses would have the temerity to make such an indecent proposal to the
offended spouse after receiving severe beatings from the hands of the
latter.”
xxx xxx xxx
It is hard to believe that a young public
school teacher would publicly disclose that she had been raped, thereby
practically foreclosing the probability of a blissful married life, exposing
herself to the ordeal and embarrassment of public trial, subjecting her private
parts to examination, allowing her honor and reputation to be sullied, and
heaping upon herself untold humiliation, unless she is motivated by a strong
desire to bring to justice the culprit who had grievously wronged her. As
observed by the Solicitor-General, “No young Filipina of decent repute
would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished, unless,
that is the truth. For it is her natural instinct to protect her honor”. (People v. Taño, 109 Phil.
912; People v. Gan, 46 SCRA 667).
We find, however, that the trial court erred in not ordering
defendant-appellant to indemnify the offended party, Perlita
C. Abraham in the amount of twelve thousand (P12,000.00) pesos.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is MODIFIED in that
the defendant-appellant is ordered to indemnify Perlita
C. Abraham in the amount of Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos. The judgment is
AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Plana,
Vasquez, and Relova,
JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., (Chairman), took no part.