G.R. Nos. L-40318-20. February 28, 1984
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MODESTO MESIAS, JR., PORFERIO MESIAS AND NICOLAS BILOG, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
Branch VI, imposing upon each of the accused Modesto Mesias, Jr.,
Porferio Mesias and Nicolas Bilog three penalties of reclusion perpetua
for the crime of rape committed against Leonida Manuel and ordering
them to jointly and severally indemnify the victim in the sum of
P15,000.00 and to proportionately pay the costs.
The accused Modesto Mesias, Jr., Porferio Mesias and Nicolas Bilog were
charged with the crime of rape in three informations filed by the
Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan by virtue of a complaint
signed by Leonida Manuel. The complaint alleged that the accused
conspired, confederated and mutually helped one another in having carnal
knowledge one after the other of Leonida Manuel against her will, and
that in the commission of the offense the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime, uninhabited place and abuse of superior strength concurred.
The prosecution’s version of the fact, as stated in the People’s brief, is as follows:
“On April 2, 1972 at about 7 o’clock in the evening, the
complainant Leonida Manuel was walking home to Barrio San Felipe, San
Nicolas, Pangasinan. She came from the Poblacion. About three meters
behind her, also going in the same direction, were her barriomates
Dionisio Descargar, Hilario Carig, and Segundo Carig. (Tsn., pp. 2-4,
October 23, 1973).While thus walking, Leonida met the accused-appellants Modesto
Mesias, Jr., Porferio Mesias and Nicolas Bilog together with Rodolfo
Agne. The appellants who were residents of a nearby barrio were known
to Leonida. They asked her where she came from and she told them.
(Tsn., pp. 4-5, October 23, 1972). All of a sudden the three appellants
held her and started pulling her. Rodolfo Agne tried to stop them but
to no avail (Tsn., p. 15, May 22, 1973). Leonida also cried out for
help to Dionisio Discargar and his companions but these three continued
on their way. (Tsn., p. 6, October 23, 1973; Tsn., p. 17, May 22,
1973).Rodolfo Agne likewise went his way after his attempts to stop appellants were not heeded. (Tsn., p. 19, May 22, 1973).
As a result of appellants’ dragging and pulling her, complainant
stumbled by the road side. (Tsn., p. 8, Oct. 23, 1973). On the ground,
her arms were held by Nicolas Bilog and Porferio Mesias while Modesto
Mesias, Jr. sat on her thighs. Her struggle proved futile and
appellants were able to tear off her blouse, bra, shorts and panty.
(Tsn., pp. 10, 15-17, October 23, 1973). Complainant was then wearing a
black blouse, green skirt, white bra, pink panty and black shorts.
(Tsn., p. 15, Oct. 23, 1973; Exhibits “C”-“F”).Thereafter Modesto Mesias, Jr. went on top of her and had sexual
intercourse. Then appellants Porferio Mesias and Nicolas Bilog took
their turns. (Tsn., pp. 18-19, Oct. 23, 1973). While one of the
appellants had carnal knowledge of her, the two others held her arms and
kept her from struggling. (Ibid., p. 14).After the three had taken their turns abusing her, the complainant
was not released. Appellants continued kissing her, embracing and
touching her, at the same time threatening to slaughter her by covering
her with straw and burning her. (Tsn., pp. 21-22, Oct. 23, 1973).Complainant put on her garments and walked home slowly (Ibid., p.
31). She reached her house at about 5 a.m. Only her sister was home
then. Her parents had gone upstream looking for gold dust. She could
not bring herself to tell her sister before she had told her parents.
Besides, appellant Modesto Mesias, Jr. was hanging around their place
watching her.When her parents returned on April 8 she told her father what
happened. They went to see the Mayor the next day and filed the
complaint. (Tsn., pp. 27-28, Oct. 23, 1973).On April 18, 1972, complainant submitted to a medico-legal
examination. NBI Medico-Legal officer Dr. Nieto M. Salvador made out a
report (MG-720276, p. 8, Records, Crim. Case No. 117).”[1]
The accused denied the charges of rape filed against them and
interposed the defense of alibi. Modesto Mesias, Jr. testified that in
the afternoon of April 2, 1972 he was in Barrio Malilion, Pangasinan,
with Leonardo Pablo and a certain person named Romy. Then they met the
victim whom they escorted on her way to Barrio San Felipe. On their way
to San Felipe, he noticed that Leonardo and the victim were quarreling.
Leonardo wanted to take the victim to his house in San Manuel but the
latter refused. Upon reaching San Felipe, the victim went home and he,
Leonardo and Romy went to his house where they slept. He knows the
victim to be married to Leonardo. He declared that the victim
implicated him because he was with Leonardo in the afternoon of April 2,
1972.
Porferio Mesias testified that he was a jeepney driver and at around
7:00 o’clock in the evening of April 2, 1972, he was in Tayug,
Pangasinan, waiting for passengers for Carmen, Pangasinan. From Carmen,
he made a return trip to Tayug arriving there between 9:00 o’clock to
9:30 o’clock in the evening. Upon arrival at Tayug, he brought his
jeepney to the garage and went to sleep.
Nicolas Bilog testified that he was in his house at Barrio Salpad,
San Nicolas, Pangasinan, the whole day of April 2, 1972 with his
parents. At about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day he went
to sleep after working on their poultry the whole day and woke up at
around 6:00 o’clock the following morning.
Venancio Madriaga was presented to corroborate the testimony of
Porferio Mesias. He declared that he was one of the passengers of
Porferio on the latter’s return trip to Tayug. That was his first time
to ride on Porferio’s jeepney. Before April 2, 1972, he had seen
Porferio driving a passenger jeepney but he did not know the name of
Porferio nor had he ever talked to him except the day before he
testified in court when Porferio went to his house and asked him to
testify.
Rosenda Mesias, sister of Modesto Mesias, Jr. declared that her
house is only 30 meters away from that of her brother’s. At around 7:00
o’clock in the evening of April 2, 1972 she saw Modesto Mesias, Jr.
with Leonardo Pablo and another person at his brother’s house. She came
to know later that they all slept in the house of his brother.
The alibis set up by the accused are unworthy of credence and can
not stand over positive identification by the victim who could not be
mistaken in her identification. She knew all of the accused, the latter
being residents of the nearby barrio of Salpad. Besides, the alibis
are not supported by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. The
accused failed to show that it was physically impossible for them to be
present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
As correctly observed by the lower court, the defense put up by the
defendants could easily be fabricated and it appeared flimsy and simply
unbelievable. Modesto Mesias, Jr. declared that he was with Leonardo
Pablo on the night of April 2, 1972. The best witness could have been
Leonardo Pablo himself. Porferio Mesias presented Venancio Madriaga who
declared that he was asked to testify by Porferio only the day before
he testified in court and that he does not know the name of Porferio.
With respect to Nicolas Bilog, no one was presented to even corroborate
his testimony.
The accused denied the charges against them but gave no valid reason
why the victim testified against them as she did. Modesto Mesias, Jr.
would want the court to believe that he was being charged only because
he was with Leonardo Pablo on the night of April 2, 1972 and that the
charge was simply a distorted and perverted way of getting back at
Leonardo Pablo, who the victim alleged forced her to marry him, by
filing a complaint against his friends. Such reason deserves scant
consideration. As the Solicitor General correctly observed:
“No woman in her right mind would go through the trouble and
embarrassment of a public trial such as was entailed here only for such a
flimsy excuse. Modesto Mesias tried very hard to conjure a picture of
complainant’s father hating and threatening to kill Leonardo Pablo and
his friends and Leonardo Pablo promising to take responsibility for
appellants’ predicament but too fearful for his life to come out in the
open. (Tsn., pp. 90, 92, 98, February 13, 1974). Such assertions
simply do not ring true. The unfortunate marriage with Pablo, if any
there was, supposedly occurred in August 1972 (Exhibit ‘I’). Whatever
bad blood may have existed between Pablo and complainant’s family,
nothing seems to have been done by the latter to the former. Now,
almost a year after why should a friend of Pablo be made the object of
hatred or revenge?
Besides, if it was only Mesias, Jr. who claims to have been with
Pablo on April 2, 1972 (Tsn., pp. 88-89, February 13, 1974) why should
complainant charge Porferio Mesias and Nicolas Bilog besides? And with a
very serious crime?
Indeed, the entire records simply disclose no motive powerful enough
to overcome complainant’s aversion to any litigation of this nature
other than her desire for justice. She had everything against her.”[2]
The victim declared that when the accused started pulling her, she
cried for help to Dionisio Descargar, Segundo Carig and Hilario Carig
who were following her but these three continued on their way. The
accused claimed that the failure of the victim’s barriomates to help her
is contrary to human experience. It must be noted however, that at
this point, no rape had taken place yet. Dionisio Descargar in a sworn
statement taken by the Chief of Police of San Nicolas, Pangasinan,
stated that on the night of April 2, 1972, at about 7:00 o’clock in the
evening, he with his companions Segundo Carig and Hilario Carig saw
Modesto Mesias, Jr., Rodolfo Agne and two other persons on the road to
San Felipe; that they saw them standing on the road with a girl but saw
nothing unusual; that they continued their walk and that when they were
about to reach their houses, they heard shouts but they were not certain
as to who shouted.
The accused also alleged that the testimony of the victim is replete
with inconsistencies. The victim testified that her right arm was held
by Porferio Mesias while Nicolas Bilog held her left arm. Later she
said the reverse. The victim also said that she was met by her elder
sister upon arrival at their house. On cross-examination, she said that
she was met by her mother. These inconsistencies are of minor details
which do not detract from the credibility of the witness. As properly
observed by the Solicitor General:
“Minor flaws are unavoidable at times and may be due to the lapse
of time or to lack of sufficient education. Discrepancies may be
attributed to deficiencies in observation and recollection,
misapprehension of the misleading and confusing questions during
cross-examination to the defective translation of the questions and
answers but they do not necessarily indicate a wilful attempt to commit
falsehood. (People vs. Sangalang, 58 SCRA 737). In fact, they are
evidence that the witness was not coached and was answering as
spontaneously and truthfully as she could.”[3]
Also, it has been decided in a long line of cases that with respect to
the credibility of witnesses, the Supreme Court has always accorded the
highest decree of respect to the findings of the trial judge, unless
there is proof of misappreciation of evidence – which is absent in the
case at bar.[4] The trial
court said: “The testimonies and demeanor of the witnesses of the
prosecution in court appeared more credible than that of the defense.”
The failure of the prosecution to present the medical certificate of the
victim to prove loss of virginity at the time the crime of rape was
committed is not fatal to the case at bar. Medical examination is not
an indispensable element in the prosecution for the crime of rape,
because it all depends upon the evidence offered and as long as such
evidence convinces the court, a conviction therefore is proper.[5]
At any rate, a medical examination of the victim was performed by Dr.
Nieto M. Salvador but the same was not presented because of the
non-availability of the doctor, although the prosecution did try to
present the doctor even against the lower court’s inclination. Also
virginity of the offended party is not an essential element in the crime
of rape. The fact that the offended party was no longer a virgin
constitutes no defense in a charge of rape, provided that the sexual act
was committed with force and violence.[6]
The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place
however, can not be appreciated for lack of evidence to show that the
accused especially sought or taken advantage of the night and solitude
of the place to facilitate the commission of the crime. It is not
improbable that the victim was casually encountered by the accused while
on her way home. There is no evidence to show that the accused had
sought the victim for any purpose whatsoever.
The crime of rape committed by two or more persons, under paragraph 3,
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No
4111, which took effect on June 20, 1964, is punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death. The penalty of death should be imposed upon the accused
since the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength
attended the commission of the crime of rape with no mitigating
circumstances to offset the same. The evidence shows that while one of
the accused had carnal knowledge of her, the other who held her arms and
kept her from struggling. The accused in conspiracy with one another
cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their superiority
of strength. And as co-conspirators, each of the accused is guilty of
the commission of three rapes and should each be sentenced to three
death penalties. However, for lack of the required number of votes, the
death penalty cannot be imposed upon the accused.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED. With costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
[1] Appellee’s Brief, pp. 2-4.
[2] Appellee’s Brief, pp. 12-13.
[3] AppelIee’s Brief, pp. 6-7.
[4] People v. Jardiniano,
L-37191, March 30, 1981, 103 SCRA 530; People vs. Legones, L-30245, Jan.
30, 1976, 69 SCRA 210; People vs. Boduso, L-30450-51, Sept. 30, 1974,
60 SCRA 60; People vs. Cariño, L-33608, Feb. 12, 1974, 55 SCRA 516.
[5] People vs. Belandres, 85 Phil. 864; People vs. Orteza, L-16033, Sept. 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 109.
[6] People vs. Santos, No. L-38512, Nov. 16, 1979, 94 SCRA 277.