PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUPERTO TAPAO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Bohol.

The appellant, Ruperto Tapao, was charged before the Court of First Instance of Bohol for having allegedly raped Aurea Hangad, a
thirteen-year old unmarried
barrio lass on April 23, 1974,
in the municipality of Balilihan, Province of Bohol. 
Judgment was rendered in the case on August 7, 1975, whereby the said appellant was sentenced, under the charge aforesaid, “to
reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the complainant, Aurea Hangad, the sum of
Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos in concept of moral and exemplary damages,” and to pay the costs.

The evidence for the prosecution, as succinctly summarized by the
trial court, is, as follows:

“At about 10 o’clock
that morning of April 23, 1974,
the 28-year old accused, who is well-known to Aurea
(as his wife is the niece of the
father-in-law of Aurea’s father), went to the house
where Aurea lives. 
Aurea was left alone in the house together
with her 2-year old half brother who was then sleeping in the hammock under the
house; her grandfather was threshing palay in
the field; her brother, Vir­gilio, had gone out to
the house of their neighbor.  The nearest
house is about 55 meters.  Previous to
that date, the accused had gone to the house of Aurea’s
grandfather as he tilled a ricefield near­by.  The accused first looked at the pictures,
then he sat beside Aurea on the bench and as Aurea transferred to the sofa, he sat beside her.  He held Aurea’s
hands and Aurea struggled in vain to extricate
herself.  He proceeded to lift and place
her on his lap and then carried her to the kitchen some 8 meters away.  He placed her down and, despite the
resistance put up by her, by sheer superior force he removed her pantie, placed himself on top of her, and inserted his
penis into her vagina.  Aurea experienced extreme pain upon penetration.  She was unable to shout for help as the
accused placed a handkerchief into her mouth. 
After the sexual act, he warned her not to tell anybody or he would kill
her.

“On May 1, while Aurea was with her
cousin, 13-year old Erlinda Andig,
in the house the ac­cused arrived.  He
asked Erlinda to go home.  Aurea did not allow
Erlinda to go. 
As Erlinda refused to get out, the accused sat
beside her, held her hands, and placed them over his unexposed penis.  Erlinda pulled away
her hands.  A moment later, the accused went home.  On that occasion Aurea
revealed to Erlinda that the accused had raped her
before.  This revelation was transmitted
by Erlinda to
her mother and it was the latter who told Aurea’s
father.  Late in the afternoon of Sunday, May 5, 1974, at the house of
his parent-in-law where Aurea stayed, Aurea’s father verified from her and was told by Aurea about the rape on her by the accused on April
22.  The following day, May 6, he brought
Aurea to the PC Headquarters at Tagbilaran
where a formal charge was made.  Aurea was
interrogated and her sworn statement (Exhibit A) taken.  On the same day she was physically examined
at the Bohol
Provincial Hospital
where it was found that her vaginal canal easily admitted one finger and there
were healed lacerations at 6 o’clock and 1
o’clock on her
external orifice of the vagina (Exhibit C). 
On May 20, 1974, Aurea filed a verified complaint for rape (Exhibit B)
against the accused.

“Aurea explained that she did not
tell her grandfather and father soon after the accused raped her because she
was afraid as the accused threatened to kill her if she would tell
anybody.”^[1]

The appellant assails the said decision, claiming among others,
that no rape has been committed since the offended party, Aurea
Hangad, did not offer much resistance when she was
allegedly ravished by the
appellant, hinting that she was a willing victim to the sexual act.

There is merit in the appeal. 
The evidence adduced by Aurea Hangad in support of her claim that she was abused by the
appellant, Ruperto Tapao,
against her will, consists of her own
sole and uncorroborated testimony.  The
rule in this jurisdiction is that a charge
of rape based upon the sole testimony of one who complains of rape should be regarded with utmost caution
and that the person charged with
the offense should not be convicted unless the complainant’s testimony is
impeccable and rings true throughout.^[2]
In the instant case, the
complainant’s uncorroborated narrative invites criticism.  At the start of the assault when the
appellant held her hands and placed her on his lap, the complainant made no
outcry.  She continued in silence while the appellant lifted her
from the sofa and carried her to the kitchen.^[3]
Then, instead of attempting to escape,
she willingly laid down near the earthen stove upon being told by the appellant to do so.

Her testimony
reads, as follows:

“Q   And
then he placed you on the floor?

A   Yes, sir. 
He made me lie down.

“Q   And
you willingly lie down?

A   That is correct because he made me lie
down.”^[4]

The complainant did not also make any
significant attempt to prevent the appellant
from removing her underwear and have sexual intercourse with her, although the
appellant was unarmed, or that he threatened the complainant or made
threatening gestures.  Her declaration in court reads, as follows:

“Q   What
did you do also?

A   I tried to manuever
myself making my side top of the floor and he removed his pants and placed
himself on top of me.

“Q   After
placing himself on top of you, what did he do?

A   He exposed his penis.

“Q   After
exposing his penis, what happened?

A   He guided
his penis to my vagina.

“Q   In
effect was Ruperto Tapao
able to insert his penis to your vagina?

A   It penetrated a little because whenever he exerted
effort it is very painful.

“Q   When
the penis of Ruperto Tapao
was inserted to your vagina, what did Ruperto Tapao do?

A   He
did push and pull movement.

“Q   For
how long do you think did Ruperto Tapao
make push and pull movement?

A   It did not take long.

“Q   At
the time the penis of Ruperto Tapao
was inside your vagina, what did he do with your hands, he did anything?

A   He held my hands.

“Q   Did
you like what Ruperto Tapao
did to you?

A   No, sir.

“Q   Why?

A   I did not feel (enjoy) the sensation because what he did was
ugly thing.

“Q   Were
you able to shout during that time.

A   No, sir?

“Q
  Why?

A   I was not able to shout because he placed
handkerchief inside my mouth.

“Q   After
Ruperto Tapao inserted his
penis to your vagina, what did Ruperto Tapao (I will reform the question.)

“Q   After
Ruperto Tapao had intercoursed with you, what did he do?

A   He went downstairs and before going he told me
that if I ever make noise he will kill me”^[5]

Furthermore,
Aurea remained silent after she was allegedly abused
against her will on April 23, 1974.  It was
only a week later when she divulged the act to her playmate, Erlinda Antig.

A woman’s most precious
asset is the purity of her womanhood.  She
will resist to the last ounce of her
strength any attempt to defile it. 
In the face of superior force or of imminent threat to her life she will succumb and submit.  But, once the force or threat is lifted, she will not lose time in seeking justice and retribution.^[6] If the assault against Aurea’s
honor was really true and it was against her will, certainly at the first sign
of a lascivious act her impulse would be to cry for help.  Her silence and the belated showing
against the outrage was not such as could reasonably be expected of a girl who had been forced to submit to a man against her will and
places her story in grievous doubt.  More so, when we take into account that there
were no telltale bruises, scratches or contusions usually attendant to a
violent struggle for a woman’s honor. 
While it may be true that the “vaginal canal easily admits 1
finger” and that there are “healed laceration, external orifice of
the vagina, 6 o’clock
and 1 o’clock“,^[7] the
rupture of the hymen is not a sure index
of a sexual experience.  A host of other causes than penetration of
the vagina by a penis can bring about laceration of the
hymen.  Masturbation, accidental violence, exaggerated separation of thighs, rigorous and excessive physical exercise and activities are among
the other factors that may cause
laceration of the hymen independently of
the act of sexual intercourse.^[8]

 It also seems very unnatural that the
complainant confided the assault to her honor and person to her playmate, and not to her grandfather, with
whom she was living, or to her father, who should be the first to whom such personal matter should
be confided because as her own flesh and flood, they would be more concerned
and solicitous to her.

Her claim that she did not tell her father
or grandfather of the rape because of the threat made after the
sexual act is preposterous since
it appears that the complainant had told Erlinda Antig of the alleged assault in the very presence and
hearing of the appellant, and the appellant did nothing about it, but meekly
left the house of Aurea.  Her testimony reads, as follows:

“Q   Did
you tell your father later about what happened to you?

A   It was only May 1, 1974, when accused Ruperto
Tapao returned to the house and at that time Erlinda was with me in the house.  The accused entered and he told Erlinda to go home. 
I told Erlinda don’t go home because I was
raped by him.

“Q   What
is the name of Erlinda?

A   Erlinda Antig.

“Q   Why
was Erlinda Antig with you
that morning of May 1, 1974?

A   We were playing.

“Q   Was
there something Ruperto Tapao
did on that day?

A   During that day Ruperto
Tapao went upstairs. 
We followed him upstairs, after which we sat on the bench and he also
sat on the chair and accused Ruperto Tapao told Erlinda to go
home.  Upon hearing I told Erlinda not to go home because I was raped by him.  After that he commanded Erlinda
to gather vegetables (bago).

“Q   In
effect did Erlinda go out and gather bago?

A   She did not because I told Erlinda not to obey his command.  He should be the one to gather the
vegetable.  He is sitting there.

“Q   What
did Ruperto Tapao do?

A   After that, accused Ruperto
Tapao sat beside us and then we transferred to the
bench and then he followed us and held the hands of Erlinda
and placed the hands in front of the penis of the accused Ruperto
Tapao and then Erlinda
pulled away her hands.  After pulling her
hands, Erlinda was able to hold the stairs of the
house and then Ruperto proceeded home.”
(Underscoring supplied for emphasis).^[9]

Such conduct and behavior in the light of
the threat made are contrary to the ordinary course of things and common
experience and create in the mind some serious doubt as to the truthfulness and
veracity of the complaint.  If the
appellant had truly threatened the complain­ant, as alleged, he would have
reacted violently instead of merely going home.

At any rate, the alleged threat was not made to intimidate the
complainant into having sexual intercourse with the appellant, but was made
after the sexual act in order to keep her quiet, so that there is no sufficient
evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that rape had been committed and that
the appellant is guilty thereof.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment should be, as it is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one entered ACQUITTING the appel­lant
Ruperto Tapao of the
charge.  With costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Fernandez,* Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Record, pp. 157-159.

^[2]
People vs. Ariarte, 60 Phil. 326, 328.

^[3]
p. 11, t.s.n. of December 6, 1974.

^[4]
p. 11, t.s.n. of March 5, 1975.

^[5]
pp. 12-13, t.s.n. of December 6, 1974.

^[6]
People vs. Optinalia,
CA-G.R. 12953-R, August 4, 1955.

^[7]
Exhibit “C”.

^[8]
People vs. Macaso,
CA-G.R. No.
20679-R, June 16, 1959.

^[9]
pp. 15-16, t.s.n. of December 6, 1974.

* Mr. Justice Ramon C. Fernandez,
a member of the First Division, was designated to sit in the Second Division,
in lieu of Mr. Justice Ramon C. Aquino, who took no
part.