THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO PEÑA Y CAYAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is a case of forcible abduction with rape.  The trial court convicted the accused,
Rolando Peña, of rape only.  It found that forcible abduction was not
proven because lewd de­signs were absent in the taking by the accused of the
complainant, Esther Tayag, from Ocampo
Street, Caloocan City to an isolated hut in Manila
Bay near Lido Beach, Noveleta, Cavite,
where she was allegedly raped.

Peña, twenty-eight years old, single, a
native of General Trias, Cavite,
formerly a second year college student at the Feati
University and a resident of 3435 A. B. Tan Street, Barrio Obrero,
Tondo, Manila, was a security guard of the Hercon Secu­rity Agency, 158 Lakandula
Street, Bulakeña Restaurant, North Harbor, Tondo, Manila.

Esther Tayag, twenty-three years old,
single and a resi­dent of 133 Macabalo
Street, Caloocan
City, was a sales girl since 1966 of the Shelton Department Store located at Carriedo Street, Quiapo, Manila,
with office hours from nine o’clock in
the morning to eight-thirty in the
evening.  She came to know          Peña in
April, 1971 when her friend Oscar introduced him to her at her residence.  They were not sweethearts.

Peña said that his love for Esther
extended up to heaven and that he was ready to marry her so that she would be
his wife and would be on his side as long as he lived (“Sapagkat hanggang langit po ang
pagmamahal ko sa kanya at handa
ko siyang pakasalan upang maging asawa ko
siya at maging kapiling ko habang
buhay.” (Exh.
C).

As to the rape, the evidence of the prosecution consists of Peña’s extrajudicial confession and the offended girl’s testi­mony.

Peña admitted in his confession that he
intimidated Esther into having sexual intercourse with him.  The pertinent portion of his confession reads
(Exh. C):

“19. T: Noong
siya ay iyong kunan ng kanyang
kapurihan o ng kanyang pagkababae, yon ba ay labag din sa kanyang
kalooban o pinipilit mo lang siya? – S: Opo.  Noong una noong
nasa kubo
kami sa laot,
pinilit ko siya pero noong
bandang huli ay hindi na.

“20. T: Papaano
mo nakuha ang kanyang pagkababae kung labag sa
kanyang kalooban? – S: Noong una ay tinakot
ko siya
sa pamamagitan ng tres kantos
na patalim pero noong bandang
huli na ay hindi na.”

The medico-legal officer of the Constabulary
crime laboratory at Camp Crame, who examined. 
Esther on June 12, 1971 or three days after the first sexual
intercourse, found, upon separating her slightly hypertrophic
labia minora, “a congested vulvar
mucosa, an abraded posterior fourchette and an
elastic, fleshy-type hymen with healing lacerations at the 3 and 9 o’clock
positions.” Her external vaginal orifice offered moderate resistance to the introduction of the examining
index finger and the virgin-sized vaginal speculum.  Her vaginal canal was tight with slightly shallowed rugosities.  The vaginal and peri-urethral
smears were positive for gram-negative diplococci and
for spermatozoa.

According to the doctor, those findings, particularly the two
lacerations which were in the process of healing, were compatible with a recent
loss of physical virginity through sexual intercourse.  (Exh.
B).

Esther testified that in the morning of Wednesday, June 9, 1971 she boarded at Ocampo Street, Caloocan
City a jeepney bound for Blumentritt Street, Manila
in order to report for work.  Inside the jeepney was a lone passenger who was reading a newspaper
which covered his face.  He turned out to
be Peña.  He
moved to Esther’s side, pointed a gun at her waist, and told her not to shout
or he would kill her, or, as she testified on cross-examination, he pointed a
gun at her when they were at Blumentritt Street (9 tsn Sept. 16, 1971; 21, 26 tsn
Dec. 14, 1971).

The jeepney proceeded to Quiapo, Manila
but did not take other passengers.  When
it reached Quiapo, Esther told the driver to stop but
Peña, who continued to poke the gun at her right
waist­line, directed the driver to proceed to Baclaran,
Parañaque, Rizal.  At Baclaran, the jeepney slowed down. “Two husky, dark men”
allegedly boarded the jeepney.  Peña told her that
the two men were tough characters (“siga-siga, maton”).

The jeepney proceeded to a seashore (Lido Beach,
Noveleta, Cavite)
where it stopped.  The driver and the two
men got down.  As instructed by Peña, one of the men produced a boat.  Peña pushed Esther
into the boat and fired two shots into the water.  He sat beside her in the boat.  One of the men rowed the boat and brought the
two to a hut in the middle of the bay. 
It was around ten o’clock.  Peña took her
inside the hut and instructed the man, who had rowed the boat, to leave and
return after a while.

Inside the hut, Peña fired again his
gun into the sea, then placed it on the floor, and took out a balisong (tres cantos) knife “from underneath his socks” and placed it
likewise on the floor.  Without any
provocation, he allegedly told her: “You are a beast.  Even if you shout here, you cannot do
anything.  No one will help you.  Undress”.  (“Hayop
ka, kahit magsisigaw ka pa rito, wala ka nang
magagawa. 
Walang sasaklolo sa iyo.  Maghubad ka.”).

When Esther did not undress, Peña
pointed the knife at her neck.  She tried
to push it aside.  Peña
placed the knife on the floor and removed his clothes.  He took off her blouse, mashed her breasts,
inserted his hand into her private organ and pulled down her shorts and
panty.  When Esther resisted and fought Peña, he got his gun and pointed it at her.

After some struggle, she became weak.  By placing her hands away from her body and
spreading out her thighs, he was able to place his penis inside her vagina and
to have carnal know­ledge of her.  She
shouted because of the pain and later she lost consciousness.

When she regained consciousness, she saw blood on her private
parts.  She was scared and feeling
weak.  She put on her panty while Peña put on his clothes. 
They stayed in the hut for around five hours.

When it was already getting dark, she and Peña
boarded the boat and returned to the shore. 
He cautioned her not to tell anything to his aunt; otherwise, he would
kill her.  They rode in the jeep and went
to the residence of Peña’s aunt at Barrio Bagbag, Rosario,
Cavite.  It was already dark.  Peña told his aunt
that he and Esther had eloped.

They went to a room upstairs. 
Peña locked the room and, while pointing his
gun at her, removed her clothes (except her skirt), fondled her breasts, made
her lie down on the floor and had
sexual intercourse with her.  They stayed
in that room up to June 11.

In the morning of June
11, 1971, Esther asked Peña to allow her
to contact her mother by long distance telephone.  Peña advised her to
tell her folks that she was in good condi­tion. 
Esther went to the house of Peña’s cousin and
asked her to phone her sister, Nenita Tayag.  She was able
to talk with the mother-in-law of her sister. 
She told the latter that she was in good condition; that she was in Bagbag Street, Cavite City and that what had happened to
her was not her own desire.  While she
was at the phone, Peña was allegedly poking a gun at
her waist.  The mother-in-law of her
sister advised her not to leave the place where she was staying.

At noontime, Peña locked her in the
room and went out.  Upon his return, he
removed his clothes, pointed the gun at her, caressed her body, sucked her
breasts, and told her to suck his penis. 
She did not obey him.  He had
sexual intercourse with her.

Later in the day, while she was at the window, she saw her mother
riding in a car with some companions. 
She shouted:  “Mother, my
God, Mother“. 
(Inay, Dios ko, Inay“.) Her
mother entered the house, accompanied by policemen.  They got Peña’s gun
and knife.  Peña
told her not to go with her mother because if she left him, he would be jailed.  She and her mother and the policemen went to
the municipal building of Rosario, Cavite.  She was investigated.  Peña was detained
in the municipal jail.

He was later brought to Manila and investigated by the Manila
police at Precinct No. 5 in Balut, Tondo, where he made an extrajudicial confession.

On June 15, 1971
a complaint for forcible abduction with rape was filed against Peña in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case
No. 5297).  Esther swore to the
complaint.

For having committed rape with the use of a knife and a revolver,
the trial court sentenced Peña to reclusion perpetua but did not require him to pay an indemnity.

Peña contends that the trial court
erred (1) in admitting in evidence his extrajudicial confession; (2) in giving
credence to complainant’s testimony; (3) in finding that Peña had carnal
knowledge of the complainant by means of threats; (4) in finding that Peña used a gun and a knife, and (5) in convicting him.

Peña assailed the voluntariness
of his confession.  He testified that a Manila
policeman gave him a karate blow on his back and thigh while he was in Precinct
5, Balut, Tondo.

Patrolman Florendo C. Angeles testified
that Pena volun­tarily recounted what had happened.  The investigation was con­ducted in a room
twenty meters long and seven meters wide. 
Patrolman Angeles asked Peña questions which
he typed together with his answers. 
Angeles denied that he made threats against Peña.  The trial court found that the confession was
voluntary.  We agree with that finding.

It should be noted that on the occasion when Peña’s
con­fession was taken, Esther Tayag was in the police
precinct, where she was also investigated. 
She had a confrontation with Peña.  She pointed to him and shouted in Tagalog: “Iyan and gumahasa sa akin. 
Patayin ninyo iyan.  Sunugin ninyo iyan.”
(4 tsn Aug, 26, 1971).

Peña invoked section 20, Article IV of
the 1973 Constitu­tion which provides that “no person shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself”; that “any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain
silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right”; that “no
force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the
free will shall be used against him”, and that “any confession
obtained in violation” of section 20 “shall be inadmissible in
evidence”.

We have already held that the innovations introduced by section
20 have no retroactive effect (Magtoto vs. Manguera, L-37201-02, March 3, 1975, 63 SCRA 4).  The confession in this case was obtained
before January 17, 1973
when the present Constitution took effect. 
Appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.

Having ruled that Peña’s confession was
not obtained through duress, it follows that his admission therein that he
raped Esther Tayag is conclusive against him.  Peña’s argu­ments
in his other assignments of error, wherein he impugned complainant’s
credibility and contended that
no weapons were used and that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt,
cannot destroy his own admission that he intimidated Esther into having sexual
intercourse with himself.

We find the following
conclusions of the trial court, re­jecting Peña’s
version, which contradicts his
confession, to be correct and plausible:

“On the other hand, the statement of the accused that he did
not commit the act imputed to him, is solely based
upon his uncorroborated and self-serving testimony.  According to his version, Ester was his
sweetheart, whom he met on board a ‘jeepney‘ in the
morning of June 9, 1971; that as Ester was already late for her work, Rolando (Peña) invited her to go with him to Cavite
to introduce her to his relatives; that Ester agreed but while they were
already on the way, they thought of buying oysters, and accordingly they
proceeded to a place near the sea­shore; that at the time, there were no
oysters for sale, and so the two went boating instead and then stayed for about
one-half hour in a nipa hut constructed near the
oyster farm; that after passing away the time in the nipa
hut, they left the place and proceeded
to Barrio Bagbag, Rosario, Cavite,
where at the house of the sister of his father, Rolando introduced Ester as his
wife; that at 3:00 p.m., Rolando left Ester in the house of his aunt and
returned to Manila, where he worked as security guard from 5:00 p.m. of June 9,
1971, to 1:00 a.m. of June 10, 1971; that early in the morning of the last
date, he returned to Barrio Bagbag, Rosario, Cavite, where between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning, with
her assent, he had carnal knowledge of Ester; that before noon,
Rolando and Ester went to Cavite City, where she was
introduced to a cousin of the mother of the accused; that Ester tried to call his mother by long distance telephone, but she was
unable to make a connection; that in the afternoon of the same day, they
returned to Rosario, Cavite, where Ester was again
left in the house of the aunt of Rolando Peña, who went to Manila to work as security guard; that early in the morning of June 11, 1971,
Rolando returned to Rosario, Cavite, and joined Ester
in the house of his aunt; that after lunch, Rolando accom­panied Ester to Cavite City, where she made another long dis­tance
telephone call to Manila, and this time she was able to talk with the
mother-in-law of her sister; that Ester informed that party where she was, with
the request to relay the message to her mother; that in the afternoon of said
date, Ester’s mother, with several companions, arrived in Barrio Bagbag, Rosario, Cavite; that
Ester was investigated by the police authorities of said municipality and as a
result thereof Rolando was detained in its jail.

“The story given by the accused, was
irrational and un­convincing.  His
pretension that Ester accepted his proffer of love in the morning of Holy
Friday, after he visited her three times in her house, which was usually done
at about 5:00 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon, could not be true.  In the first place, the accused failed to
produce any tangible evidence like a letter, gift, or any item which may have
come from Ester indicating that they are already sweethearts.

“Besides, Rolando affirmed that he was required to re­port for
work every day of the week and so had he visited Ester on two Sundays in March,
1971, he would have been absent from work for two days, and yet in the report
of Hercon Security Agency to the Social Security
System for said month no deduction was made from his salary (Exh. 8), thereby indicating that he worked everyday that
month.  Finally, it is very unlikely and
hard to believe that a young man would visit the young woman he is courting
especially in the morning of a Holy Friday, because to Christian Filipinos, it
is a day dedicated to prayers and meditation.

“The explanation given by the accused to the effect that he
invited Ester to go to Cavite
to introduce her to his relatives is not worthy of credence.  Even assuming that Ester was the sweetheart
of the accused (which the former, however, vehemently denied), any introduction
should have been made first to his parents, who reside in Tondo,
Manila, for which reason there
would be no need to go to Cavite.

“In the second place, any such introduction would be premature
because the accused and his alleged sweetheart have not yet made any plan to
get married.  Moreover, it could not be true that Ester was
brought to Cavite
so that she would come to know the relatives of the accused, because for two
days that she was in said province, she was introduced only to two of them,
namely, a sister of the father of Rolando and a cousin of his mother.

“Finally, Ester was made to stay in Cavite up to June 11, 1971 and not allowed to return to Manila
in the afternoon of June 9, 1971,
for which reason she was not able to report for work on the 10th and 11th of
said month.  Evidently, the reason given
by the accused for inviting Ester to go to Cavite because she was already
late in going to her place of work in the morning of June 9, 1971, was not true.

“Counsel contends that the accused could not have brought
Ester to the nipa hut against her will because she
could easily have done something along the way which would attract the
attention of other persons, thereby thwarting whatever plans the accused
had.  This contention, in the opinion of
the Court, is not well taken.  According
to Ester, they were the only passengers on board the jeepney
and the accused had the barrel of a revolver pointed against her right
waistline.

“Ester is a nervous and easily scared type of individual, and
so upon being threatened with a deadly weapon, she lost her composure so much
so that what she did was merely to cry and
cover her face with a handkerchief. 
Besides, Ester became more helpless when two ‘husky and dark’ men
boarded the ‘jeepney‘ somewhere in Baclaran, and she was informed by the accused that they are
‘tough’ thereby making it more difficult, if not to say impossible, for her to
make any attempt to escape or run away.

“Another circumstance which persuaded the Court into giving
more credence to the testimony of Ester than to that of the accused,
was the reaction of the former when asked to iden­tify the person who abducted
and raped her and she had to
look in the direction where the accused was seated in the Court room.  Ester immediately became hysterical,
and uttered words of indignation and condemnation against the accused, which
reached a high pitch and then she collapsed and lost consciousness.  This happened on several occasions so much so
that the trial had to be suspended for half an hour or transferred to another
date be­cause Ester was visibly in no condition to give further
testimony.”

The result is that the fact of the commission of the rape or the corpus delicti was proven by the testimony of Esther
Tayag and the medical certificate and testimony of the medico-legal
officer of the Constabulary crime laboratory.

Appellant’s voluntary extrajudicial confession, that he raped Esther, was, therefore,
corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti (Sec.
3, Rule 133, Rules of Court).

We also agree with the trial court that the crime of forcible
abduction was not proven.  Complainant’s
story as to how she was abducted contains improbabilities, such as that the jeepney, wherein she was riding, made no stops during its trip from Blumentritt Street to Quiapo and that
she did not remember the streets traversed by the jeepney.

Although the forcible abduction, which was supposedly commenced
in Manila, was not proven and
although the rape, which was proven, was actually committed in Cavite, still the Court of First
Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to convict the accused of rape.

The complex crime of forcible abduction with rape was charged in
the complaint on the basis of which the case was tried.  That complex crime is a transitory
offense.  The Court of First Instance of
Manila had jurisdiction over that complex crime because an essential element of
the abduction took place in Manila (Sec. 14, Rule 110, Rules of Court; Parulan vs. Rodas and Reyes, 78
Phil. 855; People vs. Parulan, 88 Phil. 615; Parulan vs. Director of Prisons, L-28519, February 17,
1968, 22 SCRA 638; U. S. vs. Bernabe, 23 Phil. 154,
159).

Moreover, the averments in the complaint or information
characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be
tried (Balite vs. People, L-21475, September 30, 1966, 18 SCRA 280, 288).  The complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape was explicitly spelled out in the complaint of Esther Tayag.

Rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon is punished by reclusion perpetua to death.  There being no aggra­vating nor mitigating
circumstances, the trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua on
defendant-appellant Peña (Arts. 63[2] and 335,
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111).

The trial court overlooked the imposition of an indemnity or
civil liability which is mandated in articles 100, 104(3), 107 and 345(1) of
the Revised Penal Code.  An indemnity of
twelve thousand pesos should be imposed on Peña
(People vs. Gonzales, L-33926, July 31, 1974, 58 SCRA 265, 271; People vs. Amiscua, L-31238, February 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 813).

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed with the
modification that appellant Peña should pay to Esther
Tayag an indemnity of P12,000.  Costs against the
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

Fernando and Santos,
JJ., on leave.

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