THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CLAUDIO BULAONG AND FONSO LAURECIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Claudio Bulaong appealed from the decision dated September 28, 1973
of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato,
General Santos City Branch I, convicting him of eight complex crimes of
forcible abduction with rape, sentencing him to eight penalties of reclusion
perpetua and
ordering him to pay the victim, Delena Segapo, a total indemnity (including attorney’s fees) of
P130,000 (Criminal Case No. 559).

In that same decision,
Alfonso Laurecio was convicted as an accomplice and
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional
as minimum to ten years and one day of prision mayor as maximum and to pay the same indemnity to Delena
Segapo.

In this Court’s
resolution of February 1, 1979, Laurecio’s
petition to withdraw his appeal was granted (p. 183, Rollo).

In the afternoon of December
5, 1972, Delena Segapo,
14, and her sister, Nena, 8 (both Bilaans),
left their house at Barrio Landan, Polomolok, South Cotabato,
to perform an errand for their father. 
After walking for about forty minutes, they boarded a passenger jeepney and arrived in the public market of General Santos City at around six o’clock in the evening.

Their destination was Barrio Kiblat, Malungon, South Cotabato where they were going to collect an
account from a person named Tamigo.  But as there was no more jeepney
going to Malungon at that hour, the sisters decided
to take a tricycle to convey them to the house of Pedro Mula,
their relative residing at Laurel Street in that city.

Before the two girls could ride in a tricycle, Claudio Bulaong, a 35-year-old married man with five children, appeared
at the market place.  He was well-known
to the two sisters because, as an only son, he administered his family lands in
Barrio Landan where many Bilaans
resided.  Bulaong
alighted from his jeep, pointed his gun at the two sisters, held Delena’s neck and forced her and her sister to board his
jeep.

He conducted them to the New Bay View Hotel in the city where Bulaong forced them to enter Room 304.  He was still holding his gun with one hand
and with his other hand, he held Delena’s arm.  He threatened to kill the two sisters if they
would escape and refuse to enter the hotel room.

After they had entered the room, Bulaong
locked the door.  He removed Delena’s jeans and panties and pushed her to one of the
beds.  He undressed.  When Delena, was on
the bed, he stripped her of her blouse and bra and placed himself on top of
her.

She resisted, spitting at him and kicking and scratching
him.  She was crying.  Her sister, Nena,
was also in tears, a helpless spectator of the ravishment being committed
against Delena. 
Bulaong spread Delena’s
legs, inserted his penis into her vagina and made push-and-pull movements.  He succeeded in having sexual congress with
her.

After satisfying his lust,
Bulaong went out of the room.  He took the precaution of locking it to
prevent the two sisters from escaping. 
He obtained food from the restaurant on the ground floor.  He reentered the room with the food.  Delena refused to
eat.

Bulaong had sexual intercourse with Delena eight times in the hotel.  She suffered pain in her genital organ.  It was bleeding.  At about six
o’clock in the afternoon of the
following day, December 6, Bulaong and the two
sisters left the hotel.  He brought them
in his jeep to his parents’ bungalow in Barrio Landan
which was then unoccupied.  They were locked in a room, Fonso Laurecio, a houseboy armed with a gun, guarded
them.  Bulaong
had sexual intercourse with Delena in that place.

On December 31, 1972,
while Bulaong and Delena were taking lunch, the eight-year-old Nena
(who had already been detained for twenty-six days) was able to escape by
passing through the ceiling and holding on to the pipe which led to the
ground.  She did not take the road.  She traversed the savanna with cogon grass
and followed the creek leading to her house.

Nena recounted the outrage to her
mother, Maria Malid, and later to her father, Dalama Segapo, when he arrived on
January 2, 1973 from Malungon.  Dalama reported the incident to Lieutenant Torcuator of the city police department who, instead of
taking direct action, advised Dalama to complain to
the barrio captain who in turn told Dalama to ask
Rudy Ante, a barrio councilor, to accompany him to Bulaong’s
house.

On January 6, 1973,
Dalama and Ante repaired to Bulaong’s
house.  Dalama
asked Bulaong to deliver to him his daughter, Delena.  Laurecio, armed with a gun, brought Delena
to her father.  Dalama
took her home.

Two days later, or on January 8, the city health officer examined
Delena and found that there were recent multiple
lacerations in her hymen which admitted two fingers.  He concluded that she was no longer a virgin
and that she was the victim of “recent sexual intercourse” (Exh. A).

A Constabulary
investigator took the statements of Dalama and his
two daughters.  On January
9, 1973, a complaint
for forcible abduction with rape, signed by Delena
and Dalama, was filed in the city court against Bulaong as principal and Laurecio
as an accomplice.  At past four o’clock in the afternoon of that day, the city judge
interrogated Delena. 
The examination was reduced to writing in the form of searching
questions and answers.  The next day the
city judge conducted a similar examination of Nena
and Dalama.

A warrant was issued for
the arrest of Bulaong and Laurecio.  No bail was recommended.  Bulaong and Laurecio surrendered voluntarily on January 10 and 12,
respectively (pp. 31 and 46,
Record).  They waived the preliminary
investigation.  On January
23, 1973, the city
fiscal filed in the Court of First Instance against Bulaong
and Laurecio an information
for forcible abduction with rape.  The
two accused entered a plea of not guilty.

After trial, the lower court rendered the judgment of conviction
already stated.  In this appeal, Bulaong contends through his counsel de oficio that the lower court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case because the information filed by the city fiscal is
fatally defective for not containing the verification required in Form 24 of
the Appendix to the Rules of Court.

That contention has no merit. 
The forms prescribed in the Rules of Court “serve as mere
illustrations”.  Jurisdiction over
the crime charged in this case is conferred by law, not by the complaint or
information which is merely the means by which jurisdiction is invoked or which
gives the court the occasion for exercising its jurisdiction.  (Valdepeñas vs.
People, 123 Phil. 734.)

In this case, the
complaint for abduction with rape against Bulaong was
filed in the city court by the offended girl and her father.  That complaint was sworn to before the city
judge (Exh. B).  It was the basis of the preliminary
examination.  The judge examined the
witnesses under oath.  The examination
was reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers.  On the basis of that examination, a warrant
of arrest was issued.

The accused waived in
writing the second stage of the preliminary investigation.  In such a case, the fiscal is not called upon
to conduct another preliminary investigation (People vs. Pervez,
110 Phil. 214).

He could file an information on the basis of the preliminary investigation
conducted by the inferior court because the prosecution of the offense is under
his direction and control.  He could not
have certified that he held a preliminary investigation because the preliminary
examination was actually conducted by the city court and the second stage of
the preliminary investigation was waived by the accused.

In a case, like the
instant case, involving crimes against chastity, the prosecution may be
conducted by the fiscal on the basis of the complaint filed in the inferior
court.  There is no need to file an information. 
(People vs. Imas, 64 Phil. 419; People vs.
Varela, 64 Phil. 1066; People vs. Roa, 60 Phil. 1013; U. S. vs. Garcia, 27 Phil. 254;
People vs. Zurbano, L-32673, February 22, 1971, 37 SCRA 565.)

Hence, the other
contention of the accused that the information should have been signed by the
offended girl is wrong.  Article 344 of
the Revised Penal Code, reproduced in section 4, Rule110 of the Rules of Court,
does not require that the offended girl in a crime against chastity should sign
the information filed by the fiscal (People vs. Cerena,
106 Phil. 570).

The accused contends that
the information dated January 22, 1973, which was filed on the following day,
January 23, is void because it was “received and filed on January
9, 1973” and,
consequently, the case against the accused was “railroaded”.

That contention is
baseless and preposterous.  The
information was filed on January 23, not on January 9.  Evidently, counsel de oficio is
mistaken.  He did not examine the record
carefully.

Another baseless
contention of counsel de oficio, which
shows his failure to peruse the record with due care, is that it is not alleged
in the information that the forcible abduction with rape was committed with
lewd design.  The incontestable fact is
that in both complaint and information “lewd design” is explicitly averred.

Counsel de oficio’s fifth
assignment of error is that the trial court erred in not finding that the
victim’s father and accused Bulaong entered into a
compromise.  Counsel then argues that,
because of such a compromise, Bulaong is not guilty.

The argument is feeble and flimsy.  The testimonies quoted by counsel show that
the victim’s father pretended to agree to a dowry of one carabao
and two thousand pesos just to be able to secure the release of his daughter
who was held in captivity by Bulaong.  There is no showing that Bulaong
was pardoned by the victim and her
father.  It is the appropriate pardon
that extinguishes criminal liability for a crime against chastity.

The other assignments of error of counsel de oficio involve the issue of whether the crime of
forcible abduction with rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.  The resolution of that issue requires an
examination of Bulaong’s evidence.

Bulaong, who finished the third year
high school, set up the defense that Delena was his
mistress, who with her parents’ consent, lived with him.  He did not deny that he cohabited with Delena in his father’s house at Barrio Landan
from December 6, 1972 to January 6, 1973 (896 tsn).

He was infatuated with Delena.  He told her that he wanted her to be his
second wife.  He planned to ask his wife
to consent that Delena would be his mistress.  He testified that it was customary among the Bilaans to have a second wife.

When Bulaong
allegedly told Delena that he loved her, she replied
that she had liked him for a long time already (782).  (However, on cross- examination, Bulaong said that he never told Delena
that he loved her, 855.)

About the end of October, 1972, he informed Dalama
that he wanted Delena to be his second wife.  Dalama said that he
should talk with Delena.  Bulaong and Delena allegedly became sweethearts on November 16, 1972 while they were in the house
of Palaguyan Lakim, Dalama’s neighbor. 
On that occasion Bulaong kissed Delena several times while they were seated on the floor
and he touched her private parts (883). 
Maria Segapo saw Bulaong
kissing Delena (857).

On November 21, 1972,
Nena Segapo told Bulaong that Delena wanted to
talk with him.  He went to Delena’s house and stayed there from ten in the morning up
to one o’clock in the afternoon.  They allegedly agreed to have an assignation
in General Santos City.  She
borrowed from Bulaong one hundred pesos to be used in
buying a dress for her sister Nena (783-4).  (On cross-examination, Bulaong
testified that it was Dalama who borrowed one hundred
pesos from him, 856).

Nena was to participate as a second
princess in the barrio fiesta to be held on November 24.  (Bulaong’s daughter
was the first princess.) Nena’s dress would be made
by Bulaong’s wife who was operating a dress shop in
the city.  Nena
and Delena went to the city in the afternoon of
November 21.  Bulaong
followed later.  He waited for them near
the theater on Pioneer Street,
where he met Moreno Delfin, his friend.

When the sisters arrived, Bulaong and Delfin brought them to Satea’s
restaurant located on the ground floor of the New Bay View Hotel where they
took a merienda.  After they had finished eating, Bulaong directed Delfin to take
the girls to Room 304 of the hotel.

Bulaong allegedly stayed with the two
girls in Room 304.  Nena
slept in one bed.  Bulaong
and Delena had sexual intercourse twice in the other
bed.  He discovered that she was not a virgin. 
She allegedly confessed that she had sexual relations with four men,
namely, Roberto Daniel, her cousins Kamad and Nonoy and her uncle (911-913).

He told Delena that he could not take
her as his second wife but if she behaved, he would support any offspring that
they might beget.  They checked out of
the hotel in the morning.

Bulaong went to the office of the
family corporation, Bulaong Enterprises.  He took breakfast in his mother’s house in
the city.  He did not offer any breakfast
to the two girls.  He later saw them near
the public market seated in a jeepney bound for Barrio Landan.  They were sitting beside his mother who was
also going to Landan (803).

According to Bulaong, he met Delena at the dance on the coronation night, November 24, 1972 in Barrio Landan.  He asked her
to dance with him but she allegedly refused because his wife was present.

They met on November 28 or December 28, near the creek behind the
sheller of the Bulaong
family and had sexual intercourse on the ground (809-10, 870).

On December 6, 1972,
Delena was allegedly brought to Bulaong
in his father’s house in Barrio Landan by Rudy Ante,
a barrio councilor.  Delena
asked for a dowry.  Bulaong
denied the request.  At Ante’s behest, Fonso Laurecio, the family
houseboy (a Bilaan, 917), fetched Dalama,
the father of Delena.

Dalama allegedly asked Bulaong to give a dowry (sungod)
consisting of two thousand pesos cash and a carabao.  Bulaong also denied
the request.  Dalama
was infuriated.  He wanted to kill his
daughter.

Dalama left the place.  Ante, Maria Segapo,
Delena, Elon (Maria’ s brother) and Lakim, a
relative of Delena, remained with Bulaong.  They allegedly agreed to entrust Delena to Bulaong because, if she
went home, she would be killed by Dalama.  Delena said that
she would stay with Bulaong wherever he would go
because she loved him (816-7).  They had
sexual intercourse on December 6 (892).

Bulaong testified that four days later Delena went home because her father was no longer
angry.  Bulaong
talked with her parents.  Dalama told Bulaong not to
abandon Delena and to help the Segapo
family.

Bulaong and Delena
and their companions left DaLama’s house at nine o’clock in the evening.  Dalama went with
them because Bulaong was going to give him
sardines.  After Dalama
received the sardines and salmon, he did not insist anymore on the dowry (822).

Bulaong said that Delena
did not stay all the time with him in his father’s house in Barrio Landan:  “just
come and go”.  Nena
sometimes slept with Delena in that house (835).  Delena would stay
for sometime, then leave and go home and then
return to Bulaong’s house.  At that
time his parents were allegedly in Manila,
having gone there at the end of November and returned before January 10, 1973 when Bulaong was arrested (881). 
His wife stayed in her dress shop in the city.

Bulaong testified that on Christmas day
and New Year’s day he was in the house of his
father-in-law in the city (835-6).

Delena left Bulaong on January
7, 1973 because Bulaong told
her to return to her father’s house
before his parents’ arrival.  He gave her
ten pesos (838-40).  After Bulaong discovered that Delena
was not a virgin, he lost interest
in making her his second wife (873).

The trial court
characterized the foregoing version of Bulaong as
improbable, incredible and contrary to human experience, a veritable
“fairy tale”.

Delena, her father Dalama
and her sister Nena returned to the witness stand to
rebut Bulaong’s testimony.  Delena denied
that she had lost her virginity by having had sexual intercourse with a certain
Daniel and with her two cousins and her uncle. 
She did not know Daniel.  She did
not have sexual congress with her two cousins and her uncle because, as she
said:  “I am not an animal”
(1042).

Nonoy, whose full name is Reynaldo Dueñas, testified that as Delena’s
first cousin, he treated her as a sister. 
He denied having had sexual intercourse with Delena.

One serious discrepancy in Bulaong’s
evidence shows its untrustworthiness and fabricated character.  Mildred Areno, a defense
witness, admitted, when asked to testify as a rebuttal witness for the
prosecution, that according to the school register (Exh.
2 or F), which was prepared by her as the Grade two teacher of Nena Segapo, the latter was
present in class on November 21, 1972 (1005).

Yet, according to Bulaong and his
witness Moreno Delfin, Nena
was with Delena in the afternoon of November 21, 1972 when Bulaong and Delena allegedly had
an assignation in the New Bay View Hotel and that the sisters returned to their
residence on the following day.  That
testimony of Bulaong, which is the core of his
defense in this case, is false as shown in the school register (Exh. 2) and as rebutted by his own witness, Mildred Areno.

It should be borne in mind that Delena
and the members of her family are Bilaans or
non-Christians and, as such, are ethnically, socially and economically inferior
to Bulaong and his family, one of the two richest
families in Barrio Landan.  This circumstance serves to explain why it
took Dalama a long time to recover custody of Delena from Bulaong and why the
two girls were easily cowed and frightened into submission by Bulaong.

We agree with the trial
court’s evaluation of the evidence and with its conclusion that Bulaong’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.  The following observations and conclusions of
the trial court are well-taken:

“One need not stretch his imagination to conclude that this
strange story of a love affair, followed by a demand of a dowry by the parents
accompanying their daughter, dismissed outright by the man, with the woman
choosing to remain in the house of her lover, a married man, still smiling and
professing to be in love with him, stayed willingly with him as a wife for
about a month and thereafter filing a case of forcible abduction with rape
against him, is very unusual and improbable, contrary as it is to human
experience, to deserve any modicum of credence (People vs. Alto, 26 SCRA 342,
357).  The reasons are:

“1.  It was vigorously denied by Delena, Nena and Dalama Segapo in their rebuttal
testimonies and directly opposed to their story narrated in the direct evidence
whereby in spite of their being native Bila-ans,
their tender age (with respect to Delena and Nena Segapo) and his illiteracy
(with respect to Dalama Segapo),
they stuck to their versions notwithstanding the long and searching
cross-examinations of two defense attorneys. 
Bereft of artificiality and hesitancy, usually detected in one who
testifies a concocted story, they were frank and straightforward in answering
questions, x x x.

“xxx               xxx                   xxx.

“3.  Defendant having been publicly known to be a married
man in Landan, Polomolok,
South Cotabato, with five children, some of whom were studying in Landan Elementary School (were transferred to
North Elementary School at General Santos City after the present incident) to
Flora Manansala, also known in the locality as a
dressmaker, as in fact Nena Segapo
herself with Delena had her dress sewed by her
immediately before their barrio fiesta on November 24, 1972, aside from the
couple having a house of their own in Landan, it will
be very difficult to believe that Delena, with her
beauty, youth, and elementary education, would allow herself to be rightly
called his sweetheart, knowing very well that he will not be in a position to
marry her, even under Bila-an traditions.  That her parents would give aid and comfort to such an illicit
relationship is impossible.  For our
judicial records are replete with incidents of killings by Bila-ans
to protect the honor and integrity of their women.

“4.  Throughout
his testimony, both in the direct and in the cross, nay, even in answers to
questions of the court, defendant vehemently denied having expressed his love
and promise of marriage to Delena Segapo,
as all the time, he had been conscious that he had promised the same love and
fulfilled it in that grand wedding of May 1, 1960 with Flora Manansala.  All that
he admitted was his statement to Delena’s father that
he wanted her to be his second wife and his statements to Delena
that he liked her.  That is not courtship.  Love begets love and there can be no
sweethearts where one does not confess to be in love.

“5.  That
they had agreed to have a date and sleep as man and wife in the New Bay View
Hotel on November 21, 1972
can easily be dismissed as an outright lie, considering his admission of
the presence of Nena Segapo,
an eight-year old sister of Delena.  Experience has taught us that sweethearts
bent on satisfying their lusts, as we are made to believe in this case, would
have avoided the presence of strangers, more especially a close relative of the
girl (in this case a sister of the victim). 
The third party will make it a crowd.

“6.  No comfort can be had of the registry book for
guests of the New Bay View Hotel showing that on November 21, 1972, Claudio Bulaong
checked in at the hotel in the evening and checked out in the following
morning, to corroborate his story.  On
its face, said entry belied the claim that Claudio Bulaong
was with somebody as he appeared to be alone in Room 304.

“Secondly, the exhibition of a very wonderful memory of Carlos
Ma, in charge of the hotel, remembering Claudio Bulaong
to be with Delena Segapo
and her sister on November 21, 1972 in checking in and checking out,
considering that that was the first time that they were his guests who never
returned, at the same time forgetting all his recent guests, made the plot of a
date very unbelievable.

“Thirdly, this
documentary evidence of the defense is contradicted by its other evidence, that
is, the class record of Grade II pupils identified by Mrs. Mildred Areno which shows that on November 21 and 22, 1972, Nena Segapo was present in her
classes for said days (See Exh. 2-B, J-1, school
register in connection with hotel register, p. 114, marked as Exhibit 8-B).

“7.  The
demand initiated by Maria and Delena Segapo as mother and daughter accompanied by barrio
councilman Rudy Ante in the morning of December 6, 1972 for a dowry of P2,000.00 and a carabao is rather
extraordinary, there having been no proposal of marriage previous to said date
by Claudio Bulaong who in the first place could not
have done so.  For a dowry is only
demandable after there is a proposal of marriage by a man to the parents of the
woman.

“8.  Claudio
Bulaong outrightly
dismissed the demand of a dowry by Dalama Segapo.  In such a
setting, we cannot understand why this conversation commenced at eight o’clock in the morning lasted until about three o’clock in the afternoon when Dalama
Segapo left and until four o’clock when his wife left, the parties not being
served with lunch and merely made to content themselves with soft drinks and
biscuits.  And to make this Court believe
that in spite of the refusal of Claudio Bulaong to
pay the dowry in the presence of Delena, she was
still happy and smiling, telling her parents that she would not leave his house
because she loved him, thus she voluntarily and consciously lived with him as
man and wife until January 6, 1973 is futile.

“That is beyond the realm of realities.  It is a fairy tale when taken with the very
serious case of forcible abduction with rape commenced soon after her liberation in the court below.  Inherently improbable, it was in itself a lie, pure and simple, when we take into account his accusation of Delena
after his alleged first carnal knowledge of her on November 21, 1972, in the
New Bay View Hotel that she was not a virgin and the latter freely confessed
about the four men in her life, some of whom were her own relatives.

“Such a very unkind charge of the defendant is controverted by the medical findings of Dr. Jose Alvarado,
who examined Delena on January 8, 1973, aside from being denied by Delena herself and rebuttal witness, Reynaldo Dueñas.  It succeeded only, if it did succeed
at all, in adding insult to a very painful injury.  x x x The story of the defendant
should not have been dignified by an exhaustive dissertation.  For like an ostrich which hid its head into the
sand, its body was fully exposed to public view.  It is only because we are faced with a crime
involving a capital punishment that we have chosen to do so.

“Neither is his denial of the use of a gun and of their own Toyota
jeep convincing.  To buttress his
testimony, his own affidavit subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public
Gregorio Daproza, Jr. on April 12, 1972 was offered as evidencing the
transfer of his gun to his brother-in-law, Charlie Dimalanta
(Exh. 11). 
This affidavit is self-serving and could have been executed by him at
any time with an antedated date be­fore aforesaid notary public because an
examination of the records of this Court will show that Atty. Gregorio Daproza, Jr. as a notary public has not submitted any notarial report from February 16, 1971 (See Record, p.
105).

“And as the only son of Eusebio Bulaong, his claim that at the time he was not using their
Toyota jeep does not ring true, taking (into account) the mentality of Filipino
parents who have so many children but with only one son.  That he was the administrator of a vast
agricultural land in the distant barrio
of Landan, Polomolok, South Cotabato and at the time, his parents were in Manila, its veracity is nil.

“As the principal and basic evidence upon which the defense
rests its case fails, all evidence intended to support or corroborate must
likewise fail (See People vs. Marcos, 70 Phil. 468, 478-479).  It is only for more enlightenment that we
will attempt to take them one by one, demanded by the gravity of the offense
involved.

“As stated at the outset, a retinue of public school and
barrio officials were marshalled in an effort to
destroy, if not minimize, the credibility of the People’s witnesses, brought to
Court by the mother of the accused, in their own Toyota jeep (used in the
commission of the crime), some of whom were billeted in the New Bay View Hotel
like Barrio Captain Venancio Dianga
and Barrio Councilman Rudy Ante, evidently showing how the defendant has been a
customer of said hotel in a city riddled with hotels (See pp. 156, 166, Hotel
Register, Exh. 1).

“Armed with school register and her pupil’s test papers, Mrs.
Mildred Areno declared that for the school days in
December, 1972, Nena Segapo,
her grade two pupil, was absent only thrice, these were on December 11, 14 and
18.  In short, it was impossible for her
to be with Delena from December 5 to December 31 when
she escaped from the defendant’s clutches. 
Unfortunately, we have these observations:

“1.  Not
a civil service eligible and teaching in a barrio
school built in a place controlled by the Bulaong
family, her impartiality is debatable. 
Her hold on her job was at the whims and caprices of the powers that be that soon after she finished testifying in this case, she was rewarded with a
transfer to a school in her residence in Spring Camp, Polomolok,
South Cotabato;

“2.  The
school register itself and its pages are very clean, written in perfection,
without any erasure and uniformly by one ballpen
which she used from September until she testified on March 6, 1973, but with a
filler, as correctly observed by the public prosecutor, not even used
one-millionth (Exhibits 2-C). 
Considering further that she has to travel everyday from her residence to
the school and return on public conveyances along a dusty road during sunny
days and muddy during rainy season, its neatness is quite surprising.  It appears to be accomplished in a day.  It is not so with the Class Records (Exh. D);

“3.  This school register does not bear the signature of any public
school official or any official mark when issued or inspected that it can be
changed at will at anytime by its possessor. 
Indeed, it can be bought at anytime in any store dealing with school
supplies.  Given to her by Mr. Mauro Espe, their head teacher, in her testimony on March 6,
1973, it was bought by her in a store by her declaration in the cross on March
7, 1973.  Which is which?  Only God knows.  Far more important is the fact that all
documentary evidence submitted by the District Office of said school to this
Court from the Landan
Elementary School, to support the
school register, were of the same category – no signature of its receipt and
the date thereof (See Exhs. 1 to 7).  To our knowledge, such is not the regular procedure
in dealing with official records.  This
can either be a case of negligence or mass intercalations.  In either, it cannot deserve official
integrity;

“4.  As a faithful record of attendance of her pupils including hers, it
did not show her absence when in court awaiting for her turn to testify.  Not only that.  Nena Segapo appears to be present on November 21 and 22, 1972
when she was supposed to be with Delena in the
afternoon of November 21 and was seen by Claudio Bulaong
in the parking place in General Santos City about nine o’clock in the morning
of November 22.  The $64 question is, whom to believe?

“5.  Picturing the defense counsel to be prophets, she said that she was
not interviewed by anyone of them nor by any relative of the defendants as
equally neither had she shown them the school register and the test papers of
her pupils saved by her and brought to Court. 
Having in mind the seriousness of the offenses involved, the affluent client
defended and the experience of the principal counsel, such a blind request for
the issuance of a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum is
beyond comprehension (See, Record, pp. 56, 62);

“6.  Of the 30 pupils she had in Grade II, she
presented 46 test papers, 16 of which belong to Nena Segapo, while her classmates Mercy Ante, Rebecca Julie, Ana
Gulada, Roberto Palate, Antonia Villalon
and Merlyn Tel have 9, 8, 8, 7, 4, and 2, respectively (Exhibits 1 to 1-O, 3 to
3-Z).  Her reason that Nena was a bright and a model pupil that she preserved her
test papers as samples was a contradiction to her subsequent testimony that Nena was always absent and a liar.  Apart from the tearful denial of Nena that those test papers in December were not her own,
one need not use a magnifying glass to decipher that the handwriting of Nena when she signed her affidavit and those on the test
papers denied by her is an ocean of difference, the latter being evidently
written by one who is not a Grade II pupil in a barrio school.  Besides, the grades on the test papers before
December, 1972 will speak for themselves. 
She cannot be a model pupil.  (Exhs. 1-90%; 1-A-85%; 1-B-75%; 1-C-90%;
1-D-95% & 1-E-95%).

“Granting in gratia argumenti that the testimony of Nena
Segapo is seriously impeached, which we are far from
believing that it was, the rule in this jurisdiction
is well-settled that in crimes of rape the sole testimony of the offended
parties is sufficient to sustain a conviction. 
(U. S.
vs. Ramos, 1 Phil. 81; People vs. Dazo, 58 Phil. 421;
People vs. Macaya, et al., G. R. No. L-925, February 27, 1970; People vs. Ganal, et al., G. R. No. L-1990, March 15, 1950, cited in People vs. Selfaison, supra, p. 243).

“Mauro Espe, teacher in charge of Landan Elementary School, brought to Court Form 137-B, the
school register of Delena Segapo,
where she appears to be born on September 21, 1955 (Exhs.
5, 5-A).  Its
purpose is to contradict the testimony of Delena and
her father, Dalama, that she was 14 years old at the
time of the incident for she was born on November 10, 1958. 
There being no showing that this entry was furnished either by Delena Segapo or by her father, Dalama Segapo, it is worthless
for impeachment purposes.  Mauro Espe, whom we noticed to have taken a very unusual interest
in defending the accused, especially after Rebecca Julie, 9 years old, one of
the five (5) grade two pupils of the Landan
Elementary School, testified on July 2, 1973 that she and four (4) of her
classmates were brought by Mr. Espe to the house of
Atty. Mirabueno and thereafter to this Court as sur-rebuttal witnesses, exaggerated his memory by declaring
that during the enrollment of Delena on August 3,
1964, he heard and still remembers that Dalama Segapo was the one who furnished aforesaid date of birth to
Mr. Decano, the enrolling teacher.

“He failed though to tell us the date when Martial Law was
declared by the President.  That
enrollment was almost 9 years ago when he testified on March 7, 1973 while the declaration of Martial Law
was less than a year.  At any rate, the
entries in Exhibit 5 will speak for themselves. 
It could not have been furnished by Dalama Segapo whose name appears there as Dalaman
Segapo and whose wife, Maria Malid
(Record, p. 10), was identified as Maria Dilion.

“That the date of
birth of Delena was simply placed there by the school
teacher to comply with the school age, an effort to increase the enrollment in
this school, is possible.  Dalama Segapo, being an
illiterate Bila-an, could not tell us the days of the
week and months of the year when he testified in Court.  At any rate, whether Delena
Segapo was 14 years old as she appears to the Court
while testifying or 17 years old, is an immaterial issue, having in mind the
complex crime charged.

“Francisco Mandar, district
supervisor of Polomolok, South Cotabato, identified B.P.S. Form No. 3
which is the principal’s report of enrollment and attendance of all the schools
in his district, one of which is Landan
Elementary School.  It appears that the subpoena calls for him to
bring Form 2 which is the record of pupils’ attendance prepared by the
classroom teacher.  Instead he brought
this Form No. 3.  As a piece of evidence,
Exhibit 6 is worthless as it did not show the specific attendance of Nena Segapo in her classes as a
grade two pupil.  The same can be said of
Form No. 2 identified by Mr. Adronico Sotelo, principal
teacher of Polomolok
Central School.  Mr. Sotelo
categorically stated that he was not the one who personally received Form No. 2 as it was received by a clerk under
the office of the district supervisor (Exh. 7).  No such signature of the receiving clerk
appears on the face of the docu­ment and the same could have been submitted by
Mrs. Mildred Areno even after this case was
commenced.

“Venancio Dianga,
barrio captain of Landan, asserted that on December 5, 1972, Dalama Segapo went to his house
asking his help in getting a dowry from Claudio Bulaong
because his daughter and Claudio Bulaong were often
going together.  He refused because he
had a misunderstanding with Claudio Bulaong and that
existed until he testified on April 2,
1973.  And to bolster that
cause, he wanted to make us believe that while he took the Toyota jeep of Claudio Bulaong
in going to General
Santos City in order to testify in this case, this was
done because he requested the mother of Claudio Bulaong
to take that jeep and it was not otherwise.

“To us, he is a rehearsed witness, if not biased, and was not
telling the truth.  Elected as such
barrio captain from 1968 until 1973 with the help or at least with the acquiescence
of this controlling family in Landan, his claim for
having a quarrel is shallow.  It appears
that when this case was called in the first week of March 1973 and the second
week of April 1973, he checked in at Room 202 with Mrs. Dianga
and thence in Room 208, with his departure in both not specified (See pp. 156,
166, hotel register, Exhibit 8).

“As supposed protector of his people, being a barrio captain,
he collected from the landowners P5.00 each for accomplishing their sworn
statements of the current and fair market value of their properties in
compliance with Presidential Decree No. 76, earning as much as P1,000.00.  We are unaware if there is any law which
allows him, even as a barrio captain, to make such collection, considering that
he is only a first year high school.  A
public official with such a corrupt mind is not worthy of credence.  While vigorously maintaining that the date was
December 5, 1972 and not January 6, 1973 as testified to by Dalama Segapo, his memory for
dates is very treacherous.

“He could not even
tell us the dates when all his eight children were born and his claim for a
serious altercation with the defendant is directly opposed to his admission
that before he testified, he conversed with Claudio Bulaong.

“The testimony of Juan Barieses,
Jr., public school teacher of Alegria
Elementary School, is so harmless
as to deserve the cross-examination of the prosecuting Fiscal.

“Rudy Ante, a barrio councilor of Landan,
Polomolok, South Cotabato,
declared that on December 6, 1972,
Maria Segapo and her daughter Delena
went to his house with Delena complaining to him that
the accused had carnal knowledge of her in the hotel and asked his help for a
settlement.  He accompanied her to the
house of Eusebio Bulaong
and there met Claudio Bulaong informing him about the
complaint of Maria and Delena.  Upon his suggestion, defendant asked him to call for Dalama Segapo, and he obliged. 
Thus, at about eight o’clock in the morning of December 6, 1972, Dalama Segapo, his wife, Maria,
daughter, Delena with one named Bong, Ilong, Ading (accused) and
himself were in the house of Eusebio Bulaong.  He opened
the conversation by telling Claudio Bulaong that the
parents of Delena were willing to ‘enter into an
amicable settlement‘ if defendant would pay them P2,000.00
and one carabao.

“The indictee outrightly
refused because he could not afford that amount and went to the extent of even
warning Dalama as follows:  ‘If you are a father you should not sell your
daughter for that price’.  He tried to
convince Claudio Bulaong to settle but he failed, so
he left the house at about 4:00 o’clock in the morning with Gorio
Lakim and Maria Segapo,
leaving Delena in the house who told them that she
did not like to go home anymore because she wanted to stay with Ading as she was afraid because her father was mad.

“Like Venancio Dianga,
he is a Bila–an barrio
official who owed his election to the defendant.  Testifying on April 3, 1973, he checked in with Venancio
Dianga as early as April 1, 1973 and the hotel register did not state when did he check out of Room 217.  Until April 4, no one occupied Room 217.  Taking cue from what happened to witness Venancio Dianga, he came to Court ready to tell us the respective dates of
birth of his children.  He was already a
defense witness before the trial, executing an affidavit on January 24, 1973 (Exh.
G).

“He never talked about Claudio Bulaong
marrying Delena as he emphasized that he was the
one who tried to settle the case by convincing Claudio Bulaong
to pay P2,000.00 and one carabao
(See Exh. G-1).  In other words, except for the date, that is,
January 6, 1973 instead of December 5, 1972, and the fact that Delena was in
the house of Eusebio until she left their house on
January 6, 1973 upon regaining her freedom, the testimony of Rudy Ante in a way
confirmed that of Dalama Segapo
and Delena Segapo as to
what happened in the afternoon of Jan­uary 6, 1973.  We leave him, as all other matters were already discussed by us with regards
to the testimony of the defendant Bulaong himself.

“The testimony of Carlos Ma that Claudio Bulaong
checked in at the hotel only on November
21, 1972 and he had never returned thereto, especially during the
whole month of December 1972 has been sufficiently alluded
by us.  But if more is needed, he admitted
that he allowed customers who are his friends from General
Santos City
under a short-time basis, two or four days, to stay in their hotel, without
registering their names.

“This practice is a
matter of public knowledge.  That this
can happen to defendant considering their being publicly known
in General Santos City as members of the rich family is very
much reasonable.  Then, a scrutiny of the
hotel register readily shows that from December 5, in the afternoon up to
December 6, in the afternoon, Room 304, an air-conditioned room, was not
occupied by anybody (See pp. 101­-102, hotel register, Exh.
8).  This is confirmatory of an actual
occupation by a close friend of Carlos Ma, now entangled for ravishing a young Bila-an and whose witnesses were billeted in their own
hotel as a loyal customer.

“Moreno Delfin, a close friend of
Claudio, both being childhood playmates and children of original settlers, was
very evasive, exhibiting a demeanor of one who was made to narrate a rehearsed
testimony.  He was very positive that it
was only on June 2, 1973, when he met the defendant in the city jail,
that he was requested to testify regarding the incidents on November 21, 1972,
these were, their meeting at the Pioneer Theater, their taking a tricycle to
the Satea House with Delena
and Nena, their eating in the aforesaid restaurant
and his con­ducting the two girls to Room 304 after he was given by the accused
the key of the room.

“That is the only date he remembers and he failed to tell us
of all the other dates directly involving his family as the dates when his
brothers were incarcerated at the city jail as well as their release and the
dates he visited them.  We dis­miss him
with those observations.

“Alfonso Laurecio, like Benito, has
been the faithful servant of Eusebio Bulaong, father of the defendant, and was made to take care
of the house while his master was in the City of Manila
from the later part of November, 1972 to the early part of January, 1973.  He denied having guarded, with the use of a
shotgun, Delena Segapo and Nena Segapo as the former stayed
in the house of his master voluntarily and slept with Claudio in one of the
rooms from December 6, 1972
up to January 6, 1973, while
Nena was a frequent visitor.

“Defended by a counsel
de parte, engaged by the Bulaongs, he admitted that there was in fact a shotgun in
the house of Eusebio Bulaong,
locked in one of the rooms, and that Delena was in
that house from December 6, 1972 up to January 6, 1973.  His denial on other points cannot be at par
with the positive testimonies of Nena Segapo, Delena Segapo and Dalama Segapo, absent of any important motive shown convincingly
for these witnesses to testify falsely against him and Claudio Bulaong in prosecuting so serious a crime as forcible
abduction with rape.

“Taken as a whole and with due fidelity to the constitutional
mandate that all accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, we regret to conclude that in the case at bar, the People’s evidence
has complied with the statutory requirement of proof beyond reasonable
doubt.”

The trial court found that Bulaong
committed the eight complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape, aggravated
by the use of a motor vehicle and mitigated by voluntary surrender to the
authorities.

Although the imposable penalty is death, the trial court imposed
eight reclusion perpetuas out of
compassion for Bulaong because he is a married man
with five minor children.

The trial court erred in imposing eight reclusion perpetuas.  Bulaong committed the continuing complex offense of
forcible abduction with rape (People vs. Manguiat and
Sanqui, 51 Phil. 406; People vs. Pineda, 56 Phil.
688).

As the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon, and
the crime is complex, the death penalty should be imposed.  However, for lack of necessary votes, the
same is commuted to reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s judgment is modified.  Bulaong is
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to
pay an indem­nity to the offended girl in the sum of fifty thousand pesos.  Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Concepcion, Jr.,
Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., the trial court’s decision should be affirmed in its entirety.

Abad Santos, J., see
dissenting opinion.