THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FLORENTINO COPRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Florentino Copro
was accused of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape in the then Court of First Instance of
Quezon.  The
information reads as follows:

“That on or about the 3rd
day of August 1972, in the Municipality of San Narciso,
Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, Florentino Copro, with lewd designs, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously by the use of force,
threats and intimidation abduct
one Evelita Herrera, a girl fifteen (15) years of
age, by then and there taking and bringing
her away against her will while she was selling fish at Barrio Calwit of said municipality and forcibly brought her to the
house of Leonito Genton at
Barrio Lakdayan of said municipality and, later, to
the house of Tomas Herrera at Barrio Buenavista of
the same municipality; that while in said houses, the accused, Florentino Copro, by means of
force, threats and intimidation did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, on three occasions lie with and have carnal
knowledge with the said Evelita Herrera against her
will.

“Contrary to law.”

(pp.
35-36, Record)

From the judgment
convicting and sentencing him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape; reclusion perpetua for a separate crime of simple rape; and, another
reclusion perpetua for another crime of rape,
with all the legal accessory penalties; and ordering him to indemnify the
offended party, Evelita Herrera, in the amount of
P12,000.00, to acknowledge and support the offspring, if any, and to pay the
costs, Florentino Copro
interposed this appeal.

About four o’clock in the afternoon of August 3,
1972, Evelita Herrera, a young girl of 14 years, was vending fish
in Barrio Calwit, San Narciso,
Quezon.  She was accompanied by a younger brother, Wilfredo Herrera who was about 10 years old.  On the way they met appellant Florentino Copro who manifested
his desire to buy fish and invited Evelita and her
brother to go to his (Copro’s) house under the
coconut groves.

On the way, near a gate
known in the place as “trangkahan ni Bining,”
Copro grabbed Evelita, held
her arm and left breast and dragged her towards a sampaloc
tree which was some distance away.  Evelita resisted but just the same, she was forcibly
dragged by Copro. 
Wilfredo hurriedly went home and reported the
matter to his parents.

When the accused
succeeded in dragging Evelita to the vicinity of the sampaloc tree, she lost consciousness.  Regaining it after
some time, she felt pain in her private parts and noticed that her pantie was beside her. 
Before she could put on her pantie, Copro, with her fan-knife poked at Evelita,
ordered her to go with him,
otherwise, she would be killed.  He
forcibly brought Evelita to Sitio
Lakdayan, Barrio Calwit.  They passed the house of one Ildefonso Estrellado who refused
to accommodate them that night in his house. 
Copro then brought Evelita
to the house of one Julio Genton who also refused
them shelter.  Evelita
was then taken to the house of one Leonito Genton who, with his wife, left the house, leaving behind
complainant and accused.  Copro threatened and ordered Evelita
to take off her clothes, including her pantie and to
lie down.  He then took off his clothes and placed himself on top of Evelita
who bit him in his right upper arm.  Copro did
not react and, instead, persisted in his evil intent until he succeeded in
ravishing the young girl despite her resistance.

About four o’clock the next morning, August 4,
1972, Copro forcibly brought Evelita to
the house of one Tomas Herrera in Buenavista, San Narciso, Quezon.  Tomas Herrera left the place upon request of Copro to buy cigarettes and wine.  In the meantime, Copro
compelled Evelita to lie down and had
carnal knowledge with her again against her will.  When Herrera arrived, appellant drank with
him.  Thereafter, Herrera was again asked
by Copro to buy cigarettes and as soon as Herrera had left, appellant again took off his clothes and the pantie
of the complainant who was again ravished against her will.

On all these occasions
when Evelita was carnally assaulted by Copro she suffered pain. 
Evelita pleaded with Copro
to release him with the promise that she will not file any complaint against
him.  Before acceding to her request,
appellant made her write, on his dictation, a letter the contents of which are
as follows:  (p. 72, Record)

“Copro mahal
ko,

“Hentayin mo ako
sa may kware bukas ng hapon.

“Aasahan kong hindi mo ako bibiguin kaya’t
ako darating at maghihintay sa iyo.  May mahalagang bagay
tayong pag-uusapan.

“Ang iyong mahal

“Evelita Herrera”

After the letter was thus written,
complainant was released with the threat that if she will file a case against
him, he would kill her family by dynamite.

Tomas Herrera accompanied
Evelita to the national road where she took a jeepney with the intention of going to town to report the
matter to the police.  On the way, she
met her sister Percelita who was in another jeepney and together they went to the municipal building to
report the incident.  Their parents were
already at the police station looking for her.

Evelita narrated to the police everything that was
done to her by Copro, following which,
she was examined by Dr. Dominga P. Casañada, Municipal Health Officer of San Narciso, Quezon, who issued a
medical certificate (Exhibit “A”) with the following findings:

“1.  Internal Examination done on August 4, 1972 reveals that there is
laceration of the hymen, suggesting there was penetration in the vaginal
canal.  It easily admits 2 fingers
without any pain.” (p. 11, Record)

Against the evidence of
the People, the appellant denied sexual violations on the complainant in the
house of Leonito Genton and
in the house of Tomas Herrera.  Copro claimed that
due to his drunkenness he and Evelita slept in the house
of Genton until he was awakened by the complainant
about four o’clock
the following morning.  He also denied
having sexual intercourse with the complainant in the house of Tomas
Herrera.  He alleged that it was
complainant who ordered her brother to leave them and, thereafter, tried to
prevail upon him to take her to Lucena City as her parents are neglecting her.  He could not accede to her request because he
had no time, aside from the fact that he had no money.  Further, it is the submission of appellant
that Evelita was his sweetheart for over a year
previous to this incident and that he had had previous carnal knowledge of Evelita three times before.

The testimony of Florentino Copro was corroborated
by Ildefonso Estrellado, Darlito Genton and Julio Genton.

We quote hereunder the
portion of the decision under review relative to the testimony of appellant.

“The foregoing pretentions of the
accused this Court finds rather hard to believe.  Examination and analysis of the alleged loved
letter, Exhibit ‘2’, betrays the patent fact that it is no love letter at
all.  The greeting ‘Copro
mahal ko‘ uses the family
name of the accused; the complimentary close ‘ang iyong mahal‘ conveys a feeling
not of the writer but of the addressee, while the signature ‘Evelita Herrera’ is overly formal for a love note.  By and large, the pretended
love note lacks a ring of tenderness, closeness or familiarity – one indelible
mark of a lover’s message.

“The claim of amorous advances made by the complainant to the
accused is quite out of this world. 
Considering the traditional modesty of Filipina women, this Court
considers it exceedingly hard to believe that a country lass of about 14 or 15
years isolated from the incidents of pornography and smut films would be so
pervaded by immorality and immodesty as to make advances to a married man triple her age, there
being nothing extraordinarily irresistible on the accused in this case who has
neither the physique of Steve Reeves nor the looks of Alain Delon.”
(p. 25, Rollo)

The corroborating declarations of defense witnesses utterly
failed to counteract the evidence of the prosecution, particularly
complainant’s testimony and Dr. Dominga Casañada’s medical report and testimony.  We quote with approval the able dissertation
of the trial judge on this point.

“The account of Ildefonso Estrellado, a witness for the defense who asserted that
when the accused and the complaining-witness came to their house in the
afternoon of the day of the incident the complainant had her arm around the
waist of the accused and the accused had
one of his arms on the shoulder of the complaining-witness, the latter
helping the former in walking because he was drunk, is not entitled to credit
as one proceeding from a biased source. 
The biasness of the witness was betrayed when on questions by the court
as to the date when he saw the accused and the complaining-witness he asserted
that he consulted his calendar after the two (2) had left and when pressed
further for the reason why he consulted the calender,
he asserted that he might be asked about the date in Court as he found it queer
that the accused was with another woman.

“The testimony of Darlito Genton, who was listed in the information as a witness for
the prosecution but who testified subsequently for the defense, is open to
suspicion because he was hesitant in answering question on the witness stand
and his general appearance was one of fear and hesitancy.  He disclaimed knowledge of the contents of
his sworn statement which had been marked as Exhibit ‘E’, claiming that he does
not know the contents thereof because he signed the same at the instruction of
the policeman who made it without having read it and without the same having
been read to him.  Despite the professed
lack of knowledge of the contents of said statement, however, he asserted that
said contents are false and are at variance with what he testified in
Court.  How this is possible despite his
claim that nobody coached him nor told him about the contents of his sworn
statement is beyond the comprehension of this court.

“The testimony of Julio Genton, who
claimed that when he saw the complaining witness and the accused on the evening
in question the accused was drunk and was being propped up by the
complaining-witness, is also open to doubt. 
This witness admitted that he saw the two from a distance of about two
(2) arms-length from the balcony of their house at
about 9:00 in the evening and they did
not stay long because after he refused to receive them they immediately
left.  There having been no conversation
other than the request for shelter for the night and the refusal, after which
the accused and the appellant left, the latter did not therefore stay in the
yard of the witness for long, a matter
admitted by the witness.  Considering
that the witness, as admitted by him, was reading by lamplight when he heard
his name being called by the accused and immediately thereafter he peeped thru
the window and proceeded to the balcony where he saw the accused and his
companion in the yard, his eyes, which were adopted to the brightness of the
light under which he was then reading, labored in the darkness as admitted by
him when he went to the balcony.  It
being elementary that a sudden switch of the eyes from brightness to darkness
would occasion a blurred vision, the pretension that the witness saw the
complainant propping up the accused on the night in question which happened to
be moonless, is open to doubt.  This
doubt is not cured in any way by the evasiveness of the witness when asked
about whether the accused was also holding on to the complaining-witness at the
time.  He professed having seen the complaining-witness
holding the accused with two (2)
hands but failed to see whether the accused was also holding unto the
complaining-witness at the time.  This
evasiveness if anything shows biasness.” (pp. 25-28, Rollo)

We shall now consider the
points raised by the appellant in his brief, alleging that the trial court
erred –

1.  in giving full faith and credit to the
testimony of offended party Evelita Herrera as to the
circumstances under which she was allegedly dragged and pulled (abducted)
forcibly and raped through force, violence and intimidation three (3) times by
defendant-appellant Florentino Copro
and in convicting him of forcible abduction with rape and two (2) other
separate offenses of rape.

2.  in not giving full faith and credit to the
testimony of defendant-appellant Copro and the
witnesses who testified for him as to the circumstances under  which he met the offended party on
August 3, 1972, and how she voluntarily went with him to the places and houses
subject matter of their testimonies without having had any sexual intercourse
with her.

3.  in holding
defendant-appellant Copro for trial and sentencing
him under the amended information.

4.  in not declaring itself without jurisdiction
on account of defect in the complaint filed by Dionisio
Herrera for rape in the municipal court of San Narciso,
Quezon.

5.  in rendering the decision, dated September 4,
1973, appealed from (Appendix A hereof) finding the accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses of forcible abduction with rape and two
(2) other simple crimes of rape imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for one (1) separate crime of forcible abduction
with rape; (2) another reclusion perpetua for one
separate crime of rape and (3) another reclusion perpetua
for the second separate crime of  rape,
with accessory penalties, and in
not dismissing the information or amended information and/or in not acquitting accused-appellant Copro therefrom.

The first three (3)
assigned errors raise, in general, the question of credibility of the
prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of their testimonies to prove
appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellant contends it was
impossible for him to have abducted complainant at a place which is near the
gate leading to his residence.  This We find to be without merit. 
Appellant’s house is about fifty (50) meters from the place where he
forcibly brought complainant and one’s
view was obstructed by coconut
trees and bushes.  Fact is, there is sufficient evidence of abuse upon complainant and the place of
commission is immaterial.  Complainant
was only 14 years old at the time and with a knife poked at her,
with threat to be killed if she would not follow what he said, it is not
surprising that she was scared to death and, therefore, had to obey.  That some did notice the unusual situation
complainant was in at the time and did not do anything to help her is
understandable.  It is the natural
reaction of people who did not want to be involved.  Upon her release, however, she immediately
reported the matter to the authorities and to her parents.  These actuations, which are part of the res gestae, command
strong probative value considering that it was made by the offended party to
the persons who, in cases of
this nature, were the most logical ones to seek redress from.

The claim of appellant
that he was drunk at the time was denied by complainant.  And, assuming that he was drunk, it is of
common knowledge that a person in that condition is more aggressive and capable
of having carnal knowledge with the opposite sex.

The fact that complainant
did not sustain any injury is no argument that she was not abused.  The truth is, she was not given fist blows;
but, she was intimidated and threatened with a knife and that was sufficient
for a 14-year old girl not to resist at all. 
Rape may be committed even if no force was used; intimidation is
sufficient, and this includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by
threatening a girl with a knife or pistol (People vs. Garcines,
57 SCRA 653).  Furthermore, the absence
of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the important
consideration being, not the emission of semen, but penetration (People vs.
Jose, 37 SCRA 450; People vs. Carangdang, 52 SCRA
259).

With respect to the
fourth assigned error that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the case because the complaint filed with the municipal court did not state that Dionisio
Herrera is the father of Evelita Herrera is not
tenable.  It is well-settled that when
the offended party is a minor, the father may file a complaint under Article
344 of the Revised Penal Code.  The
father has the custody of the person of the minor and owes to her all the legal
obligations of maintenance, care and protection growing out of that
relationship.  The omission of
relationship in the complaint is,
if at all, a formal, not a
jurisdictional defect.

The last assigned error
need not be discussed.  Conviction is the
necessary consequence considering that the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused-appellant
has been successfully overthrown by the prosecution.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED.  With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., no part.