PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PIO JAPITANA JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Curiously, this is a case of life imitating fiction.  The story of the rascal son of the hacendero forcing his attentions on the
helpless maidservant is an oft-told drama that has become virtually part of our
folklore and a favorite staple of our local movies.  The trial court has found that the facts
conformed substantially to the familiar plot and pronounced the
accused-appellant guilty.  But Pio Japitana, Jr. has a different
tale to tell.

The accused-appellant was at the time of the alleged offense 26
years old and the overseer in his father’s hacienda.  Although the son of a lawyer (who served as
his defense counsel), he finished only Grade VI, after having been enrolled by his parents in a succession of no less than six schools in Bacolod and Manila.  He was also facing charges on the fiscal’s office of having killed a man, but the record does not disclose more about the case.

The complainant is Nenita Abaring, a 21-year old
employee in the Japitana poultry farm and residing in
the hacendero’s compound.  Her sister Jovita
works with her as a domestic and
together with the other female help sleep in the house of their employers.  Their parents are distantly related to the Japitanas and also work for the latter in their hacienda.

Japitana was charged with having raped Abaring on May 16, 1970, in Bacolod
City.  The offense was allegedly committed
in a small bodega or stockroom in the Japitana
compound at about ten o’clock in the morning of that date.  As found by the trial court, Nenita was inside the stockroom when Pio
entered and suddenly headlocked her with his left arm
while covering her mouth with his right hand to prevent her from crying
out.  The girl’s reaction was to resist,
and the two fell on the cement floor, where they continued grappling, Pio all the while urging her to give in and assuring her
that he would marry her.  Nenita scratched his face and he bit her hand.  As they struggled, Nenita
kicked him in the neck and Pio pulled off her shorts
and panty, tearing both of them.  He shed
off his trousers.  Nenita
screamed as he tried to pry her thighs apart and, finally succeeding as the
girl’s resistance weakened, plunged his bludgeon into her maidenhead.  Nenita kept writhing in pain and helpless outrage as he
repeatedly intruded his manhood, and it was while they were so joined that they were discovered by Jovita and another helper, Gloria Baron, who had heard Nenita’s
screams and come to
investigate.  Pio put on his trousers.  Finding
what he had done to her sister, Jovita chased him
with a piece of wood.  Nenita, for her part, rushed out crying to Pio’s mother, to whom she tearfully complained.  The mother said:  “He is such a naughty boy.  He
is stupid and he is out of his
mind.  It is good that he will be sent to
jail so that he will regret his foolishness.”^[1] Pio, Sr. arrived
at the house while Nenita was already calling the
police and upon being informed of what had happened said:  “It is good if you will accuse him so
that he will be punished for his
foolishness.  He would be given a
retribution for his misdeeds.”^[2]

 The police came to investigate and retrieved Nenita’s shorts and panty on the floor of the bodega. 
Nenita was later taken to the police station,
where she formally filed her complaint and was examined by Dr. Teodoro S. Lavada, medico-legal
officer of the Bacolod Police Department.

The defense had an entirely different version of the incident,
with Nenita
as a femme fatale and Pio as a pliant victim who had succumbed to her temptation. 
In the morning in question, according to him, he had just entered
the stockroom after briefly talking to three persons who were working outside
when Nenita followed him, closing the door behind
her.  Without much ado, she took him in
her arms and started fondling his penis. 
Reacting, he caressed her crotch and sought to remove her shorts but
found that the zipper was broken.  She
moved his hand aside and took them off herself, along with her panty, and with
her right arm around this neck, drew him down on the cement floor with
her.  Lying on his left side with his right leg upon her right
leg, he then inserted his right
index and middle fingers in her vagina, moving them in simulation of coition as
she writhed in ecstasy for five to ten minutes. 
He said he could not unzip his tight-fitting pants and as his groin was
pressing upon his shorts he had an orgasm. 
It was at this point that Gloria suddenly appeared at the window and
shouted, “Hey, what are you doing there?”

Pio described Nenita
as a woman of loose morals who had insinuated herself on him, often calling him
handsome and brushing her breasts against him. 
She also flirted with the male helpers. 
He made much of the open window in the stockroom through which he said
she could have escaped if she really wanted to.  He also stressed that he would not have
attempted to rape her at that time because of the three workers outside who were only four meters away and could
have heard her screams.

Among
these workers was Romeo Apitana, who testified that he was indeed outside with the two other workers
at the time in question and saw Nenita follow Pio into the stockroom. 
He said what they were doing inside was none of his business.  He added that Nenita
came out later after Jovita and Gloria had opened the
door, and she was screaming and in tears; later in the house, she shouted,
“You fool, you will have your day!”^[3]

Examining himself on the stand, Atty. Pio
Japitana, Sr. testified that he was in his office at
the time in question but did not hear Nenita
screaming although the stockroom was only fifteen meters away.  When he questioned Nenita
that morning, she said his son did not have sexual intercourse with her but
merely inserted his fingers in her vagina. 
This witness also declared that what he said that morning was that he
would investigate the matter and if the charges were true, his son “must
suffer the consequences.” Of particular interest was his assertion that
someone in the police department who claimed he was close to Dr. Lavada but did not identify himself called him up and
suggested that the medical report could be “doctored” for a
consideration.  He said he indignantly
rejected the offer.

There are also charges and counter-charges of overtures for the
settlement of the case, but these are at best peripheral issues.  What matters is the really relevant evidence
submitted by the parties which the Court has carefully considered and evaluated.  On the basis thereof, we are convinced that
the lower court committed no reversible error in its excellent decision, which
is a model of clarity and perceptiveness.

We have repeatedly stressed that, absent any indication to the
contrary, this Court will accord the highest respect to the findings of the
trial judge, who had the opportunity to watch the witnesses on the stand and to
determine by their deportment if they were speaking the truth or lying in their
teeth.  Finding no such indications here,
we agree with the observations of then Judge Oscar R. Victoriano
(later Presiding Justice of the
Court of Appeals) that ?

Subjected to diligent and painstaking scrutiny, the testimony of
the offended girl, given in a straightforward
manner, neither wavering nor fumbling, unimpaired by material discrepancies and
contradictions and shown to be
consistent with ordinary human experience, undoubtedly bears the imprint of
truth and therefore must be
accepted.^[4]

It is not difficult to believe that Pio
could have easily overpowered Nenita, given his
physical build, not to mention his moral influence as the son of his victim’s
employer.  It was also perfectly natural
for Nenita to rush out of the stockroom after her
violation and to complain to the mother, not the father, of the man who had
raped her.  Women share their problems
with each other.  It is no less
noteworthy that Nenita acted decisively after the
outrage, reporting it immediately to Mrs.
Japitana and then to the police, ‘to the extent
of even forgetting to put on her shorts and panty, which the police found later
in the bodega.  Indeed, when she was
examined that same afternoon by Dr. Lavada, she was
still stinking from the chicken mash that stuck to her body and hair while she
was wrestling with Pio on the cement floor of the
stockroom.

But the most telling proof that Nenita
was not lying is the medical report,^[5]
which confirmed practically every detail of her defloration as she narrated
it.  The said report is reproduced in
full hereunder:

Physical findings as follows:

Fairly developed and fairly nourished walking patient.

Head: 
Normal          Eyes:   Rt:  Normal

Left: 
Normal

Ears:  Rt:  Normal    Left:  Normal

Mouth:  Normal

Neck:  Normal

Chest:  Symmetrical in shape with
hemispherical mammary glands, with protruding nipples, with pinkish brown
areola.  Fairly developed.

Abdominal exam:  Symmetrical
in shape.  Nothing palpable.

Genital examination:  Pubic
hairs fully developed.  Labia majora and minora slightly
gaping, with abrasion at the upper angle. 
Vaginal opening admits readily one finger, 2 fingers with
difficulty.  Vaginal canal with abrasion
and reddening.  Hymen with new laceration
at 1, 4, 7, 9, and 11 o’clock and old laceration at 12 o’clock.  Slight bleeding at 1, 5 and 9 o’clock,
lacerations.

Microscopical examination:  Cervical smear shows positive sperms (dead).

Physical injuries:  1)
Contusion with abrasion, mucosa, lower lip, left.

2) Abrasion linear,
2 in number at lateral aspect, neck, right.

3) Punctuated
superficial lacerated wounds, at the posterior aspect, index, middle and ring
finger, hand, right.

4) Abrasion, knee,
left.

Duration:  5-7 days if properly treated and if without
due complications.

The trial court noted:

Before the certificate was issued, Dr. Lavada
observed the complainant to be pale and nervous.  Her dress was dirty and her hair dishevelled with some sandy substance smelling of poultry
feed on her hair and body.  He stated
that the contusion on the left lower lip on the mucosa (lower lip, left) could
have been caused by a fall, and the abrasion thereon could be due to friction
against a rough
surface such as a struggle on a cement surface. 
The two (2) linear abrasions at the lateral aspect of the right neck
could have been due to a pointed object like finger nails, while the punctuated
superficial lacerated wounds at the posterior aspect of the index, middle and
ring fingers of the right hand could have been caused by sharp objects like
teeth bite.  He attributed the abrasion
at the upper angle of the labia majoria and minora which were slightly gaping to friction against a
rough surface.  The abrasion with
reddening of the vaginal canal could have been caused by a hard elongated
object such as an erect penis in sexual intercourse.  He concluded that on the basis of the
lacerations on the hymen, abrasion and reddenning of
the vaginal canal and the result of the microscopic examination which was
positive for sperms the offended party was exposed to recent sexual penetration
with ejaculation at least within twelve (12) hours from the time of the
examination; that based on the genital findings showing lack of proper
stimulation and lubrication of the vaginal canal the offended party was not
sufficiently prepared for intercourse and that in relation to the other
physical findings she offered resistance
to the sexual act.

Elaborating on the character of the sexual intercourse in
question, Dr. Lavada declared:

Q    Could
you inform this Honorable Court the difference if any of the genital organ of a
woman who had just sexual intercourse through
force and violence and that with a woman
who had just sexual intercourse with her consent if there is any
difference?

A     A
woman who had sexual intercourse through force or violence there is no romance,
sensation, no petting, no orgasm, no stimulation; whereas, a woman doing this
with consent of course they perform the act there is the so-called
preliminaries, romance, which would produce secretions along the vaginal canal
which would diminish the friction, therefore, there is the presence of liquid
and diminish the injury on the vaginal canal; the labia majora
are not so damaged.

Q    After
examining Nenita Abaring
and with your findings particularly on the genital examination, what is your
opinion on the character of the sexual intercourse she had.

A     I
would say that the woman at that time was not properly prepared; there was no
lubrication; no secretion.

Q    In
other words doctor, would you say that there was no consent on the part of the
woman considering your findings?

A     All
I could say that woman is not prepared. 
That is all.^[6]

By contrast, the  evidence
of the defense, particularly the testimony of the accused-appellant himself, is
on the whole undeserving of credence. 
Indeed, it looks to be
pure concoction except possibly for the protestations of Atty. Japitana that he did not hear Nenita’s
screams from his office and that he did not immediately condemn his son.  But even if it be conceded that he was really
unaware of the girl’s cries for help, the fact is that they were heard
by Gloria Baron when she went out into the balcony to tell Atty. Japitana that there was a telephone call for him.  Otherwise, it would not have occurred to her
to go to the stockroom where the screams were coming from.

The testimony of Romeo Japitana that he and two other workers were near the
stockroom when Nenita followed Pio
inside is not acceptable.  Surely, Nenita would not have entered the stockroom, and with
seduction in mind, when there were people nearby who would be wondering what
she and Pio were doing inside.  Moreover, his motives would not be free from suspicion, considering that he was a first cousin of Pio,
Jr. and an employee of Pio, Sr.  As to his suggestion that there was a window
in the stockroom through which Nenita could have
escaped, the girl had a quite
logical answer.  Besides the fact that
there were feed boxes that obstructed access to the window, there was the
insistent Pio himself who was determined to prevent
her from leaving so he could rape her.

Atty. Japitana’a
assertion that somebody tried to extort money from him in exchange for a
medical examination report favorable to his son was just that – a mere
assertion.  No evidence was adduced to
support it.  As a lawyer, he
should have known better than to make irresponsible accusations like that,
especially against an accredited medico-legal officer of the government with
recognized credentials.  If he had really
received such an offer, what he should have done was call for an investigation
to ferret out the guilty party.  He knew
that was his duty as an officer of the court but, by his own admission, he did nothing.

He made another strange
suggestion during the cross-examination of Nenita,
when he asked the following question and received an answer he did not see fit
to pursue, thus:

Q    During the course of time that Dr. Lavada was examining your private part, did you ever notice
whether he undressed during his examination?

A     Why
should he undress himself?^[7]

But apparently not daunted by that
reaction, he later made following
accusation in the accused-appellant’s brief:

The fact that the complainant was examined twice can it be
possible, that in the first examination, she was used by Dr. Lavada, which attributed in the presence of the sperms in her private part?

This is not only a desperate ploy:  this is an uncalled for and vicious
imputation.  While the Court understands
the special zeal Atty. Pio Japitana, Sr. had to exert in
defense of his son, such anxiety did not give him a license to make malicious
charges based only on speculation and not solid evidence.

But more than anything else, it is the testimony of the
accused-appellant himself that has condemned him as a rapist and a liar.  His defense is a futile fabrication.  By his own account, this 26-year old man said
he used only his fingers to gratify Nenita’s desire
when he could easily have mounted the girl who was ready and aching to be
taken.  Considering that sperm was found
in Nenita’s vagina, the accused-appellant is in
effect declaring under oath –
that by some sexual miracle, it was his fingers that ejaculated.  Here was a woman burning with desire and
waiting to be transported by his manhood,
and her virile and young lover could only offer her his fingers, unable to
impale her with his phallus because his pants were tight.

There are limits
to one’s credibility and they have been clearly exceeded in this case.  Pio is plainly
unbelievable even as a teller of tales, much less as a defendant fighting for
his liberty and honor.  Pio’s testimony is an affront to truth and our
intelligence; the Court is not as naive as the defense would hope it to be, nor is it that gullible.

It is hard to
understand the purpose of the defense in showing that the accused-appellant had
studied in all of six schools but reached only Grade VI.  If it was to prove moral character, then the
evidence has failed to help him; if at all,
it has suggested a weakness in his character that lends more credence to
the cause of the prosecution.

The alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the complaining
witness are merely minor lapses that do not impair the essential veracity of her narration.  To argue that she could have made a more spirited resistance, as by using the bottles in the stockroom to defend herself, is to assume that she had full freedom of movement
when in fact she had been seized by her neck, thrown to the floor where,
despite her efforts to free
herself, she was finally overpowered and defiled.  As for the other arguments of the defense,
the same are not convincing enough or substantial enough to tilt the balance in favor of the accused-appellant.

Our conclusion, like that of the trial court, is that there is
enough evidence against the accused-appellant to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence in his favor.  We have absolutely no doubt that in the
morning of May 16, 1970, Pio Japitana, Jr. forced Nenita Abaring to submit to his
will and despite her vigorous defense of her chastity, ruthlessly bloodied her
in a frenzy of animal lust that deprived her of a virginity it was not his
right to pierce.

WHEREFORE, the
challenged decision finding the accused-appellant guilty of rape and sentencing
him to reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED except that the award of moral damages is increased to P30,000.00.  Considering the length of time this case has
been pending, the Court specifically orders that the records thereof be
remanded to the court a quo for immediate execution of this
judgment once it becomes final and executory and is
entered in due course.  Costs against the
accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (Chairman), and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., on leave.

^[1]
TSN, November 17, 1970, p. 14.

^[2]
Ibid. p.
15.

^[3]
TSN, February 2, 1971, p. 225.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 32.

^[5]
Records, p. 78; Exhibit “A.”

^[6]
TSN, September 21, 1970, pp. 14, 15.

^[7]
TSN, December 1, 1970, p. 78.