PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARISTON FRANCISCO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an automatic
review of the Decision, dated March
22, 1976, of the
Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, Branch
II, in Criminal Case No. R-274, convicting appellant Ariston
Francisco of the crime of Rape and sentencing him to death.

The Information, dated
March 15, 1972, filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Oriental Mindoro,
charged appellant as follows:

“That on the 28th day of January, 1972, at 12:00 o’clock
midnight, more or less, at the barrio of Camantigue,
Municipality of Bongabon, Province of Oriental Mindoro,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, ARISTON FRANSICO, conspiring and confederating with Ruby Poras,
who is still at large, and therefore,
no preliminary investigation had, as yet, been taken against him, waylaid one
MERCIDITA MANITO, a tender girl of 13
years, who was then with her sister, and already overwhelmed by lewd and
unchaste design, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of force, threats and intimidations, had succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with said helpless girl after mercilessly dragging
her to a secluded place.

“That the commission of the offense was aggravated by the
circumstances of having been committed during nighttime and with abuse of
superior strength.

“CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code”^[1]

Upon his arraignment on March
27, 1972, appellant,
assisted by counsel de officio, pleaded not guilty.^[2]

After four prosecution
witnesses, including complainant and her father hats testified, trial of the
case was suspended because appellant escaped from jail after a hearing held on October
11, 1972.

Subsequently, the other
accused, Ruby Poras, was arrested.  The Provincial Fiscal of Oriental Mindoro then filed an Amended Information, dated September
26, 1973, including
Ruby Poras in the charge, to wit:

“That on the 28th day of January, 1972, at 12:00 midnight, more or less,
in the barrio of Camantigue, Municipality of Bongabon, Province or Oriental Mindoro,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, RUBY PORAS and ARISTON
FRANCISCO, conspiring and confederating with one another, waylaid one MERCEDITA MANITO, a tender girl of 13
years old, who was then with her sister, and already overwhelmed by lewd and
unchaste design, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of force, threats and intimidations, had succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with said helpless girl one after another after
mercilessly dragging her to a secluded place.

“That the commission of
the offense was aggravated by the circumstances of having been committed during nighttime and with abuse of superior strength.

“CONTRARY to Article 335, Revised Penal Code”^[3]

Trial, in respect of Ruby
Poras, commenced on February 13, 1974, with Dr. Fernando Viloria,
Municipal Health Officer, presented anew as prosecution witness.  However, upon motion to dismiss filed by
Fiscal Gaudencio S. Sadicon
on May 17, 1974 on the ground that the complainant transferred her residence
without notifying the Court and the trial Fiscal, which, in effect, was a
manifestation of lack of interest on
her part, the trial Court ordered the provisional
dismissal of the case against Ruby Poras.^[4]

Appellant was later on
apprehended in the province
of Antique, and delivered to the custody of the provincial
warden at Roxas, Oriental Mindoro,
in July 1975.^[5] Trial was resumed in respect of appellant
after his apprehension.  On January
5, 1976, the defense
concluded its evidence with appellant as its only witness, and its case
was rested on the same date (t.s.n., pp. 55-72).

Complainant, MERCEDITA
MANITO was born on February 3, 1957^[6] and was therefore, almost 15 years of age on
January 28, 1972.  She lived with her widower
father and her brothers and sisters at their house in Barrio Camantigue, Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro.  Her version
of the incident follows:

In the evening of January
28, 1972, at Barrio Camantigue, Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro, she and her younger sister, Roberta Manito,
attended a coronation held at a place which was about one kilometer from their
house.  At about 12:00 o’clock midnight, she and her sister went home.  On their way, appellant and Ruby Poras, who were following behind, suddenly ran after them
and overtook them.  Appellant grabbed
complainant’s right hand and whirled her around several times and she shouted “Saklolo! Saklolo!”.  Complainant’s
younger sister, Roberta, ran away. 
Appellant then dragged her to a place where talahib grass grew, while Poras
was beside them holding a knife.  Appellant
removed her panty, made her lie on her back, embraced her hard and sexually abused her.  During the sexual intercourse, the
complainant felt pain.  All the while, Poras was beside appellant and was holding a knife.  When appellant was through having carnal
knowledge of her, Poras also took his own turn with her.  Meanwhile, appellant stayed beside accused Poras holding an
open knife.  After Poras had
subjected her to the same carnal treatment, complainant stood up but Poras again embraced her and forced her to lie down.  The complainant fainted.^[7]

Complainant declared on
cross examination that appellant and Poras were able
to penetrate her private part with their private organs; that she felt severe
pain; and that appellant raped her once while accused Poras
raped her twice.  When asked whether she
offered any resistance, complainant answered that she became very weak because
of the force they used on her.  When
complainant was asked whether her private part bled, or whether she felt her
private part bleed during and after she was raped, she answered:  “I do not know.” However, on
further cross-examination complainant was asked whether she felt blood oozing
from her vagina and she answered in the affirmative, further saying that the
blood spilled on the ground and stained her dress (upper garment).^[8]

During the incident, complainant stated that she was wearing a pantsuit with an upper
apparel and panty.  Her panty and pantsuit were taken by appellant, who refused to return them in
spite or her demand.^[9]

Complainant could not remember when she regained her
consciousness but she was able to go home at around 4:00 o’clock in the
morning, without panty and
pantsuit out not naked from the
waist down because her upper garment reached down to her thighs.^[10] When she arrived at their house, everybody was asleep, including her sister
Roberta.^[11] Complainant went to sleep.^[12] At around 6:00 o’clock the
next morning, January 29, 1972, complainant washed her stained upper
garment because she was afraid the members of her family might discover what
had happened to her.^[13] Complainant did not reveal a thing to
anybody after the incident^[14] nor did she relate the incident to her
father because appellant and Ruby Poras had
threatened to kill her if she did. 
Finally, complainant revealed the occurrence to her elder sister, Estrella Manito, who received a report from their Uncle, Maximo Manito, that appellant had told their uncle about
what he had done to complainant.  When
her father confronted complainant, she told him that she had been raped.^[15]

On cross-examination,
complainant denied that she had a prearranged
date with appellant to attend the coronation ball on January
28, 1972.  According to her, she had never met appellant
prior to January 28, 1972; the latter had never gone to their place;
nor had visited her; nor had serenaded her; nor had courted her; and never had
made amorous advances to her.^[16] She saw appellant watching the dance at the
entrance gate of the premises during the coronation ball and he was not formally dressed.^[17]

Complainant was
investigated by Lt. Sosa, a police officer, at the police headquarters in Bongabon.  During
said investigation, she was with her father, Luciano
Manito.^[18] She executed a sworn statement on February 1, 1972 (Exhibit “B”) and another one on February 3, 1972 (Exhibit “3”).  In her latter statement, complainant admitted that she had had one sexual intercourse the year before with Cirilo Francisco, an uncle of appellant.  She also declared that she did not bleed when
she was abused by appellant and Ruby Poras.

LUCIANO
MANITO’s testimony disclosed that, at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of January
28, 1972, (his
daughter, Mercedita, asked for permission to attend the coronation ball at Camantigue.  Mercedita went with
her sisters Roberta and Estrella.  He advised his daughters to return at 12:00 o’clock midnight.  Estrella returned with her husband around that hour.  Luciano inquired
from his daughter Estrella for the whereabouts of Mercedita and Roberta; Estrella
told him that the two were still attending the coronation ball.  When Roberta arrived alone at around 12:00 o’clock midnight the
father inquired about Mercedita.  Roberta
told him that Mercedita was still witnessing the
coronation ball.  He did not notice any
more the arrival of Mercedita.^[19]

At about 8:00 o’clock the next day, January 29, 1972, Luciano left for Lumboy, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, in order to work, but before leaving, he told Estrella to take care of her sisters and brothers.^[20] He
learned of the January 28, 1972 incident two days later while he was at Lumboy, Roxas, through his
daughter Estrella.^[21] When he returned to Camantigue,
Bongabon, on January 31, 1972,^[22] he confronted Mercedita
about the matter and the latter admitted that she was abused by Ariston Francisco at midnight of January 28, 1972.^[23]
Luciano noticed that Mercedita
was weak and she complained that her body was painful.^[24]

Luciano, Mercedita, and
the husband of Estrella together went to the police
headquarters and filed a complaint.  Mercedita was investigated by Lt. Sosa.  Thereafter, they went to the clinic of Dr. Viloria where Mercedita
was examined.^[25]

Luciano personally knew appellant,
and also knew that the latter resided
at Camantigue, Bongabon,
Oriental Mindoro. 
He identified appellant, during the trial.^[26] He denied that appellant frequented their place
or occasionally visited his
daughters, or serenaded them, or
danced with them in social
gatherings.^[27]

DR. FERNANDO VILORIA,
Municipal Health Officer of Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro, testified that: 
on February 1, 1972, he conducted an internal examination of Mercedita
Manito and issued a medical certificate (Exhibit “A) recording his
findings of “three (3) old lacerations at the vaginal orifice situated at
3, 5 and 9 o’clock.”
Aside from the lacerations, he found no injuries on the body of Mercedita.  Dr. Viloria admitted that the lacerations could have been
caused probably by sexual intercourse. 
On cross-examination he declared
that the lacerations were very old and that it was possible that the
lacerations were sustained by Mercedita prior to January 28,1972.^[28]

Lt. VICENTE SOSA, member of
the police force of Bongabon,
Oriental Mindoro, officer-in-charge of the
investigation, narrated:

In the morning of February
1, 1972,
complainant, accompanied by her father, filed a criminal complaint for Rape in
the Office of the Police of Bongabon.  He then had complainant examined by Dr. Viloria, and thereafter interrogated her and reduced
her statement into writing (Exhibit “B”).^[29]

On February
2, 1972, appellant
was brought to the Office of the Police by a certain barrio official of Camantigue.  In the
presence of another investigator, Corporal Garbin,
Lt. Sosa interrogated appellant, who admitted the commission of the crime.  Lt. Sosa prepared appellant’s statement, read
to the latter the contents thereof, and asked him whether he acknowledged the
contents.  When appellant answered in the
affirmative, Lt. Sosa caused him to thumbmark and
sign the statement (Exhibit “C”). 
Lt. Sosa brought appellant to Municipal Judge Garcia and left him there
“to subscribe his affidavit and later the Judge called (Lt. Sosa) and
informed (him) that there was no truth to the contents of the affidavit of Ariston Francisco.”^[30]

Coming now to the
defense.  Appellant was born in Barrio Camantigue and had long been a resident thereat before the January
28, 1972
incident.  As sole witness for the
defense, he set up alibi, claiming that
at about 12:00 o’clock midnight of January 28, 1972; he was with his brothers,
sisters and parents in their house, which is “far” from barrio Camantigue, that is, “more or less one
”kilometer” away.  Appellant
claimed further that he does not know Mercedita
Manito and that the complaint she filed against him is untrue.^[31] He admitted, however, that he does not know
any reason why Luciano Manito or Mercedita
Manito, both of whom he did not
know, would entertain a grudge or ill-feeling against him and charge him
in Court.^[32]

Appellant rejected his
statement (Exhibit “C”) claiming that he signed it only because he
was threatened by Patrolman Camacho of the Bongabon
Police.  Appellant narrated that before
Lt. Sosa took his statement, Patrolman Camacho brought him (appellant)
to the second floor of the municipal building of Bongabon, required him to expose his penis, and hammered his penis with
half a hollow block.  However, because
appellant’s penis receded before it was hit, it did not sustain any injury
except for some bruises (gasgas) at the
tip which left no scar.  Appellant did not however, complain to
Lt. Sosa of the maltreatment he suffered at the hands of Patrolman Camacho.  When Lt. Sosa investigated appellant, the
former was alone in the room and the hollow block was lying on one side of the
room.^[33]

Aside from facts
regarding his personal circumstances, appellant denied having supplied the
contents of Exhibit “C”, alleging that said statement was a
fabrication of the investigator Lt. Sosa. 
He further denied having knowledge thereof because he does not know how
to read, and he only affixed his signature because he was required to do so.^[34]

According to appellant, he escaped from jail because the persons in authority did not
understand what had really happened and he wanted to see and talk personally with Ruby Poras because the
latter was the one who committed the
crime.^[35] He immediately proceeded to Panay Island because he learned that Ruby Poras was residing there. 
Appellant stayed out of jail for almost one year.  He and Ruby Poras
were not able to see each other.  When he
came to know that Ruby Poras was already apprehended,
appellant decided to surrender to the Mayor of Caluya, Antique, but before he could actually
surrender, the Mayor apprehended him at the house where he was staying at
barrio Sibolo. 
Appellant denied that he was armed when apprehended and that he was shot
at the back by the policemen because he
ran.  The truth according to
appellant was that the incident happened at night and one person was in front
of him focusing a flashlight on both his eyes and another person was on his
left side, while he was raising his hands, when suddenly there was a burst of
gunfire and he was hit on his left hip. 
He was then in Caluya waiting for
transportation to Roxas.^[36]
When he was in the hospital at Roxas he came to know
that Ruby Poras had settled the case by paying the
offended party,^[37]
but that he refused to settle because he did not actually participate in the
commission of the crime.^[38]

In this appeal, counsel de
officio charges the trial Court
with having erred in convicting appellant of the crime of rape because:

“(A)   The evidence adduced by the prosecution
against defendant-appellant is unreliable,
doubtful and insufficient to warrant his conviction of the crime charged beyond
reasonable doubt;

(B)   The conviction of defendant-appellant is
primarily based on the weakness of the defendant’s evidence and not on the
strength of the evidence adduced by the prosecution;

(C)  It totally disregarded or overlooked or
misinterpreted the significance of the circumstances, taken collectively,
suggesting the innocence of defendant-appellant;

(D)  Its conclusion drawn from undisputed and
proven facts is erroneous”^[39]

According to the trial
Court, it was fully convinced of appellant’s guilt after “thoroughly and
conscientiously observing the demeanor and conduct of complainant on the
witness stand and considering her “straightforward” testimony.  There is no question that on matters of credibility of witnesses,
the conclusions of the trial Court carry great weight and are entitled to the
highest respect by appellate Courts, hence, should not be disturbed in the
absence of proof of misappreciation
of evidence.^[40]

However, there are
certain facts of substance and value that militate against an affirmation of
the finding of guilt in this case, particularly when the evidentiary
rule is recalled that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the injured
woman should not be received with precipitate credulity; and when the
conviction depends at any vital point upon her uncorroborated testimony, it
should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from suspicion.^[41] For rape is an accusation “easy to be
made, hard to be proved, but harder to be defended by the party accused, though
innocent”^[42]

We refer, in particular,
to the following facts and circumstances:

1.  After internal
examination of complainant, Dr. Viloria’s findings
were:

“3 (Three) old lacerations at the vaginal orifice situated at 3, 5 & 9 o’clock.” (Exhibit “A”).

When queried about these findings in his Statement taken on February 3, 1972 (Exhibit
“5”) Dr. Viloria replied:

“Q.-
Your findings in the medical examination
is:  three (3) old lacerations at
the vaginal orifice situated at 3, 5, and 9:00
o’clock, would you tell us if Mercedita
Manito is positive for rape.

A. –  Because
these findings were old lacerations, it could hardly be determined that there
was recent intercourse.

Q.-  But,
Dr. you can tell however that there was already a consummated sexual
intercourse by Mercedita Manito.

A. –  Yes,
sir.

Q.-  And
you can also tell us more or less the date when that sexual intercourse took
place.

A. –  It
might be within a few months.

Q.-  According
to Mercedita Manito she was allegedly raped on January 28, 1972, how would you then
account for your findings that the lacerations are already old.

A. –  Because
these lacerations were already made prior to January 28, 1972.

Q.-  Did
you find any indications that Mercedita Manito was
really and actually raped recently.

A. –  None,
sir.

Q.-  And
you can tell us also Dr. that had Mercedita Manito
been raped on January 28, 1972,
there might be some signs of such fact.

A. –  Yes,
sir.

Q.-  And
when you examined Mercedita on February 1, 1972, you did not find any signs or
indications that she was actually raped recently.

A. –  None,
sir.

Q.-  Did
you notice any signs of bleeding when you examined the vaginal orifice.

A.-   None, sir.

Q.-  So
it is very clear Dr. that when you examined Mercedita
Manito on February 1, 1972,
there was no sign like bleeding or injury, that she was raped recently, or was
raped on January 28, 1972.

A. –  Yes,
sir.

Q.-  Can
you tell us Dr. what will be the condition of the patient like Mercedita if really she was actually raped on January 28, 1972.

A. –  At
least there will be still signs of recent or new laceration.”^[43]

On the witness stand, Dr. Viloria
reiterated his findings as to the age of the lacerations, thus:

“Q.   At the time you examined Mercidita
Manito, how old were the lacerations?

A.    The
lacerations were inflicted a
long time ago.  I would say a few
months.”^[44]

And when asked whether those lacerations could have merely healed
between January 28, the alleged date of the commission of the offense, and
February 1, 1972, the date of the physical examination, he replied (when he was
recalled as a witness against Ruby Poras);

“Q.   According to the complaint or information in
this case, the alleged offense for rape was committed on January 28, 1972 and your examination, according
to Exhibit ‘A’ was done on February 1,
1972, will you tell this Court
whether the lacerations caused on January 28th could have healed on February 1, 1972?

A.    No,
sir.”^[45]

Further, he testified that he found no injuries on complainant’s
body:

“Q.   Aside from the lacerations did you find out
any injuries on the body of Mercedita Manito?

A.    None,
sir.”^[46]

Considering complainant’s testimony
that:

“Q.   What happened to you after Ariston Francisco whirled you around by your right hand?

A.    Ariston
Francisco dragged me to a place where talahib grass grow while Ruby Poras
was beside us holding a knife.”^[47]

and the Information and Amended
Information charging that complainant was “mercilessly dragg(ed)
to a secluded place” at the very least, complainant should have sustained
abrasions or contusions for having been
dragged amongst “talahib“, which is usually sharp-edged, but the
physician found “none” whatsoever.

In the face of such categorical
findings of the examining physician that the “old” lacerations were
caused prior to January 28, 1972, that there were no indications of any recent
rape when ordinarily there would have been signs of new lacerations, that there
were no external injuries on any part of complainant’s body, we can not but
entertain serious doubts as to the probability of her claim.

That the internal
examination was conducted on the fourth day after the alleged incident does not
militate against the foregoing conclusion, for in People vs. Garcines,^[48] the physical examination was made five days
after and yet the examining physician found slight congestion in the vaginal
canal meaning that it was inflamed or reddish “contusion with slight hematoma” on the right side of the cervix, and
“even erosion and slight bleeding” could be noted on the left
side.  And even on the eighth day,
“with the use of speculum blood clots were found in the vaginal canal near
the cervix.”

2.  Additional salient
considerations subtract from the prosecution case:  (a) Complainant narrated that Roberta Manito,
her 12-year-old sister, was with her on the way home from the coronation ball.

“Q.   While you and your sister Roberta were on
your way home, do you remember
if there was something which happened to you?

A.    Yes,
sir.  While we were on our way home, Ariston Francisco and Ruby Poras
who were then following us,
suddenly ran after us.  They overtook us
and Ariston Francisco grabbed my right hand and made
me turn several times around while Ruby Poras was
beside us.

Q.   How
about your younger sister Roberta?

A.    She
ran away.”^[49]

And yet, as narrated by Luciano Manito, the father, when Roberta arrived home, she
mentioned nothing of that occurrence notwithstanding his having asked Roberta
regarding complainant’s whereabouts, Roberta’s answer having been merely that
complainant was still watching the coronation ball.

“Q.  Did
Roberta your daughter arrive home from the coronation ball on that night of January 28, 1972?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   She
was alone?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Did
you inquire from her the whereabouts of Mercedita
Manito?

A.    Yes,
sir.  According to Roberta Mercedita was still witnessing the coronation ball.”^[50]

Surely, even a girl of 12
years would have awakened her father to tell him of any unusual or untoward
incident that had befallen her sister. 
If, indeed, complainant’s right hand was “grabbed” by
appellant, and sue was whirled around and had “shouted”, and
according to Roberta in her Statement (Exhibit
“4”) a handkerchief was put in complainant’s mouth, and that she
(Roberta) was “frightened” and “ran away”, these could not
but have been a traumatic experience for Roberta, who would have certainly
related the happenings to her father, who had precisely asked for complainant’s
whereabouts.  But no, she merely wept to sleep.  And so did complainant
when the latter arrived.  A nagging doubt thus arises:  was
Roberta, in fact, with complainant at the time of the incident, or had
complainant sent her home ahead while complainant lingered behind at the ball and walked home either alone or in the company of appellant and Ruby Poras? Roberta was never presented as a witness
on the pretext that her testimony would be merely “cumulative in
character”.^[51]

(b)   Complainant testified that she did not
disclose the incident to anyone and if she did so finally to her elder sister, Estrella,
it was because appellant had revealed it to her uncle.  In her own words:

“Q.   Finally were you able to tell to anybody what had happened to you?

A.    Yes,
sir.  because Ariston
Francisco revealed it to my uncle what he did to me.”^[52]

And yet, considering human nature and the ordinary conduct of
man, it is most unlikely that, if appellant had committed such a heinous crime
as rape, he himself would reveal it to a relative of the offended girl, and
risk criminal prosecution.  A question thus poses itself:  was appellant’s revelation to complainant’s
uncle a story of a consented act not amounting to a crime?  The uncle, who could have shed more light,
was hot put on the stand.  Neither was Estrella, who could have related the exact narrative,
called to testify.

(c)   Complainant had stated in her Statement
(Exhibit “B”) that appellant had poked a knife at her neck and in her
Statement (Exhibit “3”) that Ruby Poras had
also pointed a “hunting knife” at her.  Roberta, the sister, however, in her own
Statement (Exhibit “4”) declared that she did not see them carrying
any weapon or knife.

(d)   In her second statement (Exhibit
“3”) complainant declared that she did not bleed when she was abused by appellant and Ruby Poras.  When she was first asked in the course of her
testimony whether her private part bled
or she felt it bleed during and after the rape, she also answered:  “I do not know”; but later on she
claimed that blood oozed from her vagina, spilled on the ground and even
stained her upper garment, which statements are contrary to the findings of Dr.
Viloria that the three lacerations in the vaginal
orifice of Mercedita were old lacerations and were inflicted “a long time
ago,” and that there was no sign of
bleeding in the vaginal orifice.

(e)   In her second Statement taken on February 3, 1972 (Exhibit
“3”) complainant declared that it was not the first
time that she had had sexual experience.

“Tanong – Yon ba ang kauna-unahang karanasan mo sa sinasabi mong gahasa,
ng ikaw ay gahasain nina Ariston Francisco at Ruby Poras o
kung noong nagdaang araw ay ikaw ay nakaranas na din.

Sagot     – Hindi po, noong isang taon
ay nakaranas na din ako, pero isang
beses lang.

Tanong  – Sino naman ang sinasabi mong
unang gumamit sa iyo, sinong
lalaki.

Sagot    –  Si Cirilo Francisco po.

Tanong –  Ano naman ang
kanyang relasyon kay Ariston Francisco.

Sagot    –  Tiyuhin po ni Ariston
Francisco.”^[53]

And yet, in her direct testimony, she stated the diametrical
opposite:

“Q.   And that was the first time you experienced
having sexual intercourse?

A.    Yes,
sir.”^[54]

(f)    While complainant claimed in her second
Statement (Exhibit “3”) that appellant struck her legs with a piece
of bamboo;

“Tanong – Hindi
ka ba sinaktan ni Ariston ng ikaw ay inuumpisahan pang gahasain.

Sagot     – Sinaktan po, pinalo
pa ako ng kawayan sa aking mga binti.”^[55]

she never mentioned such fact in her
testimony in open Court.

The foregoing flaws in
complainant’s testimony on vital point crucially destroy her credibility. 
The improbabilities therein verily defy the ”test of reason.” Her
story lacks the stamp of absolute truth and candor.

3.   Appellant’s bolting jail during the pendency of the case below can not be strictly interpreted
as an indication of guilt.  As he
explained, his purpose was not to flee from the clutches of the law but to
contact Ruby Poras because the authorities did not
understand what had fully transpired.^[56]
It was but natural for appellant to have wanted to contact Ruby Poras, at least, to clarify
matters as between them and because, according to appellant, it was Ruby Poras who had perpetrated the crime.

4.   It is a fact that in his purported extra-judicial
confession (Exhibit “C”) taken on February 2, 1972 by Lt. Sosa, appellant admitted his
participation in the offense:

“Tanong – Bakit kayo ni RUBY PORAS ay nasa sa Tono,
Cawayan ng gabing yoon ng
Enero 28, 1972.

Sagot     – Noong gabing yoon ng
Enero 28, 1972 na pagkatapos ng sayawan
sa barriohan at ng papauwi na ako ay nakita ako ni
RUBY PORAS at ako ay kanyang
kinawayan na aming sundan na
itinuro sa akin ang isang lalaki
at isang babae na magkasamang naglalakad.  Kami ay sunod sa itinuro ni
RUBY
PORAS na naglalakad sa daan papunta
sa gawing Cawayan at doon sa lugar na
malapit na sa ‘Culvert’ na hindi pa sumasapit sa ‘Crossing’ ng Tono ay tatakbo si RUBY PORAS palapit sa dalawang naglalakad
na may hawak na patalim at nagwika
na ‘Hoy naga ano kayo’.  Agad na tumakbo
yoong lalaki na ninawakan ni
RUBY
PORAS yoong babae at
ipinagsama doon sa tabi ng
sapa na doon pinagsamantalahan, hinindot yoong babae at pagkatapos ay kinuha sa akin
ang babae na iniwan ko
na sila na
tuloy na akong umuwi sa
aming bahay sa Camantigue.”^[57]

However, the foregoing Statement must be rejected because
prosecution witness Lt. Zosa himself candidly
admitted in open Court:

“Q  
And what did you do?

A.    I
brought Ariston Francisco to the municipal Judge and
left him there to subscribe his affidavit and
later the judge called me and informed me that there was no truth to the contents of the affidavit of Ariston
Francisco.”^[58]

The refusal of the
Municipal Judge to subscribe to complainant’s affidavit because of the falsity
of its contents bolsters appellant’s assertion on the witness stand that his
answers were untrue.^[59] Besides, the prosecution failed to present
Corporal Garbin to corroborate Lt. Sosa’s testimony
that appellant, in his (Garbin’s) presence, admitted
to Lt. Sosa the commission of the crime. 
Neither did the prosecution present Patrolman Camacho to rebut
appellant’s assertions that he was maltreated. 
These witnesses, who could have strengthened the case for the
prosecution, were not presented.  As very
aptly enunciated by then Justice, now Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, in
People vs. Dramayo,^[60] “(i)t is thus
required that every circumstance favoring his
innocence be duly taken into account.  The
proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest
suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.  The conscience must be satisfied that on the
defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not
only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. 
What is required then is
moral certainty.” Added to this is the fundamental principle that conviction
should rest on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness
of that of the defense.^[61]

The foregoing
indispensable criteria have not met herein.  The prosecution evidence is
wanting in proof beyond reasonable doubt. 
The conclusions of the trial Court are unwarranted and bereft of convincing factual support.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby set
aside, and Ariston
Francisco hereby acquitted on reasonable doubt.

Costs de
officio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad
Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., see concurring opinion.

---

^[1]
Original Record, p. 2.

^[2]
Ibid., pp. 1 and 31.

^[3]
Original Record, p. 3.

^[4]
Ibid., pp. 15-16.

^[5]
Ibid., p. 15.

^[6]
Baptismal Certificate, Exhibit “D”, p. 9 Original Record.

^[7]
t.s.n., pp. 16-19.

^[8]
t.s.n., pp. 24-28.

^[9]
pp. 19, 23.

^[10]
t.s.n., pp. 19, 25.

^[11]
Ibid.

^[12]
Ibid.

^[13]
t.s.n., p. 28.

^[14]
t.s.n., p. 20.

^[15]
t.s.n., pp. 20-26.

^[16]
t.s.n., p. 22.

^[17]
t.s.n., pp. 24-25.

^[18]
t.s.n., pp. 20-21.

^[19]
t.s.n., pp.
36-38.

^[20]
t.s.n., pp.
36, 38

^[21]
t.s.n., p.
33.

^[22]
t.s.n., p. 38.

^[23]
t.s.n., p. 34.

^[24]
t.s.n., p. 39.

^[25]
t.s.n., p. 34.

^[26]
t.s.n., p. 34.

^[27]
t.s.n., p. 40.

^[28]
t.s.n., pp. 1-4, Hearing of May 30, 1972.

^[29]
t.s.n., pp. 5-6.

^[30]
t.s.n., pp. 7-13.

^[31]
t.s.n., pp. 55-56.

^[32]
t.s.n., pp. 67–68.

^[33]
t.s.n, pp. 56-57.

^[34]
t.s.n., p. 63.

^[35]
t.s.n., pp. 58-59, 64.

^[36]
t.s.n., pp. 66-69.

^[37]
t.s.n., pp. 69-70.

^[38]
t.s.n. , p. 59.

^[39]
p. 1, Appellant’s brief.

^[40]
People vs. Ramos, 96 SCRA
903 (1980); People vs. Advincula, 96 SCRA 875
(1980); People vs. Tigulo, 94 SCRA 183 (1979),
and a long line of cases.

^[41]
People vs. Fausto, 51 Phil. 852, 856 (1928);
People vs. Bautista, 76 Phil. 184, 196 (1946); People vs. Mendiguarin, 92 SCRA 679, 684 (1979).

^[42]
2 Chitty’s Blackstone, p. 165, cited in U.S.
vs. Flores, 26 Phil. 262, 269 (1913); People vs. Barbo, 56 SCRA 459, 467 (1974); and People vs.
Reyes, 60 SCRA 126, 131 (1974).

^[43]
Original Record, p. 12.

^[44]
t.s.n., May
30, 1972, p. 3.

^[45]
t.s.n., February
13, 1974, p. 49.

^[46]
t.s.n., May
30, 1972, p. 3.

^[47]
t.s.n., October
10, 1972, p. 18.

^[48]
57 SCRA 654 (1974).

^[49]
t.s.n., October 10, 1972, p. 17.

^[50]
t.s.n., October 11, 1972, pp. 37-38.

^[51]
t.s.n., October 11, 1972, p. 42.

^[52]
t.s.n., October 10, 1972, p. 20.

^[53]
Exhibit “3”, p. 10, Original
Record.

^[54]
t.s.n., October 10, 1972, p. 27.

^[55]
p. 10, Original Record.

^[56] t.s.n., January
5, 1976, p. 58.

^[57]Exhibit
”C”, p. 7, Original Record.

^[58]  t.s.n., July 18, 1972, p. 10.

^[59]
t.s.n., January 5, 1976,
pp. 57-58; 60-61; 63-64.

^[60]
42 SCRA 59 (1971) and restated in
People vs. Ramirez, 69
SCRA 144 (1976); People vs.
Montero, 76 SCRA 437 (1977); and People
vs. Quiazon, 78 SCRA 513 (1977).

^[61]
Duran vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 68 (1976).

---

Clean
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}