G.R. No. L-45857. October 27, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO SISON Y AVILES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MAKASIAR, J.:
In her sworn complaint, complainant
Violeta Begino y Aquino accused defendant-appellant of forcible abduction
with rape allegedly committed as follows:
“That on or about the 15th day of July, 1973, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused with lewd
design, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of force and intimidation abduct the undersigned, by then
and there forcibly dragging her into a
tricycle, after which the undersigned was brought to a house located at Novaliches, this City where said accused by means of force and intimidation had carnal
knowledge of the undersigned, all against the will and without the consent of
the undersigned, to her damage
and prejudice in such amount as
may be awarded to her under the provisions of the Civil Code.
“Contrary to law” (p. 2, rec.).
The trial court convicted
him of the charge and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with accessories of the law, to indemnify the complainant in the sum of
P10,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs,
crediting him however with the entire period of his temporary detention.
Complainant Violeta Begino, a native of Cabcab, Catanduanes, was about 15
years and 10 months old on July 15, 1973, a Sunday. About 4 feet and 7 inches tall and weighing about 93 lbs., she was the housemaid of Jose Baruela of Galas, Quezon City.
Between 3 and 4 o’clock in the afternoon of Sunday,
July 15, 1973, Violeta was standing at the corner of Luzon Avenue and Union Civica St., Galas, Quezon City, waiting for a ride to Quiapo,
Manila to buy slippers for her employer. Appellant
Ernesto Sison, then about 23 years old, who was courting her, approached
her and invited her to take the tricycle he was then driving. When she refused, appellant allegedly drew his 7-inch
knife and poked it at her abdomen, threatening to kill her if she did not board his tricycle. He allegedly
seized her and forced her to get into the tricycle.
This is quite incredible
because, on such Sunday afternoon, with many people passing by or idling in the
vicinity, as Galas is thickly populated by low-income and middle-class groups
— of which fact the Supreme Court can take judicial notice –– she could have resisted and shouted for help. It was not easy for
appellant to grab her and force her into the tricycle without being noticed by
passers-by and by-standers. She claims that after she was seated inside the
tricycle, appellant drove his tricycle to the España Rotonda, a busy
intersection of España St., Manila, Quezon Avenue, España Extension
(now E. Rodriguez Ave.), Mayon St., and Pulog St. going towards Galas, Quezon
City. Said rotonda is over one kilometer from
Galas, with several street corners to pass along the way.
With appellant driving
the tricycle, complainant could have shouted for help while seated in the rear
compartment for passengers behind him, since as aforestated,
from the corner where she was allegedly forced to board the tricycle up
to España Rotonda is quite
a distance, with so many houses and several persons along the way. And children
would be playing on the streets. Or she could have jumped out of the tricycle
for a tricycle does not run fast and the tricycle is always open at its right
side just behind appellant who was on the driver’s seat. Appellant could not be
poking a knife with one hand at Violeta and driving
the tricycle with the other hand.
From the España Rotonda,
they took a passenger jeepney for Balintawak,
Quezon City.
They were allegedly the only passengers of the jeepney,
with appellant holding her hands and telling her that he would kill her if she
tried to go home. From España Rotonda
to Balintawak is a distance of about five kilometers. Being a passenger jeepney,
it presumably took the usual passenger jeepney
routes. It would be unbelievable that all throughout the distance of about five
kilometers, a Sunday afternoon,
no other passenger boarded the jeepney between España Rotonda and Balintawak. The route of said jeepney
must pass through Mayon St.
towards North Cemetery
beside Balintawak. But even assuming that they were
the lone passengers of the jeepney throughout the
distance she could have shouted for help or created a commotion to alert the jeepney driver. It is also possible that she must have seen
policemen along the route, especially near the gate of the North
Cemetery. The various jeepney routes from Quezon City
to North Cemetery include Mayor Norberto Amoranto St.
(formerly Retiro), Del Monte Avenue, Dapitan, LaongLaan St., and from Manila to the North Cemetery then
to Balintawak, via Dimasalang
St., and coming from Rizal Avenue Extension and
passing the Chinese General Hospital via Blumentritt.
Upon reaching the busy intersection in front of the North Cemetery gate, with a lot of people around, including employees of the gas station just
across the gate of the North Cemetery, she could have screamed for help, but she
did not.
At Balintawak,
appellant allegedly brought her to the house of his aunt, to whom he allegedly
introduced her as his girl-friend. After talking to her aunt, he and
complainant left the house and rode in a passenger jeepney
bound for Novaliches, Quezon City. There were other passengers inside the jeepney but she did not make any outcry nor ask help from
the other passengers during that long trip from Balintawak
to Novaliches, which is a lot farther than from España Rotonda to Balintawak. Balintawak is also a
busy street all the way to Clover Leaf (the hub connecting to Novaliches) and there are many houses and shops along the
way — more so upon reaching the busy market near the Clover Leaf. And then
from Clover Leaf through Quirino Avenue towards Novaliches, there must have been numerous persons that
Sunday afternoon, because Quirino Avenue is likewise
a busy avenue, being the only route to Novaliches
from the Clover Leaf and the traffic along that thoroughfare is heavy at all
hours of the day because of the numerous passenger buses, jeepneys,
cargo trucks, and private cars on the road. But she did not cry for help.
At Novaliches, appellant led her to the
house of another aunt, Maria Aviles Reyes and took her purse containing P12.00.
After eating their supper, appellant allegedly brought her to a room and
ordered her to lie down. She resisted and appellant slapped her repeatedly. She
became unconscious and upon regaining consciousness, she found herself naked
with appellant on top of her and his penis inside her vagina “up to her
stomach.” If she resisted as she claimed, there should have been some
commotion and maybe pieces of furniture like chairs and tables being pushed or
the sound of shuffling feet, accompanied by her cries or screaming indicating resistance. When he
slapped her repeatedly, she must have shouted in pain and even cursed him aloud
with the usual vulgar invectives. With such commotion, screaming, cries of pain
and vulgar curses, it is unthinkable that the aunt and the rest of the inmates
of the house would not have heard the same. They could have been curious about
the commotion and could have frustrated whatever criminal intention appellant
might have towards her.
She alleged that he had sexual intercourse with her three times
that July 15 even as she was
experiencing pain. The following day (July 16), he had sexual intercourse with
her four times. Then on the third day (July 17), he did the same to her. They stayed in Novaliches
from July 15 to July 21, 1973. Never did she complain to his aunt or to
the other inmates of the house about what appellant did to her. During those
six days, she must have gone out of the room to eat or to attend to personal
necessities in the bathroom. During those six days too, his aunt and the other
members of the family would have noticed her painful expression or her moaning
in pain and would have asked her the cause of the same.
In the afternoon of July
21, 1973, appellant, with his mother and his aunt Maria, brought Violeta to his house in Sampaloc,
Manila, and from there, to Violeta’s mother at 11-B
Luzon Avenue, Galas, Quezon City. All the mother did
was to slap her.
It should be stressed, as heretofore intimated, that this Court
sitting in Metro Manila, can take judicial notice of the geography of said
metropolis, and the approximate distance from Galas to España
Rotonda, from España Rotonda to Balintawak, and from Balintawak to Novaliches, the
passenger routes to said place, the
nature of traffic along said routes, the heavy population in Metropolitan
Manila, and the habits of the residents therein.
There is nothing in the record to indicate as to why her mother
and her employer did not look for her during the six days that she was missing
from the house of her employer and why they did not report to the police
authorities said fact of her being missing for almost a week. Neither is there
any intimation that her employer inquired about the money he gave to her to
purchase slippers, which is quite unnatural.
All the foregoing circumstances not only negate the conclusion
that she was sexually assaulted by appellant against her will, but also affirm
that she went willingly with the appellant and submitted to his lewd design.
Consequently, the only
possible conclusion is that she voluntarily went with appellant on that six-day
tryst with him, for which appellant could have been convicted of consented
abduction as Violeta was then over 12 but under 18
years of age (Art. 343, R.P.C.), if the complaint included the essential
elements of abduction with consent (Valdepeña
vs. People, 16 SCRA 871, April 30, 1966; U.S. vs. Asuncion, 31 Phil.
614, Oct. 2, 1915). Unfortunately, the complaint as aforequoted
does not allege that the offended party was a virgin, over 12 years and under 18 years of age (Barba vs. People, 89 SCRA 112, March 28, 1979; People vs.
Castro, 58 SCRA 473, Aug. 19, 1974; People vs. Samillano,
56 SCRA 573, April 22, 1974; People vs. Magat, 94
Phil. 118, Dec. 29, 1953).
Hence, the appellant should be acquitted of the charge.
WHEREFORE, APPELLANT ERNESTO SISON Y AVILES
IS HEREBY ACQUITTED. WITH COSTS DE OFFICIO.
HIS IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS HEREBY ORDERED UNLESS HE IS HELD FOR
SOME OTHER VALID CHARGES.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Plana,
Escolin, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
Abad Santos and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., join J. Aquino in his dissent.
De Castro, J., on leave.
150
Clean
6 pt
6 pt
0
3
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* 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”;}
DISSENTING OPINION
AQUINO, J.:
I dissent. According to the prosecution’s evidence, on Sunday,
July 15, 1973, between three and four o’clock in the afternoon, Violeta Begino, a
fifteen-year-ten-month-old housemaid (born in Cabcab,
Catanduanes on September 14, 1957), about four
feet and eight inches tall, weighing ninety-three pounds, was standing at
the corner of Luzon Avenue and Union Civica Street,
Galas, Quezon City, waiting for a ride to Quiapo, Manila because her master, Jose Baruela,
had asked her to buy slippers.
At that moment, Ernesto Sison, 23, who
was courting Violeta (she had known him for three
days) approached her and advised her to take the tricycle which he was driving.
When Violeta rejected his offer, Sison
whipped out a seven-inch long knife and pointed it at her abdomen (Violeta making a demonstration as to the poking of the
knife), telling her that he would kill her if she did not board his tricycle.
He seized her and forced her to get into the tricycle.
Sison then drove the tricycle to the España rotunda (the intersection of Quezon Avenue, España Extension and Mayon Street) and alighted.
They took a passenger jeepney for Balintawak,
Quezon City.
They were the only passengers. Sison held her hands.
He told her that he would kill her if she tried to go home.
Sison took Violeta
to the house of his aunt in Balintawak, introducing
her to his aunt as his girl friend. Sison talked with
his aunt. Later, he and Violeta left the house and
rode in a jeepney bound for Novaliches,
Quezon City.
Although there were many passengers inside the jeepney,
Violeta did not make any outcry allegedly because of
fear that Sison would kill her if she did.
In Novaliches, Sison
took Violeta to the house of another aunt, Maria
Aviles Reyes. Sison got Violeta’s
purse containing twelve pesos. They ate their supper there. Afterwards, Sison took her to a room and ordered her to lie down. She
resisted but Sison slapped her repeatedly. She became
unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she realized that she was naked
and Sison was on top of her and that his penis was
inside her vagina (“up to my stomach”).
She tried to extricate herself but she was not successful
“because his sex organ was already inside” her vagina and he was
holding her arms and legs. He warned her that he would kill her if she did not
submit to his desires. He made push-and-pull movements. He kissed her many
times on the mouth. It was her first sexual intercourse.
She experienced much pain in her organ. Sison
had sexual intercourse with her three times on that occasion. The following
day, he had sexual congress with her four times. He used her also on the third
day. He did not touch her on the fourth day because her menstruation started at
that time. They stayed in Novaliches up to July 21, 1973.
In the afternoon of that date, Sison,
together with his mother and his aunt Maria, took Violeta
to Sison’s house in Sampaloc,
Manila. Later, they delivered Violeta to her mother at her residence, 11-B
Luzon Avenue, Galas. Upstairs, her mother slapped Violeta. She told her mother she was abused by Sison. In the morning of July 22, 1973, Violeta
executed her statement at Precinct 4 of the Quezon
City Police. She narrated what Sison did to her from
the afternoon of July 15 up to July 21.*
On July 23, 1973,
Violeta was examined by a medico-legal officer of Camp
Crame. He
found “no external signs of recent application of any form of trauma”
but her genitals showed “shallow, healed lacerations at 3, 7 and 9 o’clock positions” caused possibly by
sexual intercourse. Her vaginal orifice offered moderate resistance to the
introduction of the examining index finger and the virgin-sized speculum (Exh. C).
In his defense, Sison denied that he
forced Violeta to ride in his tricycle in the
afternoon of July 15, 1973,
that he brought her to Balintawak and Novaliches, and that he raped her in the house of his aunt.
He declared that he got acquainted with Violeta at
the Marilou Beer House at Luzon
Avenue, Galas where she worked as a waitress.
He had sexual congress with Violeta in
the later part of 1972 in the massage clinic at Tetuan Street, Manila
where her sister worked. He stayed with his aunt at Novaliches
three or four months prior to July 21,
1973 because his mother was angry with him.
He allegedly did not give his earnings as a tricycle driver to
his mother. He used to give money to Violeta’s mother
in Violeta’s presence. In the morning of July 21, 1973 Violeta
went to the Novaliches house of his aunt to ask Sison to marry her. After lunch, Sison
and his aunt brought Violeta to her house in Galas. Violeta’s mother pulled her hair and scolded her.
On that occasion, Sison wanted to ask
the consent of Violeta’s parents in order to marry
her although Violeta’s mother did not want him to be
her son-in-law. Sison and his aunt left the house
after about twenty minutes because Violeta’s mother
did not attend to them. The trial court did not believe the defense of Sison.
In this appeal, appellant’s counsel, who was not Sison’s lawyer during the trial, contends that the prior,
contemporaneous and subsequent events showed consent on Violeta’s
part to the acts of sexual intercourse and that the trial court erred in giving
credence to Violeta’s uncorroborated testimony, in
finding that threats, force and intimidation were employed by Sison, in not finding that Violeta
filed the criminal action when her offer to marry Sison
was rejected and in not giving weight to the testimony of Sison’s
aunt.
Sison’s counsel, like the
trial court, did not believe Sison’s defense. He
ignored appellant’s version of the case (albeit in good faith) and, instead,
set forth the “facts of the case” “sufficiently
established” by both the prosecution and the defense.
Appellant’s counsel, contradicting the denials made by accused Sison, admitted (1) that Sison
brought Violeta in his tricycle to the España rotonda, (2) that he was
with her in a passenger jeep going to Balintawak, (3)
that Violeta was introduced to Sison’s
aunt as his girl friend, (4) that Sison and Violeta rode in a jeepney in
going to the house of Sison’s other aunt in Novaliches and (5) that Sison and
Violeta had sexual intercourse for three days in Novaliches. He theorized that she went with Sison voluntarily.
Defense counsel disregarded the fact that Violeta,
a fifteen-year-old, ninety-three pound, four-feet-and-eight-inch teenager,
during all the time that she was with Sison, was
afraid of him because of the threats to kill her which he had made and because
of his obvious physical superiority. See People vs. Bulaong,
L-37836, July 31, 1981, 106
SCRA 344; People vs. Manguiat and Sanqui,
51 Phil. 406.
The case is really a matter of credibility: whether the
testimonies of Violeta and the medico-legal officer
should prevail over the testimonies of Sison and his
aunt.
My view is that the trial court did not err in finding that Sison is guilty of forcible abduction with rape beyond
reasonable doubt. A different holding would mean that Violeta
concocted an elaborate frameup against Sison. We cannot assume that her testimony on the grievous
outrage perpetrated against her was a fabrication.
Her version that she was under constant intimidation by Sison withstood the gruelling
cross-examination to which she was subjected in three hearings. It should not
be expected that she would have reacted like an adult or a mature person and
thus avoided the clutches of Sison if she did not
want to be abducted and raped.
The findings of the medico-legal officer indicate that she was a
virgin and support her declaration that Sison had
deflowered her.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua
was properly imposed for the complex crime of forcible abduction with ordinary
rape.
*“Ako po’y inutusan
ng aking among lalaki na bumili
ng tsinelas sa Quiapo, Maynila,
ako’y nag-aabang ng jeep na sasakyan
sa Union Civica kanto ng Luzon, Quezon City, ngayon dumating si Ernesto Sison, dala-dala ang isang tricycle.
“Huminto
siya sa tapat
ko, pilit niyang pinasasakay ako sa tricycle. Nuong hindi ako
pumayag ay bumaba siya ng tricycle sabay bunot ng
kanyang lanseta o balisong at itinutok sa tiyan ko
sabay salya niya sa akin sa
loob ng tricycle at sinabing kung hindi ako sasama sa
kanya ay papatayin niya ako.
“Dinala
niya ako sa Espanya Rotonda.
Pagdating namin duon ay iniwan niya ang tricycle at isinakay ako sa
isang pampasaherong jeep patungong Balintawak.
“Pagdating
namin sa Balintawak ay itinuloy ako sa bahay
daw ng kanyang
tiyahin, pilit niya akong hinila
at dinala sa bahay na iyon.
Ipinakilala akong nobya niya sa
kanyang tiyahin.
“Pagkatapos
nuong hapon na iyon ay umalis
kami at dinala ako ulit sa
isang bahay na ipinakilala niyang tiya niya
sa Novaliches, Quezon City. Ang
pagkakilala sa akin ay
Maria daw ang pangalan ng kaniyang
tiya.
“Nuong
gabing iyon ay ibig ko ng
umuwi, pero kinuha ni Ernesto ang pitaka kong
may laman na pera P12.00, at sabay sinabing ‘kung uuwi ka ay papatayin kita‘, sabay bunot din ng lanseta at itinutok
sa akin.
“Matapos
kaming maghapunan ay dinala po ako
sa isang kuwarto sa bahay
na iyon at pilit na pinahiga.
Isinara ang pinto ng kuwarto sadya
ini-‘lock’. Una siyang naghubad, pinahubad din niya ang aking damit,
pero hindi ako pumayag.
“Nuong
hindi ako pumayag ay sinampal ako ng tatlong
beses, ako’y natumba at hinimatay sa sampal kong
tinamo. Nuong ako’y nagkamalay ay hubad na ang
aking damit at nakapatong na siya
sa ibabaw ko, at naramdaman ko na lamang
na makirot at masakit ang pag-aari
ko at iyong ari ni Ernesto ay naramdaman kong nakapasok na sa
aking pag-aari.
“Ang
ginawa ko’y lumaban ako at wala akong lakas
na kumalas sa mahigpit niyang
paghawak sa dalawa kong kamay
at pigil sa dalawa kong paa
at ulit-ulit binibigkas na papatayin daw
niya ako kung hindi ko ipagkakaloob
ang nais niya. Matapos ang
ilang sandali ay natapos din ang makahayop niyang pagnanasa. Naramdaman kong umaagos ang
dugo galing sa aking pag-aari.
Nuong matapos siya ay lalabas na sana
ako sa loob
ng kuwarto pero pinigilan niya ako at hinatak
papaloob.
“Makaraan
ng ilang sandali ay ginawa niya ulit ang
pagkuha sa aking pagkababae, pero ako’y lumaban
sa kanya, pero anomang laban
ang ginawa ko ay nakamtan niya rin ang
ibig niya. Matapos ay natulog na siya. Ako’y
umiiyak dahil sa kirot at sakit
na naramdaman ko sa aking
pag-aari.
“Ito’y
nasundan ulit ng maraming beses,
kaya nuong Lunes, petsa 16 ng Hulyo, 1973, ay apat na beses
niyang nakuha ang aking pagkababae.
Nuong Martes, petsa 17 ng Hulyo
1973, ay tatlong beses. Nuong araw ng
Miyerkoles, petsa 18 ng Hulyo, 1973, ay tatlong beses din nakuha ni Ernesto ang aking pagkababae.
“Lahat
ang ginawa niyang ito ay sa
gabi ginagawa sa loob ng
kuwartong iyon abot ng aking
pagsusumamo na huwag na niya
akong gawan ng ganoon, pero
hindi rin pinakinggan ang aking daing. Tuwing
gagamitin niya ako ay tinatakot akong palagi na
papatayin daw niya ako. Sa loob ng araw
na nagdaan ay hindi siya umaalis
ng bahay at palaging nakabantay sa akin.
“Nuong
petsa 19, 20 at 21, 1973 ay hindi
niya ako ginalaw dahil niregla
na ako. At nuong hapon ng
Sabado, petsa 21 ng Hulyo, 1973 ay umalis na kami
at dinala ako sa bahay nila
sa kalye Valdez St., Sampaloc, Maynila. Ako’y dinala nuong
nanay ni Ernesto at tiya daw sa
amin at inintriga ako sa nanay
ko.” (Violeta’s
statement, Exh. D).