THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PERFECTO ORDONIO Y ABAD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Ordonio

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Perfecto Ordonio, a prosecution for rape decided by the Supreme Court in December 1975. The complainant, Generosa Bancoleta, a married woman with five children, accused Ordonio of forcing her at bolo point to submit to sexual intercourse in her own kitchen after midnight. Ordonio admitted the sexual act but claimed she consented, portraying her as practically his paramour. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on three things a Bar candidate must command: how the Supreme Court weighs the diametrically conflicting testimony of complainant and accused, why the absence of a medical examination and of the weapon does not defeat a rape charge, and why the trial judge's assessment of credibility is accorded deference on appeal.

Procedural History

The case was tried by the Court of First Instance, the trial court, which rendered its decision of June 15, 1971, finding Ordonio guilty of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with the accessories provided by law, ordering him to pay a civil liability of 2,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. Ordonio appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was defended by counsel de oficio, Attorney Abundio Macaranas, while the People were represented by the Solicitor General, assisted by the Assistant Solicitor General and a Solicitor. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

Ordonio and the Bancoleta family lived in the same house, in different rooms. Ordonio's wife stayed in the province, and Bancoleta's husband worked nights as a machine operator at the San Miguel Brewery, his presence required the whole night until ten the next morning. At about ten o'clock in the evening of March 19, 1970, Ordonio knocked at Bancoleta's door. She refused to let him in, and his attempt to enter through another entrance failed. She went to sleep with her five children.

After midnight, at around two in the morning, while she was in the kitchen, Ordonio, holding a bolo, accosted her. He threatened to kill her and her children if she refused to have intercourse with him. She pleaded and tried to escape, but through threats and force he made her lie down on the kitchen floor, divested her of her intimate garments, placed himself on top of her, and had sexual intercourse with her. He then warned her that if she informed on him, he would carry out his threat to kill her and her family.

Undaunted, she reported the abuse to her husband and to Gamaliel Agcaoile, a member of the Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippine Constabulary and a cousin of her husband, and thereafter filed the complaint. On the stand she testified in detail and remained steadfast despite a gruelling cross-examination. Ordonio admitted the sexual act but claimed consent, saying she was practically his paramour, that she had borrowed money and a flatiron from him, and that she concocted the complaint when he demanded payment. The trial judge believed the complainant and rejected the defense.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the diametrical conflict between the testimony of the complainant and that of the accused.
• Whether or not the non-presentation of the bolo and the failure of the complainant to submit to a medical examination negate the charge of rape.
• Whether or not the findings of the trial judge on the credibility of witnesses should be sustained on appeal.
• Whether or not the alleged confession of the accused was given voluntarily.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies the settled doctrine on credibility of witnesses as restated in People versus Tila-on:

Finally, the rule is now firmly established to the point of becoming elementary in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that where there is an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of witnesses, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court when the evidence of the successful party, considered by itself, is adequate to sustain the judgment appealed from.

This rule bears on the case because the appeal rested entirely on the alleged absence of force, and the Court resolved that conflict by deferring to the trial judge who heard and observed the witnesses.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant's version was detailed, categorical, and unshaken on cross-examination, while the defense consisted of mere denials and was inherently improbable. The Court noted that Ordonio admitted he had occasion to talk to her alone only once, that other persons were in the vicinity when they talked, and that all five of her children were sleeping about two meters away when she allegedly consented. It was not easy to accept, given the casual nature of the relationship, that a married woman under such circumstances would readily yield her person.

On the second issue, the Court held that the non-presentation of the bolo did not negate intimidation, since the bolo was in the hands of the appellant and presumably belonged to him; it was not likely he would leave it at the scene. As to the absence of a medical examination, the Court adopted the answer of the Solicitor General: the complainant was a married woman with five children and was no longer a virgin, so no physical examination could prove one way or the other whether she had intercourse against her will. The absence of spermatozoa does not disprove consummation, because the important consideration is not the emission of semen but penetration.

On the third issue, the Court applied the time-tested doctrine of deference to the trial judge, who had the opportunity to see, hear, and observe the witnesses testify and to weigh their testimonies, citing People versus Payao and People versus Modelo.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that even if the objection to the voluntariness of the confession were sustained, it would not be decisive, because there was enough evidence to justify conviction. Nonetheless, it reminded lower courts that the circumstances under which a confession is made must be carefully looked into, for unless given freely it should be rejected, and where there is coercion, either physical, mental or emotional, it cannot be admissible.

Doctrine

Where there is an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of witnesses, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court when the evidence of the successful party, considered by itself, is adequate to sustain the judgment appealed from. The failure to present the weapon used in intimidation does not defeat the charge where the weapon was in the hands of the accused. The absence of a medical examination does not negate rape, especially where the complainant is no longer a virgin, and the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove consummation, the important consideration being penetration and not emission. A confession must be rejected unless given freely, and coercion, whether physical, mental or emotional, renders it inadmissible.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court finding Perfecto Ordonio guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with the accessories provided by law, to pay a civil liability of 2,000 pesos, and to pay the costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove rape, the important consideration being penetration and not emission. Examiners like to use this case on the deference given to the trial judge's credibility findings and on the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence despite the missing bolo and the lack of a medical examination.