PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNULFO FERNANDEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Arnulfo Fernandez has interposed this
appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
in Criminal Case No. L-1681, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify Corazon Aquino
in the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay the costs.

Complainant Corazon Aquino, at the time
of the incident, was 17 years old, single, and residing at Caloocan
Norte, Binmaley, Pangasinan. On May
4, 1978, at about 5:00 in
the morning, complain­ant was gargling in the kitchen of their house. At that
time her father, Saturnino Aquino,
driver of the Provincial Assessor’s Office, had just left for an official trip
(Exhibit “H”) to Manila, while her mother likewise left with her
father to do her marketing at Binmaley, Pangasinan. Only a two year-old niece, who was then asleep,
was with her in the house. Suddenly, accused entered the kitchen. Approaching
from behind, accused held and dragged complainant to her room. She was about to
shout but accused covered her mouth and poked a knife at her throat. During the
struggle, complainant was able to take hold of his shirt, which got torn. This
angered accused, who then boxed her twice on her belly. As a result, she became
unconscious. As she regained consciousness, she discovered that accused was on
top of her. She pushed him aside and said “Bastos
ka”. Accused laughed and retorted, “Never mind I am finished with
you”. Then she noticed that her panty (Exhibit “E”) was on her right
foot and was torn. While her duster (Exhibit “F”) was also torn and
raised up. She cried. At this juncture, her uncle, Alejandro Castillo, who
wanted to ask a favor from her father, arrived. To his surprise, he met the
accused at the door, who was hurriedly going down from
the house. He (Castillo) called for complainant’s father but nobody answered. When
he heard someone crying, he decided to go inside. He saw complainant crying. He
asked her what had happened. As complainant was
narrating the incident, he saw an open knife (Exhibit “C”) beside the
pillow. Complainant informed him that the knife was used by the accused when
she was a­bused by the latter.

At about 7:00 A.M.,
complainant’s mother arrived. Upon being informed of the incident, she got
nervous. Castillo suggested a report to the authorities but the mother decided
to wait for the father out of nervousness and fear as complainant had been
threatened with bodily harm should they do so.

On May 10, 1978,
or six (6) days after the incident, at about 6:00
in the evening, complainant’s father arrived. Upon learning of the incident, he
got mad and immediately reported the matter to the Barangay
Captain. While at the barangay, talk of marriage was
initiated. But accused’s parents were adamant and
instead scolded complainant contending that she was using her sex to compel the
accused to marry her because of his family’s wealth. Complainant’s family was
advised to submit complainant to medical examination.

The following day, May
11, 1978, complainant was examined by Dr. Vicky Zulueta
of the Pangasinan
Provincial Hospital.
Medical findings (Exhibit “A”) showed “healed laceration in the
hymen.” There­after, complainant, assisted by her father, filed a
complaint (Exhibit “B”) before the Municipal Court of Binmaley, Pangasinan. Complainant
executed an affidavit (Exhibit “G”) together with Alejandro Castillo
(Exhibit “D”) to support her complaint.

On the other hand, the accused, 25 years old, denied the
commission of rape, alleged that he and complainant were sweethearts, admitted
having carnal knowledge of her but contended that it was with her consent. The
defense version in Appellant’s Brief follows:

“Deeply in love with each other, Arnulfo
and Cora took the liberty of mutually satisfying their sexual urge. They had
indulged in sex in not too few encounters (tsn, p.
16, Oct. 6, 1978) One of such sexual conversation was on May 4, 1978 at about
10:00 o’clock A.M. in Cora’s house. (tsn.
p. 17, Ibid).

On that day, Cora was washing clothes in front of her house. Her
mother was in the market and only small child was with her at home. (tsn. p. 18, Ibid). She saw Arnulfo passed by and she called him. She requested him to
gather coconut leaves to place her laundry. Arnulfo
complied. Then Arnulfo asked per­mission to wash his
hands and to drink a glass of water. Cora told him to just help himself at the
kitchen (tsn., pp. 18-19, Ibid).

As Arnulfo was up in the kitchen, Cora
followed him, smiled, and went to her bedroom. Arnulfo
understood the hint. He followed her and found Cora already lying on her bed. They
made love with each other. Just as they were through, a tricycle stopped by the
road. They sensed that it was Cora’s mother, and indeed she was. The two got up
hurriedly. Cora went down to meet her mother while Arnulfo
followed her closely. He greeted Cora’s mother, had a brief exchange of
pleasantries, and then asked permission to leave. (tsn. pp. 2-24, Ibid).

The following day, May 5,
1978, at about 2:00 o’clock p.m.,
Arnulfo visited Cora at home. (tsn. p. 24, Ibid). Cora’s mother confronted him about
the report of the small girl that he and Cora had done already ‘something
wrong’. (tsn. p. 25, Ibid). Arnulfo replied that they just kissed each other which is normal for sweethearts (tsn. p.
25, Ibid). Cora, however, intervened and said ‘Don’t deny it anymore because
they know everything of what we have done’. (tsn. p. 26, Ibid). Whereupon, Cora’s mother told Arnulfo to return on May 6 as her husband will arrive home
by then. (tsn. p. 27, Ibid).
As his parents were in Isabela (tsn,
p. 31, Ibid), and sensing that he will be trapped into marriage, Arnulfo went to Baay, Lingayen, Pangasinan on May 6,
1978 to attend a barrio fiesta. The next day, he went to his aunt’s residence
in Malasiqui, Pangasinan. He
did not leave that place until on May
9, 1978 when he was told to come home because his parents already
arrived home from Isabela. (tsn. pp. 27-29, Oct. 6, 1978).”

To evidence that he and complainant were “sweethearts”
accused exhibited, as having come from complainant, a Valentine card with a
textual greeting (Exhibit “2”), a letter inserted inside the card
(Exhibit “2-B”), a Christmas card (Exhibit “3”) on the back
of the envelope of which were written in block letters “Sweetheart I love
you Much love Dad” (Exhibit “3-B”), a graduation picture
(Exhibit “4”), a group picture taken after graduation with the
accused and another male companion (Exhibit “5”), a picture in cadet
cap and uniform dedicated “For you Papa I love you until the death Love
much Cora Aquino” (Exhibit “6”), a
photograph at a studio with accused’s arm discreetly
around complainant’s waist (Exhibit “7”), and a towel from her with
embroidered letters reading “heart”.

The lower Court rejected the accused’s
version, saying:

“Under the pertinent evidence, this Court must convict. The
prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For so it is that on
May 4, 1978, there was
actual copulation. The medical findings were confirmed. (Exhibits
“A” and series). An insignificant variance relates only to the
time of the intercourse. But this is not determinative of the case.

“Corazon Aquino, in no uncertain
terms, described the abuse against her honor. She clearly pictured a situation
at which Arnulfo Fernandez, bent on his lust, boxed her on the belly, thereby rendering her unconscious. The
accused made sure that his desires were not thwarted. He used a knife (Exhibit
‘C’) to prevent an effective resistance. That Corazon Aquino
was only with a small girl, was of no moment. He must
have his way.

“What is more, the panty was torn on the side (Exhibit ‘E’). Even
the duster (Exhibit ‘F’) appeared crumpled. These are indicative of force. Voluntariness is thus negated.

“So that, this Court disbelieves the theory
that as lovers, the accused and the victim only satisfied a mutual desire.
It would have been needless for Corazon Aquino to
seduce Arnulfo Fernandez. Rather, it would be
naturally believable for Arnulfo Fernandez to just
ask Corazon Aquino to do their thing because there
was nobody around. There was no need for pretensions.

“It may be that Corazon Aquino
showed signs of admiration for Arnulfo Fernandez. She
was only acting as an ordinary teen-ager. But, this is no excuse to commit
rape. More so here that Corazon Aquino attributed the
cards (Exhibits ‘2’ and series; ‘3’ and series) and the pictures (Exhibits ‘4’
and series; ‘5’; ‘6’; ‘7’) to her classmate’s folly. She discounted any serious
relationship with the accused.

“Significantly, the accused had manifested a perverted sense
of moral values. He pictured Corazon Aquino as a
temptress, always hungry for sex. Yet, Corazon Aquino
is admittedly a product of a Catholic education. Her religious background could
have deterred her from publicly exposing herself the way she did. So that, far
from helping his defense, the accused had gravely taxed his own credibility. His
narration is just a re-hash of an erotic movie serving no other purpose but to
entertain.

“This is not all. Arnulfo Fernandez,
on actual confrontation on May 5, 1978,
took refuge first, at Baay, Lingayen,
Pangasinan and then, to Malasiqui,
Pangasinan. He had to be fetched personally. In other
words, he felt guilty. By then, he knew that what he did already came to the
knowledge of Corazon Aquino’s mother.

‘It is inconsequential that the charges were filed days later. Certainly,
Saturnino Aquino, then out
of town must be awaited. (Exhibits ‘H’ and series and ‘I’ and
series). Legally, he must initiate action because his daughter is a
minor. He did so at the first opportunity (Exhibits ‘B’ and series).

“Similarly, the proposals for the marriage did not affect the
case for the prosecution. If at all, the idea was to avoid a public
scandal.”

Accused assails the Decision of the Trial Court and assigned 10
errors committed by it, all of which, however, focus on the issue of
credibility.

In People vs. Villamala (78 SCRA 145,
1977), we held:

“x x x On
the question of the credence to which the conflicting version of prosecution
and defense are entitled, the answer given by the trial court is generally
viewed as correct and thus entitled to the highest respect. Such a principle
was reiterated in a recent decision, People v. Cudalina
(63 SCRA 499, 1975), the prosecution likewise being for rape. Thus: ‘Moreover,
counsel ought to have realized that such an approach has to hurdle the obstacle
arising from the well-settled doctrine that the greatest weight is accorded the
conclusion reached by the lower court on the question of credibi­lity. Unless
it could be shown that it has not duly taken into consideration matters of
significance bearing materially on the outcome, its determination is to be left
undisturbed. In People v. Manos, this Court stated the following: ‘At any rate,
the lower court is vested with considerable discretion determining which of the
conflicting version to be lent credence. What is said in People v. Gumahin finds application in the present case. Thus: ‘The
findings of the lower court embodied in a well-written decision cannot only
stand’ the test of the most rigid scrutiny but also has in its favor the
well-settled principle that as far as credibility is concerned, the findings of
the lower court which had the opportunity to see, hear and observe the
witnesses testify and weigh their testimonies will be accorded the highest
degree of respect by this Tribunal.’ People v. Tila-on
and People vs. Lumayag were cited in support of the Gumahin opinion.’ This also from People v. Angcap: ‘There is need to stress anew that this Court has
long been committed to the principle that the determination by a trial judge
who would weigh and appraise the testimony as to the facts duly proved is
entitled to the highest respect, unless it could be shown that he ignored or
disregarded circumstances of weight or influence sufficient to call for a
different finding. So it was announced by Justice Moreland in 1915 in the first
case of consequence enunciating such a doctrine. As he pointed out, in the
event of a conflict in the testimony of the witness, ‘the peculiar province of
the trial court is to resolve the question of credibility, and unless there is
something in the record of impeaching by fair interpretation the resolution of
the trial court in relation to that question, this court will assume that he
acted fairly, justly, and legally in the exercise of that function (Manos,
L-27791, Dec. 24, 1970 is reported in 36 SCRA 457; Gumahin,
L-22357, Oct. 31, 1967 in 21 SCRA 729; Lumayag,
L-19142, March 31, 1965 in 13 SCRA 502; Angcap,
L-28748, Feb. 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 437; People v. Tila-on
was decided in 1961 and reported in 112 Phil. 546. Justice Moreland’s opinion
was announced in a 1910 decision and reported in 15 Phil. 549).”

The foregoing pronouncements find cogent application in the case
at bar.

We uphold the finding of the lower Court convicting the accused
of the crime of Rape. We have reviewed the record thoroughly and we are
satisfied that the lower Court has not overlooked facts of substance and value
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.

The defense offered by the accused that there was consent on the
part of complainant, being his sweetheart, and picturing her as a person of
loose morals does not inspire belief. She herself vehemently denied any
intimate relationship with him. If they were sweethearts, she would not have
filed so grave a charge against him. It is true that she had given a Valentine
card (Exhibits “2”, “2-A”, “2-B”), a Christmas
card (Exhibit “3”), on the back of the envelope of which were written
in block letters “sweetheart I love you Much love Dad (Exhibit “3-B”),
and a graduation picture (Exhibit “4”) to the accused. Another
photograph (Exhibit “7”) is a picture of the two of them taken at a
studio with the accused’s hand around her waist. A
picture (Exhibit “6”) is dedicated “for you Papa I love you
until death Love much Cora”. But these are not necessarily indicative of
the most intimate of relationships. For one, in the cards, pictures and
envelope, the dedications to the accused like one addressed to “Papa”
(Exhibit “6”), another from “Dad” (Exhibit
“3-B”), were obviously written by different hands thereby inducing
the Trial Court to attribute them to her “classmates’ folly”. “Papa” certainly cannot refer to the accused, nor
“Dad” to complainant. For another, as a teen-ager, complainant
could have entertained a “puppy love” for the accused but not to the extent pictured by the accused of her being a seducer
and a temptress nor to the extent of going to bed with him many times in
the past.

That complainant did not submit to the accused’s
beastly advances is shown by the fact that she cried and struggled, tearing the
accused’s shirt in the process and prompting him to
box complainant on the belly in anger and rendering her unconscious. Her
crumpled duster and her torn panty presented as exhibits during the trial
(Exhibits “F” and “E”) mutely attest to the force employed
by the accused. She immediately disclosed to her uncle, Alejandro Castillo, the
abuse on her person when she could have kept it to herself, if she really had
an amorous relationship with the accused. The pain that she
suffered, the weakness that she felt after the occurrence, negate the accused’s claim of having known her carnally many times
before.

The sexual assault on complainant’s person is confirmed by the
findings of Dr. Vicky Zulueta, a Resident Physician
at the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital, in her
medico-legal certificate showing “hymen – healed laceration at 3 and 9
o’clock position”. In her respect, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions applies.

Complainant’s uncle, Alejandro Castillo, positively identified
the accused as the person who hurriedly went down complainant’s house at the
time and date in question. He called for complainant’s father but nobody
answered. Overhearing someone crying, he decided to enter the house and saw
complainant crying. The latter immediately told him that the accused had abused
her and that the knife near her pillow was what the accused had used to
threaten her.

Complainant’s mother was likewise informed of the assault upon
her arrival from the market. Alejandro Castillo suggested that they report the
matter to the authorities but the mother decided to wait until the father’s
arrival. She was nervous and fearful. Upon her husband’s arrival and after
being informed of the incident, he immediately reported to the Barrio Captain. Soon
after, a complaint was filed with the Municipal Court of Binmaley,
Pangasinan, after complainant had been medically
examined.

Negotiations to have the accused marry complainant to avoid a
scandal and to hide her shame were initiated but the same were rebuffed by the
accused and his family. Those attempts are by no means an indication that the
complainant and the accused had mutually indulged in an indiscretion. They were
a typical and natural reaction intended to save the honor of complainant and
her family, actually not a highly educated one.

The accused’s testimony that he went
back to complainant’s house the day after, or on May 5, 1978, to visit her and
was confronted by her mother about the report of a small child is highly
incredible. A little girl of two years could have had nothing to
“report”.

In point of fact, the accused, two days after the commission of
the offense, sought refuge at Baay, Lingayen, Pangasinan where he had
a girl friend, and then at Malasiqui, Pangasinan. His explanation that it was because
complainant’s parents were insistent on his marrying her is unworthy of
credence because it was only on May 10, 1978, when complainant’s father arrived
from his trip to Manila that a report was made to the Barangay
Captain, and it was only then that possible marriage was mentioned.

The circumstances that the knife found beside complainant by the
uncle was not a kitchen knife, as testified to by him, but a fan knife; that
the torn panty and the crumpled duster were not immediately turned over to the
authorities; that the accused’s T-shirt, which
complainant alleged was left in the house, was not presented in evidence, are
insignificant details that will not affect the result of the case.

This Court has time and again observed that it is unthinkable
that an unmarried teenager like the victim, would endure the shame and
humiliation of being publicly known that she had been ravished, allow an
examination of her private parts and undergo the trouble and expense of Court
proceedings if her motive were not to bring to justice the person who had
grievously wronged her (People v. Garcines, 57 SCRA
653 [1974]; People v. Cawili, 65 SCRA 24 [1975];
People v. Gargoles, 83 SCRA 282 [1978]; People v. Albarcico, 100 SCRA 280 [1980] and People v. Felipe, 115
SCRA 88 [1982]). This is by no means a “hackneyed postulate”, as the
defense submits. It is a truism.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from, being in accordance
with law and the evidence, is hereby affirmed, with costs against accused-appellant,
Arnulfo Fernandez.

SO ORDERED.

Plana, Vasquez, Relova,
and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
concur.

Teehankee, (Chairman), J., no part.