G.R. No. L-50882. January 30, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARTHUR MENDOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DE CASTRO, J.:
sentencing accused Arthur Mendoza to the principal penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and to indemnify the victim, Henrietta Maguad, in the sum of
P12,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
together with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, for the crime
of rape, committed according to the evidence of the prosecution, and
quoting from the People’s brief, as follows:
“Complainant Henrietta Maguad was at the time of the incident, a
1st year Commerce student of St. Anthony’s College at San Jose,
Antique, 21 years old, single, and residing with her parents at Barrio
Caridad, Hamtic, Antique, (pp. 1-3, t.s.n., Aug. 5, 1976).“On August 4, 1975, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening,
Henrietta, together with other students, was waiting for a ride in front
of St. Anthony’s College in San Jose, Antique, on her way home to
Hamtic after attending classes (pp. 4-6, t.s.n., ibid). A few minutes
later, a pick-up vehicle driven by accused-appellant herein, Arthur
Mendoza, stopped in front of said students. On board the pick-up, aside
from accused-appellant, were Mayor Julius Pacificador of Hamtic,
Rodolfo Mendoza, and an unindentified man. Upon the invitation of Mayor
Pacificador, twelve students bound for Hamtic, including complainant
Henrietta, boarded the vehicle (pp. 7-10, id.).“Four female students occupied the driver’s cabin where Arthur
Mendoza and an unidentified man were seated. Mayor Pacificador and
Rodolfo Mendoza, on the other hand, transferred to the open cargo
compartment at the rear section of the pick-up where the rest of the
students, together with Henrietta, were accommodated. The pick-up then
proceeded on its way to Hamtic, Antique, where the accused-appellant
herein and his brother Rodolfo Mendoza reside (pp. 10-13, t.s.n., id.).“At the crossing of La Paz Hamtic, Mayor Pacificador and one
female student named Marianita Rumbines alighted (pp. 17-18, id).
Thereafter, the pick-up continued its journey towards the poblacion of
Hamtic. Upon reaching Hamtic’s public market, the rest of the students
disembarked except for complainant Henrietta who was prevailed upon by
Arthur and Rodolfo Mendoza to stay on the assurance that they would drop
her at her residence in Barrio Caridad, Hamtic, about 100 meters away
from the public market (pp. 18-20, 24-25, id.).“Henrietta was thus left in the open cargo compartment of the
pick-up together with Rodolfo Mendoza. She was then seated on the spare
tire which was lying on the compartment’s floor, while inside the
driver’s cabin were accused Arthur Mendoza and the unidentified man (pp.
11, 18-19, id.).“Upon reaching Barrio Caridad, complainant Henrietta stood up and
tapped the back portion of the driver’s cabin for the vehicle to stop,
at the same time saying, “Stop, Stop!”. The pick-up, however, did not
stop. Instead accused Arthur Mendoza increased its speed. Henrietta
thus shouted “Stop, Stop,” but the pick-up still continued on its way.
At that very moment, Rodolfo Mendoza boxed Henrietta in the abdomen to
silence her. Sensing danger, Henrietta shouted for help, but Rodolfo
Mendoza boxed her again in the abdomen twice. As a consequence,
Henrietta crumbled in pain and collapsed on the floor of the cargo
compartment trying to catch her breath (pp. 25-26, 29, 30, 38, id.).“Shortly thereafter, while they were still within the vicinity of
Hamtic, Antique, accused Arthur Mendoza stopped and parked the vehicle
near a ricefield where there were trees. Arthur Mendoza then alighted
and hurriedly went to Henrietta. He was followed by the unidentified
man. Immediately, Arthur covered the mouth of Henrietta with his hands.
At the same time, Rodolfo Mendoza put his arms around Henrietta’s
armpits, while the unidentified man held Henritta’s wrists. Together,
the trio carried the struggling Henrietta out of the vehicle to a
secluded place in the ricefields 10 meters away from the elevated
national road (pp. 30-35, id.).“When they reached the ricefield, the trio forced Henrietta to
lie down on her back. Rodolfo Mendoza held Henrietta’s breast while
pressing her shoulder down to the ground. Simultaneously, the
unidentified man held Henrietta’s two legs, while Arthur Mendoza covered
her mouth with his hands. In the meantime, Henrietta was struggling
and kicking to free herself, but to no avail (pp. 36, 38-39, id.).“When Henrietta was already lying on the ground, Arthur Mendoza
hurriedly pulled open with his right hand the zipper of Henrietta’s
jeans as his left hand covered her mouth to prevent her from shouting.
Arthur then forcibly pulled down Henrietta’s jeans together with her
bikini panty down to below her knees. In the process, the panty as well
as the jean’s hip line and seam line were torn (pp. 36-38, t.s.n., Aug.
5, 1976; p. 86, t.s.n., Sept. 9, 1976; Exhs. “A”, “A-1”, “A-2” and
“A-3”, Rec.).“Then, the unidentified man who was holding Henrietta’s legs
removed the jeans and the panty from Henrietta’s left leg, leaving them
hanging on the right leg. Thereafter, Arthur took off his pants and
brief. As Arthur was about to place himself on top of Henrietta, the
unidentified man spread her legs apart and moved backward from between
Henrietta’s legs which he was tightly holding to give room for Arthur
Mendoza. When Arthur was already on top of Henrietta, he began pushing
his sex organ towards Henrietta’s private part. Henrietta, on the other
hand, continued to struggle. She was crying and was moving her hip
sidewards to avoid penetration. Arthur nonetheless, was able to insert
his penis inside her vagina. Because of the penetration, Henrietta felt
pain and her private part started to bleed. Arthur then went on a
push-and-pull movement. After a couple of minutes, Arthur ejaculated
inside Henrietta. Having satisfied his carnal desire the
accused-appellant then stood up and put on his brief and trousers.
Henrietta, who was crying in shame, was then allowed to put on her torn
panty and jeans (pp. 40-44, 89-93, id.).“Thereafter, Henrietta was brought back by the trio to the cargo
compartment of the pick-up. Arthur Mendoza then drove the vehicle and
after travelling a short distance, and while the pick-up was in motion,
the unidentified man pushed Henrietta out of the vehicle. Henrietta
fell hard on the pavement and was knocked unconscious by the impact.“Arthur Mendoza became apprehensive upon seeing Henrietta lying
unconscious on the road. He thus made a u-turn and went back to where
Henrietta fell. They brought Henrietta to the Antique Provincial
Hospital where the accused tried to hide the rape incident by telling
the attendants that Henrietta fell from the pick-up (p. 28, t.s.n.,
Sept. 8, 1978).“Henrietta remained unconscious in the hospital for 16 days, or
until August 20, 1975 (p. 46, t.s.n., August 5, 1976). She was examined
and treated by Dr. Lino Hernaez of the said hospital, who submitted the
following medical findings:“Physical findings:
(1) Abrasions, multiple (a) left face (b) left eyebrow (c) left
shoulder (d) right face (e) upper lip (f) left elbow (g) left lumbar
area.
(2) Hematoma (a) occiput, left 2 inches diameter (b) peri-orbital area, right.
(3) Fracture, simple, middle third, tibia left.Internal Findings:
Vagina — admits one finger easily without resistance.
Cervix — Closed
Hymen — laceration 9 o’clock in the face of the clock with moderate hemorrhage.
Vaginal smear — positive for the presence of spermatozoa.”(Medical Certificate, Exh. “E”, Rec.; Bold types supplied, pp. 114-123, t.s.n., November 11, 1976).
“Because of several fractures sustained by Henrietta, she was
confined in the hospital for fifty-two days, or until September 28, 1975
(pp. 123-126, t.s.n., November 11, 1976). Thereafter, Henrietta filed
this complaint for rape against Arthur Mendoza, Rodolfo Mendoza and the
unidentified man (pp. 49-50, t.s.n., Aug. 5, 1976).”[1]
The foregoing version of the prosecution is not disputed by the
appellant except as to the commission of the rape and the manner the
complainant fell from the vehicle. The story of appellant is that
nothing untoward happened during the ride until complainant fell from
the vehicle because she lost her balance as she tried to alight while
the vehicle was still in motion, not that she was pushed off therefrom
as she claimed. Hence, his only assignment of error is the trial court
finding him guilty of rape as charged.
Appellant would brand the testimony of the complainant as totally
incredible and unworthy of belief. Thus he points to the testimony of
the medico-legal witness that no visible external injury was found on
the abdomen of complainant as well as to the finding of the lower court
that there was no evidence to show that Rodolfo Mendoza stayed at the
back compartment of the vehicle with complainant, as showing the falsity
of her testimony that she was boxed on that part of her body by said
Rodolfo Mendoza.
The absence of visible external injury on the abdomen of
complainant does not by itself disprove her assertion that she was boxed
there by Rodolfo Mendoza. The doctor himself explained that because of
the softness of the abdominal region, fist blows would not necessarily
produce hematoma or any external injury thereon.[2]
As to whether there is evidence that Rodolfo Mendoza, who was
also accused but acquitted, stayed with complainant at the back
compartment, what better showing could there be than complainant’s own
testimony that she was boxed there by Rodolfo? There is testimony that
when the students boarded the pick-up, Mayor Pacificador and Rodolfo
Mendoza transferred to the cargo compartment when four (4) female
students occupied the driver’s cabin.[3] Rodolfo and complainant remained in the back compartment when the other students and the Mayor disembarked.[4]
Appellant then points to the testimony of Dr. Hernaez that the jeans of complainant “were not torn,”[5]
contrary to complainant’s testimony that her jeans were torn when
appellant forcibly pulled it down. What Dr. Hernaez stated is that he
did not notice that the jeans were torn, and this must be so because the
torn portion is along the hip line from the waist down which was soaked
with blood as to become not immediately noticeable. The jeans which
was presented in court as exhibits[6] showed the torn portion.
Pursuing his attempt to assail complainant’s credibility,
appellant contends that if the unknown man was sitting between her legs
as she testified when she was forced to lie on the ground, it would not
be possible for him (appellant) to have performed sexual intercourse on
top of her, as she pictured the manner the crime was committed.
As the Solicitor General clearly demonstrated, the argument of
appellant is misleading, as he quoted only portions of complainant’s
testimony on this particular matter. Quoted more fully, complainant’s
testimony would show that before appellant placed himself on top of her,
the unknown man moved backward to give way to appellant. Thus –
“Q. Where was the person who has hold you by the legs when Arthur Mendoza had pulled off the panty and the jeans?
A. While my legs had spread apart, that person who was then holding my legs was sitting on the place between my legs.
COURT:
Q. You mean to say with a person sitting between your legs which
were spread apart, Arthur Mendoza was able to lie on top of you?A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far or in what particular portion between your legs did
this person sit between your ankle or knee space, between the feet and
the knee?A. When Arthur Mendoza laid on top of me the person whom I do not
know moved a little backward, held me by my legs and below the knee and
spread it apart.(pp. 41-42, t.s.n., Aug. 5, 1976)”[7]
Again, appellant would mislead this Court in claiming complainant to
have contradicted herself when she said that it was Arthur Mendoza who
pressed her shoulders to the ground but that in answer to the Court, she
said it was Baby (Rodolfo) Mendoza who did. Her testimony shows that
she mentioned “Baby Mendoza” but it was the trial court in its decision
which mentioned Arthur Mendoza erroneously, instead of Baby Mendoza,
either by honest mistake or that the mistake was due only to
typographical error.
The fact that her left shoulder was pressed to the ground and her
right hand was pinned by the body of appellant explains why complainant
did not succeed in her effort to scratch the back of Baby Mendoza, even
if her hands were free as she stated, which appellant tried to stress,
again to show another alleged flaw in complainant’s testimony.
That complainant’s panty was not presented in evidence does not
create a “serious doubt” as appellant claims, entitling appellant to
acquittal. This contention is far-fetched, in light of the very
plausible explanation given by complainant that because it was dirty it
had to be washed. It would, therefore, serve no practical or useful
purpose to present it in court, specially as it would only be
corroborative in effect. What is instead demonstrated is complainant’s
disinclination, if not complete aversion, to do anything that would
subject her to shameful embarrassment and degrading experience except
when so compelled to vindicate her honor. In any case, this piece of
evidence is unnecessary in the face of the overwhelming evidence already
presented that she was a victim of rape.
The physical examination conducted only 30 minutes after the rape,[8]
showed unmistakable signs of its commission. Dr. Hernaez noticed
profused bleeding and rugosities in the vagina. A vaginal smear test
yielded positive results for the presence of spermatozoa.[9] There was a fresh laceration at 9:00 o’clock in the hymen[10] and the breasts had signs of bruises.
That complainant was raped in the manner she narrated, and by no
other person than appellant admits of not the least doubt. Complainant
had been continuously in school before she took the ride in appellant’s
vehicle. She could not have had a tryst with a lover, and perform a sex
act with him while she is supposed to be in her classes.
It was not unusual, as appellant would also contend, for
complainant not to immediately tell her attending physician that she was
raped. How could she have done so when she was unconscious after the
sexual assault and remained so for many days more? On regaining
consciousness, she knew she had already been examined physically. She
had enough sense to know that after the examination, her attending
physician had known what traumatic experience she had gone through. But
she did reveal what happened to her parents as soon as she recovered
from unconsciousness, as was naturally to be expected in her desire to
receive the comforting reassurance of her loved ones, after the tragedy
that has befallen her.
There need not be much fuss about how the injuries sustained by
complainant were caused or inflicted. Whether We accept the theory of
appellant that complainant accidentally fell from the vehicle and
sustained the injuries instead of complainant’s version that she was
deliberately pushed off the running vehicle, the liability of appellant
for the crime of rape, in light of the other evidence, is unavoidable.
Violence was employed by appellant to consummate the crime together with
Rodolfo Mendoza and the third man still to be identified. That the
accused in this case, including Rodolfo Mendoza, abused their superior
strength to subdue complainant’s resistance is adequately proven. That
Rodolfo Mendoza was acquitted by the trial court under the evidence of
record could raise some eyebrows, but this is just so much water already
gone under the bridge.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from, being in
accordance with law and the evidence insofar as appellant Arthur Mendoza
is concerned, is affirmed in toto, with costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Ericta, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
[1] pp. 2-8, Appellee’s Brief.
[2] pp. 134-135, t.s.n., Nov. 11, 1976.
[3] pp. 10-13, t.s.n., Aug. 5, 1976.
[4] pp. 18-19, Id.
[5] pp. 18-19, Appellant’s Brief.
[6] pp. 37-38, t.s.n., Aug. 5, 1976.
[7] p. 12, Appellee’s Brief.
[8] p. 112, t.s.n., Nov. 11, 1976.
[9] p. 123, t.s.n., Nov. 11, 1976.
[10] pp. 120 & 153, Id.