THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL SAYLAN ALIAS PAEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an automatic review of the decision of the defunct Court of
First Instance of Misamis Oriental in Criminal Case No. 52-M which
imposed the death penalty.

RAFAEL SAYLAN was accused of the crime of rape in the sworn complaint of Eutropia Agno said to have been committed as follows:

“That on or about the 23rd day of January, 1972, at more or less
7:00 o’clock in the evening, at Sitio Craser, Malinao, Gingoog City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with deliberate intent to have sexual intercourse,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally with the use of a
dagger, force and intimidate Eutropia Agno y Arcay, to remove her
pantie and to lay down on the ground and with the use of a dagger, force
and intimidation succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Eutropia
Agno y Arcay, a woman of good reputation and against her will. That the
commission of the foregoing offense was attended by the aggravating
circumstances of: abuse of superior strength, nighttime, uninhabited
place, ignominy and reiteracion.” (Expediente, p. 27.)

The accused entered a plea of “not guilty” and after trial the court rendered the following judgment:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape, penalized under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 4111, and the commission of
the offense having been attended by three aggravating without any
mitigating circumstance, hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme
penalty of death, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of Six
Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00), and to pay the costs. In view of the fact
that the offended party is a married woman, aside from the fact that she
has not become pregnant as a result of the commission of the rape, the
Court makes no pronouncement as to acknowledgment and support of
offspring.” (Id., p. 64.)

The factual version of the prosecution is summarized in the People’s brief as follows:

“The complaining witness, Eutropia A. Agno, a married woman and a
resident of Barrio Malinao, Gingoog City, was a classroom teacher of the
Mali­nao Elementary School (pp. 2, 3, tsn., Feb. 22, 1973).

“In the afternoon of January 23, 1971, Eutropia went to the public
market in Gingoog City to buy foodstuffs for her family and thereafter,
she proceeded to the store of her mother to fetch her five-year old
daughter Nilsonita (p. 4, tsn., Id.). On their way home, Eutropia and
Nilsonita boarded a passenger jeepney and while inside the vehicle she
(Eutropia) noticed that the other passengers were Rudy Gonzales, a grade
I pupil of the Malinao Elementary School, the appellant, Rafael Saylan,
and a couple whom she did not know (pp. 5, 6, tsn., Id. ). The jeepney
went only as far as Malinas citrus farm because the road to Barrio
Malinao was not passable by vehicles (p. 5, tsn., Id.). It was almost
6:30 o’clock in the evening when the jeepney arrived at the Malinas
citrus farm and so all the passengers alighted and had to walk all the
way to Barrio Malinao which was about three and a half kilometers away
(p. 5, tsn., Id.). After walking some distance and upon reaching a
junction, the couple separated from the group and took the road leading
to their house while Eutropia’s group took the opposite road (p. 9,
tsn., Id.). The appellant, however, joined the group of Eutropia and
when they reached the place where the road was plain, appellant who was
then walking side by side with Eutropia suddenly pulled out a dagger
about eight inches long and pointing it at the latter said, ‘Do not
shout, Nang, I will kill you!’ (pp. 11, 12, tsn., Id. ). At this
juncture, appellant placed his right arm around the neck of Eutropia
with the dagger pointed at her left breast (p. 12, tsn., Id.), after
which he dragged Eutropia at some distance. When they reached the
junction of the trail for men and a trail for carabaos, he ordered
everybody to stop and told the children (Nilsonita and Rudy Gonzales) to
stay behind and threatened to kill them if they persisted in following
them (pp. 17, 18, tsn., Id.). Thereafter, appellant again dragged
Eutropia by her hand and brought her towards a creek near a coconut tree
which was about five meters away from where Nilsonita and Rudy Gonzales
were (pp. 14, 15, 16, tsn., Id.). The appellant then ordered Eutropia
to remove her panty which she refused at first, but appellant threatened
to kill her, so she removed her panty after which appellant ordered her
to lie down (pp. 18, 19, tsn., Id. ). Subsequently, appellant placed
himself on top of the victim and inserted his penis into her vagina and
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her by moving his buttocks
up and down (pp. 20, 21, tsn., Id.).

“After the first sexual act, appellant ordered Eutropia to stand
up which the latter helplessly and grudgingly followed (p. 23, tsn.,
Id.). Appellant again inserted his penis into her vagina and then
performed a push and pull movement (pp. 23, 24, 25, tsn., Id.). Not
satisfied with the second intercourse, appellant ordered Eutropia to lie
down again preparatory to a third intercourse (p. 26, tsn., Id.).
Appellant again performed the sexual act with her (pp. 26, 27, tsn.,
Id.).

“After the third intercourse, appellant ordered Eutropia to stand
up and then he bent her body downwards with her hands and knees resting
on the ground (p. 28, tsn., Id.). When the latter was already in this
position, appellant then placed himself behind her, inserted his penis
into her vagina and executed a push and pull movement in the dog’s way
of sexual intercourse (pp. 27, 28, tsn., Id. ).

“After performing this uncommon way of sexual intercourse,
appellant ordered Eutropia to lie down again which the latter
reluctantly obeyed because appellant’s dagger was always pointed at her
and thereafter he had carnal knowledge of her for the fifth time (pp.
29, 30, tsn., Id. ).

“After the fifth intercourse, and after satisfying his sexual
lust, appellant asked Eutropia if she will tell her husband what he did
to her and the latter answered, ‘I will not tell’ (p., 31, tsn., Id.).
But she only said this so that appellant would let her go home (p. 33,
tsn., Id.).

“Afterwards, Eutropia and appellant returned to the place where
the children were left and upon arriving thereat, they found Nilsonita
(Eutropia’s daughter) asleep with Rudy seated dozing beside her (pp. 32,
33, tsn., Id.). Nilsonita who was sleeping was carried by the appellant
and then they all proceeded to Malinao (pp. 33, 34, tsn., Id.).

“After walking some distance, Eutropia saw the house of her friend
“Ben” and upon approaching the said house, she shouted, ‘Ben, Ben,
please give me hot water’ (p. 34, tsn., Id.). Upon hearing her voice,
Ben, who was still awake at the time, opened the door of his house and
allowed Eutropia to come up (p. 34, tsn., Id.). Eutropia immediately
went upstairs and went straight to the room of Ben as she was feeling
very bad (p. 34, tsn., Id.). Appellant, who was then carrying Nilsonita,
and Rudy Gonzales, were also allowed to go upstairs (p. 35, tsn., Id.).
Meanwhile, Eutropia requested Ben to fetch her husband (p. 35, tsn.,
Id.).

“When Eutropia woke up between 9:00 and 10:00 o’clock that
evening, her husband was already there (p. 36, tsn., Id.). She then
asked him whether the appellant was still around, and in reply, he told
her that appellant had already left (p. 37, tsn., Id.). Eutropia then
told her husband that she was raped by the appellant (p. 37, tsn., Id.).
Upon learning of the dastardly act committed by the appellant, he
advised his wife to submit herself to a medical examination (p. 37,
tsn., Id.).

“The following morning, the offended party was brought to the
office of the City Health Department of Gingoog City where she was
examined by Dr. Ireneo O. Pascual, who after conducting a thorough
physical examination, issued a medical certificate with the following
findings, to wit:

‘(1) Multiparous.

‘(2) Presence of viscid whitish secretions at vaginal fornix.

‘(3) Microscopic examination of secretions reveals epithelial cells, but no spermatozoa identified.’

(pp. 10, 11, 12, t.s.n., Feb. 24, 1973; Exh. “A”).

“Rudy Gonzales, a grade I pupil of the Malinao Elementary School
and one of the witnesses for the prosecution, testified that he met Mrs.
Eutropia Agno in the afternoon of January 23, 1972 at the public market
of Gingoog City buying foodstuffs for her family (pp. 2, 3, tsn., Feb.
26, 1973). On their way back to Barrio Malinao, they boarded a passenger
jeepney and while he was inside the vehicle, he noticed that the other
passengers aside from Mrs. Agno, her daughter, and himself were the
appellant and a couple whose names he did not know (p. 4, tsn., Id. ).
The jeepney, however, could only travel up to the Malinas Citrus farm
and so they had to walk all the way to Barrio Malinao (p. 4, tsn., Id.)
After walking some distance and upon reaching a trail for carabaos, the
appellant suddenly pulled a dagger and placed his arms around the neck
of Mrs. Agno and then dragged her towards the carabao trail (pp. 4, 5,
tsn., Id.). Meanwhile, he and Nilsonita were left behind and they fell
asleep because it took a long time for the appellant and Mrs. Agno to
come back for them (p. 5, tsn., Id.). When Mrs. Agno and the appellant
returned, he was already awake while Nilsonita was still asleep and so
appel­lant had to carry her in going home to Malinao (p. 6, tsn., Id.).
After walking some distance, Mrs. Agno saw the house of Mang Ben and
because she was feeling bad, they all went to the house of Mang Ben
where Mrs. Agno spent the night (p. 7, tsn., Id. ). Afterwards, he and
the appellant left the house of Mang Ben and then they proceeded to his
house at Malinao where both of them slept (pp. 7, 21, tsn., Id. ).” (At
pp. 2-8.)

The accused did not deny having had sexual Intercourse with Mrs. Agno;
in fact he admitted that he copulated with her for three successive
times in the early evening of January 23, 1972, but he claimed that it
was with her consent. Accordingly, he now claims that:

“I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THA THE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
HAD BEEN COMMITTED AGAINST THE WILL AND CONSENT OF THE COMPLAINANT.

“II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES HAD ACCOMPANIED THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.” (Brief, p.
5.)

The appeal must fail for the reasons stated hereunder.

This is a typical rape case. Only the participants could directly
testify on the alleged sexual abuse and the accused alleges consent on
the part of the complainant. The question of credibility arises and
under the circumstances We have to rely heavily on the determination
made by the trial judge who observed the demeanor of the witnesses while
before Us is only the cold transcript of what they said.

We accept the conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court that
the complainant was in fact raped by the appellant. There is no fact or
circumstance in the record which will justify a different action.

The claim of the appellant that the sexual intercourse was mutually
agreed is utterly incredible. If it were true that Mrs. Agno consented
to have coitus with the appellant, her conduct thereafter defies
understanding because it is contrary to reason and it has not been shown
that Mrs. Agno, a school teacher, was bereft of common sense. For if it
was true that the sexual act was indeed mutually desired and performed
why did she complain not only to her husband but also to the
authorities? An affair such as that claimed by the appellant is carried
out in a discreet manner. On the other hand, the version of the
complainant has indicia of credibility. For her version bared her shame
to a small community and her exposure was necessary only because she had
to reveal the truth. No, We simply cannot believe the appellant’s
version.

We have said above that the findings and conclusions of the trial court
are entitled to great respect. In finding the appellant guilty, this is
what the court a quo said in part:

“The testimony of the accused is incredible. When he told his love
to the offended party for the first time, they were only two in the
latter’s house. He had more time with her then. She refused him because
she is married. He tried for the second time. He was again refused
because she is married. It is unthinkable and highly improbable that on
the evening of January 23, 1972, after only three minutes, the offended
party would rush to accept his love and go to the extent of thanking him
for his considering her daughter as his own, unless she was coerced,
threatened, forced and intimated.

“It is highly improbable for a school teacher with several
children to exchange her husband only 40 years old and with a good means
of livelihood for one whom she does not know and whom she has observed
as doing nothing except to play basketball. It is subversive of the
traits, character and nature of Filipino women to say that the offended
party, a school teacher and a girl scout accepted the love of a man who
is good for nothing and surrendered her whole body and virtue to him
after an accidental courtship of only three minutes. The offended party
is an unsophisticated and conservative woman, fixing her hair the old
fashion way. She does not apply make-up on her face, and her dress is up
to her knees. This makes the pretensions of the accused all the more
incredible.” (Expediente, p. 59.)

The complaint alleges the following aggravating circumstances: abuse of superior strength, nocturnity, despoblado, ignominy, and reiteracion.

The trial court disregarded superiority because it “is inherent in the
crime of rape or is absorbed in the element of force.” It also did not
consider nocturnity “there being no evidence that the accused purposely
sought it to facilitate the commission of this rape.” (Id., p. 63.)

Despoblado was present according to the trial court because:
“The accused dragged the offended party, at the point of a dagger, to
the carabao trail, about 10 meters from the junction, but 40 to 50
meters below to better attain his purpose without interference, and to
better secure himself from detection and punishment (U.S. vs. Vitug, 17
Phil. 1). Even the junction where the two children were left is already
400 meters from the nearest house. While there maybe occasional
passersby, this does not destroy its being an uninhabited place. (People
vs. Bangug, 52 Phil. 87).” (Id., p. 62.) We hold that the
trial court for the reasons stated correctly held that the crime was
committed in an uninhabited place.

The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used
not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior,
but also “The same position as dogs do” i.e., entry from behind. The
appellant claims there was no ignominy because “The studies of many
experts in the matter have shown that this ‘position’ is not novel and
has repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in the act of
copulation.” (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be if the sexual act is
performed by consenting partners but not otherwise.

The trial court also held that “there is no reiteracion because
one of the offenses, namely Robbery in Band, for which the accused has
been penalized, was committed after the commission of this rape case,
and the penalty imposed on the other offense of Frustrated Homicide, is
lighter than the penalty for rape.” (Id., p. 63.)

Although not alleged in the complaint, the trial court stated that the
offense was aggravated by disregard of rank because it was a fact known
to the appellant that Mrs. Agno was a school teacher. The appellant
claims that this circumstance cannot be assigned to him because there
was no deliberate intent to offend or insult the rank of Mrs. Agno. The
Solicitor General agrees with the appellant for the same reason.

The judgment of the trial court is in accordance with the facts and the
law but it cannot be affirmed completely because of the lack of the
necessary number of votes.

WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is modified in the sense that the appellant shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of death and the indemnity to be paid to the offended party is increased to P20,000.00. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De La Fuente, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., no part.

Melencio-Herrera, J., on official leave.