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

People versus Saylan

The Case

People versus Saylan is a criminal case of rape, decided by the Supreme Court on automatic review of a death sentence. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Rafael Saylan, also known as Pael, for forcing himself upon Eutropia Agno, a married public school teacher, at the point of a dagger on the evening of January 23, 1972, along a trail near Barrio Malinao in Gingoog City. The accused admitted the sexual acts but claimed the woman consented. The case matters to a reviewee because it is the classic teaching vehicle on three points: how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings and credibility calls of the trial judge, how consent is disproved by the victim's subsequent conduct, and how the aggravating circumstances of an uninhabited place and ignominy are established in rape.

Procedural History

The accused was charged by sworn complaint before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, the trial court, which at that time was the court of general jurisdiction for the province. He entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and, finding three aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, sentenced him to death, ordered him to indemnify the offended party in the amount of six thousand pesos, and made no pronouncement on acknowledgment and support of offspring because the offended party was a married woman and had not become pregnant. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review, not by ordinary appeal. The judgment of the trial court was in accordance with the facts and the law, but the Court could not affirm it completely for lack of the necessary number of votes, and so it modified the penalty.

Facts

In the afternoon of January 23, 1972, Eutropia Agno, a classroom teacher at the Malinao Elementary School, went to the public market of Gingoog City to buy foodstuffs, then fetched her five year old daughter Nilsonita from her mother's store. On the way home they boarded a passenger jeepney, where the other passengers included Rudy Gonzales, a grade one pupil, the accused Rafael Saylan, and an unknown couple. The jeepney could go only as far as the Malinas citrus farm because the road to Barrio Malinao was not passable by vehicles, so all the passengers alighted and began the roughly three and a half kilometer walk. At a junction the couple took one road; Eutropia's group took the other, and the accused joined them.

On a plain stretch of the road, the accused, walking beside Eutropia, suddenly drew a dagger about eight inches long, pointed it at her, and said, do not shout, Nang, I will kill you. He placed his right arm around her neck with the dagger at her left breast and dragged her some distance. At the junction of the trail for men and the trail for carabaos he ordered the children to stay behind and threatened to kill them if they followed. He then dragged Eutropia toward a creek near a coconut tree, about five meters from where the children were left, ordered her to remove her panty, and when she refused, threatened to kill her. She removed it and lay down. The accused then had sexual intercourse with her five times, in different positions, the dagger always pointed at her. After satisfying his lust he asked whether she would tell her husband, and she answered that she would not, only so that he would let her go home.

They returned for the children, the accused carrying the sleeping Nilsonita, and walked on to Malinao. Seeing the house of her friend Ben, Eutropia called out for hot water and was taken in; Ben fetched her husband, and when she woke between nine and ten that evening she told her husband she had been raped. The next morning she was examined at the City Health Department of Gingoog City; the findings showed a multiparous woman with viscid whitish secretions at the vaginal fornix and no spermatozoa identified. Rudy Gonzales testified for the prosecution, corroborating the dagger, the dragging, and the children being left behind. The accused did not deny the intercourse; he admitted copulating with her three times but claimed it was with her consent.

Issues

• Whether or not the sexual intercourse was committed against the will and consent of the complainant.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances found by the trial court accompanied the commission of the offense.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 4111, is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted, and it fixes rape as carnal knowledge of a woman by force and intimidation:

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

The conviction rests on the first circumstance, force or intimidation, which the dagger supplied.

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code enumerates the aggravating circumstances, and the Court passed upon two of them as alleged in the complaint:

Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. The following are aggravating circumstances: 6. That the crime be committed in an uninhabited place, or in a band, or with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity; 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.

These are the circumstances of despoblado, an uninhabited place, and ignominy, which the trial court appreciated and the Court sustained.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal must fail and affirmed the finding that the complainant was in fact raped. This is a typical rape case: only the participants could testify directly, the accused alleged consent, and so the question of credibility arose. The Court said it had to rely heavily on the determination of the trial judge, who observed the demeanor of the witnesses, while before the Supreme Court was only the cold transcript. The claim of consent was utterly incredible. If she had consented, her conduct thereafter defied understanding, for she complained not only to her husband but also to the authorities, and an affair such as the accused claimed is carried out in a discreet manner. Her version bore the indicia of credibility, because it bared her shame to a small community and her exposure was necessary only to reveal the truth. The Court also quoted with approval the trial court's observation that it was subversive of the traits, character, and nature of Filipino women to say that a school teacher and girl scout surrendered her whole body and virtue to a man she hardly knew after an accidental courtship of only three minutes.

On the second issue, the Court ruled on each alleged circumstance in turn. Abuse of superior strength was disregarded because it is inherent in the crime of rape or absorbed in the element of force. Nocturnity was not considered because there was no evidence that the accused purposely sought the night to facilitate the crime. Despoblado, however, was correctly found: the accused dragged the offended party at the point of a dagger to the carabao trail, forty to fifty meters below the junction, to attain his purpose without interference and to secure himself from detection, and even the junction was four hundred meters from the nearest house; occasional passersby do not destroy its being an uninhabited place. Ignominy was likewise present, because the accused used not only the ordinary position but also entry from behind, the same position as dogs do; that position may be unremarkable between consenting partners, but not otherwise. Reiteracion was correctly rejected, since one prior offense was committed after this rape and the penalty for the other was lighter than that for rape. Disregard of rank, though found by the trial court although not alleged, could not be assigned to the accused, as the Solicitor General himself conceded, because there was no deliberate intent to offend or insult the rank of the offended party.

Doctrine

First, where the issue in a rape case turns on credibility, the findings of fact and conclusions of the trial judge, who observed the witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed absent some fact or circumstance in the record justifying a different action. Second, consent is negated by the victim's subsequent conduct: a woman who promptly reports the outrage to her husband and to the authorities, thereby baring her shame to her community, is credible, for a voluntary affair is carried out discreetly. Third, abuse of superior strength is inherent in rape and absorbed in force, and nocturnity must be shown to have been purposely sought. Fourth, an uninhabited place is established where the offender drags the victim away from the trail to a secluded spot to avoid interference and detection, and occasional passersby do not destroy that character. Fifth, ignominy under Article 14 attends the employment of means that add to the natural effects of the act, such as the degrading position described in this case, when the act is not consensual. Sixth, reiteracion requires that the prior offense be prior and that its penalty be not lighter than that of the crime charged.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction was affirmed, but modified: the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of death, because the required number of votes for affirmance of the death penalty was lacking, and the indemnity to the offended party was increased to twenty thousand pesos, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the trial judge's credibility findings command great respect because the Supreme Court sees only the cold transcript, and that a rape victim's prompt complaint to her husband and the authorities is itself proof against consent. Examiners use this case for the treatment of aggravating circumstances in rape, especially despoblado and ignominy, and for the rule that abuse of superior strength is absorbed by force.