PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHARLIE VILLORENTE AND TERESITA VILLORENTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision* of the Regional Trial Court of
Kalibo, Aklan, Branch I, convicting accused-appellants Charlie Villorente and
Teresita Villorente of the complex crime of abduction with rape and imposing on
them the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the indemnification of
the offended party in the amount of P50,000.00.

Appellants were charged with abduction with rape in an
information which reads as follows:

“That on or about the 25th day of March, 1986, in the
Municipality of Kalibo, Province of Aklan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deceit and
abuse of confidence, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
abduct one JONA NERON, a woman of tender age from the house of Claire Tioco at
New Buswang, Kalibo, Aklan, where said JONA NERON was working as domestic
servant, to Ogsip, Libacao, Aklan and once there in the house of the accused,
the above-named accused CHARLIE VILLORENTE, in conspiracy with the other
accused TERESITA VILLORENTE, by force and intimidation employed upon the person
of the offended party, have sexual intercourse with JONA NERON against her
will.

“That as a result of the criminal acts of the accused, the
offended party suffered moral damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00).”
(Rollo, p. 18; Original Record, p. 98).

Upon arraignment, both appellants entered a plea of not guilty
(Original Records, p. 41).

At the trial, the prosecution presented five (5) witnesses,
namely: Claire Tioco, Jona Neron, Sofia
Neron, Giovanni Roma and Dr. Emily Bacolod.

CLAIRE TIOCO, a teacher and employer of Jona Neron, testified
that on March 15, 1986, a man whom she later identified as accused Charlie
Villorente came to her house at New Buswang, Kalibo, Aklan, to fetch Jona Neron
on the pretext that Jona’s father was sick. She did not, however, allow Jona to go with the man as she was
suspicious of the latter (TSN, Hearing of Nov. 9, 1989, pp. 3-5).

On March 25, 1986, a woman who claimed to be Jona’s mother and
who later turned out to be accused Teresita Villorente, the mother of Charlie
Villorente, came to her house. This
woman identified herself as the mother of Jona and she asked permission from
her (Claire Tioco) to bring along Jona with her. Jona likewise asked her permission to go home to Balete for
several days. The two left the Tioco
house at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of that day. At a certain distance from her house waited
a man whom she later identified as accused Charlie Villorente (Ibid., pp. 4-5,
9). On March 29, 1986, however, another
woman who claimed to be the real mother of Jona, came to her house (Ibid., p.
4).

JONA NERON testified that on March 25, 1986, she was employed as
a helper in the house of Claire Tioco at the Ati-Atihan Compound, New Buswang,
Kalibo, Aklan. On that day, Teresita
Villorente, allegedly her aunt, told her that she had to go home with her
because her father was sick (Ibid., Hearing of November 13, 1989, pp. 14, 16). Charlie Villorente was with Teresita at that
time. The three of them took a jeep
from Kalibo reaching the poblacion of Balete at about 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon (Ibid., p. 6; Hearing of January 5, 1990, p. 11). From the poblacion, they took a tricycle to
Bgy. Morales instead of Bgy. Arcangel where Jona’s family lived (Ibid., Hearing
of Nov. 13, 1989, pp. 5-6). From Bgy.
Morales, they proceeded to Bgy. Ogsip where accused Teresita and Charlie
Villorente lived. (Ibid., p. 7).

On their way to Bgy. Ogsip, both accused kept on threatening her
not to run away. Charlie had a bolo
which he took from a house in the poblacion of Balete (Ibid., Hearing of Jan.
5, 1990, pp. 11-12, 14). His hand was
on its handle all the way to Bgy. Ogsip and he kept on unsheathing it. She was “not in (her) mind at that time
because they (Charlie and Teresita) put a handkerchief over (her) head”
(Ibid., p. 15), but along the way, she complained to them why they were
proceeding to Bgy. Morales instead of Bgy. Arcangel (Ibid., pp. 7-8).

They reached the house of the accused at about 6:30 p.m. (Ibid.,
p. 15). Teresita’s family prepared
supper, but she did not eat because of her headache. She was directed by Charlie’s parents to a room with two beds and
on the wider one, she and the two sisters of Charlie slept (Ibid., pp. 15-17;
Hearing of Jan. 10, 1990, pp. 16 & 19).

Sometime during the night, she was awakened when Charlie started
molesting her. He so held her feet and
her hands that she could not move. (Ibid., Hearing of January 5, 1990, p. 19). Charlie dragged her to the smaller bed. She kicked and punched him and struggled, but Charlie was much
stronger than she was (Ibid., Hearing of Jan. 10, 1990, pp. 20-21). He also threatened to cut off her head
should she shout or run away (Ibid., Hearing of Jan. 5, 1990, p. 23). In fact, he was holding the bolo with his
right hand, while his left hand was pressing her down (Ibid., Hearing of
January 5, 1990, pp. 22-23). After
removing her panty, Charlie had sexual intercourse with her. She felt pain because it was her first
sexual intercourse. Although she did
not cry out loud, she knew Charlie’s parents heard her (Ibid., Hearing of Jan.
10, 1990, pp. 18-19). She did not call
for help from Rosemarie and Jovita, Charlie’s sisters, who had gone outside the
room while she was sleeping (Ibid., Hearing of Jan. 5, 1990, p. 20).

After she had been abused twice that night, she transferred to
the sala, but Charlie also followed her. She lay down on the floor, but Charlie remained seated. She did not think of going home because it
was only about 3:00 a.m. and it was very dark. She was also afraid of Charlie (Ibid., pp. 78-80). She was abused two times a night for three
nights (Ibid., Hearing of Jan. 5, 1990, pp. 21-22; Hearing of Jan. 10, 1990, p.
3).

At about 6:00 o’clock in the morning on the second day of her
abduction, she was brought to the house of Jerry, Charlie’s older brother, so
that her parents would not find her. She was also brought to the house of the Barangay Captain of Ogsip who
told her that she would be married to Charlie if her parents would consent
thereto, but she refused saying that she was not yet of age and she had no love
for Charlie. She did not tell the
Barangay Captain that she had been abused by Charlie because she was ashamed
about what happened to her. Instead,
she told the Barangay Captain that she wanted to go home, but Teresita, Charlie
and the latter’s father Leopoldo, prevented her from doing so. Despite his knowledge about her predicament,
the Barangay Captain just told her that the Villorente couple wanted her to be their
daughter-in-law (Ibid., Hearing of Jan. 10, 1990, pp. 4-9).

On the 26th of March, her father went to the house of Charlie and
stayed there for ten minutes. Her
father told the father of Charlie that he would not consent to her marriage as
he wanted her to continue with her studies. She could not talk to her father because Charlie’s mother and two
sisters were always by her side. They
kept a watch on her even if she would go to the toilet. She was finally able to go home when she was
fetched by her uncle from the house of the Villorentes. Her uncle told the father of Charlie that
they should go to their (Neron’s) place if Charlie was determined to marry
her. However, she refused to marry him
and opted to file this case (Ibid., pp. 10-17).

According to Jona, she learned from her grandmother that
Teresita, Charlie’s mother, was their distant relative. However, it was only while she was studying
in Balete that she first saw Charlie. He used to stay in the house of her grandmother where she also stayed or
that of his sister-in-law which adjoined the house of her grandmother. He would look at her, but he never talked to
her although he told other people that he wanted to court her. He was always in Balete because of her, but
during the only chance that he talked to her, she ignored him (Ibid., Hearing
of Jan. 5, 1990, pp. 28-30).

SOFIA NERON, mother of Jona, testified that in March, 1986, Jona
worked in the house of Claire Tioco as a domestic helper (Ibid., Hearing of
Jan. 4, 1990, p. 5). On March 26, 1986
at about 9:00 o’clock in the morning, she was informed by her brother, Revico
Dominguez, that her daughter Jona was in the house of the Villorentes at Bgy.
Ogsip. She and her husband went to the
house of Bgy. Councilor Blas Ruiz in Ogsip, who informed them that the father
of Charlie came to his house early in the morning, informing him that Jona was
in their house. Jona, Charlie and the
latter’s parents were present at the time (Ibid., p. 44). She was asked by Ruiz if she was amenable to
the wedding of Jona and Charlie, to which she replied in the negative. She then manifested her intention to bring
home Jona with them, but the Villorentes would not allow Jona (Ibid., pp.
6-10). On Friday, she, her husband and
Bgy. Councilor Giovannie Roma of Arcangel went to the house of the Villorentes
in Ogsip and they were finally able to get Jona from the Villorentes. Because Jona told her that she was sexually
abused by Charlie, she sought the advice of the Barangay Captain of
Arcangel. He told her to report the
matter to the police station of Balete (Ibid., pp. 10-13).

Sofia testified further that she was angered by the fact that the
Villorentes filed a “complaint” before the Barangay Captain against
her and her husband, alleging that Jona was staying with the Villorentes when
in fact she was the aggrieved party (TSN, Hearing of Jan. 11, 1990, p. 9). At the house of Ruiz, she was prevented by
Ruiz from conversing with Jona, notwithstanding the fact that her daughter was
only two meters away from her. When she
saw Jona, she noticed that she was in a state of shock with her head
“hanging” (Ibid., pp. 13-14). At home, after they had finally taken Jona from the Villorentes, her
daughter narrated to her how, in Balete, while she was struggling to go home,
Teresita took out a smelly white handkerchief from her pocket, put it over
Jona’s head and Jona “lost her senses” and that, when they arrived at
the Villorente’s house, Leopoldo, Charlie’s father, put some pounded ginger on
Jona’s head and stomach causing her to fall asleep (Ibid., p. 16). Jona also related to her that Charlie
sexually “used” her by force for three nights (Ibid., pp. 17-18).

GIOVANNIE ROMA, Bgy. Councilor of Arcangel Sur, Balete, Aklan,
testified that sometime in the latter part of March, 1986, Sofia Neron sought
his help in getting Jona from the Villorentes in Bgy. Ogsip. He first asked permission from the Libacao
police to summon Teresita Villorente and Charlie Villorente. His request not having been acted upon, he
personally went to the house of the Villorentes in Bgy. Ogsip, together with
Jona’s parents, to fetch Jona. Charlie
and his parents were angry with him for taking Jona and even threatened to file
a complaint for hold-up against him (Ibid., Hearing of Jan. 4, 1990, pp.
14-20). In fact, after Jona had
requested him to take her home, he heard Charlie screaming loudly inside the
room (Ibid., Hearing of Jan. 10, 1990, p. 24). He tried to facilitate the marriage of Charlie to Jona, but the latter
refused to marry Charlie and opted instead to file this case (Ibid., p. 28).

DR. EMILY T. BACOLOD, a senior resident physician of Mr. Rafael
S. Tumbokon Memorial Hospital, examined Jona at 2:00 p.m. on April 2, 1986
(Ibid., Hearing of June 27, 1990, p. 140). Her findings, as indicated in the medico-legal report, were: “No hematoma nor abrasion
appreciated. Hymen – old laceration at
5:00 o’clock 7:00 o’clock. Admits 1 finger
easily, admits 2 fingers with difficulty” (Exh. “D”). She testified that a hematoma or an abrasion
may disappear between 24 to 48 hours from the time it was inflicted and that
the laceration in the victim’s sexual organ could have been due to sexual
intercourse on March 25, 1986 (TSN, Hearing of June 27, 1990, pp. 8-9).

On its part, the defense presented only appellant Teresita
Villorente as the lone witness. Appellant Charlie Villorente, although given several opportunities by
the lower court, failed to testify in his own behalf.

TERESITA VILLORENTE merely swore that she was in Manila on March
25, 1986, and that she did not know Claire Tioco. She was however, ambivalent as to whether she went to Manila in
1986 or 1989 (Ibid., Hearing of September 27, 1990, p. 151).

On January 29, 1991, as stated at the outset, a judgment of
conviction was rendered by the trial court. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Charlie Villorente and Teresita Villorente guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Abduction with Rape and sentencing each accused to suffer the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify the offended party
the amount of P50,000.00, to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by law
and to pay the costs.” (Rollo, p. 50).

In this appeal, the appellants insist in their innocence and
claim that the evidence of the prosecution does not warrant their
conviction. They argue that the failure
of the complainant to shout for help while in the presence of several people in
Kalibo and also while at the parking lot in Balete when she was brought there
by the appellants, or to make an outcry or protest when she was allegedly raped
inside the room where the two (2) sisters of appellant Charlie Villorente were
also sleeping, rendered her testimony incredible. The appellants likewise argue that complainant’s claim that
appellant Charlie Villorente was holding a bolo in his right hand and her mouth
with his left hand, while said appellant was in the process of raping her, is
unbelievable and unnatural. Finally, it
is the contention of the appellants that the lacerations found in the private
part of complainant upon examination by Dr. Emily Bacolod showed that the same
may have been older by ten (10) days prior to March 25, 1986, when the offense
in question was committed.

Clearly then, this appeal is primarily on the issue of
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. As the Court has time and again ruled, the findings of the trial court
on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal in the
absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or
misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have
affected the result of the case (People v. Baduya, 182 SCRA 57 [1990]). In this case, such findings should be
accorded much respect if not conclusive effect (People v. Caldito, 182 Phil. 66
[1990]; People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493 [1990]) in view of the appellant’s
failure to show convincingly that they should be disregarded.

As in most rape cases, the testimony of the victim seals the
culpability of the accused and therefore it should be subjected to close
scrutiny. On this issue, worth quoting
are the trial court’s observations on Jona Neron’s demeanor and credibility:

“At the time of her abduction and rape, Jona Neron was only
fifteen (15) years old. When she first
took the witness stand on November 13, 1989, she was already eighteen (18)
years old, a married woman who has borne a child. Yet her comeliness is very evident. Complainant is petite, fair complexioned and
with a fresh, innocent expression. She
is quite a pretty girl. Four (4) years
ago when the offense complained of was committed, she must have looked really
attractive so much so that accused Charlie Villorente, ten (10) years her
senior was attracted to her.

“x x x             x x x               x
x x.

“The Court had observed Jona as she testified. Her testimony had been straightforward and
without any inconsistencies on material points. She did not hem and haw under the rigid cross-examination of the
defense counsel. Her whole declaration
was characterized by candor and lack of guile. Furthermore, all the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
corroborated each other.” (Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 46).

Indeed the simplicity of the testimony of Jona convincingly shows
that she was telling the truth about her having been taken by appellants and
later sexually abused by appellant Charlie Villorente.

“x x x

Q.   When
you left the house of Claire Tioco, you were accompanied by Teresita Villorente
and Charlie Villorente on the pretext (sic) that your father was sick, am I
correct?

A.    Yes,
sir.

x x x

Q. Why did you go with them at (sic) the house of Charlie Villorente when
you know very well that your father according to them was sick then at
Arcangel, Balete, Aklan?

A. Because according to them, my mother is taking care of my father and
they were the ones who knew the house where I was staying here in Kalibo.

x x x

Q.   Now,
what time did you arrive at the house of Charlie Villorente on March 25, 1986?

A.    About
6:30 in the evening.

Q.   After
you arrived in the house of Charlie Villorente what did you do?

A.    I
was surprised why they brought me in their house, I was rather naive.

x x x

Q.   What
time did you sleep?

A.    I
do not know what time.

Q.   Where
did you sleep, in what portion of the house did you sleep?

A.    In
their room.

Q.   Who
was your companion in the room?

A.    His
brothers and sisters.

Q. You have stated here in your sworn statement
and I quote: On March 25, 1986, at
about 8:00, I was forced by Charlie Villorente to have sexual intercourse in
the house of Teresita Villorente, now, do you still affirm to the correctness
of this statement?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   How
did Charlie Villorente force (sic) you to (sic) sexual intercourse with him
when you were sleeping inside the room with his brothers and sisters?

A.    I
did not agree but still he forced me.

Q.   When
you said you (sic) not agree, what do you mean by that?

A.    He
threatened me if (sic) I will make noise, he will use his bolo because he had a
bolo on his side.

Q.   Did
you not shout or make noise so that the other persons who were sleeping inside
the room will take note what is happening to you?

A.    I
was at a loss on what to do.

x x x

Q.   Now,
you have stated here in your statement that you pushed him. You are referring to Charlie Villorente that
it was true (sic) and also threatening not to shout because if you shout he
will use his bolo, do you still confirm to the correctness of your statement?

A.  Yes, sir.

Q.   And
you also stated that he abused you twice in the same evening. When you say abused, sexual intercourse?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   And
it was also against your will that he had sexual intercourse with you during
the second time?

A.    Yes,
sir.

x x x

Q.   According
to your statement where you were sexually abused in the evening of March 26,
1986, that is the following night, is it already with your consent that he had
secually (sic) intercourse with you on that night?

A.    At
first, I refused but later, consented (sic) him because I was afraid I might,
(sic) he always had a bolo on his side.

Q.   How
long did you stayed (sic) in the house of Charlie Villorente?

A.    About
five (5) days.

Q.   And
during the time that you were staying in that house, he sexually abused
you during the night?

A.    Yes,
sir.”

(TSN, Hearing of Nov. 13, 1989, pp.
16-21).

Even if Jona’s testimony on how she was raped was uncorroborated,
it is sufficient to justify a conviction for it is credible and positive as it
in fact satisfied the trial court beyond reasonable doubt (People v. Soliao,
194 SCRA 250 [1991]). Moreover, this
Court cannot doubt Jona’s sincerity. It
would be hard to believe that a naive barrio girl like Jona would undergo the
expense, trouble and inconvenience of a public trial, not to mention suffer the
scandal, embarrassment and humiliation such action inevitably invites, as well
as allow an examination of her private parts if her motive were not to bring to
justice the person who had abused her. A victim of rape will not come out in the open if her motive were not to
obtain justice (People v. Rio, 207 SCRA 702 [1991]; People v. Pasco, 181 SCRA
233 [1990]).

On the other hand, Jona’s testimony on how appellants used a ruse
in enticing her to go with them is corroborated by Claire Tioco’s confirmation
in court of her earlier sworn statement to the effect that Teresita Villorente
misrepresented herself as the mother of Jona who wanted her home because of the
alleged ailment of her father and that while Teresita conversed with her,
Charlie waited at a certain distance (TSN, Hearing of November 9, 1989, pp.
5-6).

Of course, Teresita Villorente tried to extricate herself from
the crime by testifying that she was in Manila on March 25, 1986 and that she
did not know Claire Tioco. Her defense
of alibi, however, carries no weight in the face of Jona’s positive
identification of her as the person who, pretending to be her mother, took Jona
frorm her employer’s place. Teresita
was also positively identified by Claire Tioco as the same person who fetched
Jona on March 25, 1986. As between the
version of said prosecution witnesses and that of appellant Teresita, the
former is more credible because their testimonies are clear and free from
contradictions (People v. Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557 [1991]). It should be noted that Teresita, inspite of
proddings from her counsel, could not definitely state in court whether it was
in 1986 or in 1989 that she was in Manila. The trial court also found her deportment at the witness stand to be
wanting as she was hedging and evasive (Decision, p. 7; Rollo, p. 48).

Through counsel, Charlie, who had shunned from the witness stand,
claims that it could have been impossible for him to have raped Jona inside the
room where his two sisters were also sleeping. This claim is unfounded. Rape
can be committed even in places where people congregate: in parks, along the road side, within school
premises, and even inside a house where there are other occupants. As this court said in People v.
Mangalino, (182 SCRA 329 [1990]), lust is no respecter of time or place
(See also: People v.
Rafanan, 182 SCRA 811 [1990]; People v. Dolores, 188 SCRA 660 [1990]).

Neither is there merit in Charlie’s contention that Jona could
not have been raped because she did not shout for help. Jona’s testimony on how the rape was
committed which was totally unrebutted by the defense, shows that Charlie had
not only rendered her struggles useless by holding her hands, but he also
threatened to cut off her head with his bolo which he always had with him when
he slept (TSN, Hearing of Jan. 5, 1990, pp. 80-81).

Since as Jona was only fifteen years old when she agreed to leave
her employer’s house to go with Charlie and his mother Teresita, the crime
committed was forcible abduction under Art. 342 of the Revised Penal Code. Jona’s virginity may be presumed from the
fact that she was an unmarried barrio girl when the crime was committed. The element of lewd design on the part of
Charlie may also be inferred from the fact that while Jona was then a naive
fifteen-year old, Charlie was ten years her senior and although unmarried, was
much wiser in the ways of the world than she was (Aquino, The Revised Penal
Code, Vol. III, 1988 Ed., p. 454). Charlie’s alleged desire to marry Jona is not a defense considering that
no marriage license was presented and parental consent was wanting (Ibid., p.
456). Moreover, had Charlie really
intended to marry her, he could have gone to her parents’ house considering
that he was invited by Jona’s uncle to do just that.

Inasmuch as the abduction was proven to have been perpetrated as
a necessary means for the commission of the rape, under Art. 48 of the Revised
Penal Code, appellants committed the complex crime of abduction with rape for which the penalty of reclusion
perpetua was correctly imposed by the lower court on both appellants. Charlie and his mother are equally liable
for the crime in view of the conspiracy between them which was alleged in the
information and duly proven at the trial. However, the penalty is too excessive for Teresita Villorente. Unschooled like her son who also affixed his
thumbmark in the documents pertinent to this case, she appears to have
acquiesced to cooperate with Charlie on account of maternal concern. She must have agonized with Charlie who did
not know how to court the girl of his dreams. As the lower court aptly observes, “not knowing how to court
(Jona), (Charlie) just looked at her from a distance until he could no longer
hold his desire for Jona Neron and with the complicity of his mother, abducted
and raped her.” It is therefore, necessary that, under the provision of
Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the attention of the President should be
called on the matter.

Significantly, appellants, through their counsel, filed a motion
for new trial before this Court on the ground of a new and material evidence
consisting of an Affidavit of Desistance purportedly executed by the
complainant and sworn to before the Municipal Mayor of Kalibo, Aklan. The affidavit states that the case below
arose out of a misunderstanding between her and the appellants and that she is
no longer interested in prosecuting this case (Rollo, pp. 60-61).

This Court is not impressed by the said document. After completion of the trial and the
rendition of judgment convicting the accused, an affidavit of desistance of the
complaining witness has no probative value and is ineffectual to nullify a
judgment. The real aggrieved party in a
criminal prosecution is the People of the Philippines whose collective sense of
morality, decency and justice has been outraged. Once filed, tried, and decided, control of the prosecution for
the crime of rape is removed from the victim’s hands. To warrant the dismissal of the complaint, the victim’s
retraction or pardon should be made prior to the institution of the criminal
action (People v. Soliao, supra).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is
AFFIRMED subject to the modification that executive clemency is recommended
with respect to appellant Teresita Villorente.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

*
Penned by Judge Marieta J. Homena-Valencia.