G.R. No. 103633. October 13, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MELCHOR CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
NOCON, J.:
A pentel pen was used to intimidate her into having sexual
intercourse with the accused, as testified to by Rosalie Beltran, the alleged
rape victim. Not true as she and I are
sweethearts, cries the accused-appellant, Melchor Cruz. He points to Rosalie’s mother’s affirmation
that the handwriting in the romantic notes Rosalie sent to him was really her
daughter’s and that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case. Meticulous examination of the evidence
reveals merit in accused’s allegations. His acquittal is therefore in order.
The evidence for the People as summarized by the Solicitor
General is as follows:
“At about 8:30 o’clock in the morning of December 2, 1978,
Rosalie Beltran, then fourteen (14) years of age, was inside her room located
at the second floor of their house at 84 B. Mariano St., Sta. Ana, San Mateo,
Rizal. She was lying on her bed as she
was suffering from a headache. At this
time, the members of her family were out. Also at the house at the time was appellant Melchor Cruz, the latter
being employed by Rosalie’s mother (Leonida Beltran) as shoemaker (tsn, April
15, 1980, pages 6-10). Taking advantage
of the situation, appellant (Melchor) entered the unlocked room of Rosalie
holding a pentel pen with a pointed end. When Rosalie inquired what was he doing there, appellant embraced
her. Rosalie tried to shout but
appellant covered her mouth with his left hand while he embraced her at the
waist with his right hand, which he also used to remove her shorts (tsn, April
15, 1980, pages 11 to 14). Appellant
succeeded in removing Rosalie’s shorts (tsn, April 15, pages 17 to 18).
“Rosalie continued to resist appellant but he gave her a fistblow
on the stomach which weakened her. Thereafter, appellant succeeded in forcing Rosalie to lie down on her
bed facing upward, with only a portion of the body above her knees actually on
the bed (tsn, April 15, 1980, page 26), after which appellant left her with the
threat that he would kill her should she tell anyone about the incident (tsn,
April 15, 1980, pages 29 to 30).
“Intimidated by the threat, Rosalie did not immediately tell
anyone about the rape committed by appellant upon her. A week later, however, she related the
incident to her grandmother, Isabel Beltran, and on December 10, 1978, Isabel
Beltran informed Leonida Beltran (Rosalie’s mother) of the incident. Leonida confronted Rosalie who admitted that
indeed she was abused by appellant on December 2, 1978 (tsn, May 7, 1980, pages
21 to 23).
“On December 15, 1978, Leonida Beltran took Rosalie to the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for medical examination. Rosalie was attended to by Dr. Prospero A.
Cabayanan who issued Living Case Report No. NBI-78- 913 (Exhibits “A”
and “A-1″). Dr. Cabayanan stated
that Rosalie’s case is one of false physical virginity, wherein there is no
evidence of any hymenal laceration because the hymen is elastic. However, the orifice or the opening of her
vaginal canal was big enough as it measured 2.8 cm., enough to admit a male
organ in a state of erection without producing any laceration. He was presented as witness for the
prosecution and he confirmed that the hymen of Rosalie is elastic and wide
enough to admit a male organ in a state of erection without producing any
genital injury, to show that there had been penetration prior to the
examination (tsn March 3, 1980 pages 4 to 18).[1]
Accused-appellant’s version is, however, as follows:
“Accused testified that he and the private complainant were
sweethearts, she answered him on February 10, 1977, the date of birthday of the
private complainant. They conversed
with each other and after the lapse of three months, she agreed to go out with
accused to picnics and movies (tsn, dtd. 11-3-81, p. 4). Sexual intercourse happened one morning when
accused was making shoes in their house, she approached him and they started to
converse and when he asked for one thing, she consented (tsn, p. 4, Ibid.) It
happened at the ground floor of the house (Ibid., p. 5). When accused testified on February 9, 1988,
he testified that the sexual relation with the complainant was with the consent
of the complainant (tsn, p. 2) and when asked for proof as to his relationship
with the complainant he had produced letters dated January 10, 1977, which were
marked as Exhibits “1” and “2”, respectively, (tsn, dtd. 2-9-88, p. 2). Those letters were sent to him by the
complainant (tsn, p. 3).”[2]
The trial court disbelieved the accused’s story and forthwith
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, with the
accessories provided by law, and to indemnify the private complainant, Rosalie
Beltran, in the amount of P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages.[3]
Hence, this appeal where accused-appellant faults the trial court
in –
1.
“X X X CONVICTING THE ACCUSED WHEN PRIVATE COMPLAINANT
AND THE ACCUSED WERE SWEETHEARTS AND THERE WAS NO RAPE COMMITTED.
2.
“X X X GIVING CREDIT TO PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AS THE
ALLEGED RAPE WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAPPEN.”[4]
The accused presented in court two (2) letters dated January 20,
1977 and February 10, 1977, respectively, which were sent to him by
Rosalie. The letters read as follows:
“Mel,
Alam mo n(an)g matanggap ko ang sulat mo ay hindi ako mapalagay
dahil ba sabi ko sa iyo noong tayo ay magkausap ay sa birthday ko na lang kita
sasagutin kaya kung pupuwede ay maghintay ka na lang tutal mga ilang araw na
lang mula ngayon. Siya nga pala salamat
sa gift mo hindi ko(,) hindi ko(,) malaman kung paano kita magagantihan. Tungkol naman sa sinasabi mo sa akin na
manonood tayo ng sine ay papayag naman ako kapag sinagot na kita.
Hanggang dito na lamang
at maraming salamat
Just me
“Rosalie Beltran (Sgd.) Nene”[5]
and,
“Mel,
Siguro kapag natanggap mo ang liham kong ito at iyong mabasa ang
nilalaman nito ay baka sabihin mo na sa iyong sarili na ikaw na ang
pinakamasayang nilalang sa ibabaw ng mundo dahil ang sulat na ito ay magsasabi sa
iyo na sinasagot na kita ng OO kaya simula ngayon ikaw ay akin at ako naman ay
sa iyo, pero kung puwede gusto ko ay tayong dalawa lamang ang makaalam nito
dahil baka malaman sa amin ay pagagalitan ako at baka paalisin ka pa sa trabaho
kaya ililihim natin ang mga bagay na ito.
Love,
(Sgd.) Nene
“Rosalie Beltran”[6]
Private complainant’s mother, Leonida Beltran, was presented as a
defense witness by the accused and she affirmed, on the witness stand, that the
love letters were indeed written by her daughter.[7] This
is perhaps why, upon seeing for herself said love notes, Leonida testified as
follows:
“Q So
that in this case, of your daughter Rosalie Beltran, you are no longer
interested to prosecute the same?
“A Yes,
sir.
“ATTY. CRUZ:
We have no further
questions, Your Honor.
“COURT:
Cross examination?
“PROS. QUILATAN:
No cross, Your Honor.
“COURT:
“Q By
what other name is your daughter known?
“A Nene,
Your Honor.
“ATTY. CRUZ:
“Q So
that this Nene appearing in these two letters, Exhibits ‘1’ and ‘2’, is actually
your daughter?
“A Yes,
sir.”[8]
At this juncture, mention is made of the fact that aside from the
complainant, who was then 15 years old, her mother Leonida also signed the
complaint charging the accused with rape,[9]
although it was no longer necessary to do so.[10] The
fact that she did file the complaint, indicates that she was more after the
vindication of her honor rather than to right an alleged wrong committed on her
daughter, as the records will later show.
In the light of Rosalie’s love notes, together with Leonida
Beltran’s statement that she is no longer interested in pursuing the case, the
seemingly immaterial inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony as to how
the actual rape was committed, had
assumed momentous significance, as follows:
Having testified that the room where she was allegedly raped was
right beside a store where many people “buy foodstuffs” and where
“you can overhear but cannot understand” their conversation,[11]
complainant in one part of her testimony stated that:
“Q: Will
you tell how this happened?
“A The
incident happened like this. While I
was resting inside my bedroom, the accused suddenly went inside. When I inquired what was he doing he just
embraced and forced me to lie down, ma’am.
“Q Will
you describe how the accused embraced you and forced you to lie down, will you
describe?
“A He
placed his left hand to cover my mouth and he used his right hand in embracing me, ma’am.
“Q Will
you step down and assuming that this lady is the accused, will you describe?
“A (Witness
demonstrated by placing the right hand of the accused on her mouth and the
right hand on the waist and took off her shorts and opened it.)
“Q While
he was holding you, by what means did he force you to lie down?
“A He
succeeded in forcing me to lie down because he gave me fistblow on the stomach,
ma’am.”[12]
(Emphasis
supplied)
while in another part of her testimony,
she not only contradicted herself but also revealed her seemingly puissant
response to the accused’s assault upon her as to cast doubt to her alleged resistance to the accused’s advances:
“Q What
happened after Melchor Cruz threatened you with the pentel pen?
“A I
stand (sic) up and that was the time when he met me with embraces, sir.
“Q What
did you do? You did not resist?
“A I
resisted, sir.
“Q How?
“A I
kicked him, sir.
“Q When
he embraced you, you were standing up?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q And
how did you kick him?
“A I
kicked him with my feet on his knees, sir.
“Q And
in spite of that resistance, you were overtaken by his power?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q And
what happened after he embraced you?
“A He
forced me to lie down, sir.
“Q And
during that time, you remember what his hand was doing to your body?
“A He
embraced me, sir.
“Q Actually,
both his hands are mashing your body?
“A No,
sir, he embraced me and he forced me to lie down, sir.
“Q Did
he mash your body?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q With
both hands?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q You
said you were mashed by both hands, do you know where did he place his pentel
pen?
“A I
did not see where he placed the pentel pen, sir.
“Q But
you know very well that he was no longer holding the pentel pen?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q How
long do you think did he take (Melchor Cruz)
to force you to lie down?
“A It
took some time, about one minute, sir.
“Q What
are the fixtures inside your room?
“A Since the room is only small, it has
only the bed, sir.
“Q It
does not have chair, table?
“A None,
sir.
“Q No
cabinet?
“A There
was one cabinet, sir.
“Q While you are (sic) struggling with Melchor
Cruz, you are (sic) using all your might?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q And of course you were able to offer at least
some resistance and you were able to push him backward?
“A Hindi
ko siya kaya, sir.
“Q What did Melchor Cruz do to you once he was
able to lie you to bed?
“A He was holding my hand while we are (sic)
already on bed, sir.
“Q Both
his hands?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q What
happened afterwards?
“A I
struggled and I was able to wrestle ‘naibalya ko siya’, sir.
“Q You
are (sic) wearing shorts?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q And
did you have your panty on?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q And
did you have your bra?
“A None,
sir.
“Q When
Melchor Cruz started removing your panty, what were you doing then?
“A I
was struggling, sir.
“Q You
were continuously struggling but you were not shouting?
“A I
cannot shout, sir.
“Q And what was the position of Melchor Cruz
when he was trying to remove your shortpants?
“A When
I was able to wrest him, I was able to push him, he was standing up, he placed
his legs near the door in order to prevent me in going out of the room, sir.
”Q It
was on that spot when Melchor Cruz was able to remove your short pants?
“A I
stood up AND THEN HE COVERED MY MOUTH
and removed my shorts, sir.[13]
(Emphasis supplied)
In the first testimony, accused allegedly covered her mouth
immediately to prevent her from shouting while in the second testimony, it took
some time for accused to cover her mouth — in fact, he embraced her, she
kicked him, he forced her to lie down, he mashed her body with both hands, she
was able to wrestle (“naibalya ko siya”) with him, he attempted to
remove her pair of short pants, she pushed him, he stood up, he stayed near the
door to prevent her from going out, and THEN AND ONLY THEN, did he cover her
mouth. And all the while that the
struggle was going on, she did not even make any attempt to shout.
This testimony alone taxes the Court’s imagination as to what
really transpired in that small room.
The above-quoted testimonies of complainant were further muddled
by her succeeding testimony, as follows:
“ATTY. MORETA:
“Q Did
Melchor Cruz touch your private part when he was spreading your legs?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q And
still you were not shouting?
“A I
cannot shout, sir.
“Q After
that what happened?
“A He
succeeded in raping me, sir.
“Q How?
“A He
inserted his private part inside my organ, sir.
“Q How
did you know that he was able to insert his private part to your organ?
“A I
felt it, sir.
”Q Did
you have any sexual intercourse before that incident?
“A None,
sir.
“Q That
was your first time?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Of
course it was very painful?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q And
you cried?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q And
that you cried loud?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q How
long was Melchor Cruz on top of you?
“A About
two to three seconds, sir.
“COURT:
“Q Are
you sure it was two seconds or two minutes?
“A Three
minutes, sir.
‘ATTY. MORETA:
“Q What
were you doing all that time when Melchor Cruz was on top of you?
“A Because
he gave me fist blows, I felt weak, sir.
“Q And
you just lay on bed doing nothing?
“A I
forced myself to fight back, sir.
“Q You
were trying to fight back but you never shouted on that occasion?
“A I
was crying, sir.
“Q But
you never shouted for help?
“A I
was not able to shout because he covered my mouth, sir.
“Q When did he cover your mouth?
“A WHEN
HE PLACED HIMSELF ON TOP OF ME, SIR.[14]
(Emphasis
and italics supplied)
Actually, this last testimony is more of an indication of what
really transpired. Unwittingly, private
complainant revealed the true nature of her sexual intercourse during cross
examination. In this particular sexual
intercourse, Rosalie must have cried out in pain that is why accused covered
her mouth TO PREVENT the people in the store from knowing that the two of them
were having sex inside the room which was just beside the store.
According to Leonida Beltran, she learned about her daughter’s
affair with the accused indirectly as follows:
“ATTY. CRUZ:
“Q Madam
Witness, do you know a person by the name of Rosalie Beltran?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q How
are you related to this Rosalie Beltran, Madam Witness?
“A She
is my daughter.
“Q And
this Rosalie Beltran is the private complainant in this case?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Do
you know the accused Melchor Cruz?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q Do
you know what is the relation of this Rosalie Beltran to the accused Melchor
Cruz?
“A Formerly,
I do not know what was their relationship, but later on I heard that they were
sweethearts.
“COURT:
“Q Formerly
you were not aware of the relationship between your daughter Rosalie Beltran
and the accused in this case, Melchor Cruz?
“A Yes,
Your Honor.
“Q But
later on you came to know that they were sweethearts?
“A Yes,
Your Honor.”[15]
which she allegedly discovered from
Rosalie’s grandmother, as follows:
“Q When
for the first time did you come to know about this case against the accused?
“A Around
December 10, Ma’am, when I …
“ATTY. CRUZ:
May I request Your Honor
that the witness just answer the question.
“FISCAL:
“Q And
who informed you about this?
“A My
mother-in-law was the one who related to me about this case, Ma’am.
“Q What
was the name of your mother-in-law?
“A Isabel
Beltran, Ma’am.
“Q And
what did she tell you?
“A I
was informed by my mother-in-law that Rosalie intimated to her that she was
raped, Ma’am, by Melchor Cruz.
“Q Did
she mention the date when it happened?
“A Yes,
Ma’am, it was December 2.
“Q And
what did you do upon hearing this report from your mother-in-law?
“A I
confronted my daughter about the incident and she admitted to me that something
did happen to her.
“Q When
do (sic) you confront her?
“A In
December 11, Ma’am, after I found out from my mother-in-law, about the
incident.”[16]
Complainant’s immediate failure to notify the authorities or, at
the very least, her mother about her alleged experience also seriously affects
the truthfulness of her narration.[17] But
would Rosalie have volunteered that information to her grandmother?
In the light of the love letters she sent to accused, where she
herself wanted the whole affair kept secret, it is more credible that someone
else also “spilled the beans,” as testified to by accused, as
follows:
“Q x
x x Rosalie Beltran, being your sweetheart, why did she file a complaint
against you to the effect that sometime on December 2, 1977 in the municipality
of San Mateo, Rizal, with lewd designs, and by means of force, violence and
intimidation, you have carnal knowledge with her?
“FISCAL:
Objection, Your Honor,
he is incompetent to answer the question.
“COURT:
Let us see.
“A It
happened this way, sir. During the
first year of our relationship, our relationship was not known to the family,
but because of the teasing around, her uncle happened to know of our
relationship but he did not divulge it to anyone, and one evening he was drunk,
and maybe he was not able to help himself and he told the mother of Rosalie
Beltran of our relationship.
“Q What
is that name of that uncle of Rosalie Beltran?
“A Benjamin
Beltran, sir.
“Q Now,
at the time when Benjamin Beltran was drunk and he informed the mother of
Rosalie Beltran about your relationship with her, what happened?
“A The
uncle of Rosalie Beltran informed the mother and the mother confronted me about
our relationship.
“Q And
what was your answer?
“A I
told her that our relationship is true, sir.
“Q When you confessed to the mother, by the way,
what is the name of the mother of Rosalie Beltran?
“A Leonida
Beltran, sir.
“Q When you confessed to the mother about your
relationship to the daughter, what happened?
“A
When I confirmed to the mother of
Rosalie Beltran our relationship, she requested me to go home to our place
because according to her, the uncle of Rosalie Beltran is angry with me.
“Q
Now, when Rosalie Beltran told you or
rather the mother of Rosalie Beltran told you that the uncle is angry with you,
what did you do if any?
“A I
went home to our place, sir.”[18]
Indeed, we find it hard to swallow the rape story of complainant
hook, line and sinker. Moreover, we are
bothered by the following facts which make it difficult for us to accept
complainant’s version of what happened to her in the morning of December 2,
1978:
1. The weapon of intimidation was alleged to be a pentel pen
“with pointed object” as follows:
“Q How
did you first learn that Melchor Cruz entered your room?
“A I
saw him entering the room, sir.
“Q Did
he knock?
“A No,
sir.
“Q Did
he say anything when he entered the room?
“A None,
sir.
“Q He
was unarmed?
“A There
is, sir.
“Q He
was armed with what?
“A Pentel
pen with pointed object, inside which he made, sir.”[19]
There was no clarification as to what that “pointed
object” in the pentel pen was. It
could have been the short sharp tip of the pentel pen itself. Definitely, it was not a knife nor a gun nor
a club nor a similar weapon.
The presence of said pentel pen is important because it was what
allegedly instilled fear in her and which intimidated her from shouting even
before the accused covered her mouth right after he embraced her, assuming that
her first version of when the accused exactly covered her mouth was what indeed
happened.
However, in her statement given to TSGT Jose C. Quiocho of the
Western Sector, PC Metrocom, San Miguel, Manila, on December 18, 1978, no such
pentel pen with a pointed object was mentioned, as follows:
x x x
“T Maaari
mo bang, isalaysay sa pagtatanong na ito ang buong naganap tungkol sa iyong reklamo?
“S Ganito
po yon, sa nabanggit na oras, at petsa habang akoy nakahiga sa loob ng aking
kuarto ay pumasok si Melchor Cruz. Noon
tanungin ko kung bakit siyay pumasok sa loob ay bigla na lamang akong niyakap
at tinakpan ng aking bibig at ihiniga Akoy nanlaban at nagpapalag ngunit
pinagbantaan akong papatayin kung akoy sisigaw. Akoy patuloy na nanlaban sa kanya ngunit akoy nanghina at siyay
umibabaw sa akin at akoy kanyang hinubaran ng aking short pant. Pagkatapos ay sinuntok niya ako sa aking
tiyan at tuloy akong nanghina doon niya naisagawa na maipasok ang kanyang ari
sa aking pag-aari. Noon matapos siya ay
umalis na at nag-iwan pa ng salita na huwag daw akong magsusumbong kanino
man. At kung magsusumbong ako ay
papatayin daw niya ako.”[20] (SIC
omitted in order not to clutter up the quotation)
Granting that this unusual pentel pen had indeed intimidated
Rosalie at the start, the records do not show that throughout the alleged rape
the accused had consistently threatened or forced complainant at pentel pen
point to have sex with him. What
Rosalie’s testimony shows is that the accused had forgotten all about his
pentel pen weapon[21]
while consummating the act.
2. While the Medico Legal
Officer had testified that there was no hymenal laceration in Rosalie’s hymen,
he made an observation that the opening of her vaginal canal was big enough
(2.8 cms. or 1.123 inches, more or less, in diameter) to admit an erected male
organ.[22]
Dr. Prospero A. Cabanayan testified as follows:
“Q Will you please tell the
Honorable Court how you happened to examine this Rosalie Beltran, Doctor?
“A Well, the subject,
Rosalie Beltran was examined upon the request of the mother, Mrs. Leonida
Mariano Beltran.
“Q And when did your
examination of the subject Rosalie Beltran take place?
“A It was on December 15,
1978, Ma’am, at around 10:50 A.M.
“Q And for what reason
was she examined, for what reason was the request made?
“A The reason was that,
there was a complaint allegedly for rape, and that the subject was accompanied
by her mother as to the determination whether or not, there was a defloration
or not.
“Q And did you proceed with
your examination?
“A Yes, Ma’am.
“Q And what were your
findings?
“A Well, in this particular
case, this is one of the cases wherein the hymen was elastic and there was no
evidence of any hymenal laceration. However, on further examination of the witness subject, the orifice or
the opening of the vaginal canal was big enough and it measures 2.8 cms. and
enough to admit a male organ or erection without producing any laceration.
xxx xxx xxx
“Q Based on your examination Doctor of the
complainant Rosalie Beltran, you measured the orifice as being 2.8 cms. in
diameter. Do we understand from you
that based on this size penetration by an average size would be had?
ATTY. CRUZ
Objection Your Honor.
“COURT:
Wide enough to admit a
human penis erection.
“FISCAL
“Q Now,
would you know whether this width of 2.8 cms. is natural?
“COURT
What do you mean by
natural. You mean if it really admits
tubes measuring 2.8 cms.?
“A There
is really an admission, Your Honor.
“Q Without
such resistance?[23]
“A Yes,
Your Honor.[24]
Apparently, this is not the first time Rosalie has had sexual
intercourse. In the light of the
accused’s testimony that they have had at least thirty (30) sexual intercourses
since February 10, 1977,[25] the
2.8 cm. diameter orifice of Rosalie’s private part could be easily explained.
3. The Court
notes that while the alleged rape occurred on December 2, 1978, the complaint
was filed only on June 25, 1979.[26] This delay of two hundred and five (205) days is
disturbing, to say the least, and is an indication that the complaint for rape
was not made in a desire to bring the culprit to justice but, probably, to save
the honor of Rosalie’s mother, Leonida (the accused was, after all, only her sapatero). It also casts serious doubts as to the
charge of rape.[27] It should be noted, as above stated, that Leonida
testified in court that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case.
4. While it may have been that Rosalie and the
accused were lovers, and had engaged in regular sex, still, not being married
to each other, Rosalie had the right to refuse accused’s passionate advances
when she wanted to.[28]
If indeed the December 2,
1980 sexual intercourse was without the consent of Rosalie, and, that she was
indeed raped, then a very vital and material piece of evidence that would show
the violence employed on the person of complainant, her pair of short pants,
which was allegedly torn when the accused embraced complainant, should have
been presented by the prosecution.[29]
A truly aggrieved rape
victim and, likewise, a truly aggrieved mother, would have made sure that that
torn pair of short pants would have been kept intact for presentation to the
police authorities to substantiate their cries of rape. The torn pair of short pants would have
strongly corroborated the testimony of the offended party that she was raped.[30]
As the alleged torn pair of short pants was not presented by the
prosecution, the Court cannot, in the light of the love letters Rosalie sent to
the accused, the lack of interest of her mother to further prosecute the case
and the three different versions of how the accused allegedly covered her mouth
to prevent her from shouting while raping her, state with certainty that she
was raped in the morning of December 2, 1978. If at all, what happened is a consented sexual act with the accused.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and appellant Melchor Cruz is hereby ACQUITTED of the
crime charged.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 68-71.
[2]
Id., pp. 42-43.
[3]
Decision, People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Cruz, Criminal Case No.
31109, penned July 1, 1991 by Hon. Eugenio S. Labitoria, Presiding Judge, Pasig
RTC, Br. 165.
[4]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 8; Rollo, p. 42.
[5]
Exh. “1”, Record, p. 367.
[6]
Exh. “2”, Record, p. 368.
[7]
“ATTY. CRUZ:
“Q Madam Witness, you recall that you have already testified in
this case, is it not?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q By the way, Madam Witness, are you familiar with the
handwriting of your daughter, Rosalie Beltran?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q And if you will
be shown samples of the handwriting of your daughter Rosalie Beltran, would you
be able to recognize the same?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q Now, I am showing to you a letter, which has been previously
marked as Exhibit ‘1’, written by one Rosalie Beltran, and signed ‘Nene’,
addressed to Mel, or Melchor Cruz, and please go over the same and tell us if
you recognize this as the handwriting of your daughter, Rosalie Beltran?
“A Yes, sir. This is the handwriting of my daughter
Rosalie Beltran.
“Q By
the way, what is the nickname of your daughter, Rosalie Beltran?
“A Nene, sir.
“Q Now,
showing to you another letter, already marked previously as Exhibit ‘2’,
written by one ‘Nene’ or Rosalie Beltran, addressed to Mel, or Melchor Cruz,
and please go over the same and tell us if this is also the handwriting of your
daughter Nene or Rosalie Beltran?
“A Yes, sir.”
(TSN, Feb. 22, 1989, pp. 7-9.)
[8]
T.S.N., February 22, 1989, pp. 9-10.
[9]
Rollo, p. 4.
[10]
People vs. Alib, G.R. No. 100232, May 24, 1993.
[11]
T.S.N., April 15, 1980, pp. 54-57.
[12]
Ibid, pp. 11, 13-16.
[13]
Ibid, pp. 65-73.
[14]
Ibid, pp. 75-79.
[15]
T.S.N., February 22, 1989, p. 5.
[16]
T.S.N., May 7, 1980, pp. 21-23.
[17]
People vs. Castillon, G.R. No. 100586, January 15, 1993.
[18]
T.S.N., November 3, 1981, pp. 6-7.
[19]
T.S.N., April 15, 1980, pp. 57-58.
[20]
Exhibit “B”, Record, p. 200.
[21]
T.S.N., April 15, 1980, pp. 65-68.
[22]
LIVING CASE NO. MGI-78-913; Subject: BELTRAN, ROSALIE V. MARIANO; x x x
“xxx xxx xxx
“CONCLUSION:
“xxx
“2. Hymenal orifice, wide, (2.8
cm.), elastic, distensible, as to allow penetration by an average-sized adult,
male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury.” (Exhibit
“A”; Records, p. 199)
[23]
“In true physical virginity,
“the hymen is intact with the edges distinct and regular and the opening small
to barely admit the tip of the smallest finger of the examiner even if the
thighs are separated.” SOLIS, LEGAL
MEDICINE, 486 (1987).
[24]
T.S.N., March 3, 1980, pp. 5-17.
[25]
T.S.N., November 3, 1981, p. 5.
[26]
Rollo, p. 4.
[27]
People v. Geneveza, 169 SCRA 153,
165.
[28]
People v. Mercado, 161 SCRA 601, 607.
[29]
T.S.N., 15 April 1980, p. 15.
[30]
Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses. And the physical evidence in this case
strongly corroborates the testimony of the offended party that she was
raped. They consist of the green color dress
and the panty that Erlinda was wearing at the time she was raped and which show
a torn portion of the left side of the dress and a torn portion of the
panty. According to Erlinda, they were
torn when appellant forcibly pulled her dress up and removed her panty shortly
before she was raped. x x x.” People v. Sacabin, 57 SCRA707, 713.