THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GENEROSO SUJETADO Y ESMELLARIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused Generoso Sujetado y Esmellarin stands charged of the
crime of Rape allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about the 21st day of March, 1988, in the City of
Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
herein accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation did, then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the
undersigned complainant, a minor below twelve (12) years of age, against the
latter’s will.

Act contrary to law.”^[1]

Upon arraignment,
accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered a decision^[2] the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby sentences
accused Generoso Sujetado to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; to
indemnify the victim Livy Montelibano the amount of P30,000.00 with the
accessory penalties of civil interdiction for life and that of perpetual
absolute disqualification and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.”^[3]

From the above judgment of conviction, accused appealed to this
Court, assigning the following as the errors allegedly committed by the lower
court, to wit:

“1. The lower court
erred in convicting the accused-appellant on the basis of the testimony of the
victim, whose very own mother would not even believe her;

2.  The lower court erred in
holding that the crime of rape was committed on March 21, 1988, despite the
uncontroverted testimony of the defense witness on the impossibility of its
commission;

3. The lower court erred
in not holding that the crime of rape is only a frame up charge against the
accused-appellant, the overseer of the hacienda, in order that the younger
brother of the mother of the victim, could take over;

4. The lower court erred
in holding that the defense witnesses testified for the accused, out of
sympathy because the crime is punishable by reclusion perpetua;

5. The lower court erred
in holding that Marilyn Montelibano and her husband would not expose their
daughter to public trial if the accused did not abuse their daughter, Levy
Montelibano;

6. The lower court erred in holding that Dr. Villarosa found a
whitish substance which is seminal fluid on the sexual organ of the
complainant;

7. The lower court erred
in holding that Emilio Tribo left the place as early as 1987, hence, it was
impossible for him to do the act on March 21, 1988;

8. The lower court erred
in failing to consider that the lacerations on the complaining witness are old
lacerations.”^[4]

Complainant Livy* Montelibano
was born on June 28, 1976 to Melchor Montelibano and Marilyn Naranja
Montelibano. At around 8:30 o’clock in
the morning of March 21, 1988, when she was barely twelve years old,
accused-appellant Generoso Sujetado, whose house is only about three (3) armslength from complainant’s house,
allegedly invited her to come up to his house to pull out his gray hair.^[5]
Livy refused but accused-appellant held her hands and pulled her up into his
house.^[6]
Once inside a room accused-appellant made Livy lie down on the bed and pulled down her
pants. Livy cried as accused-appellant
removed his pants. Accused-appellant
sucked Livy’s breast and thereafter had sexual intercourse with her.^[7]
After the sexual act, accused-appellant gave Livy a P5.00 bill which she refused to accept but
accused-appellant insisted on placing the money on her palm.^[8]

Another prosecution witness, Jeffrey** Samartin, Livy’s cousin, testified that at around
10:00 o’clock in the morning of March 21, 1988, he passed by
accused-appellant’s store to buy some sticks of cigarette.^[9]
No one was manning the store so he called the occupants of the house.^[10]
Accused-appellant came down from his house, followed by Livy who was still
pulling up her pants.^[11] On
her way home, Livy allegedly told him that she was sexually abused by
accused-appellant.^[12]
Jeffrey then told Livy’s mother about what happened. After which, Mrs. Marilyn Montelibano, Livy’s mother, told Livy
to take a bath and on the same day, they went to the Provincial Hospital to
have Livy’s private parts examined. Said examination yielded the following results:

“External Genetalia (sic) : Reddening of labia majora and labia minora

– old healed hymenal lacerations at 2,4,5,6,
8,10 o’clock position (sic)

– Introitus admits 2 fingers with ease

I.E.                   – Cervix – close,
small

– Uterus – Small

– Adnexa – Negative

– Discharge – whitish foul smelling

Speculum Exam: – Cervix erosions are noted with whitish discharges foul smelling

– Redness of vaginal wall noted

* Vaginal Smears done for sperm count and
gram-staining.”^[13]

Accused-appellant, a 58-year old father and grandfather,
vehemently denies that he raped Livy. He recounted on the witness stand that at 6:00 o’clock in the morning of
March 21, 1988, he left his house to water and prune the guava trees in
Hacienda Flora where he was the overseer.^[14]
Then, at about 8:30 o’clock that same morning, while he was still cutting the
trees near the creek, one Generoso Tolentin approached him and told him that
somebody wanted to buy his fighting cocks.^[15] When
the buyer, one Clemens Mabugat, arrived, they returned to his house and after
Mabugat had chosen the fighting cocks that he wanted to buy, they had a
mock-fight.^[16]
Accused-appellant remembers seeing complainant Livy in his house playing with his grandchildren. But she left a few minutes after they
arrived.^[17]
He learned from his wife that she bought some sticks of cigarettes from their
store.^[18]
Then, at a little past 11:30 o’clock, Mabugat and Tolentin left.^[19]
When asked why he was accused by Livy’s mother, Marilyn Montelibano, of raping
Livy, he said that it was done in order to ease him out as overseer of Hacienda
Flora so Roberto Naranja, Mrs. Montelibano’s brother, can take over his post.^[20]
The owner of the hacienda, Felipe Garcia, revealed that it is his policy to
dismiss any of his employees against whom a case is filed.^[21]

We cannot help but note that complainant Livy Montelibano is not
the typical Filipina maiden who is innocent and demure. At the very young age of 12 years old, she
already had several sexual relations with a married man, a certain Emilio
Tribo. She herself admitted this in
open court.^[22]
What is more incredulous is that her mother, Marilyn Montelibano, does not seem
to be disturbed by her daughter’s highly irregular conduct.^[23]
Livy’s unchastity is, of course, not a defense in the crime of statutory rape
as the gravamen of the offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve
years of age. However, a painstaking
review of the evidence on record does not convince this Court of the truth of
complainant’s testimony. The following
facts and circumstances militate against an affirmation of the trial court’s
finding of guilt:

(1) The prosecution
failed to present any evidence to rebut the overwhelming evidence of the
defense that on March 21, 1988, the date of the alleged rape, at around 8:30
o’clock to 11:30 o’clock in the morning, accused-appellant was busy attending
to a customer, Clemens Mabugat, who wanted to buy three (3) of his fighting
cocks; and, on the same day and time, accused-appellant’s wife, two of his
grown-up children and several of his grandchildren were with him in his house
where and when the rape allegedly
took place. Thus, it was improbable for
him to have raped Livy in the manner and form described by her. In convicting the accused, the lower court
would explain said improbability in a rather simplistic manner:

“To the mind of the Court all these denials of witnesses for
the defense putting a situation where rape is impossible could not be given
credence. Why? Because the accused in his desire to
accomplish the sexual act would always find a time and a way to do it in the
most secret and possible way. He finds
satisfaction of his lustful desire in the person of an innocent mentally weak
Livy Montelibano. x x x”^[24]

The above are mere conclusions which were
not supported by clear and convincing evidence. We have time and again ruled that conclusions based entirely on
conjecture and speculations cannot serve as a basis for conviction and will
warrant the reversal of the finding of quilt by the trial court.

(2) The testimony of
prosecution witness, Jeffrey Samartin to the effect that accused-appellant
immediately went down from his house followed by Livy, to attend to a customer
who wanted to buy some cigarettes, raises serious doubts as to its
veracity. It is not in accord with
human experience for the accused-appellant to have let himself be seen with
Livy immediately after he had allegedly raped her. He could have ignored the call and let the customer leave,
instead of allowing himself to be seen with Livy in an incriminating situation.

(3) Even the medical
examination conducted immediately after the alleged rape failed to show that
Livy was indeed raped. What were shown
instead were old healed hymenal lacerations, which could be due to Livy’s
previous sexual relations with Emilio Tribo.

All told, Livy’s and the other prosecution witnesses’ testimony were not clear and convincing. Their story smacks of concoction rather than a narration of the
truth. They failed to produce in the
mind of this Court that moral certainty which will warrant the conviction of
the accused-appellant.

While rape is a most detestable crime and ought to be severely
and impartially punished, it must be borne in mind that it is an accusation
which is easy to make but hard for the accused to defend, although innocent.^[25] As is usually the case, the testimony
of the complainant would be the only evidence presented by the prosecution on how
the alleged rape was perpetrated, and the same should be regarded with utmost
caution and the accused should not be convicted unless the complainant’s
testimony is impeccable and rings true throughout.^[26]
These safeguards must be scrupulousy
observed, otherwise an innocent accused may languish in jail for the remainder of his lifetime. The prosecution in this case has failed to present proof beyond reasonable doubt upon
which this Court may rest easy that accused-appellant
is indeed guilty as
charged. Failing thus, the acquittal of accused-appellant is in order.

It is thus the opinion
this Court that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of
accused-appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.

IN VIEW
THEREOF, the challenge to the
verdict finding the accused-appellant guilty is sustained and the accused is
hereby declared NOT guilty of
the crime as charged. His immediate release from incarceration is
hereby ordered unless he is detained on some other legal grounds.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Rollo, p. 9.

^[2]
Penned by Judge Simplicia S. Medina.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 27.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 38-39.

* Spelled “Levy” in the
accused-appellant’s brief.

^[5]
TSN, February 1, 1989, pp. 4, 5.

^[6]
Ibid., p. 6.

^[7]
Ibid., pp. 7, 8.

^[8]
Ibid., p. 11.

** Also spelled
“Geofrey” in the other pleadings.

^[9]
TSN, January 18, 1990, p. 11.

^[10]
Id.

^[11]
Ibid., p. 12.

^[12]
Ibid., p. 13.

^[13]
Original Record, p. 132.

^[14]
TSN, April 2, 1991, pp. 6-7.

^[15]
Ibid., p. 8.

^[16]
Ibid., p. 9.

^[17]
Ibid., p. 10.

^[18]
Ibid., p. 11.

^[19]
Id.

^[20]
Ibid., pp. 13, 14.

^[21]
TSN, February 22, 1991, p. 13.

^[22]
TSN, February 1, 1989, p. 35.

^[23]
TSN, September 10, 1990, pp. 39-40.

^[24]
Supra, note 2 at pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 25-26.

^[25]
People vs. Mauro del Pilar, 164 SCRA 280 (1988) citing US vs. Flores, 26 Phil. 262, 269
(1913).

^[26]
People vs. Tapao, 108 SCRA 351 (1981).