PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHRISTIAN SANDAGON Y PELAEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The presumption in rape cases is that the complainant is telling the
truth because she would otherwise not submit herself to the embarrassment of a
public trial where the sordid details of her violation will be exposed and
every intimate part of her body will be examined. On the other hand, there is also the presumption of innocence, to
be observed in every criminal prosecution, where the accused must be considered
not guilty of the offense charged until the contrary is proved.

The appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced by the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the offended party the sum of P30,000.00 as moral damages, and to
pay the costs.^[1]
In this appeal, he faults the judgment for giving credence to the prosecution
witnesses and not finding that the complainant voluntarily went with him to
live as his wife.

Maricel Dolera testified that she was 15 years old at the time of
the incident and was staying with the family of her uncle, Rogelio Dolera, at
Quezon City, where she was working as a baby-sitter. On December 2, 1991, at about 11:00 in the morning, she went to
the Quezon Memorial Circle to look for Antonio Augis, another uncle, who was to
assist her in securing a residence certificate. Not finding him there, she approached the appellant, Christian Sandagon,
and asked him if he knew her uncle. He
said yes and even offered to accompany her to Antonio’s house. She agreed gratefully and the two boarded a
jeep for Fairview. They alighted at a
place near a vegetable patch, and there Sandagon’s manner suddenly
changed. At knife point, she was taken
to an uninhabited shanty where he forced himself upon her. She tried to resist but had to submit in the
end when he slapped and threatened to kill her. He pushed his penis into her mouth and there ejaculated. He raped her twice that afternoon. Afterwards, Sandagon took her to a
restaurant and then to a four-bedroom house, where Sandagon had a drinking
spree with his friends until 8:00 in the evening. Sandagon and she slept in the sala that night and the appellant
again violated her. From there they
went to several places, including Lagro and Laguna. They were together everywhere they went and she could not ask for
help from anybody because Sandagon never left her side. Sandagon was a light sleeper and woke up
immediately whenever she did. She was
virtually a prisoner, with Sandagon keeping close watch. Finally, a month after her abduction, she
told him she was agreeing to live with him and was thus able to persuade him to
allow her to get her clothes from her uncle’s house. There she revealed her ordeal to her family, which took immediate
steps to bring Sandagon to justice.^[2]

Magno Quino, her uncle, corroborated that he instructed her to go
to Quezon City Hall on December 2, 1991, to secure a residence certificate and
to see another uncle, Antonio Augis, to assist her. However, she did not return that day but only on January 2, 1992,
when, acting on her report, he and five friends apprehended the appellant at
the grocery store where he was waiting for Maricel and turned him over to
police authorities.^[3]

The medical examination of Maricel on January 2, 1992, revealed a
deep healed laceration of the hymen and indicated she may have had more than
one sexual intercourse. There was no
external sign of the recent application of any form of trauma upon her.^[4]

The appellant denied the charges and claimed he and Maricel were
sweethearts. He said he met her
sometime in January 1991 at the Quezon Memorial Circle and they eventually
became lovers in June of that year. On
December 2, 1991, at around 10:00 in the morning, Maricel approached him and
asked him to accompany her in looking for her uncle in the Circle. They failed to locate him. He started to leave for his work but Maricel
said she would come along because she had a problem to consult him about. They proceeded to Cubao, where Maricel told
him she did not want to go back to her uncle’s house because a nephew of his
wanted to take advantage of her. Sandagon had to see his employer at Boni Avenue but as they did not find
him there, they decided to seek him in Calamba, Laguna. They also missed him in that place and so
they went back to Manila and stayed in a hotel at Recto Avenue. Maricel seduced him there. When they left, it was she in fact who paid
the lodging fees. From then on, they
lived together as husband and wife. On
January 2, 1992, they decided to ask permission from Maricel’s uncle to get
married, but the latter vehemently objected and instead had him arrested and
prosecuted for rape.^[5]

As a matter of policy based on sound practical considerations,
this Court defers to the factual findings of the trial court, which is able to
observe the witnesses on the stand and to determine by their demeanor the
degree of their credibility. We shall
deviate from this rule, however, because we find that the exception is in order
in the case before us.

We have carefully examined the records of this case, including
the transcript of stenographic notes, and cannot agree that the guilt of the
appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if it be assumed that the testimony of Sandagon was
inconsistent and unbelievable, we find that so too was Maricel’s and, indeed,
in graver degree.

It is our view that the story given by Maricel of her alleged
abduction and multiple rapes is intrinsically weak and difficult to
accept. By her own account, it was she
who first talked to Sandagon, a total stranger, and she willingly agreed to go
with him in search of her uncle in a subdivision, taking a jeep for the
purpose. She knew her uncle’s residence
but she did not object when they passed it by although she said she had an
initial urge – which she herself suppressed – to jump out of the jeep.^[6]
If she was then already under duress, she did not complain or cry out to the other
passengers in the vehicle who could have helped her. She claimed she was threatened by Sandagon with a kitchen knife
but admitted she saw this only when they reached the shanty near the vegetable
patch,^[7]
where there were several people working.^[8] She did
not call out to them for help as he and Sandagon proceeded to the hut, which
was conveniently unoccupied. Here, at
four o’clock in the afternoon, and with some people in the nearby field,
Sandagon forced himself upon her, first ejaculating in her mouth and then
raping her twice. Afterwards they went
to a restaurant, where they had a snack as if nothing had happened.^[9]
This was followed by extensive travels of the two, to a friend’s house where
there were about ten persons, not one of whom she spoke to about her ordeal;^[10]
to Lagro where they slept for ten days in the house of Sandagon’s employer,
whose help she did not seek; to Laguna, in the house of the appellant’s
relatives who might also have helped her if she had asked them;^[11]
to a hotel in Manila where she continued to be violated,^[12] to
another unoccupied shack where the series of rapes continued,^[13]
and so on.

We do not believe Maricel’s impossible adventure. It looks to us more like an elopement gone
sour. Threadbare as Sandagon’s story
may be, it is more credible than Maricel’s tale of (loose) captivity and
defilement lasting all of 31 days. Even
by Maricel’s own account, the two acted more as lovers than as warden and
prisoner. The girl had many safe
opportunities to seek help, or even to escape, but she never did so during the
more than one month she was supposed to be under restraint.

We note that while it is usual, in justifying the conviction of
the accused, to observe that the complainant testified in a straightforward and
candid manner, no such observation was made of Maricel by the trial court. Such justification would have been
inappropriate, considering the erratic testimony of the complainant, an excerpt
of which follows:

Q:   Where
did you spend your Christmas?

A:    I
cannot remember, sir.

Q:   Not
in the house of his employer?

A:    No,
sir.

Q:   You
remember having been brought by the accused outside of Metro Manila?

A:    No,
sir.

Q:   You
do not remember taking a bus for Laguna?

A:    I
do not remember.

Q:   You
mean you also do not remember that you went to Calamba, Laguna?

A:    I
cannot remember, sir.

Q:   You
don’t also remember that you were introduced by the accused to his relatives in
Calamba, Laguna?

A:    No,
sir.

Q:   During
the time that you were investigated by the police, do you remember having been brought
by the accused to Calamba, Laguna?

A:    No,
sir.

Q:   You
did not remember that in your statement marked as Exh. B, you stated that you
were brought by the accused to Laguna?

A:    I remember, sir, that we went to Laguna.^[14]

It is not enough to say that a girl would not expose herself to
the humiliation of a rape complaint unless the charge is true. That is putting things too simply. For
the prosecution to succeed, it is also necessary to find that the
complainant’s story is by itself believable independently of the
presumption. Otherwise, if all that
mattered was that presumption, every accusation of rape would inevitably
result, without need of further evidence, in the conviction of the accused. This would militate against the rule that in
every criminal prosecution, including rape cases, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved.

The established doctrine is that the conviction of the accused
must rest on the strength of the prosecution and not the weakness of the
defense. Even if Sandagon’s version may
be weak in spots, it nevertheless appears to be more credible than the story
narrated by the complainant. The claim
that she approached a man she did not know and willingly went with him in
search of her uncle makes the tale suspect at the very start. It seems to be the prologue to a succession
of inventions grown increasingly suspicious with each place supposedly visited
by the two and each rape allegedly committed.

The Court also notes that although Maricel was gone for one whole
month, her family did not take any action to look for her or to report her
disappearance to the police. This
inaction is more consistent with the appellant’s claim of elopement rather than
the complainant’s story of abduction and rape.

The appellant’s failure to introduce in evidence letters or gifts
exchanged between him and Maricel, or other mementoes of their relationship,
does not disprove his claim that they were sweethearts. The best evidence of this was the fact that
they traveled and lived together as husband and wife for one whole month,
during which period Maricel had many opportunities to leave him if she wanted
to but chose not to do so. At any rate,
a romance need not be documented with love letters and other protestations in
writing but may develop on oral understandings and even tacit consent, without
benefit of written commitments.

The situation is common enough, and familiar to this Court. There is an elopement. The girl’s parents are distraught. Eventually, the repentant couple return to
the girl’s home. The man assures her
parents that he is willing to marry their daughter and in fact begs for their
permission and blessing. But the
parents are unforgiving. They choose to
prosecute the man and pressure the girl. Soon, with their moral ascendancy over her, she is persuaded to give
testimony against her erstwhile lover. The elopement becomes an abduction with rape and the romantic escapade
is reduced to a sordid affair.

While we do not suggest that this was what happened in the case
at bar, such a possibility has strengthened the misgivings engendered in us by
Maricel’s implausible testimony. Consequently, considering the constitutional presumption of innocence in
favor of the appellant, and after weighing the evidence of the parities, we
have to rule that the conviction of the appellant cannot be affirmed because
his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment is REVERSED. Appellant Christian Sandagon is hereby
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and ordered to be released immediately. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision penned by Judge Bernardo P.
Abesamis, RTC Branch 85, Quezon City, Rollo, p. 27.

^[2]
TSN, February 24, 1992, pp. 2-9.

^[3]
TSN, March 16, 1992, pp. 43-46.

^[4]
Exhibit “A,” Medico-Legal Certificate,
Records, p. 29; TSN, February 25, 1992, pp. 14-15.

^[5]
TSN, April 6, 1992, pp. 60-65; 68-71.

^[6]
TSN, February 25, 1992, pp. 23-27.

^[7]
TSN, February 24, 1992, p. 4.

^[8]
TSN, February 25, 1992, p. 28.

^[9]
TSN, February 24, 1992, pp. 5-6.

^[10]
Ibid., pp. 7-8.

^[11]
TSN, February 25, 1992, p. 37.

^[12]
TSN, May 26, 1992, p. 89.

^[13]
TSN, February 25, 1992, p. 30.

^[14]
TSN, February 25, 1992, pp. 36-37.