G.R. No. 117951. June 18, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN DAGANGAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MENDOZA, J.:
scrutinize with utmost caution the claim of complainants in rape cases
and to base conviction on the evidence of the prosecution rather than
the weakness of the evidence of the defense, in view of the fact that,
while it is difficult to prove an accusation of rape, it is more
difficult to disprove it.[1] This admonition seems to have been lost on the trial court in this case.
This is an appeal from the decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, of Dumaguete City, finding
accused-appellant Edwin Dagangan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Rape, with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the offended party P40,000, plus the cost of suit.
The information against accused-appellant alleged –
That on or about the 4th day of March, 1993, at sitio Pandan,
Barangay Tibyawan, Municipality of Ayungon, Province of Negros Oriental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and
there willfully unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the
complainant Felma B. Baldomar, against her will, and in her own house.That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance that
said offense was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, the
latter not having given provocation for the offense.[3]
The prosecution presented evidence which is fairly summarized in the
following portion of the brief for the appellee submitted by the
Solicitor General:[4]
On March 4, 1993, complainant Felma Baldomar was asleep, alone in
her house and sick with fever and colds. She was, however, awakened when
she felt somebody (who she later identified as appellant) was on top of
her. Said person covered her mouth and held her hands. Previously
asleep, she did not notice the precise time when the man doffed her
undergarments (tsn., November 17, 1993, pp. 9-10).Feeling weak because of her illness, she was not able to resist the
assault on her honor. After about five minutes, she heard a voice or
sound downstairs. Hearing this, appellant suddenly released her. As she
was still in pain, she did not notice where appellant went or what
happened next (Ibid, pp. 10-11).The sound downstairs turned out to be her elder brother, Franklin
Baldomar coming home for lunch from the fields. Upon coming up the
stairs, and seeing her disheveled state, her brother helped her to stand
up and put on her underwear and shorts (Ibid., p. 12; tsn., Dec. 2,
1993, p. 4).Franklin Baldomar testified that when he arrived at their house at
noon of March 4, 1992, he heard some moans from upstairs. He went up and
in the first room upstairs, he saw appellant naked and in the act of
getting up from atop his sister’s body. Only his sister was with
appellant then. He told appellant, “Bay, let’s talk” and the latter told
him that “your sister is an ill mannered person”. After this, appellant
ran downstairs, naked, bringing with him his short[s] and brief. After
appellant left, Franklin Baldomar helped his sister stand up and dress
herself (tsn., Dec. 2, 1993, pp. 3-4).After helping his sister put on her clothes, Franklin Baldomar took
a bath. After that, he went out to look for appellant. At about 3:00 in
the afternoon, he found him in the flea market, about one kilometer
away from their house, playing basketball. However, he did not
immediately accost appellant and instead, he let him finish playing
basketball. After the game, he asked appellant about the incident in
their (Franklin Baldomar’s) house. Since appellant did not answer, he
brought him home so that appellant can be investigated by the councilor.
Although the councilor’s house is about 40 meters away from the flea
market Franklin Baldomar opted to bring appellant to their house (about
one kilometer away from the flea market) for fear that appellant might
escape if brought to the councilor’s house. (Ibid., pp. 5-6, 14-16).Dra. Maria Delia Amahit testified that she performed the physical
examination on Felma Baldomar. She noted a tear or break in the
continuity of the hymen at 3:00 and 9:00 position. She also noted some
discharge, which was found to be blood tinged with mucoid, on the
vaginal canal (tsn., Nov. 17, 1993, pp. 4-5).
The evidence for the defense, as summarized in the brief for accused-appellant, is as follows:[5]
Accused-appellant denied that he had sexual intercourse with private complainant Felma Baldomar on the date in question (March 4, 1993). (TSN Balasabas, February 22, 1994, p. 18).
He, however, said that he and Felma became lovers or sweethearts in
January, 1989 during a dance held in connection with the fiesta
celebration of Barangay Tambulan. He offered as proof Felma’s picture
which she gave to him as memento of their relationship (Exh. “1”).
After seeing each other for a brief while, Felma went to Manila.
Accused-appellant pursued his schooling at the Saint Anthony Academy in
Tayasan, Negros Oriental and there he courted another girl who became
his wife in June, 1990. He now has two children with her. (TSN Balsabas, February 22, 1994, pp. 2-7).On March 4, 1993, accused-appellant and a certain Gildo Mojillo
went to Sitio Polopandan, Tibyawan, Ayungon, Negros Oriental to see Joel
Alejo about the female cow owned by accused-appellant and under Alejo’s
care which Mojillo wanted to buy. Alejo offered no objection to the
sale and delivered the cow to accused-appellant and Mohillo. (Ibid, pp. 8-11).Accused-appellant and Mojillo, with the cow in tow, passed by the
flea market of Tibyawan and took their lunch thereat. After lunch,
accused-appellant rested for awhile, after which, he played basketball.
(Ibid, p. 11).In the course of playing basketball, accused-appellant was
surrounded by armed persons, numbering more than ten, one of whom was
Franklin Baldomar, brother of private complainant. Franklin Baldomar
“placed” his small bolo (plamingco) on the neck of accused-appellant,
hogtied him, and forced him to go with the group so that the truth can
be “ascertained or verified”. (Ibid, p. 13).Accused-appellant was brought to a house approximately one (1)
kilometer from the flea market. Joel Alejo and Felma Baldomar were at
said house when the group arrived thereat. Felma told accused-appellant,
“since you are already here, I do not want you to go back to your
family and you shall go with me because I will take charge”.
Accused-appellant refused, saying that he was already a married man,
whereupon, Franklin Baldomar slapped him. Accused-appellant continued to
refuse the proposal of Felma and the maltreatment also continued.
(Ibid, pp. 15-17).At midnight of the same day, a barangay councilman, uncle of Felma
Baldomar, arrived and asked accused-appellant whether it is true that he
had sexual intercourse with Felma. Accused-appellant did not reply for
fear of being killed if he made a negative answer. The councilman
decided that accused-appellant be brought to the Barangay Captain of
Tibyawan. (Ibid, p. 18).When accused-appellant was already at the house of Barangay Captain
Junior Torres, accused-appellant denied the charge of rape, whereupon,
the Barangay Captain suggested that accused-appellant be brought to the
Municipal Hall of Ayungon, Negros Oriental. (Ibid, p. 21).The accused-appellant was transported that very evening by the
group of Felma Baldomar on a hired jeep from Tibyawan to the poblacion
of Ayungon, Negros Oriental. On the jeep were Franklin Baldomar and
another person both of whom were carrying long bolos. Fearing that he
would be liquidated, accused-appellant jumped out of the moving jeep en route and escaped. (Ibid, pp. 23-24).Accused was subsequently charged with rape, tried and convicted.
The trial court upheld the prosecution’s version. Its reasons are set forth in its decision dated August 19, 1994, thus:[6]
In his defense accused claims that he and complainant are
sweethearts since January 1989 when he first courted her at a dance in
barangay Tambulan. He, however, denied having sexually abused
complainant that noontime of March 4, 1993. Just what accused wanted to
prove by his testimony that he and complainant are sweethearts is not
clear. Suffice it to say, however, that such testimony only strengthens
and fortifies the identity of accused made by complainant as her
ravisher. But even on the assumption that accused and complainant are
sweethearts, still accused has no right to force his advances on
complainant and compel her to yield to his sexual drive and sexually
take her against her will. “Love is not a license for lust, at least
upon a sweetheart only, who, unlike the wife, has the right to resist
the passionate advances of her partner.” (People vs. Mercado, 161 SCRA
601; People vs. Melebo, G.R. No. 97921, Sept. 8, 1993).The lack of an outcry on the part of complainant does not render
improbable the commission of rape against her. Human reactions vary and
are unpredictable. A person at one moment may cry her heart out over her
misfortune but may be dry-eyed the next time she recalls her tragic
fate. (People vs. Hortillano, G.R. 71116, Sept. 19, 1989). As shown by
the evidence, complainant was taken by surprise and was shocked at the
unexpected invasion of her womanhood besides the fact that she was then
feverish and was nursing a cold. Under such circumstance, the failure to
shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary
complainant’s submission to the criminal act of the accused, nor to mean
that she has not been raped. A woman would not make public the offense,
undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial, endure the
ordeal of testifying to all its gory details, and subjecting herself to
an examination of the most private and intimate part of her body if she
had not in fact been raped, for no decent Filipina would publicly admit
that she had been raped unless it is the truth. . . .
The court dismissed accused-appellant’s alibi, as well as his claim
that he was being falsely charged in order to force him to live with
complainant, his former sweetheart, despite the fact that he was then
already married.[7]
How valid is the defense of alibi relied upon by the accused? He
claims that he was in the place of Joel Alejo at about the time the
offense was being committed in the residence of complainant. According
to Defense witness Gildo Mojillo, he and accused left Barangay Tameso at
about 7:00 A.M. of March 4, 1993 and arrived at the house of Joel Alejo
in Barangay Tibyawan at around 11:00 A.M. They then left Alejo’s place
with the cow, to return home, arriving at the market place of Tibyawan
at about 12:00 noon, according to accused himself.It must be noted that the residence of complainant is in the
poblacion of Barangay Tibyawan itself. And according to prosecution
witness Joel Alejo his house is only about 100 meters from complainant’s
house. If accused and Mojillo arrived at the place of Joel Alejo at
11:00 or 11:30 that morning and on their return they arrived at the
market place of Tibyawan at around 12:00 o’clock noon of same day, the
house of Alejo could not have been far from the poblacion of Tibyawan
where complainant resided. And since accused admitted being at the
“tabu-an” (flea market) of Tibyawan at 12:00 noon, he was indeed within
the vicinity of the residence of complainant at noontime of said day.
And there was nothing that could have prevented him from going to the
Baldomar house and commit the crime imputed to him.Furthermore, having been positively identified by complainant as
the person who raped her and by Franklin Baldomar as the one he met
coming out of his sister’s room that noon of March 4, 1993, the alibi
relied upon by accused is unavailing, . . .. . . .
Accused further complains that he was maltreated by Franklin
Baldomar, and by an elderly woman (obviously referring to complainant’s
sister Edna Dequillo). Assuming said testimony to be true it is not
shown nevertheless that the maltreatment was inflicted in order to
extract from accused a confession of the crime charged. Rather it is
viewed more as an expression of outrage and indignation at what accused
did to complainant. Certainly, a dastardly act of rape could not but
evoke anger and indignation from the victim’s relatives.Accused declared that during the confrontation in the Baldomar
house with Franklin Baldomar, complainant suggested that she did not
want accused to go back to his family as she wanted the two of them to
go away together as “she will take care of everything.” This testimony
presupposes that complainant was aware of the married status of accused,
and thus it is highly improbable that she, who is single with a better
future for a lawful and peaceful married life, would take the risk of
going away with accused whom she cannot hope to marry and at the same
time face the constant danger of criminal prosecution. It is hardly
conceivable, considering the simple-mindedness of complainant as
observed by the Court, that she could invent and concoct the serious
crime of Rape, with all the unsavory and lurid publicity it naturally
results (sic), just to have accused, a much married man live with him
under unlawful and scandalous circumstances. The Court, therefore,
rejects such testimony for its obvious improbability, if it is intended
to show an ulterior motive on the part of complainant in charging
accused with the offense of Rape.
In appealing, accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred
in convicting him of rape despite circumstances which militate against
his guilt, to wit:[8]
(1) Accused-appellant was taken to Felma’s house by Joel Alejo
and Franklin Baldomar where he was served supper, together with others,
by complainant herself.
(2) The prosecution evidence shows that complainant did not
resist and that even after she had been released because
accused-appellant heard Felma’s brother coming, she did not shout for
help.
(3) Upon finding accused-appellant inside their house naked,
Felma’s brother, Franklin Baldomar, showed no outrage but only said,
“Bay, let’s talk.” Instead of pursuing accused-appellant when he ran,
Franklin helped his sister dress up and then took a bath. He went to
look for accused-appellant only later, and when he found him playing
basketball, he waited until the latter was through before talking to
him.
(4) He and Felma were former sweethearts, and this fact was not
denied by the prosecution. What the prosecution only said was that the
picture, which accused-appellant claimed had been given to him by
complainant, had been stolen from the album of the Baldomar family.
We have gone over the records of this case. The trial court
correctly rejected the claim of alibi of accused-appellant, but in
finding him guilty, it relied more on the weakness of the defense’s
evidence than on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. As shown by
the prosecution’s own evidence, the entire conduct of the complainant
toward accused-appellant was wholly inconsistent with her claim that she
had been raped by him. Yet the trial court found accused-appellant
guilty.
First. The crime allegedly took place at noon, on March
4, 1993, in complainant’s house. Yet complainant did not notice how
accused-appellant was able to get inside the room where she was
sleeping. She became aware of his presence only when he was allegedly on
top of her performing the sexual act. Complainant was 22 years old.
Even if she was sick at the time, it is inconceivable that she did not
know that accused-appellant had entered her room.
Second. Neither did complainant resist. She said:
PROSECUTOR HERMOSA:
Q All right, when you first noticed the accused, you said that
your two hands were held by the accused and your mouth was covered by
one hand of the accused, what did you do with this situation, or how did
you react?A I wanted to resist but I was not able to resist because my condition at that time was “weak”.
Q Did you try to shout?
A I was not able to shout because I was very weak.[9]
. . . .
Q Did you not try to kick the accused while the latter was on top of you?
A I was not able to kick him because I was feeling very weak
at that time because I had a fever and I cannot match his strength
because he is a male.COURT:
Q Did you not try to resist the accused?
A I tried but I was not successful because I was very weak.
ATTY. GARCIA:
Q But from the very moment that you noticed the accused placing
himself on top of you, did you not immediately try to kick him at least
once?A No matter how I tried, I cannot resist him because I cannot
match his strength because he is a male; I was very weak at that time.[10]. . . .
Atty. Erames:
Q When you heard the voice of Franklin Baldomar, did you shout for help?
Fiscal Hermosa:
Leading, Your Honor.
Atty. Erames:
I can ask leading questions, Your Honor. What is the matter, Your Honor?
Court:
Please do not make this personal between Counsels. Go ahead.
Atty. Erames:
I would like to make it of record that the witness has having difficulty in answering the question.
Court:
Not necessarily difficulty but it took her a long time to answer
the question. Saying that the witness is having a difficulty in
answering the question is a conclusion of counsel.Witness:
A I was not able to shout for help because my mouth was covered by his hand.[11]
. . . .
Q But, in your testimony which I have read, you said that after
you heard the voice of a man, you were already released by the accused,
why did you not shout?A I was not able to shout at that time because at that time I was shocked and I was very tired.[12]
Complainant said she did not resist because she was sick and she was
weak. She did not explain what she was sick of. Neither did she shout
for help. She claimed this was because her mouth was covered by
accused-appellant. But when asked why she did not do so even after
accused-appellant had removed his hand as he heard complainant’s brother
coming, complainant said it was because she was in shock.
There is a limit to one’s credulity. The testimony of Joel Alejo,
a prosecution witness, gave the lie to complainant’s claim that she was
so weak she could not even shout for help. Alejo said that in the
evening of the same day she was allegedly raped, complainant prepared
supper and served dinner to accused-appellant and the people who had
brought him to complainant’s house. If she was ill, how was she able to
prepare supper and serve accused-appellant and others who came that
night?
Third. Joel Alejo testified:[13]
ATTY. ERAMES:
Q When you arrived at 7:00 there was no prepared supper, it had to be prepared?
A Felma was preparing.
Q Preparing food for you, Franklin and Edwin, is that correct?
A She was preparing for their supper, we were also able to eat because we were together in taking supper.
Q All right. How long did Felma prepare their supper for all of you?
A Less than an hour.
Q So after the supper was prepared, the supper was laid on the table, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q By Felma?
A Yes.
Q And Edwin Dagangan was there also with you at the table?
A Yes.
Q Together with Franklin?
A Yes.
Q And what were … there was plenty of food as a matter of fact?
A Yes.
Q And as Felma was preparing the table Edwin, you and Franklin were there, did Felma maltreat Edwin?
A No.
Q And when Felma was already through setting the table, the 4 of you dined together at the table?
A Only the 3 of us namely: Franklin, Edwin and myself.
Q Felma was attending to all of you?
A Yes.
Q Felma served for the 3 of you?
A Yes.
Q And while Felma was serving the 3 of you she was quiet, she did not say anything?
A No.
Why should complainant serve dinner to her assailant? Instead of
showing anger and outrage, she gave him food. This is bizarre, and tends
to confirm accused-appellant’s claim that he and complainant were
formerly sweethearts, especially when considered with the testimony of
complainant’s brother that when he found accused-appellant naked inside
their house, in the room where complainant was allegedly sleeping, he
did not confront him. Franklin Baldomar, the complainant’s brother,
claimed in court:
Prosecutor Hermosa:
Q In what particular place in your house did you see Edwin Dagangan upon your arrival at the second floor?
A I saw him in the first room.
Q What was he doing in that room when you first saw him?
A He suddenly stood up.
Q Who was in that room at the time aside from Edwin whom you saw, suddenly stood up?
A My younger sister.
Q What’s the name of your younger sister?
A Felma Baldomar.
Q When you saw Edwin Dagangan at that time, what did you notice in his body, if there was any?
A He had no clothes.
Q You mean he had no clothes in the upper part of his body and on the lower part of his body?
A Yes, everything.
Q All right, when you saw him “naked” and who suddenly or immediately stood up, what did he do right after he stood up?
A He ran.
Q He ran towards where?
A Downstairs.
Q Naked?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he bring anything?
A Yes.
Q What did he bring with him?
A His short and brief.
Q All right, in your case, upon noticing the accused who stood
up immediately upon your arrival at the second floor, of your house,
what did you do?A I told him that, “Bay, let’s talk” and he answered that “your sister is an ill-mannered person.”
Q All right, what else did you do?
A I helped my sister.
Q In what way?
A I helped her by letting herself stand up and dressing herself.[14]
. . . .
Q All right, right after helping your sister put on her clothes … put on her short pants, what happened after that?
A I took a bath.
Q After taking a bath, what did you do?
A I told my younger sister to just stay at home so that I will find the accused.[15]
Franklin Baldomar must indeed be a pathetic figure. Finding
accused-appellant naked inside their house, he seems to be more
surprised — if not embarrassed — than accused-appellant. He did not
confront him. He did not even chase accused-appellant when the latter,
still naked, allegedly fled. Nor did Franklin act with alacrity to look
for accused-appellant. Instead, he first helped his sister get up and
dress, and then took a bath. It was only afterward that he went out to
look for accused-appellant. Franklin Baldomar said:
Atty. Garcia:
Q What time did you go to the flea market?
A About 3:00 o’clock.
Q Now in going to the flea market you saw the accused playing basketball, am I correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you stop the accused playing basketball in order to confront him?
A I let him finished first.
Q Why did you not immediately confront the accused?
A Because I respected him since he was still playing.
Q You also said that you asked the accused why he ran away, am I correct?
A Yes.
Q Is that all what you said to the accused?
A Yes, that is all.
Q Did you not ask the accused why he raped your sister?
A No.
COURT:
Q Why did you not ask?
A Because I wanted to bring him home.
ATTY. GARCIA:
Q Now you were able to bring the accused home, am I correct?
A Yes.
COURT:
Q Did he not resist?
A He told me that “I will not go with you” but I told him that
“you should go with me because I have something to tell you”.Q Did you not accused him of molesting your sister?
A No.
Q Why did you not?
A Because I was not bringing with me a bolo.
Q What is that bolo for?
A Because I’m apprehensive if he has a weapon, I am afraid of my life.[16]
It would appear that instead of showing contempt and anger for his
sister’s outrage, Franklin Baldomar showed great courtesy and civility
toward accused-appellant.
Indeed, the evidence of the prosecution, particularly the
testimonies of complainant and her brother, Franklin Baldomar, tends to
substantiate accused-appellant’s claim that he and complainant were
former sweethearts, and that complainant wanted him to live with her and
had him practically kidnapped. Although accused-appellant denies that
he raped her, the fact is that when examined the day after the alleged
incident, complainant’s hymen showed a tear and there was bleeding. The
examining physician said this could have been due to sexual intercourse,
consensually engaged in for the first time. Dr. Maria Delia Amahit
said:[17]
Atty. Garcia:
Q Doctor, in your medical certificate you noted that there was a
hymenal tear. My question is: Is it possible, doctor that this hymenal
tear can be caused by a voluntary sexual intercourse?A It could be caused by a voluntary sexual intercourse if it happened for the first time.
Q Likewise you also noted that the hymen is distensible in
which a foreign object can easily penetrate and further there was also a
laceration of the hymen. My question is: can this also be caused by a
voluntary sexual intercourse?A It could be.
The foregoing observations place in grave doubt the claim of
complainant and raises the suspicion that complainant was not raped, but
that she and accused-appellant were lovers who were having a tryst. The
trial court, however, paid more attention to the weakness of
accused-appellant’s evidence, especially his defense of alibi, and
overlooked the improbability of the prosecution’s claim that
accused-appellant committed rape.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is
REVERSED and accused-appellant Edwin Dagangan is ACQUITTED for failure
of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Melo, Puno, and Martinez, JJ., concur.
[1] E.g., People v.
Manansala, G.R. Nos. 110974-81, June 17, 1997; People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA
676 (1995); People v. Sanchez, 250 SCRA 14 (1995); People v. Teves, 246
SCRA 236 (1995); People v. Tacipit, 242 SCRA 241 (1995).
[2] Per Judge Enrique C. Garravillo.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Rollo, pp. 94-97.
[5] Id., pp. 45-47.
[6] Id., pp. 67-69.
[7] Id., pp. 67-69.
[8] Id., pp. 47-57.
[9] TSN, p. 11, Nov. 17, 1993.
[10] Id., p. 19.
[11] TSN, p. 6, April 13, 1994.
[12] Id., p. 7.
[13] TSN, pp. 14-15, July 14, 1994.
[14] TSN, pp. 3-4, Dec. 2, 1993.
[15] Id., p. 5.
[16] Id., pp. 14-15.
[17] TSN, p. 6, Nov. 17, 1993.