G.R. No. 34334. November 07, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIANO TIGULO AND PACIFICO VELASQUEZ, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
FERNANDO, C.J.:
This appeal from a conviction of rape presents the rather novel
feature that while appellants Mariano Tigulo and Pacifico Velasquez were named in the information, the
decision made clear that the force employed came solely from the former,
complainant Erlinda Ubaldo
thus being compelled to submit to his carnal desire. The participation of appellant Velasquez was
limited to removing her panties and holding her feet while the sexual act was
being performed. Nonetheless, as found
by the trial Judge, the extent of his cooperation was such that without his
aid, the crime could not have been committed.
The defense put up by appellant Tigulo was one
of denial. He alleged that there was an
existing illicit relationship between him and the complainant and that on the
evening in question no rape was committed.
According to his version, he went at the time and place of assignation. Once there, they started kissing each other,
with her allowing him to caress her on various parts of her body. There was, however, no opportunity to engage
in sexual intercourse as her mother appeared on the scene. In a very exhaustive decision with a detailed
scrutiny of the evidence submitted by both the prosecution and defense, the
then Judge Placido C. Ramos convicted both accused of
the crime of rape and sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua as well as to the indemniĀfication of the
complainant in the sum of P20,000.00, with accessories provided for by
law. Considering the gravity of the
penalty imposed on those found guilty of the offense of rape, this Court took
particular pains in scrutinizing carefully the testimonies offered by the complainant
as well as the accused. There is justification for the decision
reached. Rape was committed. The amount of the indemnification though must
be decreased. To that extent, the
judgment is modified.
Erlinda Ubaldo
was on the evening of May 4, 1969
in her house in a rather isolated place in a rural site in Pacac,
Guimba, Nueva Ecija.[1]
With her were her four children, the oldest of whom was seven (7) years old.[2]
Her husband was away, working in the house of the then Governor of Nueva Ecija.[3]
Sometime about seven o’clock, she
went downstairs to get firewood for the rice she was cooking.[4]
She was surprised by the sudden appearance of appellant who immediately covered
her mouth, pointed a gun at her[5]
and, by means of force took her to a place, east of her house.[6]
She resisted but to no avail, as the other appellant Velasquez was also there
to help.[7]
It was the latter, who held her legs and pulled down her panties.[8]
Then Tigulo had carnal intercourse with her.[9]
She could not shout, as he placed one hand on her mouth and the other pinned
down below her nape.[10]
In the meanwhile, her mother, Francisca Pagaling,
whose house was adjacent,[11]
heard her grandchildren crying.[12]
With a flashlight, she looked for Erlinda.[13]
She was thus able to observe Erlinda being ravished.[14]
The two accused then fled.[15]
The mother was informed of the act perpetrated on her.[16]
Forthwith, they went to Anselmo Magbitang,
a barrio captain of Pacac, Guimba,
to complain.[17]
On their way, they were accosted by appellant Velasquez with the threat that
they would be killed should he be implicated.[18]
That led Erlinda not to include his name in her
complaint to their barrio captain.[19]
They also went to the Chief of Police of Guimba where
Erlinda’s statement was taken.[20]
Upon advice of the Chief of Police,[21]
Erlinda underwent a physical examination in the
provincial hospital at Cabanatuan
City conducted by Dr. Flor Dayao the following day.[22]
She was issued a medical certificate,[23]
which revealed the “presence of old healed lacerations at 1,4,5, 6 and 8
at the face of the clock.”[24]
According to Dr. Dayao, it was possible that the
lacerations were caused by sexual intercourse.[25]
Thereafter, Erlinda Ubaldo
filed a complaint of rape against both accused Tigulo
and Velasquez in the municipal court of Guimba.[26]
Based on the above testimony where the conviction of both accused
was predicated, the lower court careĀfully took into consideration the defense
offered by appellants. It was its
conclusion, however, as earlier pointed out, that the evidence of record
sufficed for a conviction. To repeat,
such a finding must be accorded credence although the participation of
appellant Velasquez should be that of an accomplice.
1. The contention vigorously pressed by appellant Tigulo is that the testimony offered by complainant failed
to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.[27]
Appellant could very well rely on such a constitutional guarantee. Time and again this Court has stressed the
significance of such a safeĀguard to the rights of an accused person. In a leading case of People v. Dramayo,[28]
it was made clear: “Only if the
judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the
crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an
exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance
favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test
of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the
defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not
only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is moral
certainty.”[29]
Such a principle has guided this Court
in several recent decisions.[30] From the evidence of record, it is quite
apparent that the lower court did not ignore it. The stage of moral certainty was certainly
reached. Hence, such a defense is unĀavailing.
2. To bolster their argument of the constiĀtutional presumption of
innocence not having been overcome, appellants would impugn the findings of
fact. Counsel did try his best to make
out a case for a reversal but the attempt was unsuccessful. It is understandable why. The principle well-entrenched in our
jurisprudence is that the conclusion reached by the trial judge which has the
opportunity to observe the witnesses testify as to what did transpire is
entitled to full respect unless of course it could be demonstrated that there
was a failure to judge correctly the significance of a fact or circumstance or
what is worse, that it was ignored. The
first case of such consequence, United States
v. Pico,[31]
came from the pen of Justice Moreland, a 1910 decision. Since then, this Court has been committed to
such a view.[32]
Moreover, independently of such a doctrine of long standing, the very defenses
offered by the accused would justify the credence that was paid to the evidence
for the prosecution. If it were true
that there was really an illicit relationship between complainant and appellant
Tigulo, it defies rational explanation why he needed to have a companion that night they
were supposed to have an assignation, the very concept of which, especially
where the other party is a married woman, calls for the utmost secrecy. A third party under such circumstances is
decidedly unwelcome. Even if only for
the sake of mutual enjoyment, the exclusion of any other participant is of the
essence. Yet in this case, appellant Velasquez
was clearly identified by the complainant and her mother. What is worse, there is evidence of his
threat to kill them if they would reveal his participation. His defense of alibi, inherently weak in
itself, is completely discredited.
Clearly then, appellants have not made out a case for acquittal.
WHEREFORE, appellants Mariano Tigulo
and Pacifico Velasquez are convicted of the crime of
rape and each of them sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Each of the accused is likewise sentenced to indemnify the offended
party in the amount of P12,000.00, as well as to suffer the accessory penalties
imposed by law. As thus modified, the judgment stands
affirmed.
Barredo, Antonio, Aquino,
Concepcion, Jr., Santos, and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.
[1]
T.s.n., Session of July 7, 1970, 2-3.
[2]
Ibid, 3.
[3]
Ibid, 4.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Ibid, 5.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid, 5-6.
[9]
Ibid, 6-7.
[10]
Ibid, 12-13.
[11]
T.s.n., Session of July 29, 1970, 58-59.
[12]
Ibid, 62.
[13]
Ibid, 63.
[14]
Ibid, 63-64.
[15]
Ibid, 64.
[16]
Ibid, 66-67.
[17]
Ibid, 68.
[18]
Ibid, 69.
[19]
T.s.n., Session of July 7, 1970, 27.
[20]
T.s.n., Session of July 29, 1970, 72-73.
[21]
Ibid, 73.
[22]
T.s.n., Session of December 2, 1970, 2.
[23]
Ibid, 2 and Exhibit B.
[24]
Ibid, 3.
[25]
Ibid, 5.
[26]
T.s.n., Session of July 7, 1970, 10.
[27]
According to Article IV, Section 19 of the Constitution: “In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,* * *.ā
[28]
L-21325, October 29, 1971,
42 SCRA 59.
[29]
Ibid, 64.
[30]
Cf. People v. Molina, L-30191, Oct.
27, 1973, 53 SCRA 495; People v. Zamora,
L-34090, Nov. 26, 1973, 54
SCRA 47; People v. Alvarez, L-34644, Jan. 17, 1974, 55 SCRA 81; People v. Barbo, LĀ-30988, March
29, 1974. 56 SCRA 459; People v. Roa,
L-35284, Jan. 17, 1975, 62 SCRA 51; People v. Joven,
L-36022, May 22, 1975, 64 SCRA 126; People v. Cawili,
L-30543, July 15, 1975, 65 SCRA 24; People v. Ogapay,
L-28566, Aug. 21, 1975, 66 SCRA 209; People v. Padirayon,
L-39207, Sept. 25, 1975, 67 SCRA 135; People v. Ramirez, L-30635-6, Jan.
29, 1976, 69 SCRA 144; People v. Andal, L-39763, March 8, 1976, 70 SCRA 30;
People v. Lopez, L-41974, Nov. 29, 1976, 74 SCRA 205; People v.
Montero, L-33155, April 22, 1977, 76 SCRA 437; People v. Poblador, L-44129, April 29, 1977, 77 SCRA 140; People v.
Marcina, L-29912, May 31, 1977, 77 SCRA 238; People v.
Quiazon, L-44299, Aug. 31, 1977, 78 SCRA 513.
[31]
15 Phil. 549.
[32]
Cf. People v. Augcap, L-28748, Feb. 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 437; People v.
Carandang, L-31012, Aug. 15, 1973, 52 SCRA 259;
People v. Cudalina, L-34969, April 29, 1975,
63 SCRA 499; People v. Ordonio, L-33829, Dec.
19, 1975, 68 SCRA 397; People v. Sarile,
L-37184, June 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 593; People v. Velasco, L-31922, Oct.
29, 1976, 73 SCRA 574; People v. VillaĀmala,
L-41312, July 29, 1977, 78 SCRA 145; People v. Rapada,
L-31243, Oct. 28, 1977, 80 SCRA 63; People v. Gorgoles,
L-40885, May 18, 1978, 83 SCRA 282; People v. Conchada,
L-39367-69, Feb. 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 638.