G.R. No. 50669. March 12, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GRACIANO OLALIA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Pangasinan, Branch X, San Carlos City, in Criminal Case No. SCC-317 for
Forcible Abduction with Rape, which convicted the accused, Graciano
Olalia, Jr., of the crime charged and imposed the sentence of reclusion perpetua.
The People’s version of the incident is summed up in its Brief as follows:
“On February 25, 1975, Julita Macaraeg, the complainant, sixteen
(16) years old, provinciana, was a first year high school student at
Bayambang National High School in Bayambang, Pangasinan. She was
dismissed from her classes at 5 o’clock in the afternoon. She started
for home at around 5:30 P.M. as she was asÂsigned ‘cleaner’ for that
day.
While walking alone along the National Highway in Barrio Nibaliw,
Bautista, Pangasinan, she met Graciano Olalia, Jr., the accused, who was
driving a Yamaha tricycle. Suddenly, the accused stopped his tricycle
near the complainant, and invited her for a ride. She refused the offer
and thereafter, ran along the road going to their house. The accused
jumped off his tricycle and ran after her. She stumbled and was about
to shout when the accused caught up with her, covered her mouth and
slapped her several times. As a result, she got dizzy. She still
refused to ride but the accused pulled her and threatened her with a
balisong.
While she was inside the tricycle an old woman passed by and told the
accused ‘do not force a person to be your passenger to ride on your
tricycle.’ The accused countered that ‘she is my cousin.’ Before the
accused brought complainant to the house of Puring (Eugenia Mabanglo)
and Joaquin, accused’s cousin and uncle respectively, he tied her hand
to the right side and left hand to the left side of the tricycle. Upon
reaching Puring and Joaquin’s house, the accused talked to the occupants
of the house. The accused untied complainant’s hands and pulled her up
to the balcony of the house. The complainant saw Puring and Joaquin
inÂside a room, peeping at them.
She called for help but the accused slapped her several times,
threatened her with a balisong and bit her on her cheeks. Afterwards,
the accused pushed complainant to the floor and tied her hand to the
floor made of bamboo slits. With her feet apart, the accused got
another rope and tied her ankles to the floor. The accused also tied a
handÂkerchief on complainant’s mouth. The complainant resisted
accused’s advances by wiggling her head, but accused slapped her, and
laughed at the scar on her stomach. Thereafter accused violated
complainant’s womanhood. (pp. 8-25, TSN, March,10, 1976; pp. 29-Â46,
TSN, July 16, 1976).
All night, the accused guarded complainant. He drank wine for supper
whereas complainant was not given anything. The accused released the
complainant at around 6:00 A.M. on February 26, 1975, with a warning not
to make any report; that if she makes a report and he sees her, he
would kill her. Upon release, complainant went straight home.
Upon reaching their house, she found no one at home. Her mother was in
Manila at that time. Complainant’s mother arrived from Manila in the
second week of March 1975. Upon being confronted by her mother, she
admitted that the accused abducted and abused her. Thereafter, they
filed a compIaint with the PC Headquarters in Bayambang, Pangasinan.
(pp. 20, 23-25, Tsn. March 10, 1976; p. 1, Tsn, June 15, 1976; pp.
56-61, tsn. September 8, 1976).”[1]
Additionally, Laura Vda. de Macaraeg, complainant’s mother, testified
that she arrived in Pangasinan from Manila on March 16, 1975; that on
March 21, 1975 her friend, Loleng Ventinilla Olalia, an aunt-in-law of
the accused, sent for her and told her “your daughter is pitiful; she
was abused by Jr. in the house of Joaquin; that Joaquin did not even
help her on the contrary he is broadcasting in front of the store to the
people”.[2] It was after
receiving that information that the mother confronted complainant who
admitted that she had, in fact, been abducted and abused but that she
was afraid to disclose it because of threats to kill by the accused.
That same afternoon, mother and daughter went to the Philippine
Constabulary (PC) to lodge a complaint and two days later they went to
the San Carlos Hospital where complainant underwent a physical
examination.
The physician’s medico-legal certificate, dated March 23, 1975 (Exhibit “A”), indicated the following findings:
“No laceration of hymen but vagina op admits 2 fingers easily without pain.
“Laboratory Findings:
“Pregnancy test – negative.”
Complainant’s mother further declared that notwithstanding Loleng
Ventinilla’s revelation, she did not conÂfront Puring and Joaquin about
the incident[3] , and that when she asked Loleng to testify, the latter declined because the accused’s father is her brother-in-law.[4]
In defense, the accused interposed alibi stating that on the date of the
incident he did not ply his trade as a tricycle driver because he was
at his father’s place at Sinabaan, Bautista, Pangasinan, the whole day
helping him plant onions; that thereafter, he also helped in the
preparation and construction of voting booths, which were to be used in
the referendum of February 27, 1975. His testimony was corroborated by
his father and by Genaro Macasieb, a Barrio Councilman. His cousin,
Eugenia (Puring) Mabanglo, the owner of the house where the alleged rape
took place, testified that she did not see the accused on the date of
the incident; that she did not know complainant; and that the latter
never set foot on her (Eugenia’s) house. Laureana Ventinilla Olalia,
both in her Affidavit taken by the PC and in her testimony, deÂclared
that she did not know complainant nor did she see the latter in the
evening of the incident.
After trial, the lower Court meted out a verdict of guilty, thus:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused Graciano Olalia, Jr., guilty
beyond the shadow of doubt of the crime of Abduction with Rape as
charged in the information defined and penalized under Article 335 in
relation to Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences
him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to indemnify the offended party in the mount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment.”
Challenging said Decision, accused now alleges:
“The lower court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the
alleged victim and in not deciding the case in accordance with Supreme
Court decisions.”
The issue raised centers on the credibility of comÂplainant’s testimony.
We start with some basic principles. It is well established that on
matters of credibility, the Appellate Court will generally not disturb
the findÂings of the Trial Court, as the latter is in a better position
to decide said question, having heard the witnesses themselves and
having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and
value, which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
Further, in crimes against chastity, conviction or acquittal of the
accused depends almost entirely on the credibility of complainant’s
testimony.[5] While rape is a
detestable crime, it is an accusation easy to make, hard to prove, and
still harder to defend by the person accused[6]
, so that such charge, based upon the lone and uncorroborated testimony
of the victim, must be regarded with utmost caution and examined with
the greatest care. To warrant conviction, the testimony of the victim
must be clear and free from serious contradicÂtions, and her sincerity
and candor, free from suspicion.[7]
The evidence to be believable must not only proceed from the mouth of a
credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common
experience and observations of mankind can approve as probable under the
circumstances.[8]
Complainant declared that after the accused forced her to ride in his
tricycle at about 5:30 in the afternoon of February 25, 1975 at Barrio
Nibaliw, Bayambang, PangaÂsinan, which is along the National Highway[9]
, an old woman saw them and advised the accused not to force anyone to
ride in his tricycle but that he replied that she was his cousin and the
woman went her way; thereafter, the accused tied her right hand to the
right side of the triÂcycle, her left hand to the left side, bound her
feet together, and covered her mouth, presumably with a piece of cloth.
He then drove around before bringing her to the house of his first
cousin, Puring (Eugenia) Mabanglo, at Bongato West, Bayambang,
Pangasinan[10] ; that while
driving the tricycle with one hand, the accused was pointing a
“balisong” at her neck with the other; that they arrived at Puring’s
house at around 7:00 P.M.[11] or 8:00 P.M.[12]
where the accused forcibly pulled her up the stairs to the balcony of
the house; that Puring and her father Joaquin, who were in the house and
saw her struggling with accused, did not come to her succor despite her
motions for help[13] ; that
the accused bound both her arms close to her body with a rope wound
around her waist, tied her ankles which were spread apart, also with a
rope, to the flooring of the balcony made of bamboo slits spaced from
each other at about the size of a ring finger, covered her mouth with a
handkerchief knotted at the back of her head[14] , and thereafter abused her; that she saw Puring and Joaquin peeping at them without doing anything[15] ; she beckoned to them but they hid because a balisong was pointed at her neck.[16] Puring is the beautician of her mother and they are friends but the former did nothing; she just watched.[17]
The above narration of events by complainant does not strike us as
positively credible, probable, and entirely in accord with human
experience. When the accused replied to the old woman that complainant
was her cousin, complainant said nothing to refute it so that at least
the woman could have helped or could have reported the incident. There
is no evidence either that Puring Mabanglo and her father, Joaquin, had
prior knowledge of the accused’s intention to abduct and molest
complainant. Yet, they did not even demand an explanation nor evince
surprise upon seeing the accused with a lady passenger bound to his
tricycle, who after being untied, was forcibly pulled up the stairs to
the balcony of their house by the accused. There is no proof either
that father and daughter were so terrified of the accused that they
could not even utter a word of protest at the latter’s actuations.
Neither was it shown that they were threatened by the accused not to
interfere. Complainant merely stated that the accused talked to the
occupants of the house in a loud voice while pulling her up the stairs.[18]
It challenges credulity that any individual, man or woman, would be so
callous as to tolerate, abet, or condone the commission of a crime as
serious as rape in his/her abode without lifting a finger or trying to
stop the offender specially if the latter be a younger relation, and
would even go as far as to “watch” the employment of force against a
hapless girl and the violation of her person. Puring, being a woman, a
beautician, and a friend of complainant’s mother could not have been so
passive and indifferent to the dastardly act of the accused, her cousin.
And considering the nature of the offense, it is most unlikely that
the culprit would select a place where detection would have been
obvious. ComplainÂant was allegedly abused at an inhabited house
abutting the street[19] , in the balcony thereof [20] , which even if walled might still be viewed from the stairs as the balcony adjoins the same[21] , and on a flooring made of slit bamboo, with visibility from underneath.
Complainant alleged that Puring and Joaquin could not come to her aid
because the accused was pointing a “balisong” at her throat. Neither
one of them, however, faced threats to their life so that they could
have asked for outside assistance, or could have even appealed to the
accused to desist from employing force and satisfying his bestial
desires. Moreover, accused could not have been pointing the weapon at
complainant’s throat all the time. He must have put it down when he
allegedly tied complainant’s arms and ankles and covered her mouth with a
handkerchief, which he could not have done with one hand only.
It is noteworthy, too, that complainant did not immediately report her
misfortune to her brothers and sisters, to the police, nor to barangay
authorities much less to her mother upon the latter’s arrival from
Manila. The mother allegedly came to know of the incident only through
Loleng Olalia, accused’s aunt.[22] It was only upon being confronted by her mother that complainant inÂformed her of the same.[23]
The physical examination of complainant conducted on March 23, 1975, or
26 days after the alleged incident, showed: “No laceration of hymen but
vaginal op admits 2 fingers easily without pain.”[24]
In respect thereof, the examining physician declared that there was
“no history of any pain” and that “in the passage there should be pain
elicited upon introduction of the finger even with one finger only”.
The likelihood, therefore, exists that complainant surrendered her
virginity willingly at some other place, considering the medical finding
that complainant was no longer a virgin at the time of the examination.[25]
Although the accused’s defense of alibi has not been proven as
satisfactorily as to leave no room for doubt since he was not far from
the vicinity of the crime scene, this cannot be the basis of conviction,
the rule being that in a criminal prosecution, the State must rely on
the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakÂness of the
defense.[26] An aura of
improbability surÂrounds the manner in which the alleged rape was
committed. Complainant’s testimony is far from satisfactory and
convincing. If a reasonable doubt exists in the mind as to the
commission or rape, as in this case, the verdict must be one of
acquittal.[27]
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction of the Trial Court is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE, and the accused is hereby acquitted, upon reasonable doubt,
of the crime with which he has been charged.
Costs de officio.
SO ORDERED.
Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., (Chairman), on official leave.
[1] pp. 3-5, Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee.
[2] T.s.n., September 8, 1976, p. 60.
[3] T.s.n., ibid., p. 66.
[4] T.s.n., ibid., p. 67.
[5] People vs. Ilagan, 64 SCRA 170(1975); People vs. Bardaje, 99 SCRA 388 (1980).
[6] People vs. Reyes, 60 SCRA 126 (1974).
[7] People vs. Lacuña, 87 SCRA 364 (1978).
[8] People vs. Garcia, 89 SCRA 440 (1979).
[9] T.s.n., July 16, 1976, p. 31.
[10] T.s.n., ibid., pp. 35-36.
[11] T.s.n., March 10, 1976, p. 14.
[12] T.s.n., July 16, 1976, p. 36.
[13] T.s.n., ibid., pp. 40-41.
[14] T.s.n., ibid., pp. 42-45.
[15] T.s.n., March 10, 1976, p. 17.
[16] T.s.n., July 16, 1976, p. 45.
[17] T.s.n., September 7, 1976, p. 51.
[18] T.s.n., July 16, 1976, p. 40.
[19] T.s.n., March 11, 1977, p. 117.
[20] T.s.n., March 10, 1976, p. 21.
[21] T.s.n., July 1, 1977, p.88; t.s.n., March 11, 1977, p. 117.
[22] T.s.n., September 8, 1976, pp. 60-61.
[23] T.s.n., ibid., p. 61.
[24] Exhibit “A”, p. 1, List of Exhibits, Records of Criminal Case No. SCC-317.
[25] T.s.n., March 10, 1976, p. 7.
[26] People vs. Basuel, 47 sCRA 207 (1972).
[27] People vs. Nazareno, 80 SCRA 484 (1977).