THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO HIZON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The complainant claims
she was raped by the accused-appellant, but the latter insists he was in church
at the time of the alleged offense.  The
trial court rejected his pious protestations and sentenced him to life imprisonment.  He now
imputes several errors to the decision and asks that it be reversed.

According to the
complainant, the crime took place on January 25, 1976, at a fair on Marcela Street in Caloocan City, at about seven o’clock in the morning.  Maria Cristina Cabañero,
who was then sixteen years old, was walking around with her friend, Marilou Castillo, also a deaf-mute like her and two years
younger, when they were attracted by the poster of a so-called “Wonder
Woman” with small deformed hands. 
They went inside the booth although there was no show at the time.  They seated themselves.  Soon Ricardo Hizon,
the accused-appellant, came in and sat beside Cristina.  Without further ado, he touched her
breast.  Cristina’s reaction was to ask Marilou to change places with her.  Marilou
refused.  Cristina then suggested that the
two of them leave, but again Marilou refused.  But when Ricardo told her to go out, Marilou did, leaving the other two together.  It was then that Ricardo started to force his
attentions on her, causing her to fall and bump her head on the ground and rendering
her unconscious.  When she came to, the
accused-appellant was removing her clothes. 
She continued her resistance and boxed him, but he was finally able to
satisfy his lust on her.^[1]

Continuing the story, Julieta Cabañero testified that a
week after her daughter’s return to their house in February (she had left on
January 7, 1976, to stay with Marilou) she brought
Cristina to a doctor because she was sick with flu and had a bleeding.  After examination, it was discovered that she
had suffered a miscarriage. 
Two months later, on April 15, 1976, Cristina confessed that she had been raped,
and the two of them then went to the police to file a complaint.^[2]

The case was investigated
by Detective Teodorico Ariñas
of the Caloocan City Police.  According to him, it was he who arrested
Ricardo Hizon after he was pointed to by Cristina as
her attacker.  She confirmed her initial
identification of the accused-appellant when she again picked him out at a
police line-up.  He also stated that he
took Cristina’s statement with the aid of an interpreter on May 6, 1976, in
which she described her assailant as “kulot po ang buhok,
pangit, maitim, may bigote at balbas na kaunti, nakapolong
puti na maiksi
ang manggas at dalawang bulsa at pantalong murang brown at nakatsinelas na dilaw na goma
x x x.”^[3]

The accused-appellant’s defense was alibi and mistaken
identity.  He argued that he did not fit
the description given by Cristina which could have applied to some other
employee in the fair.  Moreover, he was
not an announcer or barker for the sideshow, as described by the complainant,
but in fact was assigned to other chores such as setting up the booths, the
mini-grocery, and the games.  In any
case, he was not at the fair grounds in the morning of January 25, 1976, having left at about 4:30 o’clock a.m. for Pasig, Rizal,
with his wife and their daughter, who was to be baptized that day at the Immaculate
Conception Church.^[4]

According to him, they arrived at his sister’s house at 80 M. H.
del Pilar, Sto. Tomas, Pasig, at half past five in the morning, staying there until 10:30 o’clock that same morning, when he left
for the church with his wife, their daughter, and Rogelio Romero, where they
met Felix Dacanay, and Teresita Gutierrez.  The baptism was finished at a quarter to twelve that morning and was followed with a small
party at his sister’s house.^[5]

He was corroborated by
his sister, Vivian Ceruelos, who affirmed his
presence in her house at the time of the alleged rape^[6]; Corazon Centeno,
the owner of the “feria” and Aurora Naabay, the so-called “Wonder Woman” who both
said he was not at the fair on the morning in question^[7]; Rogelio Romero, who paid the baptismal fees
and received a receipt therefor^[8]; and Elpidio Gapud, the parish registrar of the church, who certified to the baptism of
the accused-appellant’s child on January 25, 1976.^[9]
A seventh witness, Gorgonio
Hizon, testified that Julieta
Cabañero offered to withdraw the complaint against
his son for a cash settlement of P15,000.00. 
This offer was rejected because he said his son was innocent.^[10]

After evaluating the
evidence of the parties, Judge Fernando A. Cruz of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal found
the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  His alibi was rejected and his identification
by Cristina accepted.  The trial court gave full credence to the testimony of the complainant,
pointing out that she had no reason for implicating Ricardo if he was not
really her assailant.  It observed that
the accused-appellant would have taken only 30 minutes by jeep ride to reach Caloocan City from Pasig and that
in any event the corroboration of his relatives and friends was not
reliable.  Furthermore, the certification
of the parish registrar did not necessarily prove that Hizon
was present at his daughter’s baptism as he was not a signatory of the
baptismal certificate.  The judge added:

Moreover, the accused could have easily exculpated himself and
narrated the facts of which he is now swearing for the Court to believe had he
given his statement to the police when they requested it, if it is true that he
was not at the place of the crime when the same happened.  As it appears, he chooses not and no
explanation was advanced for
said conduct thereby admitting that the imputation against him is true.^[11]

The Court disagrees with
the trial court.  We find that the
accused-appellant’s guilt has not been clearly established to overcome the
constitutional presumption of
innocence in his favor.

Contrary to the findings
of the trial judge, the evidence for the prosecution is slipshod and hardly
credible.  The mere fact that the
complainant is a deaf-mute is no assurance that she is telling the truth nor
should it excuse the implausibilities of her testimony.

Cristina says she and Marilou Castillo entered the booth of the “Wonder
Woman” although there was no show at the time as it was seven o’clock in the morning.  She said they seated themselves, but one may
ask why, as there was nothing to wait for. 
When, according to her, Ricardo sat beside her and touched her breast, she
did not get angry or resist – all she did was ask Marilou
to change places with her.  The natural
thing to do would have been to stand
up and leave but she did
not.  Improbably, she stayed behind even
when Marilou herself went out, leaving her alone with
Ricardo.

As for the alleged rape itself, it has not been clearly
established that she was forced to submit to Ricardo’s will.  She says she had recovered consciousness when
she was raped but admitted that Ricardo had no weapon to threaten her with, nor
did she present any torn clothes to show she had been forcibly undressed.  In fact, there was no evidence at all of the
rape itself.  No physician or medical report was presented to prove
Cristina’s violation.  What Julieta said was that her daughter had a miscarriage but
that did not mean she had been raped.

No less significantly, Cristina reported the alleged rape only in
April 1976, almost three months after her supposed violation on January 25, 1976, and only after her miscarriage was
discovered two months earlier.  Indeed,
after the alleged incident, the complainant did not immediately go home to
report to her parents but continued staying with her friend Marilou
until February, when she returned to her family.

Cristina claims she was afraid, but there is no showing that she
had been threatened, either during the actual rape or thereafter.  She herself testified as follows:

ATTY. JOSE MEJIA:

Q     After this alleged incident, why did you
not file a complaint immediately to any police agency of the Government?

A      I am afraid, sir.

Q     Other than the bumping of your head by the
accused, did the accused do anything to you
on January 25, 1976?

A      Yes, sir.

Q     Did you see whether the accused used a revolver or knife before or during the time that he was raping
you?

A      None, sir.

Q     Did he threaten you that he will do
something against you should you report the matter to the police?

A      Yes, sir.

Q     Describe to the Honorable Court the threat
which according to you, was made by the accused?

ATTY.
MEJIA:

We
just would like to make of record that despite the lapse of one minute, the
witness cannot answer the question.

WITNESS:

A
     I am afraid, sir.

ATTY.
MEJIA:

Q     In other words, the accused did nothing to
you except the fact that you were afraid, is that correct?

A      Yes, sir.

Q     Then
why did you not report immediately this matter to any police officer?

A      I am afraid.

Q     You
mean to tell the Honorable Court for a period of six months, you are still afraid?

A      Yes, sir.^[12]

The Court also looks
askance at the detailed description given by Cristina on May 6,
1976, of the person
who attacked her almost four months earlier. 
She even remembered that her assailant’s shirt had two pockets, but she
also said she was raped on a Friday
although the day was actually a Sunday. 
It is also not easy to believe that she would have been attacked inside
an unlocked booth with the “Wonder Woman” sleeping nearby and Marilou looking at her ravishment, by Cristina’s own
account.

And if it is true that Marilou
did see Cristina being raped, why did she not immediately run for help to save her friend?  And
why was she not presented at the trial as an important material witness?  As we observed in People v. Tempongko^[13]:

One also wonders why Rosalita Quinto, the complainant’s companion on the night of the
alleged rape, and who was supposed to be in the room when the complainant
claimed she was ravished, was
not presented as a witness by
the prosecution.  It is not often that
the prosecution has the good fortune of an
actual eyewitness in cases like this, and yet neither the fiscal nor the
private prosecutor saw fit to ask Rosalita to corroborate the testimony of Lolita.  Instead, they presented only the parents of
Lolita who testified on what happened after, and not before and during, the
alleged rape.

The trial court belittles
the accused-appellant’s alibi because it is corroborated only by his relatives
and friends but this should not make the defense per se
invalid.  One can accept that when there
is a baptismal followed by a small party, only
relatives and close friends will be in attendance.  And it is also not believable, contrary
to the suggestion in the decision, that Hizon, who
was already in Pasig, would ride back to Caloocan City to commit the rape, and on the very morning
of his daugther’s baptism to boot, especially in the
face of the contrary testimony that he never left his sister’s house until
10:30 a.m. to bring the child to church. 
The defense also submits that Ricardo has straight and not curly hair
and is not “pangit” (although there is no
claim that he is handsome).  As for Gorgonio Hizon’s charge that Julieta Cabañero had offered to
settle the case for a fee, this was never rebutted and so was impliedly
accepted by the prosecution.

In this jurisdiction, the
accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and this by the
strongest evidence removing all doubt about his guilt.  That evidence has not been established by the
prosecution.  There was no medical proof
of the rape itself, nor was it shown that the complainant had been forced or
threatened to submit to her alleged attacker. 
The trial court relied only on the complainant’s identification
of the accused-appellant, disregarding the important fact that her friend, who
she said had witnessed the rape, did not testify to support her.  As for Ricardo’s failure to deny the charge
against him when he was investigated by the police, the judge erred in holding
this as evidence of guilt.  The
accused-appellant had the right to remain silent during his custodial
investigation if he preferred to make his denials at another time.  And such silence should not have been taken
against him.

The Court finds that it
is the complainant’s conduct that is questionable or at least difficult to
understand.  On January
7, 1976, she left
her house to live with her friend Marilou
Castillo.  Although she claims she was
raped on January 25, 1976, she did not immediately report the incident
to her parents but continued staying with her friend as if nothing had
happened.  She decided to return home
only in February, but even then she said nothing about the supposed rape until three months later,
after she suffered the miscarriage.  She
claims she was afraid of Ricardo but admitted he had not threatened her with
any weapon nor could she explain her fear of him.  On top of all this, her detailed description
of her alleged rapist was hardly credible nor was it clearly applicable to the
accused-appellant.

Considering all the above circumstances, we find that the accused-appellant’s
conviction cannot be sustained.  If,
indeed, Roberto Hizon raped Cristina Cabañero, he nevertheless must be absolved because his
guilt has not been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt.  Even if it be argued that the defense is
weak, the fact is that the prosecution is even weaker and so must fail by its
own impotence.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED.  The accused-appellant is ACQUITTED and
ordered immediately RELEASED.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Exhibit “C;” Record, p. 217.

^[2]
TSN, January 31, 1977, p.
3.

^[3]
Exhibit “C;” supra.

^[4]
TSN, August 8, 1978, p. 28;
TSN, September 4, 1978, pp.
6 and 23.

^[5]
TSN, September 4, 1978, pp.
6, 10 and 16.

^[6]
TSN, March 14, 1978, p. 6.

^[7]
TSN, December 5, 1977, p.
4; TSN, February 28, 1978,
p. 25.

^[8]
TSN, January 25, 1978, p.
10.

^[9]
TSN, February 28, 1978, pp.
8-10.

^[10]
TSN, September 4, 1978, pp.
37-39.

^[11]
Rollo, p. 19.

^[12]
Rollo, p. 75.

^[13]
144 SCRA 583.