THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELICIANO GOROSPE AND RUFINO BULANADI, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

In a verified complaint filed on October 8, 1974, with the Municipal
Court of Pulilan, Bulacan, ANASTACIA DE JESUS accused GERARDO FAJARDO,
RUFINO BULANADI and FELICIANO GOROSPE of the crime of forcible abduction
with rape. (Expediente, p. 1.) The crime was said to have
been committed on September 30, 1974, starting in Plaridel, Bulacan,
thru Pulilan, and thence to Talavera, Nueva Ecija.

Municipal Judge Alfredo V. Granados of the Municipal Court of Pulilan
received the complaint and conducted a preliminary investiga­tion, first
stage.

On October 25, 1974, the Complaint was amended. Rufino Bulanadi and
Feliciano Gorospe were again named but Gerardo Fajardo was dropped and
OSCAR ALVARAN was named instead. The date when the crime was said to
have been committed was changed from September 30, 1974, to September
25, 1974. (Id., p. 41.)

Again Judge Granados conducted a preliminary investigation and on
November 18, 1974, he issued an order for the arrest of Bulanadi,
Gorospe and Alvaran and fixed their bail at P15,000.00 each. (Id., p. 70.)

Bulanadi and Gorospe posted the requisite bail. Alvaran remained at large.

The second stage of the preliminary investigation was set on February 5,
1975, but on that day neither Bulanadi or Gorospe appeared for which
reason Judge Granados declared that they had waived their right thereto
and elevated the case to the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. (Id., p. 87.)

On March 19, 1975, Provincial Fiscal Pascual C. Kliatchko filed with the
CFI of Bulacan an information for forcible abduction with rape against
Gorospe and Bulanadi. It was docketed as Criminal Case No. 1293-M. (Id., p. 88.) But on July 25, 1975, Fiscal Kliatchko filed an amended information which reads:

“That on or about the 25th day of September, 1974, in the
municipality of Plaridel, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Feliciano
Gorospe and Rufino Bulanadi, together with one Oscar Alvaran who is
still at large, conspiring and confederating together and helping one
another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by
means of force, violence and intimidation, and with lewd design abduct
the complaining witness Anastacia de Jesus, an unmarried woman, 14 years
of age, by then and there taking and carrying her to Talavera, Nueva
Ecija, against her will and without her consent, and upon arrival there,
the said accused by means of violence, force and intimidation have
carnal knowledge of the said Anastacia de Jesus against her will and
consent.” (Id., p. 100.)

Judge Nelly L. Romero Valdellon started the trial of the case on October 15, 1975. The accused and their counsel de parte had long been notified that the case was to be tried on that day but they did not appear so the former were tried in absentia.
After hearing part of the testi­mony of Anastacia de Jesus, the
complainant, Judge Valdellon was transferred to Metro Manila and she was
replaced by Judge Fidel P. Purisima who finished the trial. But Judge
Purisima issued an order on March 10, 1976, wherein he inhibited himself
from deciding the case. He said, “Considering that Judge Alfredo V.
Granados is a first cousin by affinity of the undersigned Presiding
Judge and if only to make sure that the decision to be rendered in this
case shall be above suspicion and considering further the gravity of the
offense charged, the undersigned Presiding Judge hereby inhibits
himself from deciding this case.” (Id., pp. 386-387.) So it was Judge Jesus R. de Vega who decided the case and rendered the following judgment:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds both the herein accused
Gorospe and Bulanadi guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape committed
against Anastacia de Jesus as charged in the information. Considering
the legal principle that each of the herein accused is responsible not
only for the act of rape committed personally by him but also for the
rape committed by his other co-accused on account of the finding of
conspiracy or cooperation in the commission of the said crime charged
against them, the Court accordingly sentences each of the herein accused
Gorospe and Bulanadi to suffer two (2) perpetual penalties of reclusion
perpetua to be served in accordance with Art. 70 of the Revised Penal
Code, with all the accessory penalty of the law.

“Both accused are further ordered to indemnify Anastacia de Jesus
in the amount of P40,000.00 for actual, exemplary and moral damages; and
to pay the costs.” (Id., p. 419.)

The case is now before Us on appeal.

The People’s version of the facts is as follows:

“Complainant Anastacia de Jesus, a 14 year-old girl at the time of
the incident, single, student at the Calumpit Institute, Bulacan, and
resident of Puñgo, Calumpit, Bulacan, was, at about 10:00 a.m., of
September 25, 1974, at Plaridel, Bulacan, in front of the Caltex
Station, intending to cross the street to buy a book. She was looking
for a book, entitled “Diwang Guinto” (pp. 2-5, t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1975;
pp. 17-18, t.s.n., March 10, 1976; p. 4, t.s.n., March 11, 1976). Two
persons passed by, one of whom was appellant Rufino Bulanadi, who waived
a handkerchief across her face, which affected her consciousness and
she felt dizzy but felt that she was being held and boarded into a motor
vehicle (pp. 5-11, t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1975; p. 18, t.s.n., March 10,
1976).

“Complainant regained her full consciousness at about 8:00 o’clock
in the evening of September 25, 1974, in a nipa hut near the irrigation
pump, of Gerardo Fajardo, at Calipahan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija. Inside
she saw appellants, Feliciano Gorospe, Rufino Bulanadi, and Gerardo
Fajardo (pp. 11-14, 17, 21, t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1975). They were arguing
why she (complainant) had to be taken by appellants Rufino Bulanadi and
Feliciano Gorospe (p. 16, t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1975).

“That evening, at the said nipa hut, complainant was forced to
drink a strange tasting royal soft drink by appellant Feliciano Gorospe
and appellant Rufino Bulanadi, who held her hands (pp. 21-23, t.s.n.,
Dec. 15, 1975). After drinking the soft drink complainant lost
cons­ciousness. She woke up only the next morning with aches and pains
all over her body especially her private part. She found herself naked:
Appellants, Rufino Bulanadi and Feliciano Gorospe, were there by her
side standing when she woke up (pp. 23-26, t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1975; p. 22,
t.s.n., Jan. 12, 1976). Gerardo Fajardo was also there. All the three
of them were naked. Evidently, appellants and Gerardo Fajardo sexually
abused her (p. 27, t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1975; p. 14, t.s.n., March 10,
1976).

“Appellants and Gerardo Fajardo forcibly kept Anastacia de Jesus
for nine (9) days in the hut, with appellants, and Gerardo Fajardo
taking turns in sexually abusing her during the night. During the day
she was guarded by Oscar Alvaran.

“After her nine-day ordeal, Gerardo Fajardo brought her to the
house of Cirilo Balanagay at Bancal, Talavera, Nueva Ecija (pp. 20-23,
t.s.n., March 12, 1976). When Gerardo Fajardo left the house, Anastacia
de Jesus related to Cirilo Balanagay what the appellants and Fajardo
did to her. Cirilo Balanagay, therefore, wired Anastacia’s parents and
then brought her to the Talavera Municipal Building where she executed
an affidavit about her ordeal. She also told the PC of her harrowing
experience (pp. 23-25, t.s.n., March 12, 1976).

“When complainant was brought home, her friends readily noticed
that she was not her usual self anymore as ‘she cannot answer and she
just kept on shouting and crying and trembling’, saying ‘keep away from
me, have pity on me.’ (pp. 14-15, t.s.n., Oct. 14, 1975).

“Complainant Anastacia de Jesus was physically examined on October
6, 1974, by Dra. Norma V. Gungon who issued a medical certificate on
her findings, as follows:

‘Patient examined with the presence of a ward Nurse. She is conscious, coherent answers to questions intelligently.

Physical Examination:

Breast – symetrical, conical in shape, areola pigmented.

Mons pubis – pubic hair scanty in amount.

Internal Examination:

Hymen – presence of healed lacerations, at 11, 5, 3 o’clock.

Vaginal introctus – admits 2 fingers w/ difficulty.

Cervix – small, closed

SMEAR FOR SPERMATOZOA-NEGATIVE’

(Exh. G-1, p. 6, rec.)” (Brief, pp. 3-6.)

The appellants make the following assignment of errors:

“I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE
CRIME OF RAPE WHICH THE PROSECUTION ALLEGES TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN
TALAVERA, PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA AND NOT IN THE PROVINCE OF BULACAN.

“II. THE HONORABLE JUDGE JESUS R. DE VEGA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, BRANCH II ERRED IN RENDERING THE
DECISION APPEALED FROM WHEN HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO BECAUSE THIS
CASE WAS ENTIRELY TRIED IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN,
BRANCH I, PRESIDED OVER BY HONORABLE JUDGE FIDEL P. PURISIMA.

“III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE TESTIMONY OF GERARDO
FAJARDO WHOSE CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS NOT FINISHED DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO
APPEAR INSPITE OF A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST.

“IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED FELICIANO
GOROSPE AND RUFINO BULANADI GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
OF RAPE.” (Brief, pp. 21-22.)

The first assignment of error raises the following questions: (1) Why
was the complaint not filed in Plaridel, Bulacan or Talavera, Nueva
Ecija but in Pulilan, Bulacan? (2) Since the rape was committed in
Talavera, why was the case tried by the CFI of Bulacan and not by the
CFI of Nueva Ecija?

The above questions are easily answered. Abduction is a persistent and
continuing offense. (U.S. vs. Bernabe, 23 Phil. 154 [1912].) Hence it
may be “tried in the court of the municipality or province wherein the
offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof
took place.” (Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 14[a].) The Municipal Court
of Pulilan had jurisdiction because the abductors and their captive
passed Pulilan on their way from Plaridel to Talavera. And the CFI of
Bulacan (as well as the CFI of Nueva Ecija) had juris­diction because
essential elements of the offense took place in Bulacan (and also in
Nueva Ecija).

The second assignment of error asserts that Judge de Vega had no authority to render the decision in the case.

Judge Purisima in the order wherein he inhibited himself from deciding
the case also “ordered to have the same re-raffled off and assigned to
another branch.” The case was presumably re-raffled to Judge de Vega who
issued an order on June 23, 1978, which states, inter alia:

“Considering the foregoing, and in order to be properly guided in
the further disposition of this case, and to obviate possible objections
and criticisms which may come from any or both parties in the final
disposition thereof, the Court resolves to require the parties to submit
their respective written comments within fifteen (15) days from receipt
hereof on the propriety and advisability of the decision in this case
to be rendered by the Presiding Judge of this Court; and to call a
conference to hear further the views and arguments of the parties on
this question, which is hereby set on July 18, 1978, at 1:30 p.m. Let
notices be sent accordingly to all parties concerned.” (Expediente, p. 390.)

Neither the comments nor the memorial of the conference are in the expediente but on March 28, 1979, counsel for the accused filed a motion stating:

“2. That the above promulgation was held in abeyance, and then
the accused received the order dated June 13, 1978 where the Court
called the parties to a conference on July 18, 1978;

3. That the parties appeared before this Court on July 18, 1978;

4. That up to the present a Decision in the above entitled case has not yet been promulgated.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the above entitled case be resolved.” (Id., p. 401.)

And on June 4, 1979, Judge de Vega promulgated the decision. (Id., p. 410.)

We hold that Judge de Vega had the power to decide the case. “Where a
court of first instance is divided into several branches each of the
branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.
Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judges, so that when a
complaint or information is filed before one branch or judge,
jurisdic­tion does not attach to said branch of judge alone, to the
exclusion of the others. Trial may be had or proceedings may continue
by and before another branch or judge.” (Lumpay, et al. vs. Moscoso, 105
Phil. 968 [1959].)

It is to be recalled that in the original complaint filed by Anastacia
de Jesus before the Municipal Court of Pulilan, Gerardo Fajardo was one
of the accused. In the amended complaint, Fajardo’s name was dropped
and Oscar Alvaran was named instead. Nonetheless, when Anastacia
testified she said that she was brought to the house of Gerardo Fajardo
in Talavera, Nueva Ecija; that when she woke up after she was forced to
drink something, Fajardo was there with Gorospe and Bulanadi, and all
three were naked; that Fajardo was one of those who raped her; and that
it was Fajardo who brought her to Cirilo Balanagay.

Why was Fajardo dropped from the complaint? The record does not yield
an answer but perhaps he decided to cooperate with the complainant
because soon after she finished her testimony the prosecution presented
Fajardo as its next witness.

Fajardo testified, among other things, that he was given a lift from the
monument in Caloocan City to Nueva Ecija by Gorospe and Bulanadi; that
in Plaridel, between the market and the bridge, the two forced Anastacia
to go with them; that Anastacia was brought to his house and later
transferred to a nipa hut near an irrigation pump; that in the nipa hut
Anastacia was undressed by Gorospe; that Gorospe, Bulanadi and Alvaran
took turns in spending 20 to 30 minutes inside the hut with Anastacia;
and that, he did not have sex with her.

It can thus be seen that Fajardo was a key witness. His testimony corroborated that of Anastacia in material matters.

His direct examination took place on June 23 and 24, 1976. His
cross-examination commenced on August 4, 1976 (whole day), and was
continued on August 9, 1976. The cross-examination is recorded on pages
112 to 230 of the transcript. But the defense did not indicate that it
was through with Fajardo.

On August 9, 1976, the trial court continued the hearing to August 11, 1976. (Expediente, p. 204.) On the latter date, Fajardo failed to appear and the case was rescheduled to be heard on September 13, 1976. (Id., p. 208.) On September 13, 1976, Fajardo again failed to appear and the case was reset to September 29, 1976. (Id., p. 222.) Fajardo did not appear on September 29, 1976, so he was ordered arrested. (Id., p. 223-226.) Fajardo was not arrested but despite such fact the prosecution rested its case.

In their third assignment of error the appellants bewail the fact that
the trial court decided the case even though they had not finished
cross-examining Fajardo.

The trial court committed no error in admitting the testimony of Fajardo
although the defense had not finished its cross-examination. An
examination of the transcript of Fajardo’s testimony shows that he was
subjected to detailed cross-examination on material points. In fact,
the cross-examination was lengthier than the direct examination. We
adopt with approval the statement of the court a quo on this point:

“The records show that the counsel for the accused has extensively
cross examined Fajardo. The Court could not help but wonder what other
matters not yet touched during the cross examination of Fajardo could
still be elicited from him that would probably destroy or affect his
testimony-in-chief. If the counsel for the accused expected Fajardo to
testify further on material matters favorable to the cause of the
defense, he should have proferred such further testimony and entered
into the records how the absent witness would have testified if he were
available for further cross-examination. The failure of the said
counsel to do so indicates that every material point has been asked from
Fajardo during the time he was under examination.

“While cross-examination is a right available to the adverse
party, it is not absolute in the sense that a cross-examiner could
determine for himself the length and scope of his cross-examination of a
witness. The court has always the discretion to limit the
cross-examination and to consider it terminated if it would serve the
ends of justice.

“The Court, therefore, hereby resolves to admit the testimony of
Fajardo. This resolution finds support, though indirectly, from Section
6, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, which empowers the court to stop the
introduction of further testi­mony upon a particular point when the
evidence upon it is already so full that more to the same point cannot
reasonably be expected to be additionally persuasive. The position
herein taken by the Court in brushing aside technicalities is in
accordance with a fundamental rule that the provisions of the Rules of
Court shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and
assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding. (Section 2, Rule 1, Rules
of Court).” (Id., p. 418.)

Moreover, even if Fajardo’s testimony be disregarded the accused may nonetheless be convicted in the light of other evidence.

The fourth assignment of error raises the issue of credibility of
witnesses – those of the prosecution versus those of the defense.

The prosecution’s version has already been stated above. We now have to
consider the version of the appellants which is as follows:

“On September 30, 1974 at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, accused
Feliciano Gorospe, Barangay Captain of Andal Alinio district, Talavera,
Nueva Ecija, since 1972 up to the present and at the same time a member
of the Sangguniang Bayan of Talavera, Nueva Ecija, representing the
Barangay Group, went to the house of his friend, Reynaldo Matias at
Calipahan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, to attend a birthday party (pp.36
& 37, T.s.n., February 7, 1977, CFI). Accused Rufino Bulanadi, who
was a former councilman of Calipahan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, also
attended said party as he was also invited (p. 12, T.s.n., February 28,
1977, CFI). At about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, several teenagers
were shouting in front of the house of Gerardo Fajardo which is ONE
HUNDRED (100) METERS away from the house where the birthday party was
being held (p. 38, T.s.n., February 7, 1977 CFI). The house of Fajardo
being within his jurisdiction (pp. 39 & 40, ibid), accused Barangay
Captain Gorospe proceeded to the place where the shouts were coming
from, followed by other guests in the birthday party, among whom was
Councilman Rufino Bulanadi (p. 39, ibid). There were 2 groups of
teenagers who were at odds with each other. One was the group of Gil
Nocum and the other, the group of Isagani Castro. Barrio Captain
Gorospe talked with the two (2) groups of teenagers and he was informed
that Fajardo who promised to give a woman to one group made the same
commitment with respect to the same woman to the other group (pp. 41
& 42, ibid). That woman was complainant Anastacia de Jesus, as
there were previous occasions that Gerardo Fajardo brought women of
ill-repute to his house, Gorospe called him and asked him why he brought
again another woman of ill-repute to that place. He even asked
Gerardo’s wife, Della Fajardo, why she tolerated Gerardo to bring that
kind of woman in their house when they are already married. She
answered that she could not stop him because he would cause her bodily
harm. Gorospe also called Anastacia and asked her why she went with
Gerardo who is a married man (pp. 44 to 47, ibid). Thereafter he told
her to leave the place. Gerardo pleaded that Anastacia be allowed to
stay only for that night and he would take her out of the place the next
day.

The following morning, October 1, 1974 while accused Rufino
Bulanadi was tying the rope of his carabao to graze in the subdivision
at Calipahan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, Gerardo approached him and said,
‘Konsehal maaari bang itira ko ang babaing dala-dala ko sa bahay sa
balong-balong ng kalabaw mo’ (Councilman, may I be allowed to let the
girl who is with me in my house to live or stay in the shade of your
carabao). He pleaded with Bulanadi because according to him his wife
was quarrelling with him because of that woman (pp. 21-23, T.s.n.,
February 28, 1977, CFI). Bulanadi vehemently refused and reminded
Gerardo about the warning of Barrio Captain Gorospe to get that woman
out of the place. Gerardo left, angry and was murmuring (p. 23, ibid).
Bulanadi left his carabao to graze and proceeded to his field to see
the laborers who were pulling grasses there. The farmers in Talavera
are organized into groups of Twenty (20) for the systematic distribution
of irrigation water, each with a chairman. Bulanadi was the chairman
of his group. Because there was shortage of water, he started the
engine of his irrigation pump. He had his lunch in the field. At 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon, a son of an owner of a neighboring field
informed him that water was already being released from the Sapang Baca
Dam. Upon verifying that water was really coming, he stopped the motor
of his irrigation pump. (pp. 22-26, ibid). He cleaned the passage of
water to his field for two (2) hours. At 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon,
he went home to eat because he was hungry. He left the pump house open
because he intended to go back after supper. When he came back, he saw
that there was light inside his pump house. As he was approaching,
Gerardo met him and pleaded that he and the woman be allowed to sleep
there. Bulanadi refused saying, I just bought this pump recently,
‘Sasalahulain mo ba ito? Hindi pwede yon Gerardo, kamalasan yon.’ (Are
you going to tarnish this? That cannot be Gerardo, that will bring me
bad luck’ (pp. 26-29, ibid). Bulanadi saw Anastacia playing with the
water. He told her not to make the water dirty as it is being used as
drinking water and Anastacia said, ‘suya naman kayo kay selan-selan mong
matanda.’ (You are very touchy old man). When Bulanadi told them that
he would report them to the Barrio Captain, they pleaded to him not to
do so, but just the same, he went to the Barrio Captain to report.

When Bulanadi arrived in the house of Barrio Captain Feliciano
Gorospe, the latter was conversing with Oscar Alvaran (p. 31, ibid &
p. 49, t.s.n., February 7, 1977). Upon receiving the report, the 3,
Rufino Bulanadi, Feliciano Gorospe and Oscar Alvaran, went to the pump
house. Barrio Captain Gorospe talked to Gerardo Fajardo and Anastacia
de Jesus saying, ‘Talaga palang matitigas ang ulo ninyo, pinaalalahanan
ko na kayo, ayaw pa ninyong lumayo dito’. (You are really hard headed, I
have already warned you but still you did not leave this place).
Bulanadi and Gorospe were very angry and Anastacia got angry too and
said that it is none of their business what she and Gerardo do. She
rushed towards the two as if to strike them but Gerardo stopped her and
pleaded with the two to allow them to stay there just for that night
because he said, ‘aabutan na kami ng curfew’ (we will be curfewed).
Gorospe and Bulanadi relented and left warning them that if they would
still be there the next morning they will report the matter to the P. C.
(pp. 31­-35, ibid & pp. 2-6, February 24, 1977, CFI).

The next morning, October 2, 1977, Wednesday, Gerardo Fajardo and
Anastacia de Jesus left the pump house of Bulanadi. Gerardo brought
Anastacia to the house of his cousin Floring at Munoz, Nueva Ecija,
where they stayed that night. The following morning, October 3, 1977 he
brought her to the house of his uncle Cirilo Balanagay at Bakal I,
Talavera, Nueva Ecija (Exhibit I). He told his uncle that Anastacia is a
student, and he requested Balanagay to devise ways and means to return
her to her parents because he might be placed in trouble (p. 7, T.s.n.,
October 12, 1974, Municipal Court of Pulilan).

After Gerardo left, Balanagay went to the room where Anastacia was
and volunteered to take her to her parents, but she said she would
think it over. That night, October 3, 1974, Balanagay brought her to
the house of Barrio Captain Andres Nazar of Bakal I, Talavera, Nueva
Ecija, to inform him of Anastacia’s presence in that house, and also so
that she could relate everything to the Barrio Captain, (p. 10, T.s.n.,
October 12, 1974, Municipal Court of Pulilan). There was a regu­lation
in Bakal I, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, that a stranger who arrives there
should submit a statement as to the reason of his presence in the
barrio. Barrio Captain Andres Nazar took the statement of Anastacia de
Jesus (p. 4, T.s.n., February 7, 1977, CFI) which was in the form of
question and answer. This was reduced in writing by Councilman Aniceto
Damian who was summoned for that occasion, in the presence of the barrio
captain himself, Cirilo Balanagay and his wife. The statement of
Anastacia de Jesus marked as Exhibit “1” was signed by Councilman
Aniceto Damian and Cirilo Balanagay as witnesses (pp. 7 to 14, T.s.n.,
February 7, 1977 CFI). To protect the interest of Anastacia, Barrio
Captain Nazar asked Balanagay to notify her parents (p. 13, ibid).

On October 4, 1974, Cirilo Balanagay accompanied Anastacia to the
Police Department of Talavera, Nueva Ecija, where she made a report
(Exhibit 13). Then he wired the family of Anastacia at Pungo, Calumpit,
Bulacan. On October 6, 1974 Anastacia’s relatives arrived, composed of
her uncle, Enrique de Jesus, brother of Victoriano de Jesus, sister
Lolita de Jesus and brother-in- law Adriano Nicolas. They accompanied
her to the Police Department of Talavera, where she made a statement,
Exhibit 5 which is also Exhibit C (p. 3, T.s.n., June 16, 1976, CFI).
That same date, October 6, 1974 she was examined by Dr. Norma Gongon at
the Dr. Paulino J. Garcia Memorial Research and Medical Center upon
request of the Police Department of Talavera, Nueva Ecija and a Medical
Cer­tificate was issued to her (Exhs. “G”, “G-1”, “G-2”, “H” and “H-1”).

In the meantime, on October 4, 1974, accused Barrio Captain Feliciano
Gorospe and his wife, with Mayor and Mrs. Bonifacio de Jesus of
Talavera, Nueva Ecija, Engineer and Mrs. Bacani and 3 other couples went
to Baguio City to attend the convention of the Luzon Area Community
Christian Family Movement at St. Louise University. They rented a house
and stayed there for THREE (3) days, October 4, 1974 to October 6,
1974. At 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon on October 6, 1974, when the
convention ended, they went home to Talavera, Nueva Ecija (pp. 10-12,
T.s.n., February 24, 1977, CFI).

On October 6, 1974, at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning, accused
Rufino Bulanadi on his way to the field to cut grasses for his carabao,
passed by a store to buy cigarette. To his surprise he saw Gerardo
there and he asked him where his ‘alaga’ was (the girl he is taking care
of) and Gerardo answered, ‘Pinagpapahinga ko siya sa Bakal at
pinakawalan ko na’ (I let her rest in Bakal and I have already let her
go). Gerardo further said that the girl was intending to file a case
against him, and Bulanadi told him, ‘Mabuti nga sa iyo, ayaw mo kasing
tumigil sa masamang negosyo mo’. (That’s good for you because you don’t
want to stop your bad business). When Bulanadi proceeded on his way to
the field, a jeep suddenly stopped beside him. On the jeep were PC
Sgt. Jimenez, several policemen and Anastacia de Jesus. Sgt. Jimenez
immediately got off the jeep, tied Rufino’s hand with his own rope that
he brought with him to be used in tying the grasses that he would cut,
and brought him to the Municipal Building of Talavera, Nueva Ecija,
where he was locked in jail. When asked about Gerardo, he informed the
P.C. that he saw him in the store. Gerardo was likewise arrested.
Bulanadi was asked about the case and he said he did not know anything
about it (pp. 37 to 40, T.s.n., February 28, 1977, CFI).

When accused Barrio Captain Gorospe arrived with his wife from Baguio
in the evening of October 6, 1974, his mother informed him that a
policeman was looking for him. He told his mother that he would just go
to the Municipal Building the following day because he was tired. The
next day, October 7, 1974 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning, he went to the
Municipal Building. Upon his arrival, Gerardo met him, put his arms on
his shoulders and said that the case can be settled in the amount of
P200.00. Gorospe said ‘tarantado ka pala’ (You son of a bitch). ‘I
will not give even a single centavo because you are the one responsible
for this. I have nothing to do with this case.’ Gorospe proceeded to
see Sgt. Jimenez who told him that the case was transferred to
Cabanatuan City. The 3 of them, Bulanadi, Gorospe and Fajardo were
brought to the PC headquarters where they were interviewed one after the
other, after which Gorospe and Bulanadi were sent home.

The complainant filed the case in the Municipal Court of Pulilan,
Bulacan, on October 8, 1974, two (2) days after she had gone home in
Pungo, Calumpit, Bulacan (Exhibit 8). Gerardo Fajardo who was in the
custody of the Police Department of Talavera, Nueva Ecija was taken by
the Policemen of Pulilan, Bulacan.

On October 22, 1974 while the case was being investigated by
Municipal Judge Alfredo Granados where Anastacia had already testified
on October 9, 1974, Anastacia again executed another affidavit because
that was what her lawyer, Atty. Santos wanted (p. 26, t.s.n., March 12,
1976, CFI). On the same date Gerardo Fajardo executed another statement
in the Police Department of Pulilan, Bulacan. Thereafter, complainant
filed an Amended Complaint wherein Gerardo, against whom she was
originally complaining against, was excluded as one of the accused to be
utilized as her witness, and Oscar Alvaran was included for the first
time. The alleged date of the incident was changed from September 30,
1974 to September 25, 1974. Subse­quently the case was elevated to the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch I.” (Brief, pp. 12-21.)

The version of the appellants does not inspire belief because it appears
to have been contrived. The appellants portray Anastacia as wanton and
unchaste woman – a prostitute. But one’s credulity has to be unduly
stretched in order to buy the line that a girl of 14 years who was still
going to school was a prostitute who went far away from her home in
order to peddle her body. The appellant’s version is simply too crude
to be convincing.

Opposed to the appellants’ version is the affirmative narration of
events made by Anastacia which were corroborated by Gerardo Fajardo.
The story which she unfolded could have been inspired only by her thirst
for justice. In her quest she had to live her ordeal all over again
for a lengthy period because she was on the witness stand on December
15, 1975; January 12, March 10, March 11, May 3 and June 16, 1976.
During all those days she had to bare in public her shame and
humiliation.

To be sure there were inconsistencies in the testimony of Anastacia but
they were in details rather than in the highlights of her terrible
experience and could very well be attributed to her tender age and
confused state of mind caused by her private hell.

The Solicitor General states that Gerardo Fajardo, the discharged state
witness, also committed rape hence the appellants should each be found
guilty of three (3) rapes because in a conspiracy the act of one is the
act of all. We cannot agree in respect of the participation of Fajardo.
Since Fajardo was dropped from the complaint his guilt had not been
established. However, We agree with the Solicitor General’s observation
“that a motor vehicle was used to bring her [Anastacia de Jesus] from
Plaridel, Bulacan, where she was first deceived and drugged, and then
taken to an isolated uninhabited place at a nipa hut, near an irrigation
pump at Calipahan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, where she was abused, two (2)
aggravating circumstances are present, namely use of motor vehicle and
uninhabited place (Art. 14, R.P.C.),” so that death is the proper
penalty. (Brief, pp. 14-15.) However, for lack of the necessary number
of votes the death penalty cannot be imposed.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo is hereby affirmed in all respects. Costs against the appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro,
Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la
Fuente, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., in the result.