G.R. No. 55028. August 31, 1981
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE TEJADA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DE CASTRO, J.:
Charged with and convicted for the crime of rape in the Court of First
Instance of Isabela, Jose Tejada was sentenced to life imprisonment, with all
the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay and indemnify the offended
party, Florenda Talvo y Cafirna, in the amount of P12,000.00, as moral damages,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
From the judgment of conviction, Jose Tejada interposed the
present appeal.
The facts as proved by the prosecution’s evidence, and quoting
from the People’s brief are as follows:
“Appellant JOSE TEJADA and the TALVO family were neighbors in
Sitio Cawacan, Capirpirwan, Cordon, Isabela.
Also, appellant is related to them, his mother being the aunt of
CANDIDO TALVO, complainant FLORENDA’s father.
“In the afternoon of October 25, 1971, appellant went to the
house of the TALVO’s to invite their seventeen year old daughter, FLORENDA,
then single (now married), to attend the wedding of his sister in Sta. Ana,
Echague, Isabela, on October 27, 1975.
FLORENDA told him to first secure the permission of her parents. He did and FLORENDA’s mother LEONARDA TALVO,
allowed her to go with appellant to Sta. Ana for the wedding. LEONARDA would have gone with them but she
had a visitor from Manila who just arrived that morning. (Tsn, pp. 20, 23-26, December 8, 1976).
“So at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning of October 26, 1975
appellant and FLORENDA left Cordon for Echague, arriving in Barrio Sta. Ana at
about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same date. They proceeded to the house of appellant’s
mother, where preparations were going on for the wedding to be held the
following day. FLORENDA helped in the
preparations. That night, she slept with
AURORA TEJADA (niece of appellant) in a small room of the house which was used
as a canteen. She wore pants with a
garter around the waist and had a blouse with buttons in front. (Tsn, pp. 27?29, December 8, 1976).
“At around 4:00 o’clock in the early morning of October 27,
1975, FLORENDA was awakened by a hold on her left shoulder. She recognized the intruder as appellant. He was armed with a sharp-pointed instrument
which he pointed at her and warned her not to shout, otherwise, she would be
killed. FLORENDA became frightened and
did not shout. Appellant then forced her
to lie flat on her back and placed himself on top of her. Using his feet, he kicked loose her pants and
panty which were both secured by garter at the waist. Appellant seized both her hands and pinned
them down with his hands, forced her legs apart and started to perform a
‘push-and-pull’ motion after inserting his penis inside her vagina. Appellant kept kissing her lips and cheeks in
the process. All the while FLORENDA
struggled to free herself. She felt pain
and later felt a warm fluid discharge in her private parts. Afterwards, appellant stood up and left. FLORENDA arose and put on her panty and
pants. (Tsn, pp. 29-37, December 8,
1976).
“In the afternoon of the same day (October 27, 1975), FLORENDA
reported the incident to ROMEO TEJADA, brother of appellant. The latter cursed his brother in the Ilocano
dialect, saying ‘Tarantado ti ukimnanatta’ (that fellow is reckless, that vulva
of his mother). (Tsn, pp. 37-38,
December 8, 1976).
“The wedding took place later that afternoon in the house of
appellant’s mother, followed by a dance which lasted until the next morning. FLORENDA felt depressed and did not
dance. Neither was she able to sleep
that night. She left for Cordon early in
the morning of October 28, 1975 with ROMEO TEJADA and his wife, LYDIA
TEJADA. From Cordon, she went home alone
to Cawacan. (Tsn, pp. 38-41, December 8,
1976.)
“The following Monday, November 3, 1975, FLORENDA visited her
sister, EUFEMIA TALVO at the latter’s house some forty meters away from her
house. Sensing that something was wrong
EUFEMIA asked FLORENDA what was the matter.
It was then that FLORENDA related to her what appellant did to her in
Sta. Ana in the early morning of October 27, 1975. EUFEMIA asked her if she had reported the
matter to their parents. Replying in the
negative, FLORENDA explained that she was afraid to do so. Whereupon, EUFEMIA recounted the incident to
them. Immediately upon hearing the
same, their father, CANDIDO TALVO, called for FLORENDA and inquired from her if
the report was true. FLORENDA confirmed
the truth of the report. CANDIDO then
asked FLORENDA if she wanted to bring the matter to the authorities. Getting an affirmative answer, CANDIDO
brought his daughter to the office of the Integrated National Office of Cordon,
Isabela, but he was advised to first bring FLORENDA to a physician for medical
examination and to file their complaint with the Echague Police since the crime
was committed within its jurisdiction.
(Tsn, pp. 41-43, December 8, 1976; pp. 6-9, December 1, 1977).
“The following day, November 4, 1975, FLORENDA and her mother
went to see Dra. INECITA JAVONILLO. The
latter conducted an internal examination of FLORENDA’s sexual organ and set
forth her findings in a medical examination (Exh. ‘A’). (Tsn, pp. 2-6, December 8, 1976). Her findings are as follows:
‘Finding on internal examination are:
‘Non-parous vagina. Vagina
admits two fingers snugly. There are two
lacerations at the hymenal opening, 1 at 4:00 o’clock and 1 at 8:00 o’clock
position.
‘The internal genitals are otherwise, normal in size and
structure.’
“Thereafter, they proceeded to file their complaint in the
office of the Integrated National Police of Echague, Isabela, where FLORENDA
gave her sworn written statement (Exhibit C), and filed her complaint (Exhibit
B). Her parents, CANDIDO and EUFEMIA
TALVO, also executed sworn statements (Exhibits E and F, respectively). (Tsn, pp. 43-46, December 8, 1976; pp. 10-11,
December 1, 1977).”[1]
Once more, the issue presented is, as in most criminal cases, and
specially in a prosecution for rape, one of credibility of the victim who
invariably is alone to offer testimony of her traumatic experience, as against
her ravisher or ravishers who would offer their own testimony in an attempt at
exculpation.[2]
The trial judge’s assessment of the relative credibility of the
opposing witnesses admittedly is of great weight.[3]
In this case, the trial judge has put on record that he was impressed with the
candor and sincerity of the victim, Florenda, while testifying on how she was
sexually violated by the appellant. True
enough, a perusal of the transcript of her testimony quoted at length in the
decision will confirm the trial judge’s evaluation of the victim’s credibility
and his finding of the sufficiency of her testimony to support his verdict of
guilt.
The victim’s narration of the facts on how she was ravished is
perfectly natural. There is nothing in
it that would cast doubt as to its veracity.
To begin with, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that Florenda was
sexually assaulted. The medical finding
attests to this fact. Her assertion of
force and intimidation having been employed on her by the appellant is positive
and convincing. It would, indeed, be
difficult to entertain belief that the sexual act was performed with her
consent. Appellant is a married man, he
could not have been acceptable much less desirable to Florenda as a bed
mate. No amorous relation was intimated
as having existed between her and appellant.
If there was, a more appropriate tryst would be easy to have, instead of
the congested and not so secret a place as where the act complained of was
performed. If complainant, therefore,
pointed to appellant as her ravisher, that must be the plain truth.
To impugn Florenda’s credibility, appellant claims he could not
have uttered the threatening words:
“If you shout I will kill you”, with so many persons closely
around. These words could have been
uttered only in whisper and still be as effective in instilling fear, what with
the words being accompanied with the pointing of a sharp-bladed weapon at
her. Complainant was alone, too, in the
small room, her sleeping companion, Aurora Tejada, appellant’s niece, having
left the room earlier. The fear-instilling
effect of the weapon did not pass just because appellant’s hands no longer held
it when he used his two hands to pin her down and force her to part her
legs. Florenda was aware the weapon was
just around for instant use if needed.
Appellant also makes the preposterous claim that there was no
sufficient showing that force was employed.
Florenda testified that she was pinned down by appellant with his two
hands, which he had to use both with all his
strength, for she struggled hard to foil appellant’s evil intent. So much so that with both hands needed to put
down her resistance, it was with his feet that he lowered the girl’s pants and
panties both with garter around the waistline.
There, likewise, is
nothing incredible about the feet of appellant being used and succeeding in
lowering the girl’s pants and panties.
The garter that holds them up around the girl’s waist could have been so
loosened up that appellant did not have to use his hand to lower the pants
down. If needed, he certainly would have
used his hands to accomplish his beastly purpose with which he was already
unshakably seized.
In any case, for force to be attendant as to make the sexual act
the crime of rape, it need not be irresistible.
As held in the case of People vs. Savellano[4]
it is enough that the force used is such as would make possible the consummation
of the desire for an intercourse, considering the age of the parties, their
size, strength and relation to each other.
In this case, appellant is a farm hand, still in his prime, whose kind
of labor made him physically able to easily overcome the resistance of a young
girl against his forcible ravishment of her.
With a deadly weapon to back his threat, physical force need not be as
great as when the threat is made with bare hands.
It is also claimed that with many guests in the house, the
commission of rape as portrayed by the victim is highly incredible. It might have been so if appellant did not
force the girl into the sexual act with a sharp-bladed weapon pointed at her
with a death-threat to silence her.
Moreover, at the time of his intrusion, it was at 4:00 o’clock in the
morning when the guests must be in their deepest slumber, which appellant must
have made sure it was so, before he entered the room to commit a devilish deed.
Neither would the tardiness in the reporting of the incident to the
police – ten days after its occurrence – detract from the veracity of
Florenda’s story. She was afraid to
reveal to her parents what happened to her, obviously because of appellant’s
threats. She could, however, not but
betray her harrowing experience by her mood and her looks as her sister Eufemia
so noticed from her, that when asked what was wrong, Florenda got to relating
to her sister what that experience was.
This led to the matter being brought immediately thereafter to the
knowledge of the parents who lost no time in reporting the incident to the
police authorities and had Florenda submit to a phsycial examination. Thus explained, the delay in filing the
complaint does not in any way affect the credibility of the complainant. This is specially so as she did inform appellant’s
brother, Romeo Tejada, on the very same day she was deflowered, how appellant
ravished her, Romeo then cursing his brother for the latter’s misdeed.
Significantly, this brother of appellant was not presented to
deny complainant’s testimony of having informed him of her sad experience with
appellant. This is a clear case of
suppression of evidence that gives rise to the presumption that if he had been
presented, the brother would have confirmed complainant’s testimony.[5]
This circumstance gives strong support to complainant’s accusing appellant of
having had forcible carnal knowledge of her on the day of record.
There can, indeed, be no conceivable motive for complainant to
impute falsely to appellant the commission of a crime that can ruin her honor
and reputation and expose her to shameful embarrassment of a public trial of
the offense charged. Such an act, if
complainant had done so, is utterly not in keeping with the traditional modesty
of which our Filipino women is well-known.
It can only be explained by the truth and reality of her testimony that
impels her, despite all the unpleasant and unwanted consequences, to seek
redress for a heart-gnawing grievance that will probably linger the rest of her
life.
Strangely, appellant has not come up with a definite categorical
defense. He merely claims to know
nothing about the crime. By his attempt
to impugn the complainant’s credibility, he would seem to suggest either that
complainant’s story is but a concoction, or that there was voluntariness and
consent in the sexual intercourse. With
what the trial court said as to the complete credibility of complainant’s
testimony which We find, as heretofore discussed, fully supported by the
evidence, appellant’s attempt to assail the veracity of the testimony against
him cannot but be futile. His own
witnesses were shown, by the trial court’s very accurate evaluation, to be
undeserving of credit, as in the case of his sister, Aurora Tejada, as to whose
testimony the trial court aptly observed:
“Finally, there is to be reckoned with the testimony of Aurora
Tejada. At first blush, her declaration,
especially on her insistence that she did not leave the room that night of
October 26, 1975, appears to be material and relevant as it tends to contravene
the claim of the offended party that she (Aurora) was no longer with her when
the accused sexually molested her. But
she, Aurora is admittedly the niece of the accused. If three persons – perhaps friends – of Jose
Tejada can afford to testify for him to the extent of disregarding the truth
and violating their solemn oaths, with much more reason for a relative like
her, a niece, who is desirous to shield her uncle (U.S. vs. Carlos, 21 Phil.
553). Consequently, her testimony should
be rejected as springing from her relation to the accused (People vs. Valera –
L-20286, October 28, 1965, 15 SCRA 164).
Her actuation in trifling with the truth is best shown when she declared
that her uncle (herein accused) arrived in Sta. Ana for the wedding with the
complainant, Jose Gorteo and Eulogio Gragrasin as his companions (p. 3, t.s.n.
– Trial of January 23,
1979). This is plainly false because her
uncle maintained, which also is the stand of the prosecution, that he came in
with Florenda Talvo only. Aurora is
found to have committed so many more lies that there is no more need to mention
them here. Hence, the Court finds her
testimony not fitting of even a scant consideration.”[6]
On similar grounds, the trial court also discounted as simply
averse to the truth the testimony of the other witnesses presented by the
appellant, all in a weak and futile attempt to discredit complainant’s natural
and straight-forward testimony which, as already adverted to earlier, is
characterized with candor and sincerity.
WHEREFORE, the guilt of appellant has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt as found by the court a quo, and
as recommended by the Solicitor General, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed in toto, with costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., on leave.
[1]
pp. 2-6, Appellee’s Brief, p. 72, Rollo.
[2]
People vs. Santos, 94 SCRA 277; People vs. Lacuna, 87 SCRA 364;
People vs. Ilagan, 64 SCRA 170; People vs. Barbo, 56 SCRA 459;
People vs. Molina, 53 SCRA 495.
[3]
People vs. Mercado, 97 SCRA 232; People vs. Ramos, 96 SCRA 903;
People vs. Advincula, 96 SCRA 875; People vs. Santos, 94 SCRA
277; People vs. Conchada, 88 SCRA 683.
[4]
57 SCRA 320.
[5]
Orfanel vs. People, 30 SCRA 819; People vs. Ricarte, 78 Phil.
112; People vs. Balansag, 60 Phil. 266; U.S. vs. Sarikala, 37
Phil. 486.
[6]
pp. 16-17, Appellee’s Brief, p. 72, Rollo.