PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PABLO LACTAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On 15 April 1979,
Apolonia Aramburo, then in the early bloom of her youth,^[1] was allegedly detained by the accused in his
2 m. x 3 m. dwelling for about two weeks, and there raped every night while his
wife, at one time, watched with amusement. This is the version of the prosecution.

Thus by reason of the evidence presented by the prosecution,
which the trial court pronounced to be credible, accused PABLO LACTAO was found
guilty of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention, sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and
ordered to indemnify the victim in the sum of Twelve Thousand pesos
(P12,000.00). He is now before us insisting on his
innocence.

Apolonia testified that on 15 April 1979, at about 8:00 o’clock
in the morning, she was outside the house of one Teresita Alburo Perfecto in
Bitan-O, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, where she
was staying. While throwing garbage,
Luz Lactao, wife of accused Pablo Lactao, arrived and fetched her on the
pretext that her father wanted to see her.^[2]
Since Luz was known to her, as Luz and
Pablo were the agricultural tenants of her father,^[3] she went with Luz. They boarded a tricycle and proceeded to Sts. Peter & Paul Subdivision. However, instead of bringing her to her
father, she was brought to the house of the accused where
she was detained in a small room for about two weeks.^[4]

That evening, the accused entered the room where she was lying
down, removed her panties, placed himself on top of her, and for about an hour,
had sexual intercourse with her, while
Luz who was then a meter and a half away watched, laughing.^[5]

Thereafter, every
evening, for the entire duration of her detention, she was raped by the
accused.^[6]

Apolonia likewise said in open court that even prior to 15 April
1979, accused had dragged her a number of times to a camarin adjacent to her
house where she was repeatedly raped.^[7] Her
centenarian father who was living in the house was of little help since he was
already half blind.^[8]

Avelina Cadag, half-sister of Apolonia, then narrated that she
reported the disappearance of her half-sister to the police, but the police
never found her. She saw Apolonia again
only on 29 April 1979 after the latter was able to escape from the accused.^[9]

That same afternoon, Apolonia was examined by the Senior Resident
Physician of the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital who found her hymen to have old
healed lacerations which could have been caused by continuous sexual contact,
strenuous exercise, accident, repeated scratching of the vagina, and even by climbing a tree or
sitting or sliding on a stone.^[10]

The accused on the other
hand asseverated that he never
raped nor had sexual intercourse with Apolonia before or after 15 April
1979. He was merely accused of raping
Apolonia because he failed to leave the land of Gabriel Aramburo, father of
Apolonia and Avelina. Avelina, he said,
had earlier sought his ejectment as she wanted to gather the coconuts from the
land he was tenanting.^[11] Besides, he asserted that he could not rape
anyone in front of his wife and in the presence of his five children who were
there in their house.^[12]

On her part, Luz swore
that on or about 15 April 1979 she could hardly move as she had just delivered
a baby on 7 April 1979 and was still recuperating therefrom. Thus, she could not have fetched Apolonia in
the morning of that day.^[13]

On 9 December 1980, the
Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, Tenth Judicial District, Br. I, Sorsogon,
Sorsogon,^[14] while discrediting Avelina Cadag’s testimony
as it was “muddled with inaccuracies,”^[15]
nevertheless found the testimony of Apolonia to be plausible, and convicted the
accused of rape with serious illegal detention. Hence, this appeal.

Accused argues that the uncorroborated testimony of private
complainant is not only incredible and unbelievable but likewise saddled with
inconsistencies showing the tendency of private complainant to exaggerate and
prevaricate facts.

The Solicitor General however counters that the alleged
inconsistencies in the testimony of Apolonia refer only to minor details which
are not intended to pervert the truth and were not of sufficient significance
as to denote a deliberate intent to utter a falsehood; consequently, the
penalty imposed should be death considering that the accused was found guilty
of the complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention.

It may be worth to mention at the outset that there is no complex
crime of rape with serious illegal detention. If the purpose is to deprive the offended party of liberty, the crime
committed is illegal detention. And, if
during the course of the illegal detention, the offended party is raped, a
separate crime of rape is committed; in this instance, two independent crimes
are committed. However, if the
objective of the offender is to rape the victim only, and in the process, the
latter had to be illegally detained, only the crime of rape is committed since
illegal detention is deemed absorbed in rape.

Hence, in People v. Ching Suy Siong,^[16] Sionga was
found guilty of two independent crimes, i.e., serious illegal detention
and acts of lasciviousness, because the two acts did not come within the purview
of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code which applies to complex crimes, for
certainly, one cannot be considered as a means to commit the other. And, in People v. Bernal,^[17] the
appellants were held guilty of the separate crimes of illegal detention and of
multiple rape since the illegal
detention was not a necessary means to the commission of the crime of rape, and
the offended party could have been raped even if she was not illegally
detained.^[18]
Thus, in People v. Gan,^[19] on which the lower court entirely
based its judgment in convicting the accused in the instant case, Joaquinito
Gan was found guilty only of the crime of rape even if he kept the offended
party in a hut for about four nights, and there repeatedly raped her. But notwithstanding the Gan ruling, the
trial court erroneously declared accused Lactao guilty of the complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention,
instead of rape.

Still, however, the case
of People v. Gan^[20] is not applicable since, in the case at bar,
the evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of conviction.

While the trial court was
correct in discrediting the testimony of Avelina Cadag for being “muddled
with inaccuracies,” and which therefore needs no further elaboration, it
failed to reject the testimony of Apolonia which was not only replete with
discrepancies but likewise inconsistent with human experience and the natural
course of things. Thus, when confronted by the defense counsel
regarding the length of her supposed detention, Apolonia averred –

“Q   In
the direct examination, you testified that you were detained in the house of
the accused for one week. In your
affidavit, sworn affidavit, which you executed, you testified that you were
detained for two weeks. Now which is correct?

“A    The
two weeks is correct.

“Q   In
other words, the one you answered to the question of the Fiscal during your
direct examination was or is not true that you were detained for one week?

“A    Yes,
sir.”^[21]

When queried as to where
she was allegedly abused on 15 April 1979, her answer
was –

“Q   A
while ago you testified that when you lay down you had no mat, you had no
pillows nor mosquito net; in Question and Answer No. 10, the accused went
inside the mosquito net where you were sleeping. Now which is correct?

“A    There
was a mat.

“Q   In
other words, you are changing your answer that you lay down without a mat,
without pillows, without mosquito net?

“A    I
was only mistaken.“^[22]

And, when asked regarding
her age, as the prosecution was trying to establish that at the time the
incident happened, the alleged victim was less than twelve years old, she
replied –

“COURT:

“Q   Why
is your age in that affidavit
wrong?

“A Because at that time I did not know yet, Your Honor.

x x x x

“ATTY. BORROMEO:

“Q   In
other words, even if you did not know exactly your age you answered to the
interogating officer in this affidavit to the question above that your age was
14 years?

“A    Yes,
sir.

“Q   Presently,
you testified that your age is 12, is it
not?

“A    Yes,
sir.“^[23]

The flip-flopping of
Apolonia not only creates serious uncertainty in her entire testimony but
weakens altogether the case of the prosecution which is left with only her
depiction to prove its case after the averments of the other prosecution
witness have been totally discredited by the trial court.

Even the medical findings
of the resident physician of the Sorsogon Provincial Hospital, Dr. Jaime Co,
who examined Apolonia the very day she was said to have escaped, is
inconclusive that she was indeed raped. Thus said Dr. Co –

“Q   Doctor,
what may have possibly caused this old healed laceration at 3:00 o’clock, 7:00
o’clock and 9:00 o’clock?

“A    It
may be caused by sexual contact, by strenuous exercise like riding on a
bicycle.

x x x x

“Q   And
the cause of the injury could not be exactly determined?

“A    Yes.

“Q   In
fact it could have been caused by continuous scratching of the vagina by
herself Apolonia Aramburo?

“A    It
could be.

“Q   And
it could be also by climbing a tree considering that Apolonia Aramburo is only
about twelve years of age?

“A    Possible.”^[24]

Besides, Dr. Co testified
that when he examined Apolonia on 29 April 1979, he found that the lacerations
in her hymen had already healed.^[25] This contradicts the claim that Apolonia was
raped every single day from 15 April 1979 to 29 April 1979.

In fine, inaccuracies between the statement of an alleged rape
victim before a municipal judge and her court testimony negate her credibility.^[26]
Serious inexplicable discrepancies
between her previously executed sworn statement and her testimonial
declarations raise grave doubt on the veracity of her account.^[27]

Furthermore, Apolonia’s testimony that she freely and intimately
conversed with the children of the accused during her entire detention in the
house of the latter where she was repeatedly abused, belies the claim that she
was illegally detained, much more, ravished. And, it is highly improbable that accused would abuse Apolonia in the
presence of his five children and his wife who, if we are to believe Apolonia,
seemed to have enjoyed the horrid scene.

The version of complaining witness Apolonia is simply implausible
as perversion has never been considered a part of the Filipino marriage and
family life. Indeed, it is difficult to
imagine that the accused would rape a young girl, the playmate of his own
children, in the presence of the latter, and in front of his amused wife who
had just given birth. That is why, we say, the tale is contrary to human experience and our way of
life, and thus calls for absolute rejection.^[28]

In crimes against
chastity, the testimony of the injured woman should not be received with
precipitate credulity.^[29] The evidence for conviction must be clear
and convincing to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.^[30] Here, the evidence presented by the
prosecution was too weak and insufficient to jettison that presumption.

On the other hand, the assertions
of the defense remain uncontradicted and thus assume importance when faced with
the rather shaky nature of the evidence for the prosecution.^[31] The defense then that the charge for rape
was trumped-up by Avelina Cadag to blackmail the accused and his family into vacating the land so that she
could gather the coconuts herself, even at the expense of exposing the honor of her half-sister, deserves serious
consideration. Indeed, it is not far-fetched that the filing of the rape
charge against accused Pablo Lactao was motivated by the obssession of Apolonia’s family to win back possession of their piece of land
tenanted by him.^[32]

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo finding accused PABLO LACTAO guilty
of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the accused is ACQUITTED of the crime charged; consequently, his immediate release from
confinement is ORDERED unless lawfully held for another cause. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr.,
and Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
In her affidavit, Apolonia said she was 14 years old. However, during her direct examination, she testified that she
was only 12. Rectifying the
inconsistency, she stated on cross-examination that her age in her affidavit
was erroneous, and explaining that at that time she did not know yet her exact age.

^[2]
TSN, 4 October 1979, pp. 6-7.

^[3]
Id., p. 27; 6
February 1980, p. 8.

^[4]
Id., 4 October 1979,
pp. 7-9, 26.

^[5]
Id., pp. 9-12, 22, 24-26.

^[6]
Id., p. 32.

^[7]
Id., p. 30.

^[8]
Id., p. 32-33.

^[9]
Id., 23 October 1979, p. 11.

^[10]
Id., pp. 4-6.

^[11]
Id., 6 February 1980, pp. 22-23.

^[12]
Id., p. 20.

^[13]
Id., pp. 3-4.

^[14]
Judge Rustico de los Reyes, presiding.

^[15]
Decision of the trial court, p. 9.

^[16]
97 Phil. 989, unrep. (1955).

^[17]
No. L-30483, 31 July 1984, 131 SCRA 1.

^[18]
Compare with People v. Ablaza, No. L-27352, 31 October 1969, 30 SCRA 173, where Ruben Ablaza was charged by Annabelle Huggins
with forcible abduction with rape, and while the case was pending, he kidnapped
Annabelle, detained her for a week for the purpose of causing her to withdraw
her previous charge against him, and while under detention, raped her again,
the crime committed is serious illegal detention because the act of rape was
incidental and used as a means to break Annabelle’s spirit and induce her to
dismiss the criminal charge.

^[19]
No. L-33446, 18 August 1972,
46 SCRA 667.

^[20]
Id.

^[21]
TSN, 4 October
1979, pp. 26-27.

^[22]
Id.,
p. 23.

^[23]
Id., pp. 15-16.

^[24]
TSN, 23 October 1979, pp. 5-7.

^[25]
Id.

^[26]
See People v. Nuñez, G.R. No. 79316,
10 April 1992, 208 SCRA 34.

^[27]
People v. Casim, G.R. No. 93634, 2 September 1992, 213
SCRA 390.

^[28]
People v. Dag-uman, G.R.
No. 96548, 28 May 1992, 209 SCRA 407.

^[29]
People v. Casim, supra; Note 27.

^[30]
People v. Tiwaken, G.R. No. 92988, 9 September 1992, 213 SCRA 701

^[31]
People v. Ambih, G.R. No. 101006, 3 September
1993.

^[32]
See People v. Nuñez, supra; Note 26.