G.R. No. 58174. July 06, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO DE DIOS Y EXCONDE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PADILLA, J.:
This is an appeal from the judgment* rendered
in Criminal Case No. 784(245) of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet finding the
defendant-appellant, Eduardo de Dios guilty of the
crime of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay the offended party the amounts of
P30,000.00, as moral damages; P20,000.00, as attorney’s fees; and P10,000.00,
for actual expenses; and to pay the costs.
As grounds for the appeal, the appellant, through counsel,
questions the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and the sufficiency of the evidence presented to support
his conviction.
The record of this case shows that immediately prior to the
occurrence of the incident complained of, the complainant, Concepcion
Guanzon, then twenty four (24) years of age and an
industrial pharmacist by profession, and the accused, Eduardo de Dios, were sweethearts,
Connie, as the complainant is called, was in love with the accused, nicknamed
Eddie, in the latter part of 1972.[1] Connie was very much in love with Eddie and
she sent him many affectionate letters, sometimes three (3) in a day, including
one (1) where she wrote nothing else but “I love you” twenty-nine
(29) times.[2] Her love for Eddie did not diminish despite
her having been informed that Eddie had contracted marriage with one Venus Joy Mesina, for she (Connie) had been assured that steps had
been taken to annul said marriage.[3] Connie, in her letters, would now and then
re-assure Eddie of her trust and love for him.
She would also ask Eddie to seek comfort in prayers and to ask for
heavenly intercession so that the petition for the annulment of his marriage
would be granted and they could be “free as a bird.”[4]
Shortly before noon of 22 March 1973, while Connie was
attending to her mother who was confined at the Makati Medical
Center, Eddie and his mother came
for a visit. They brought with them the
papers granting the petition for the annulment of Eddie’s marriage to Venus
Joy. As the mother of Connie was reading the said papers, Connie and Eddie slipped out of the room
unnoticed and went to the hospital chapel to say a few prayers, after which
Connie guided Eddie in a tour of the hospital premises. Upon reaching the hospital lobby, Connie
decided to go back to her mother.
Eddie, however, chided her, saying: “Pambihira ka naman. Ngayon lang tayo
nagkita gusto mo ng umakyat.” But Connie insisted on going back as her
mother was alone. Eddie told Connie, however, that they will
just fetch his sister Cecille from the Assumption
College, a few city blocks from the
hospital. Connie demurred saying that
she was not properly attired and was only wearing a pair of slippers, but Eddie
insisted, saying: “Susunduin natin si Cecille. Babalik tayo agad.”
Eddie prevailed. Upon boarding their
Kombi, which had, in the meantime, arrived at the front entrance of the
hospital, upon summons of Eddie, the latter told the driver: “Kay Cecille.”[5] But they did not go to Cecille. Connie was brought to Baguio City instead.
After stopping for a while at Jojo’s
restaurant in San Fernando, Pampanga, they arrived at Eddie’s house at 96
Kennon Road, Baguio City, at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day (22 March 1973). After getting the house keys from the
caretaker, Eddie gave some money to the driver and told him to buy food.[6]
After taking supper, Eddie invited
Connie to rest in one of the rooms. But, Connie refused, saying that she would
prefer to stay in the sala. Thereupon, Eddie held her by the arm and
dragged her inside a room. He then tried
to force himself upon Connie. Connie
pleaded and begged that Eddie desist from doing what he had in mind since they were getting married anyway, but, Eddie
ignored her entreaties and kept on forcing himself upon her.[7] The uncontroverted
testimony of Connie as to the manner
she was raped by the appellant is, as follows:
“Q Now,
what happened then after that?
A After
that, he told me, ‘Halika na. Matulog ka na sa isang
cuarto.’ I told him to go ahead and I will stay where
I am and that I am not going to sleep there.
Q What
time was this now?
A Around
8:00 o’clock.
Q What
did the accused do when you told
him that you preferred to stay in the
sala?
A He
said, ‘Halika na‘, and he
was dragging me already. He was holding
me by the arm and I resisted and said I will stay in the sala. But then he was dragging me already inside one of the two adjoining rooms
with a common toilet. And little by
little, he managed to drag me inside the room with two beds.
Q Now,
what happened inside the room?
A The struggle started. He was trying to embrace and kiss me. He was trying to hold my breast while we were
both standing. This went on for sometime
and every now and then, he would sit on the bed and rest when he got tired
saying, ‘Pinahihirapan mo ako
talaga.’ Then he would continue again and in one
renewed struggle, he dragged me and pulled me into the bed with him but I
succeeded in warding him of (sic).
Q Now,
while you were standing before he
dragged you into the bed when you were there inside the room, what were you
doing to ward of (sic) his attempts?
A I would push him away or hold his hand or
suddenly staying in a half-sitting position or I would hold on to my pants with
one hand and fought with him with the other hand.
Q Now, when he finally
succeeded in dragging you to the bed with him, what happened?
A I
found an occasion wherein he was resting for a while because he got tired of
the struggle and I jumped out of bed and I went to the toilet and locked myself
inside.
Q What
did the accused do when you did this?
A When
he realized what I was doing, he ran immediately but fortunately, I was already
inside the toilet and the door was locked already.
Q So,
what happened?
A I
stayed there for about an hour and heard him or after that I heard some
scratches or noise on the door knob.
Then the door knob fell. Then he
placed it back again and …
Q What
happened when the door knob fell?
A I
ran into the room again but the struggle again started.
Q What
happened back in the room?
A He
was concentrating in removing my pants while we were standing and once he pulled
me into the bed with him putting both arms around my waist and he pulled me
into the bed with him. This went on for
sometime and a struggle again continued and he was not able to succeed. This went on for some time. It seems a long long
time and when he got tired, he would just lie back and catch his breath. At this moment, this was around 2:00 o’clock or 3:00
o’clock already, he was just lying there beside me. He was breathing heavily and then he was breathing softly. Then I knew he was already asleep.
Q Now,
when you realized at that point that the accused had fallen asleep, what did
you do?
A I
transferred to the other room and locked myself including the door in the
toilet leading to the other room where he was.
I locked it inside and also the door in the corridor.
Q Now,
did you or what did you do in the other room?
A I could not sleep. I was fully awake and my mind was in circles and I was thinking about my mother, my parents what they would think
because of my disappearance. Also, I was
trying to gather my thoughts whether they would come after me or had abandoned
me already. I was so confused and I must
have dozed of for a few minutes and when I learned, I just saw the accused
besides (sic) me fambling with my pants again. I pushed him away and the struggle started
again.
Q About
what time was this again?
A Around
5:00 o’clock or 6:00 o’clock. I
think he entered the room through the corridor because he had the key may
be. He opened it.
Q This
was about 5:00 o’clock or 6:00 o’clock, what date?
A March
23.
Q What
happened when as you said you felt the accused fambling
with your pants?
A The struggle again started and he pinned
me down with his full weight and he was pressing his forearm against my neck
under my chin. With his right hand he
was fambling my bra at the back.
Q Did
he succeed in removing your bra?
A No because the snap of my bra is in front
and he thought it was at the back. He
was looking at the back. Fortunately, my
snap is at the front and he could not open.
He was trying to remove my shirt but my shirt has no opening. It is a long sleeve T-shirt and he could not
pull it over or out of my head.
Q What happened then?
A Then he was starting to concentrate on my
pants but I was successful and he was not able to remove my pants. It was intermittent because he would just lie
back and catches (sic) his breath. On
this occasion, he was hopeless and he remained silent for a while and he said
that we were leaving soon as the combi arrived. When he said this, I jumped out of the
bed and went out of (to) the sala and sat on one of the solo chairs
there.
Q What
about the accused, what did he do when you jumped out of the bed as you said
and ran to the sala?
A He was right behind me and followed
me in the sala.
Q What
happened then in the sala?
A I learned that the driver arrived and he knocked. We waited there for
about an hour before the driver arrived.
He knocked.
Q What
happened during this hour that you were waiting for the driver?
A As usual, he was saying the same
things all over again.
Q What
things?
A That he love (sic) me, that how the entire
family was so proud of me. That he was
learning practically the business of his father very well and he asked me if I
don’t love him anymore. He said also
that anyway we are going to get married.
Q What
were you doing or what did you say during this time?
A I
was just sitting there crying most of (the) time with my eyes closed and my
hands over my eyes like this. (Witness demonstrating). Sometimes, he would attempt to touch me on
the shoulder or on the face but I would push his hand. I would push his hand aside.
Q Now,
what happened when the combi arrived?
A He told the driver to buy some food to eat
at the grocery so we could bring it on our way home, or it (sic) on our way
home. So, the driver went to the grocery
and arrived after about thirty minutes.
He knocked at the door again and opened the door and then he told the driver to bring his purchases in
the kitchen. Then he sent out again the
driver and locked the door.
Q What
happened?
A He opened, – he said again that we were going to eat in the house
first before leaving. So, he opened two
or three can (sic) goods and started
eating.
Q What about you?
A I
did not eat. I refused.
Q Did
you drink anything?
A Yes,
I finished half of the glass of pineÂapple juice which the accused prepared in
the kitchen.
Q Was
there anyone else in the house at that time?
A No
one was at the house.
Q Now,
did anybody arrive while you were there in the sala
while the accused is (sic) eating?
A Yes, sir, the woman caretaker knocked again
and so the accused opened the door a little and she said that she was able to
talk with Mrs. de Dios and that Mrs. de Dios
said that we must go home at once. That
the accused must go home at once to Manila
but that he must call up first his mother.
And then the caretaker left and the accused closed the door again.
Q Now,
did the accused phone his mother?
A No,
sir.
Q What
happened after that?
A After
eating to his heart’s content, he sat back very leisurely on the sofa and then
he lighted a cigarette.
Q What
about you, what were you doing there during this time?
A I
was just staring at him with increasing anger and hatred.
Q What
happened then?
A He would utter some remarks like. ‘Takot na takot ka. Pambihira ka talaga oo.’ Then also he said, ‘Wala ka bang nararamdaman kahit kaunting desire? Siguro hindi ka tunay na babae.’
Q What
about you, what were you doing at the time?
A I
was glaring at him, looking at him with dager eyes.
Q What
happened after that?
A After that, he was trying to drag me again
inside the room but I was pulling and I was holding on the sofa but little by
little, he managed to bring me to the room with two beds drawn together.
Q What
happened there?
A Inside the room, he concentrated again on
removing my pants while we were standing.
Then he pushed me into the bed, and while he pushed me into the bed, he
removed his shirt and his shoes and while we were struggling on the bed, he removed
his pants and his supporter.
Q Now,
what happened in bed?
A I
was just struggling again but he pinned me down with his full weight sideways
and he is (sic) pinning both my arms under my head. One of
his hands concentrated in removing my pants, but I managed or sometimes I
managed to free my forearm which he pinned under my head holding them with his
left hand. When I managed to get free,
he concentrated in pinning them again and when it is (sic) pinned, he will (sic) concentrate in removing my pants.
Q Did
he succeed this time?
A About thirty minutes, yes. About thirty minutes I began to weaken
because of the struggle and for not having eaten anything and for lack of
sleep. He was able to remove my pants and my panty together.
Q Now,
what happened when your pants and panty were removed?
A I tried to avoid and to fight him
particularly with my lower portion of the body by putting my legs firmly
together or sometimes entwine them.
Q What
did the accused trying (sic) to do after he has (sic) removed your pants and
panty?
A He
was holding my organ and he was trying to open my legs by putting his right
hand between them and stretching them.
Q And
what happened, was he able to
part your legs?
A Yes, sir, what he did next was to go on top of me and stretched my legs apart with
his right hand and with his right leg and stretched it (sic) wider with his
knees which he planted between my legs.
And then at the same time with his right hand, he was holding my neck, half strangling
me.
Q How did the accused manage to part your legs?
A He would start giving me fist blows so that
my legs would part and then he placed his knees between again and planted them
and stretched them wider.
Q Then what happened?
A Then
I felt his right hand going down to his penis.
Q Then?
A And at the time his face, his left face was
pressed against my neck under my chin.
Then he was guiding his penis inside to my organ. Then I felt a stab of pain. And then the accused (sic) body was moving
fast and for a few seconds he fell on me and stopped moving.
Q Now,
what did you do?
A I
was lying there very tired and exhausted and I was mentally black. I did not know what to do. I was just lying dead there.” [8]
Complainant thought that that was the end of the world for
her. She felt lost and abandoned.[9]
After taking supper in the evening of the same day, 23 March 1973, appellant tried again
to make love to Connie. But she refused
and pleaded to be left alone. Appellant
acceded and allowed her to sleep in the other bedroom.[10]
The following morning, however, accused entered the bedroom
occupied by complainant and again tried to force himself upon her, but he did
not succeed as she resisted and locked herself in the bathroom. Accused forced open the bathroom door, so
that complainant ran to the sala. Accused followed her there, but he was
interrupted by a knock at the door.[11]
Accused answered the knock and later told complainant to
accompany him to a neighbor’s house where accused placed a telephone call to
his mother, but he was not able to contact his mother so that he instructed the
neighbor to tell his mother, if and when she should call, that they would be on
their way to Quezon City.[12]
They returned to accused’s house at No.
96 Kennon Road. While they were seated in the sala, the driver of the accused knocked and told the
accused that he had a visitor. Accused
ordered complainant to go inside the bedroom, and when complainant refused,
accused dragged her into the room and closed
the door. Soon complainant heard someone
calling her by name. She recognized the
voice as that of her sister, Mrs. Rosalinda Antiporda,
so that she went out of the room and ran to her sister. She embraced her sister and, crying on her
shoulder, she said: “Ate Inday, pinuwersa niya ako. Ilayo mo na ako agad.”
Her sister told Connie that their mother had instructed her to find out if Connie had gone with the accused of her own free will, and if
so, to see to it that they are properly married; but, if not, to bring Connie home.
Complainant told her sister: “Pinuwersa niya ako. Ilayo mo na ako
agad.”[13]
The incident was immediately reported to the Baguio
City Police Department, soon after which complainant was brought to the Baguio City
General Hospital
where she was examined by a
surgeon and a gynecologist. Complainant
was found to have sustained the following lesions:
“Hematoma, old 2-3 days, supraclavicular
area, bilateral;
Hematoma,
old, upper quadrant left breast;
Hematoma,
medial aspect, left thigh;
Hematoma,
left posterious iliac crest.”[14]
“Hematoma, right & left lateral aspects of neck;
Hematoma, left upper portion of left breast;
Contusion,
posterior commissure, more to the left;
Laceration hymen, 7
o’clock position, vagina admits 2 fingers
Bleeding, moderate,
dark red blood, smear for sperm cell – negative.”[15]
After a day’s rest at the Bayanihan
Hotel in Baguio
City, complainant was brought down
to Manila where she was confined at
the ABM Sison Hospital
for ten (10) days because of shock.[16]
Thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed before the Court of
First Instance of Baguio and Benguet,
docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 784(245), charging accused with the crime
of Abduction with Rape, committed as follows:
“That on or about the 22nd day of March, 1973, in Makati, Rizal, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, and with lewd design, forcibly abduct the undersigned
complainant against her will, and did then and there bring her up to the City of Baguio, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, where, on the 23rd day of
March, 1973, the said accused did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, and by means of force and violence, have carnal
knowledge of the undersigned complainant likewise against her will.
“Contrary to
law and with the aggravating circumstance of the offense complained of having
been committed with the use of a motor vehicle.”[17]
When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the commission
of the offense. However, the accused did
not take the witness stand to contradict or rebut the testimony of the
complainant as to the manner she was raped by the accused. The accused, instead, presented the love
letters sent to him by Connie, and the testimonies of the driver, Julian Cartano, and their neighbors in Baguio
City, Josefa Solano and Federico Estoque,
who both claimed to have seen the complainant and the accused holding each
other’s shoulders (“magka-akbay“) and
talking and laughing like newly-weds.
They also stated that they did not see any injuries on the complainant.
We
have carefully gone over the voluminous record of the case and there is
nothing in it that would justify a reversal or change in the findings and
conclusions of the trial court. The
complainant appears to have testified in a forthright manner and her testimony as to the
manner she was raped by the appellant is, not only uncontradicted
by the appellant, but also supported by documentary and testimonial
evidence. The lesions found in different
parts of her body and the torn dress she was wearing at the time of the attack
are ample proofs of a struggle
and resistance against the assault. It
would also appear that the violation of her person and honor was immediately
reported to the police authorities and the complainant had no motive to falsely
accuse the appellant whom she had loved and would have married had it not been
for the happening of the lamentable and dastardly event.
If the complainant had voluntarily consented to have sex with the
appellant, as the latter would want it to appear, her most natural reaction
would have been to conceal it or keep silent, as this would bring disgrace to
her honor and reputation, as well as to her family. Perhaps, she could have gone ahead and
married her boyfriend. But, the
complainant did not choose to be silent.
She, instead, publicly and openly proclaimed the wrong done to her and
vehemently denounced the appellant, shutting out even the possibility of a
happy and blissful married life, and exposed herself to the ordeal and
embarrassment of a public trial and heaped upon herself unwanted humiliation.
To be sure, the complainant, a respectable woman of good family
and breeding, would not have told a story of rape if such were not a fact,
considering the dishonor, the shame and
the social humiliation that accompany the accusation and the adverse effects upon her very future. Besides,
if it were true that she had agreed to elope with the appellant as to have sex with him, it is inconceivable that the
mere appearance of her sister,
Mrs. Rosalinda Antiporda, who went to Baguio City in search for her and to arrange for her marriage to the appellant, if
necessary, should have changed her from a loving sweetheart to one who detested
her boyfriend and later accused him of such a beastly and shameful crime. That unwavering and firm denunciation of the
appellant negates consent.
The appellant, in
his Brief, contends that the trial court should not have given credence to the
testimony of the complainant that she had been raped by the appellant, pursuant
to the rule of “Falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus,” since the trial court itself
did not give weight and credence to her claim that she had been forcibly
abducted by the appellant from the Makati Medical
Center at Makati, Rizal to Baguio City.
The rule, however, is settled that courts may believe one part of
the testimony of a witness and disbelieve another part, and courts are not
required to accept or reject the whole of the testimony of a particular witness. In one case,[18]
the Court said:
“There is nothing
improper or illegal in the actuation of the trial Court in partly crediting and
partly rejecting the testimonies of prosecuÂtion witnesses. Significant is the fact that the trial Court
supported its findings in this
case with the objective evidence. It is perfectly reasonable for a trier of facts to believe the testimony of a witness with respect
to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts in the
ascertainment of the truth.”
The appellant also points at alleged defects in the testimony of
the complainant, which would render said testimony not worthy of credence, to wit:
(1) Connie could not pinpoint the time she was
allegedly raped and had three different versions – one at around 2:00 or 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon of March
23, 1973, another at noontime of the same day, while another was in the morning of the said day;
(2) Connie testified that during the preliminary
investigation of the case, she presented to the Fiscal the clothes she was
wearing on the day she was raped but that
the Fiscal told her to just present them in court, whereas the Fiscal denied
said claim saying that all he received were sworn statements in support of the
complaint and the counter affidavit of the accused;
(3) Connie’s claim that her clothes were torn
during the struggle was disproved when said clothes were presented and did not
show such kind of damage; there was only a separation of the seams (“tastas“);
(4) Connie’s claim that she did not know what to
do because that was the first time she was alone with Eddie is not true as she herself admitted
that she and Eddie went to La Mesa Dam by themselves on February 11, 1973;
(5) Connie’s claim that she had not seen Eddie
for four (4) months is also belied by her testimony that she saw Eddie on February 11, 1973;
(6) Connie’s claim that Eddie had tried to rape
her for 100 times is exaggerated;
(7) Connie’s claim that her panty was full of blood is belied by her
testimony that the blood did not seep through her pants;
(8) The leisurely trip of Connie and Eddie to the
Grotto in Baguio
City belies her claim that she was
raped by Eddie prior to such trip;
(9) The romantic boating in the lagoon of Burnham
Park, after the alleged rape, also negates complainant’s claim that she was raped;
(10) Connie’s
refusal to go with the Baguio City policemen to the police headquarters runs
counter to her claim that she was raped by Eddie; and
(11) Connie’s
testimony in court is at variance with
her affidavit (Exh. 7).
These defects, however, refer to relatively minor details which
may be attributed to deficiencies in obserÂvation
and recollection, or misapprehension of misleading, confusing and taxing
questions during cross-examination, but they do not indicate a wilful attempt to commit a falsehood. Besides, the contradictory statements have
been satisfactorily explained by the complainant.
Complainant explained the difference in her statement of the time
she was raped by the appellant, saying that she did not have a watch at the
time and she was preoccupied in trying to ward off the advances of the
appellant as
to take
notice of the precise time.[19]
Considering that the complainant was very busy fending off the
appellant, it is indeed not improbable for her to have lost all conciousness of the passage of time.
As for the condition of the dress she was wearing at the time, it
is not really very material whether the fibers of her dress were broken or that
it was merely separated at the seams (“tastas“). Either condition conveys the same message and
that is, there was a struggle between the appellant and complainant.
With respect to the alleged
inconsistency between the testimony of the complainant that her panty
was full of blood and her declaration that the blood in her panty did not seep
to her pants, the complainant explained that she found a napkin which she
placed on her private part to stem the flow of blood. Her testimony reads as follows:
“Q Was
the bleeding of your vagina or private part profused?
A Yes,
your Honor. Not so much but it was
really bleeding.
Q That
it even went through from the panty to the
pants?
A No,
your Honor. I found a napkin and I placed this
napkin. I found one piece in the toilet
and I placed it because it was bleeding.”[20]
The failure of the complainant to shout for help or attempt to escape from the appellant has also
been satisÂfactorily explained by her.
She declared that the appellant had threatened to leave her to fend for
herself in a strange place if she should make a scene or shout or do anything
against his wishes and she was afraid of what strangers might do to her if she
were alone.[21]
Besides, she was confused and did not know what to do. She thought that it was the end of the world
for her. She felt forlorn and abandoned
and even thought of marrying the appellant although she despised him for what
he had done to her.[22]
With respect to the Baguio
City policemen, the complainant
explained that the men who went to the house at No. 96
Kennon Road on 23 March 1973 were in civilian
clothes and she did not know them to be policemen. Believing that they were strangers, she
really could not confides in them or relate to them her predicament and
tragedy. She was also afraid of falling
into the hands of other men who would rape her again. Besides, she did not understand a word of
what they said. Her testimony reads:
“Q You
said the man was in civilian clothes and that you could not understand what
they were talking about, what happened after that?
A The
man went near the door and was saying something to me but I did not understand
him. So, I just kept silent.
Q Now,
why did you not step out of the room?
A I
don’t know. I was thoroughly confused
and the fear that the accused might have me kidnapped or pass me to another man
to be raped cross (sic) my mind.
I was so confused.”[23]
As for her going with the appellant to the Grotto at Naguilian Road and then boating in the Burnham Park lake,
the complainant explained that she thought it best to go outside the house on
23 March 1973, rather than stay in the house where the appellant was trying
hard to force himself again on her for another sexual intercourse with him. She said:
“Q What
happened after the man left?
A The
accused told me that we were going out.
Q About
what time was that?
A Around
5:00 o’clock past.
Q And did he say where you were going?
A No,
he did not mention it.
Q Why
did you not ask him?
A I
did not or it did not matter anymore.
Q Did
you go with him?
A That
was much better than to stay in the house where he might attempt again.
Q Where
did you go?
A He
told his driver to go to the Grotto.
Q Where,
in Baguio?
A Here
in Baguio.
Q Did
he tell you why you were going there?
A He
said we were going to pray but the car just went around and did not stop. And then
he told the driver to go to Burnham
Park and there he hired a boat and
he told me to go on it.
Q Did
you get into the boat?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Why?
A I
did not know where else to go. I was
gathering my thoughts what had happened.
I felt that what had happened was the end of the world for me and I was feeling so alone and I was
thinking that my parents and my family have abandoned my (sic) already.”[24]
With regard to variances in the testimony of the complainant and
her affidavit (Exhibit 7), suffice it
to state that “an affidavit, being taken ex–parte, is almost always incomplete and often
inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion, sometimes for want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which the
witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances
necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for his
accurate recollection of all that belongs to the subject.”[25]
The appellant also assails the trial court for not giving due
weight and credence to the testimonies of defense witnesses Julian Cartano, Josefa Solano and
Federico Estoque who claimed to have seen the
complainant and the appellant holding each other’s shoulders (“magka-akbay“) and talking and laughing like
newly-weds, and that they did not see any injuries on the complainant.
It cannot be denied, however, that only the complainant and the
appellant, and no other, can testify to the rape committed in this case. Consequently, the testimonies of the defense
witnesses who did not actually see the commission of the offense cannot prevail
over the positive testiÂmony of the complainant that she was raped by the
appellant with a full and straight-forward revelation of its details. Besides, it is possible that the defense
witnesses could not have seen the injuries sustained by the complainant since
the injuries on her breast, thigh and private part were amply covered by her
clothes while the injuries on her neck were covered by her long hair.[26]
Going over the voluminous record of the case, the Court cannot
escape the thought that there had surged an over-powering fit of
passion which blinded the appellant and led him to commit the crime. Was he overcome by bestial instinct? Or was he provoked or incited to execute the
act? Only the appellant knows. Unfortunately, he did not take the witness
stand to explain his side. But we cannot
hold this against him, for an accused has the right to remain silent and no adverse inference should be drawn from
that silence. Besides, settled is the
rule that in order to gain conviction, the prosecution must rely on the
strength of its evidence rather than on the weakness of the defense. In the instant case, the Court is satisfied
that the guilt of the appellant has been proven with moral certainty and beyond
reasonable doubt; hence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is, hereby AFFIRMED, with costs
against the defendant?appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
* Penned by Judge George C. Macli-Ing.
[1]
tsn of August 15, 1974, p. 750
[2] Exhibit 5-H
[3]
tsn of August 15, 1974, p. 750
[4]
Exh. 5-D-1
[5]
tsn of August 14, 1974, pp. 674-677
[6]
Id., pp. 682, 684-685
[7]
Id., p. 733
[8]
Id., pp. 686-698
[9]
Id., p. 702
[10]
Id., p. 703
[11]
Id., p. 705
[12]
Id., p. 706
[13]
Id., pp. 707-708
[14]
Exhibit B
[15]
Exhibit C
[16]
Exhibit K
[17]
Original Record, p. 3
[18]
People vs. Sarol,
G.R. No. 66240, October 8, 1985, 139 SCRA 125, 131
[19]
tsn of October 8, 1974, p. 817
[20]
tsn of October 9, 1974, p. 926
[21]
tsn of August 14, 1974, p. 739
[22]
Id., pp. 701-702
[23]
Id., p. 700
[24]
Id., pp. 701-702
[25]
People vs. Laredo, G.R. Nos. 81249-51, May 14,
1990 and cases cited
therein.
[26]
tsn of October 8, 1974, p. 833