THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CIRILO FLORES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

About 12:00 noon of December 12, 1980, 14-year old Edna Flores who
was living with her father and step-mother in barrio Sta. Rita, Macabebe, Pampanga, went to the
house of her cousin Abad Flores to get some Kamias fruits to be used for cooking “sinigang.” The house of Abad
Flores was some five houses away from theirs. Arriving at the yard of Abad Flores, Edna saw accused, Cirilo
Flores, and she asked him for some kamias fruits. The
latter answered that he did not have any. Nonetheless, Edna went to see and
gather kamias fruits herself. At that juncture, Cirilo held her by the arms, covered her mouth with one
hand, held her neck with the other and forcibly dragged her towards a shed
which housed the automatic water pump some meters away but within the yard of Abad Flores. Once inside the shed Cirilo
forced Edna to lie down on the ground floor but the latter fought back and
shouted causing Cirilo to place his hand again over
her mouth. Cirilo then removed her panties and placed
himself on top of her until he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her.
Thereafter, Cirilo slapped Edna on the face and
warned her that she would suffer more and even kill her if she will reveal the
incident to her parents.

Edna put on her panties and went home crying with­out the kamias. Afraid to report what had happened to her, upon
reaching home, when her step-mother Felisa asked
about the kamias, she was no longer crying.

The following day, December 13, Edna saw appellant driving a
tricycle and the latter taunted her with his fingers. Thereafter, everytime Cirilo would meet her
he would taunt her.

Edna became pregnant and because she could no longer hide her
condition, on August 18, 1981,
she was forced to tell her father what Cirilo Flores
had done to her. When asked why she did not tell him earlier, Edna replied that
she did not want him to be involved in a fight. The following day, Edna’s
father brought her to the Central Luzon
General Hospital
where she was examined by Dr. Danilo S. Yumul who issued a medical certificate confirming her
pregnancy. Dr. Yumul issued medical certificate (Exhibit
“A”) with the following findings:

“I. Mentality – normal

II. Head & Neck – normal

III. Thorax:

Breast – well developed

Areola – brownish

Nipple – presence of milk upon
expression

IV. Abdomen –
globularly enlarged compatible to 8 months size man; FB -left; FHB – RLQ,
Cephalic, floating

V. Perinium:

Pubic hair – scanty

Labia Minora
& majora – coaptated

Hymenal opening
– admits one finger easily, 2 fingers with difficulty

Hymenal lacerations – Superficial healed laceration at 4, 7, 9, 12 o’clock.

– Deep healed laceration
at 6 o’clock.

VI. Smear for spermatozoa – negative

VII. Gravindex test -positive

LMP – December 3, 1980

PMP – November 3, 1980.”

On August 27, 1981,
or eight and a half months after she was abused by Cirilo
Flores, Edna gave birth to a baby girl who was named Estrella
Flores.

On October 23, 1981,
Cirilo Flores was charged with the crime of rape
described in the complaint as follows:

“That on or about the 12th day of December 1980, in the
municipality of Macabebe, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused CIRILO FLORES, by means of force,
threats and inti­midation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously with leud designs have carnal knowledge
of the complainant Edna Flores against her will and consent.

“All contrary to law. x x x.”
(p. 41, Rollo)

On March 12, 1982,
a decision finding Cirilo Flores guilty of the crime
charged was rendered by the trial court, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing discussion, judgment
is hereby rendered finding accused Cirilo Flores
guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of the felony of rape as charged in the
Criminal Complaint, and the Court imposes upon accused Cirilo
Flores the penalty of reclusion perpetua (life
imprisonment) with the accessories of the law; to pay Edna Flores moral damages
in the amount of P5,000.00; to support the offspring Estrella Flores; and to pay the costs.” (p. 57, Rollo)

On appeal to Us, Cirilo Flores
submitted that the trial court erred in giving weight to the incredible
testimony of Edna Flores and in convicting him on the basis thereof; and that
the evidence adduced failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence.

Appellant testified that prior to December 12, 1980 he used to
drive complainant to the movies in his tricycle and would advise her not to
mingle with boys inside the movie houses. Edna countered that he was only
jealous. On December 12, 1980
he was in the workshop of his uncle, Abad Flores,
talking with some of the workers thereat. He was not working at the time
because he suffered an accident and his left hand was injured. Edna approached
him and offered to apply medicine on his injured left hand. She applied guava
leaves and, thereafter, he told her to go home because his wife might see her.
She did not leave and, instead, went inside the water pump shed. He followed
her inside and she immediately started to kiss and hold his hand. He left her
and went home.

The testimony of appellant was corroborated by Eduardo Tulod Salongsong who was working
in the shop of Abad Flores that morning of December 12, 1980. He saw the two –
appellant and complainant – talking to each other although he did not know what
they were talking about.

We cannot sustain appellant’s conviction. At the outset, We note significant facts from the evidence of the
prosecution which raise serious doubts at its veracity. By complainant’s own
admission, appellant was not armed at all when she was allegedly dragged
towards the shed, few meters away from the workshop of Abad
Flores. How easily could she have shouted to arouse the attention of the people
therein had she wanted to. The fact that she did
nothing at all before, during and after the alleged rape strongly negates
commission thereof. Besides, complainant’s conduct immediately after the
alleged abuse on her chastity, is very revealing. She
went home to tell her step-mother that there was no kamias
and the latter did not notice anything unusual about her. Days passed into
weeks, weeks into months and according to Edna she kept her harrowing
experience to herself because of fear that Cirilo
would make good his threat to kill her. It was only in August 1981, or after
eight and a half months, when she took the courage to tell her father about the
alleged rape.

In the case of People vs. Romero, Jr., 117 SCRA 897, complainant,
a 17-year old maiden, also remained silent for eight months after she had lost
her precious virginity. The Court said, “[n]eedless
to state, such conduct runs counter to the natural reaction of an outraged
maiden despoiled of her honor. The aphorism that evidence to be believed must
not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible
in itself in conformity with the common experience and observation of mankind
it nowhere of more relevance than in cases involving prosecution for rape. In
fine, the complainant’s testimony in the instant case lacks that stamp of
absolute truth and candor necessary to overcome the constitutional presumption
of innocence.”

Indeed, the silence of the alleged rape victim for eight and a
half months rendered doubtful the truth of her charge. In fact, if complainant
in the case at bar did not become pregnant she would not reveal the incident at
all to anyone.

It is argued, however, that on December 12, 1980, Edna was only
14 years old, a country lass and a sixth grader, and therefore, was not capable
of making false statements against her abuser. The contention would be true two
generations ago but not anymore these days when teenagers are sex conscious,
outgoing, frank and aggressive.

WHEREFORE, on reasonable doubt, the judgment of conviction
is REVERSED and appellant is hereby ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
concur.errHH