THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANDRES GREFIEL, ALIAS EDDIE GREFIEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Herminia O. Java, a married woman,
accused Eddie Grefiel of attempted rape in a verified complaint filed with
the Municipal Court of Marabut, Samar, on October 21, 1976. The crime was allegedly committed on September
28, 1976. (Expediente, p. 4; also Exh. B.)

On January 17, 1977,
Herminia amended her complaint. Instead of attempted
rape, she accused Grefiel of rape said to have been committed as follows:

“That on or about the 28th day of September, 1976, at about 12:30
past noontime, in Barangay San Roque,
Marabut, Samar,
Philippines, and within the preliminary jurisdiction of this Court, the said
accused EDDIE GREFIEL, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and
there wilfully, un­lawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of the complainant Herminia O. Java,
against her will.” (Expediente, p. 2;
also Exhs. C and C-1.)

Grefiel waived preliminary
investigation. The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Samar where it was docketed as Criminal Case No. 906. After
trial, the court rendered the follow­ing judgment:

“WHEREFORE and in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered finding accused ANDRES OR EDDIE GREFIEL guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Rape as charged in the
amended complaint, and hereby sentences him to RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to
indemnify Herminia Java in the amount of P12,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
and to pay the costs.” (Expediente, p.
195.)

The case is now before this Court on appeal.

It was in People vs. Imbo,
L-36759, August 31, 1972,
166 SCRA 355, where our learned Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando said:

“The difficulty, recognized and acknowledged, in the
decision-making process where the prosecution is for rape, arises from the fact
that usually only the participants can testify as to the alleged sexual abuse.
The accused may deny such an occurrence, put up the defense that he was
somewhere else, or allege the consent on the part of the complainant. The court
then is left with no choice but to exert the utmost effort to determine the
likelihood that a sexual act did take place and under what cir­cumstances. Such
choice is not always easy.” (At p. 357.)

The above quotation has complete relevance to the case at bar
where only the complainant and the accused gave direct oral evidence on the
alleged sexual incident and the latter claimed that he was elsewhere on the date mentioned in
the complaint but admitted nonetheless that he had sexual relations with the
former by mutual consent.

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

“The complainant, Herminia Java, was
at the time of the incident, 25 years old, married to Antonio Java, and
residing in the house of Roberta Java, complainant’s mother-in-law, at Barangay San Roque, Marabut, Samar. She was then four
(4) months pregnant. (pp. 3 & 19, t.s.n.,
Aug. 1, 1977). Accused Andres Grefiel alias Eddie, on the other hand, was then 33 years
old, married, a fish vendor, and residing in the same barangay
of San Roque, about ten (10) meters away from
complainant’s residence. (pp. 84-85, t.s.n.,
July 10, 1978).

“On
September 28, 1976, at about 12:00 o’clock noon, accused Grefiel
together with Ernesto Ruste, Guillermo Albarracin, Ponso Parado and Eulogio Batica, were having a drinking spree in the aforesaid house
of Roberta Java. Except for Grefiel and Ruste, the three others in the group are brothers-in-law of
complainant’s husband. (pp. 37-39, t.s.n., March 6, 1978; p. 26, t.s.n. , Jan. 4, 1978). At that time,
complainant’s husband was in Manila (p. 13, t.s.n., Aug. 1,
1977).
Her mother-in-law, on the other hand, was in the farm in the mountain.

“At
about 12:30 o’clock in the afternoon
of same day, complainant went out of the house and proceeded to the coconut
plantations of Remigia Dacquittal
to answer a call of nature. As she stepped out, accused Grefiel
noticed her. And, a few minutes thereafter, Grefiel
excused himself from the group. (pp. 39-41, t.s.n., March 6, 1978).

“When Herminia was already squatting
on the improvished toilet in the field, reading old magazines wile defecating, she heard some
footsteps approaching. Upon seeing accused-appellant herein, she
abruptly stood up, hurriedly put on her panty, and immediately ran away. The
accused, however, chased her. He caught up with her when she stumbled on the
roots of a coconut tree. Forthwith, accused Grefiel
grabbed her, covered her mouth with his hand, and dragged her towards the
bushes. (pp. 3-6, t.s.n., Aug. 1, 1977). Herminia struggled to free
herself, but her strength was no match to that of Grefiel’s.
The accused forced her to lie down, and lasciviously, he placed himself on top
of her. He then kissed her, held her breast and private parts, and then tore
away her dress. (pp. 6-8, id., Exhs.
“A”, “A-1” and “A-2”).

“Herminia, however, kept on fighting
to save her honor. She struggled and kicked, but the accused, who was covering her mouth, succeeded in
pinning her legs and body while lying on top of her. Thereupon, the accused
forcibly removed her panty. Because of continuous struggle, Herminia
weakened. Accused Grefiel, on the other hand, became
more ferocious, trying hard to force his organ inside hers. To avoid
penetration, Herminia continued to move and struggle.
Despite her continuous resistance, however, Grefiel
succeeded in having a complete penetration. He followed this with a vigorous
push-and-pull movement. After a short while, Grefiel
ejaculated. (pp. 8 -11, t.s.n., Aug. 1, 1977).

“Having completed his carnal desire, Grefiel
stood up, put on his pants, and left the complainant who was crying in shame. Grefiel then went back to rejoin the group which he left
(p. 13, t.s.n., Aug. 1, 1977). Upon his return, he
was asked where’s the ‘pulutan‘, to which he answered
he found none. Quietly, he approached his compadre,
Ernesto Ruste, and whispered something. They then
partook another round of tuba, after which Grefiel
and Ruste asked permission to leave. (pp. 41-43, t.s.n., March 6, 1978).

“Meanwhile, Herminia
went home with her torn dress.
She avoided being noticed as she was ashamed. (pp. 14-16, t.s.n., Aug. 1, 1977). Quietly,
she changed her dress and lay down on bed crying. When her mother-in-law
arrived from the farm at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening, she told her: ‘Nanay, I was raped by Eddie.’ (p.
16, t.s.n., id.). Roberta Java was shocked.
She could not comprehend what her son (com­plainant’s husband) would do upon
knowing it. She became apprehensive of the embarassment
and humiliation that it would cause. Eventually, Roberta Java advised Herminia to file a com­plaint, not for consummated rape
although that was the crime actually committed, but only for attempted rape, to
avoid public humiliation (pp. 63-68, t.s.n., June 1, 1978). When complainant’s
sister-in-law, Preciosa Albarracin,
arrived home a few days later, Herminia also informed
her of what had happened. Following the advice of Roberta Java, complainant Herminia was assisted by Preciosa
in filing the case for attempted rape against accused Grefiel.
(pp. 16-17, t.s.n., Aug. 1, 1977).

“Because of the said incident, Herminia
got sick and almost suffered a miscarriage. She was attended by a ‘hilot‘ in the locality to prevent the threatened abortion
on her 4-month pregnancy. She was not able to submit herself to medical
examination because there was no doctor
in their municipality. In the meantime, she
informed her husband about the incident through a letter. When her husband
arrived home from Manila, she
narrated to him what had actually happened. With the help of her husband, she
subsequently corrected her complaint to that of consummated rape to state the
truth of the incident. (pp. 17-23, t.s.n.,
Aug. 1, 1977).” (Brief, pp. 1-6.)

Contraposed to the above is the
appellant’s version which is:

“Accused, Eddie Grefiel, a fish
vendor, and the herein complainant, Herminia O. Java,
are neighbors at Barangay San Roque,
Marabut, Samar.
Their houses are just about ten (10) meters away from each other. As early as
July, 1976, accused-appellant frequented the house of the complainant almost
daily to drink tuba which she sells in her store at her house. Herminia’s husband, Antonio Java, was not then at Barangay San Roque as he left the
place for Manila more than a year
before July, 1976. On those occasions
that accused Eddie Grefiel was in the house of Herminia Java to drink tuba, she would tell Eddie Grefiel to bring squid and fish to be made into ‘kinilaw‘ and everytime he would
bring fish and squid to Herminia, the latter would
tell him to come back to her house to have a drinking spree. These frequent
visits of Eddie Grefiel have developed between him
and Herminia Java an intimacy that eventually the two
ended as lovers. For the first time they consummated their carnal desire for
each other in that coconut plantation of Remigia Dacquittal located a few meters away from the house of Herminia. The place became the usual place of rendezvous
for the two as several other meetings took place thereat at two or three days interval.  On
about four instances however, accused and Herminia
Java had sex in the latter’s house usually at 11:00 o’clock in the evening.

“Sometime on September
26, 1976, accused Eddie Grefiel had a
drinking spree with Eulogio Batica,
Guillermo Albarracin, Ernesto Ruste
and Ponso Parado, at the
house of Herminia Java. They started drinking tuba at
about 8:00 o’clock in the morning. Herminia Java and her daughter were in the house but not Herminia’s mother-in-law who was in the mountain then. Herminia would join in the drinking but would stand up when
somebody would buy in the store. It was about noontime while Herminia Java was washing the glasses at the kitchen when
the accused Eddie Grefiel told Herminia
to go to the usual place at Daquittal’s coconut
plantation. She agreed and Eddie returned to the table where they were
drinking. When Herminia Java was about to go out of
the house, she made signs to Eddie that she was already going to the place.
Eddie did not immediately follow Herminia but waited
for about five minutes before standing
up and made an excuse to the group that he was going home first. Eddie went to
his house first and thereafter, proceeded to their usual
meeting place. When he arrived Herminia Java was
already there standing and he told her to remove her panty and lie on the
coconut leaves. They then had sexual intercourse after which Eddie told Herminia to go ahead. Eddie went back to the house of Herminia a little while after Herminia.
The group was still there in the house of Herminia
and they continued to drink tuba. After consuming tuba on the container, Eddie Grefiel asked Herminia Java to
give them another gallon of tuba which Herminia did
and she joined them. It was about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon
when Eddie Grefiel went home from that drinking spree
in the house of Herminia Java.” (Brief, pp. 5-6.)

The appellant claims that:

“I. THE TRIAL COURT
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF
COMPLAINANT, HERMINIA JAVA WHO IS HERSELF AN UNTRUTHFUL WITNESS:

“II.  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CON­VICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOT ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE BUT ON
ALLEGED WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE; AND

“III. FINALLY, THE
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE AND
SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA.” (Brief, p.
1.)

The assignment of errors raises only one issue: which version is
more credible?

In this jurisdiction and in other countries where the law has
developed beyond the primitive stage, “It is a fundamental rule that
conclusions and findings of fact by the trial court are entitled to great
weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent
reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine real
evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying
in the case.” (People vs. Balili, L-38250,
August 6, 1979, 92 SCRA 552, 560-561.) This case is covered by the fundamental
rule; the appeal must be dismissed; and the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.

The appellant questions Herminia’s claim that she was raped in the coconut
plantation of Remegia Daquittal.
He says that the site of the alleged rape
is near several houses, including Herminia’s, and
people pass it in going to their farms. But no less than the appellant in his
own statement of facts says that the Daquittal
coconut plantation was the venue
of their first and other sexual encounters. This is what the appellant’s brief says:

“These frequent visits of Eddie Grefiel
have developed between him and Herminia Java an inti­macy
that eventually the two ended as lovers. For the first time they consummated
their carnal desire for each other in that coconut plantation of Remigia Daquittal located a few
meters away from the house of Herminia. The place
became the usual place of rendezvous for the two as several other meetings took
place thereat at two or three days interval.”

In the light of the foregoing, it passes understanding how the
appellant can claim that the venue was unsuitable for the crime of rape.

The appellant’s claim
that he and Herminia were lovers is too crude to be
convincing. As the trial court said:

“There is no doubt that the sexual inter­course was
accomplished through force. The torn portions of the maternity dress (Exhibits
“A-1” and “A-2”) complainant was wearing at the time of the incident attest to said fact.
Although no other physical evidence of force is shown on record other than the
torn dress and of course the statement of the complainant to that effect, there
is also no evidence satisfactorily belying the same.”

The appellant asks why Herminia did not
report the rape to her husband’s brothers-in-law. Her explanation is
reasonable; she said:

“ATTY DE VEYRA

Q  And what happened when you returned to your house?

A  I did nothing. I only changed my dress and I
did not tell them because I was afraid they were all men and besides my
mother-in-law was in the farm.

 ATTY. DE VEYRA

The interpretation
would be – I did not inform them because my mother-in-law was in the farm. They
were drinking in the kitchen I just went up
the house passing the sala and changed my
dress. I did not say anything for fear that there might be a fight.” (TSN,
August 1, 1977, pp. 14-15.)

As a matter of fact, Herminia reported
the rape to her mother?in-law as
soon as the latter arrived home on the same day. This circumstance
belies the appellant’s claim that he was having an affair with Herminia.

The appellant also asks
why she initially filed a complaint for attempted rape only. This was very well
explained by her as follows:

“ATTY DE VEYRA

Q
Now, Mrs. Java you stated that instead of filing a case of consummated rape you
merely filed a case of attempted rape for the first time. Will you please tell
us why you filed a case of attempted instead of consummated rape?

A  First, it was very shameful and secondly, I
was afraid my husband might not return any more especially that I was about to
give birth.

Q  When you filed a case for attempted rape where
was your husband?

A  He was in Manila.

Q  Now, you also stated that you need the
amendment of your first complaint from attempted rape to consummated rape. What
were your reasons that made you amend your complaint from attempted rape to
rape?

A  I changed that attempted rape to rape because
my husband interrogated me about that case.

Q  And what did your husband say if you remember?

A
He said to me, ‘because you are my wife you
tell me all the truth.’

Q  Only that?

A  Then I told him that the act was consummated.

Q  What was the reaction of your husband, if any?

A
He did not harm me because that was not
my voluntary act.

Q  When you went to the Municipal Judge of Marabut, Samar to amend the
complaint, was
your husband with you?

A  Yes, sir.

Q  You also stated on cross examination that you
did not submit to a physician
for examination. Why did you not submit?

A  Because they
only got a local midwife ‘hilot‘ as I was
about to have a miscarriage.” (TSN, January 4, 1978, pp. 31-33.)

We have said that the findings and conclusions of the trial court
should as a rule not be disturbed. The trial court’s action is well?grounded.
It said:

“It is quite difficult for the Court to believe that Herminia Java, a young married woman with two children, a
second year com­merce student of the Divine Word University, four months
pregnant at the time of the inci­dent would publicly disclose through the
filing of the case, that she has
been raped thus sullying her honor and reputation in the com­munity and undergo
the trouble and humiliation of a trial if her motive was not to bring to
justice the person who wrong her.”

WHEREFORE, the decision and judgment under review being in
accordance with both the evidence and the law, the latter is hereby affirmed in
toto with costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, and
Escolin, JJ., concur.

 Concepcion,
Jr., J., on leave.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.