G.R. No. 64167. July 31, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN LOREDO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CONCEPCION JR., J.:
Iloilo City in Criminal Case No. 11604 finding the accused Edwin Loredo
guilty of Rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua,
to indemÂnify the offended party, Maxiline Bautista, the sum of
P5,000.00, as moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, together with all the accessory penalties provided for by
law and to pay the costs.
The People’s version of the facts is as follows:
“Maxiline Bautista testified that, at about 7:00 o’clock in the
evening of March 4, 1979, a Sunday, she left her house at Sinuaga,
Pototan, Iloilo to attend a bible study in their barrio chapel some 100
meters away, and on the way, following a small path, about 4 meters away
from her house, she was met by the appellant who said to her: ‘Bing
(from Bebing, her nickname), you go to the house of Mildred, I have
something to tell you.’ When she asked the appellant why he should tell
her something in the houses of Mildred, he replied; ‘Just come with me, I
have something to tell you.’ She acceded and went with him to the
desigÂnated house which was some 50 meters away because she trusted him,
he being her uncle (pp. 5-9, 21, 43, t.s.n., June 2, 1980). The house
of Mildred Casquete built of bamboo was dark, the inmates thereof having
gone to reside at Lapaz. They entered the fenced lower portion of the
house which had a ground flooring that served as a storeroom for
firewood (pp. 10, 42, 43, 45 & 47, t.s.n., Id). Once
inside, the appellant embraced her. She was about to run away but he
held her left hand and again embraced her saying: ‘Bing, we will have
sexual intercourse,’ and she answered: ‘What are you Edwin, I trusted
you being my uncle and yet you will do that to me.’ He insisted saying,
‘we will just do it’ (p. 11, t.s.n., Id). She was about to run
away, but he pulled out his knife from his waist which he pointed to
her, holding her arm with his left hand and pulling down the zipper of
his pants (pp. 48, 49 & 51, t.s.n. Id). She accidentally stepped into a hole causing her to stumble and lie flat on the ground (p. 50, t.s.n., Id). Thereupon, the appellant lay on top of her, pinning her thighs with his legs (p. 11, t.s.n., Id).
She struggled, but could not ward him off because he was stronger.
She was about to shout but her mouth was covered (p. 12, t.s.n., Id). He took off her long pants and panties and then stood up to remove his own pants (p. 13, t.s.n., Id).
She did not stand up because she was warned that if she did so he
would box her on the mouth. How could she run away when the place was
fenced and appellant stood by the door? (p. 13, t.s.n., Id).
The appellant only wearing brief then lay on top of her and inserted his
penis into her vagina, although it took him a long time to do so as his
penis is quite big and this was her first sexual experience (pp. 13,
14, 19 & 52, t.s.n., Id). She did not move her buttocks but jerked upward as he inserted his penis into her vagina causing her pain (p. 52, t.s.n., Id). After the penetration, she did not struggle nor wiggle her buttocks (p. 52, t.s.n., Id). They stayed underneath Mildred’s house for one hour (p. 18, t.s.n., Id).
When he was through with her, the appellant told her to get up, put on
her underwear and go home. She went home after receiving a warning not
to tell her mother or anybody else (p. 17, t.s.n., Id). She
told no one of the incident, not even to her mother, or to the police
for fear her father would learn about it and kill her. Nor did she
submit to medical examination. The only time she was examined by a
doctor was during her confinement at the Iloilo Provincial Hospital for
uterine bleeding (pp. 35, 36 & 55, t.s.n., Id).”[1]
The accused Edwin Loredo admitted having carnal knowledge of the
complainant but denied the charge imputed against him. He claimed that
the sexual intercourse was done with complainant’s will and consent; and
that they were sweethearts. The court below made the following
findings:
“Upon the other hand, the accused Edwin Loredo denied having raped
the offended party. He claimed that they were sweethearts as early as
December, 1978.“It all started when the sister of the offended party, Marlene
Bautista, advised Edwin Loredo to court her sister. Edwin did not like
to court Maxiline because he knows she is her niece by first cousin.
But Marlene kept on advising him to court Maxiline.“Upon knowing that Marlene was advising Edwin to court her,
Maxiline told her sister why advise him when he is a homosexual. Edwin
heard this and he felt insulted, and so, he tried to show that he is a
man by proposing to her on December 6, 1978. In less than half an hour,
Maxiline accepted her proposal of love and, thereafter, they became
sweetÂhearts.“On February 14, 1979, the two agreed to meet at the back of the
church where they had sexual inÂtercourse. Edwin was not, however, able
to consumate the act of intercourse as he thought Maxiline’s mother
might look for her and so he ordered her to return to the plaza and
attend the Valentine party. The two sent each other love letters.
Maxiline gave Edwin her photograph, Exhibit ‘3’. Edwin, however,
returned to her her letters because he was afraid his father might
discover their relationship and he might drive him away.“In the evening of March 4, 1979, Edwin was in the house of
Mildred Casquete together with Alan Suegay, Rey Casquete and Mildred
Casquete herself. Casquete invited Edwin to sleep in her house to
accompany her son, Rey Casquete, because she was going to Iloilo City
the following day.“At around 7:00 o’clock, while reading comics in the house of
Mildred Casquete, Edwin heard somebody calling for him. Rey Casquete
asked Edwin to go and see who was calling for him and so he went
downstairs and there he saw Maxiline who told him to be quiet as he
might be heard by her mother who was in their house which was only 25
meters distant from the house of Casquete. The house of Casquete was
well-lighted at the time.“The two conversed and stayed under the house which was fenced.
They covered the ground with his jacket and then lied down. The
offended party prodded Edwin to take off his pants as she was taking off
her pants. Then they had sexual intercourse. After that, he ordered
her to go home. She passed thru the back part of the house of Mildred
and proceeded home. When Edwin went upstairs she was met by Alan Suegay
smiling. Edwin asked why he was smiling and he answered he saw what
they did downstairs.“On March 12, 1979, Edwin did not go to school because he had
headache. When he woke up after sleeping for a while, he was surprised
to see Maxiline sleeping with him on the same bed. She told him that
his headache would disappear if they had sexual intercourse. And so
they did have sexual intercourse.x x x x xx x x x
“On May 12, 1979, the father of Maxiline called for the parents of
Edwin and they agreed that the two get married. Those who went to the
house of the offended party were Edwin, his mother and Bgy. Captain
Bebiano Quimba. Juan Loredo was sick then and so he was not able to go
to the house of Maxiline. They agreed to look for a house which they
could buy so Edwin and Maxiline could have a house of their own.x x x x xx x x x
“On May 12, 1979, at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the
Loredos together with Barangay Captain Quimba and Mr. Suegay, principal
of the Elementary School, went to Maximo Bautista to ask for the hand of
his daughter, Maxiline. When they arrived at the house of Maximo they
saw him asking his daughter, Maxiline, why she did it, to which the
latter answered she wanted to marry Edwin. Maximo Bautista then agreed
they they just settle the matter and make arrangements for the wedding
of the two and to help them construct even a small house.” (Appendix,
Decision, p. 28, rec.)[2]
The Solicitor General recommends the reversal of the judgment appealed from and the acquittal of the appellant from the charge.
We have examined the records of the case and agree with the
recommendations of the Solicitor General that the appellant is innocent
of the charge against him. With regards to the testimony of the
complainant that she stayed behind to defecate and did not join her
brother and sisters in going to church to attend a bible study; that on
her way to the church alone, she met the accused who said to her, “Bing,
you go to the house of Mildred, I have something to tell you,” and that
she acceded and went with him to the designated house, where she was
raped, the Solicitor General made this observation:
“x x x. It is most probable that this was not a chance meeting of
the two, and that she had agreed with the appellant to have some
intimate moments together, and with that purpose in mind, they sought
the cover of the groundfloor of a desolated house and there, entered
into copulation. x x x.”[3]“x x x is the fact that the complainant entered the lower portion
enclosure of Mildred Casquete’s house, with the appellant, of her own
volition. If the appellant had just invited her to that house on the
pretext of telling her something there, it would have been incredible
that, seeing the place dark with no inmates, she would
not have desisted and run away (pp. 10, 47, t.s.n., June 2, 1980). It
is in credible that she, 14 years, a fifth grader and no longer a child
(she had her menstruation when she was 12), upon seeing the condition of
the place to which she was directed, would not have sensed the
appellant’s evil motive (pp. 17, 34, t.s.n., Id). It would be
incredible that, instead of objecting to the appellant for bringing her
to such place, she would still proceed to enter that dark and dingy
enclosure where firewood was stored, just to hear that ‘something’ which
appellant would tell her (pp. 42 & 43, t.s.n., Id). There
is absolutely no evidence that she was dragged into the place; she
accepted the appellant’s invitation to go with him, and she walked
quietly into it. And the only logical explanation for her presence
thereat is that she agreed and yielded to appellant’s invitation for
intimacy, including sex.”[4]
There is nothing in the records to show that the complainant shouted for
help or made any outcry during all the time that she and the accused
stayed underneath Mildred’s house for almost one hour. According to the
comÂplainant herself, her house was just 50 meters away from the scene
of the alleged rape and the barrio church was just 50 meters away, yet
she never shouted for help, although she had all the opportunity to do
so. Failure to shout despite the fact that outside help was available
nearby renders doubtful her charge of rape.[5]
Also, nothing in tile record shows that complainant reported the matter
to the police authorities. The accused did not threaten her with bodily
harm or coerce her into not reporting the matter to the authorities.
She was only warned not to tell her mother or anybody else least her
father would learn about it and kill her. Such warning of the accused
cannot give rise to the fear that is recognized by the courts as a valid
and effective deterrent to any action on the part of sex victims of
bringing the commission of the crime to the knowledge of the
authorities. Moreover, the warning was made after the incident, and
therefore, this could not in any way coerce the complainant to submit to
the desires of the accused. Complainant gave as reason for her failure
to report to the authorities the fear that her father would kill her.
Why would her father kill her if she was really abused? It is most
likely that her fear of her father was impelled by none other than guilt
that she had willingly indulged in sex with a relative.
Likewise, there is no showing of any force employed by the accused or
resistance from the complainant in the perpetration of the sexual act.
The complainant testified as follows:
“Q. You stated when your two legs were pinned, you struggle; after that what happened?
A. Then after that he took off my pants.
“Q. How about your panty?
A. He also took off my panty.
“Q. And when your pants and panty were already off or withdrawn what happened?
A. He also took off his pants.
“Q. Can you demonstrate to the Honorable Court how he was able to
take off his pants in such a way that he was pinning your legs?A. He stood up.
“Q. And you did not run away when he stood up?
A. How could I ran away when the house of Eyay Mildred is
surrounded with fence and he (appellant) was standing on the door.“COURT:
But did you stood up?
“WITNESS:
No, your Honor.
“COURT:
You did not stand up?
“WITNESS:
I did not stand up, your Honor, because Edwin Loredo told me if ever I stood up he will again box me on the mouth.
“FISCAL:
“Q. After Edwin Loredo was able to take off your panty, what happened?
A. Then he lie on top of me.”[6]
It is obvious from the foregoing testimony of the complainant that she
did not offer any resistance to her alleged assailant during the entire
time of the alleged rape nor show any semblance of determination to run
away when she had the chance to do so especially when the accused stood
up to take off his clothes. In fact, she never tried to run away.
On the contrary, the evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant
consented to the realization of the sexual act. Complainant testified
that the accused’s penis was quite big and for which reason it took the
latter a long time to insert the same into her vagina. Complainant also
said that she did not wiggle her buttocks and that she even jerked
upward as she felt pain when he inserted his penis into her vagina.[7] It is thus difficult to imagine how the sexual act was realized in this manner without the complainant’s cooperation.
The Solicitor General gave a satisfactory explanation for the filing of the complaint, to wit:
“Why then the charge of rape? The reason is simple. When the
complainant’s father, Maximo BauÂtista, arrived from Zamboanga City on
May 7, 1979 he found complainant pregnant, and although he and
appellant’s parents had agreed to the marriage between
appellant and complainant, Maximo, for some undisclosed reason, backed
out (pp. 4, 10, 24 & 30, t.s.n., March 26, 1980). Instead a
complaint for rape was filed against the appellant on June 13, 1970. No
doubt, this is a vengeful move by Maximo against appellant for
impregnating her daughter who later suffered an abortion.”[8]
The lower court convicted the accused of the crime charged mainly on the
testimony of the complainant. The records however show that
complainant’s testimony, aside from being uncorroborated, is doubtful,
unreliable, conÂtradictory, and insufficient to support such conviction.
When asked whether she cried during the time that the accused was
having sexual intercourse with her, she cateÂgorically declared on
cross-examination that “during all the time I was under Mildred’s house
with the accused I did not cry”. Then she said, “while Edwin was lying
on top of me and making push and pull movements I was cryÂing inasmuch
as I felt pain.”[9] From the
foregoing testimony of the complainant, We are made to believe that the
complainant cried not because she was coerced into the act, but because
of the size of the accused’s penis which hurt her when it entered her
sex organ.
It has been said that for the lone and uncorroborated testimony of the
offended party to be sufficient to conÂvict for the crime of rape, it
must be clear and free from any serious contradictions.[10] Here, complainant’s contradictions on vital matters destroyed her testimony that she was a victim of sexual assault.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE
and another one entered ACQUITÂTING the appeallant of the charge against
him. With costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Escolin, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
[1] pp. 59-61, Rollo.
[2] pp. 5-7, Decision.
[3] p. 63, Rollo.
[4] p. 62, Rollo.
[5] People vs. Astacio, 111 SCRA 527, L-54221, January 30, 1982.
[6] pp. 12-13, t.s.n., June 2, 1980.
[7] pp. 52-55, t.s.n., June 2, 1980.
[8] pp. 71-72, Rollo.
[9] pp. 46-47, t.s.n., June 2, 1980.
[10] People vs. Clarin, 108 SCRA 680.