PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO NIEBRES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Eduardo Niebres y Blim was charged with the crime of rape in a complaint, dated April 7, 1980, subscribed and sworn to by
Rosalinda Barcelona and filed before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch I.

After pleading not guilty to the crime charged, he was
subsequently tried and convicted in a decision^[1]
dated September 29, 1983, to wit:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the court finds the accused
Eduardo Niebres y Blim
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, as charged, and sentences him to reclusion perpetua, with
the accessories provided by law,
to indemnify Rosalinda Barcelona in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) as moral damages and to pay the costs.

“The accused shall be credited with the preventive
imprisonment he has undergone pursuant
to Art. 29, Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 6127.

SO ORDERED.”

Hence, this appeal with the following assigned errors:

I

“THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT, BECAUSE THE HALF-SLIP, SKIRT AND PANTY OF
COMPLAINANT WERE NOT RENT AND THE GARTERS OF THE SAME PANTY AND HALF-SLIP
REMAINED INTACT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT DID
NOT EMPLOY FORCE ON SAID COMPLAINANT.

II

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF RAPE.”

(PP. 6-7, Brief for the Appellee; pp. 146-147, Rollo).

Complainant, a young girl, 19 years of age, at the time she
testified on June 16, 1980,
declared that she had known appellant Eduardo Niebres
since January, 1979.  She narrated that
at about 2:45 o’clock in the morning
of March 23, 1980, she went
to Dayap St., Makati, to fetch water from a
public faucet.  She was the last and only
person left as all the others before her who lined up to fetch water had
already gone.  Seeing that she was alone,
appellant approached and poked a sharp pointed object wrapped in a piece of
cloth (believed by complainant to be a knife) at the left portion of her neck
and with his right hand holding her upper right arm made her walk towards Bermeo St., threatening to stab her, if she would shout. 
When they reached Bermeo St. complainant was forced by appellant to lie down on a dark rocky place
with plants.  Appellant made love to the
complainant while lying on the rocks, by positioning himself on top of her
after removing his pants and pulling her panty down and succeeded in having
carnal knowledge of her despite her struggle to free herself.  All this time, appellant continued to hold
the knife aimed at her neck,
threatening to stab her should
she shout to attract help.  After he was through with her, appellant left the complainant with threats to her life.

As testified to by her mother,
complainant was crying and trembling when she arrived home shortly after the
rape incident.  She related to her
parents what transpired as she showed them her bloodied blouse and skirt.  Just before sunrise, they were already at the
police station in Dian St., Makati to report the incident.  Accompanied by Pat. Sampana,
the complainant returned to the place of the incident to look for the appellant
but he was nowhere to be found.  After
taking down the complainant’s statement, the police advised her to go to the
NBI for medical examination.  She was
examined at about 10:30 in the morning of the same day by Dr. Valentin Bernales of the NBI who,
after the examination, issued the following report:

“PHYSICAL INJURIES:

Contusions reddish:  scapular
region, right, 6.0 x 4.0 cms.:  interscapular
region, right side 4.0 x 2.0 cms. and left, 2.0 x 1.5
cm. lumbar region, along median line, 3.0 x 2.0 cms.
Abrasion, reddish, elbow, right 1.0 x 1.0 cm. and left 3.0 x 1.0 cm.  (EXH. “A-1”)

“GENITAL EXAMINATION:

Pubic hair, fully grown, moderate. 
Labia majora, gaping Labia minora,
coaptated.  Fourchette, tense with healing laceration at the median
line which bleed on slight manipulation. 
Vestibulamucosa, reddish.  Hymen,
tall, thick with healing laceration, complete deep at 9:00 and 11:00 o’clock
positions edges of which are reddish and congested which bleeds upon
slight manipulation.  Hymenal orifice,
originally annular, admits a tube or 2.8 cms. in
diameter with mark resistance. 
Vaginal walls, moderately tight.  Rugosities, moderately shallow.”

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The above described physical injuries were noted on the body of
the subject at the time of examination.

2. Genital findings present compatible with sexual intercourse with
man on or about the alleged date of commission.” (Exh.
“A-1”) (pp. 2-3, Decision, pp. 5-6, Rollo)

About four days later,
appellant went to the victim’s house to ask her hand in marriage.  She rejected such proposal.  Right then and there he was apprehended by
the police.

On the other hand,
appellant, in his testimony as sole witness for the defense, does not deny having had sexual intercourse with the complainant.  However, he claims that it was voluntary and
without the use of force since they were lovers, appellant having courted and
finally winning the love of complainant whom he met in November 1979.

Such claim is not
substantiated by the evidence on the record. 
Except for his oral testimony in court, nobody or nothing was presented
in court to corroborate appellant’s testimony of their alleged
relationship.  The victim refuted such
testimony of the appellant, when she denied on the witness stand any amorous
relationship between them.  Furthermore,
if they were indeed sweethearts, why did the complainant refuse appellant’s
offer of marriage after they had already engaged in sex and instead she chose
to undergo the rigors and humiliation of a public trial.  Such reaction is unnatural for a young girl
who had had sexual intimacies with the man of her choice if she truly loves
him.  Moreover, there is no showing that
she is a girl of loose morals.  One can
only surmise the pain and embarrassment the victim went through during trial
because as the lower court observed:

“x x x the
complainant was so shy or sensitively embarrassed to narrate what the accused
did to her relative to the sexual intercourse and had to pause in her testimony
to muster courage to say publicly what apparently was to her a very shameful
experience.”

Appellant insinuates that
complainant wanted them to have the time for themselves so that
she deliberately chose the wee hours of the morning to fetch water and she
allowed her sister to leave her alone at the public faucet.  This is purely conjectural and has no factual
basis.  Aside from the fact that it was
established that they had no amorous relationship, it has been shown that the
victim lives in a neighborhood where their only source of water is a public faucet located at Dayap St. 
Considering that there were many people fetching water from the same
faucet, she had no control of her time as to when she would be able to finish
drawing water.

Appellant faults the
victim for not shouting to ask for help since the place where the incident
happened was not dark and isolated contrary to the findings of the trial
court.  He also claims that the victim
could have easily shouted for help while still at the faucet as it was located
near a house and that there were still other people
who lined up after her.  While it may be
true that several people arrived after her, it was also possible that when she
lined up for the last time, no other people followed her, considering that she had to line up before the faucet not only once because after filling up
a smaller container, she had to transfer its contents to a drum placed in a
push cart, after which she had to fall in line again.

Complainant
admitted that the corner of Bermeo and Calatagan streets was lighted with a flourescent
lamp.  However, this lighted corner was
located sixteen (16) meters away from the exact spot where the rape occurred so
that the spot where the rape occurred was hardly illuminated.  As to the corner of Dayap
and Bermeo Sts., there was no showing that the Meralco post was lighted,
and even if this was lighted, the light could not have possibly reached the
place of the incident as the distance between them was approximately ninety
(90) meters.  Furthermore, the presence
of plants and bushes taller than a normal person on the spot where the rape
occurred, effectively blocked any light coming from the corner of Calatagan and Bermeo
Streets.  Besides at 3:00 o’clock in the morning the streets were already
deserted and it is reasonable to expect that people inside their homes were
already asleep.  We have ruled that
presence of people in a certain vicinity does not preclude the
commission of rape (People vs. Managbanag 155 SCRA
669) which may be committed in parties or by the roadside, or in school
premises or in other places where people usually pass by (People vs. Aragona 138 SCRA 569).

Accused-appellant argues
that it was impossible for him to remove his pants, pull the victim’s panty
down to her knees and insert his penis into victim’s
organ while he was on top of her while holding a knife with his left hand.  He questions the fact that the garter of
complainant’s panty remained intact even after the alleged resistance or struggling of the victim to free herself.

Considering that the
victim was continuously threatened by the appellant with an object (believed by
the victim to be a knife) pointed at her neck, thus it would be expected that
fear for her life was simply overpowering and stifling any attempt to resist
the sexual assault of the appellant.  As
enunciated in the case of People vs. Cabradilla, (133
SCRA 413) We reiterate the following:

“The working of human mind when placed under emotional stress,
however, are unpredictable and people react differently.  In this given situation, some may shout; some
may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility; while some may openly
welcome the intrusion.”

The fact that the garter
of victim’s panty remained intact does not negate rape.  It could be possible that in the course of
her struggle, her panty slipped down from her knees until it was eventually off
her legs.  Even if it stayed just below
her knees, sexual intercourse would not be impossible since the garter was stretchable. 
Appellant’s feat in raping the complainant may be difficult to
achieve but it is not at all impossible. 
Usually passion is high when one desires what is not his so that no
obstacle is too difficult to overcome to achieve what is intended.  The victim might be lacking tenacity or vigor
in her resistance but that does not indicate consent to the sexual intercourse.  If she did, why did she lose no time in
complaining the rape to her parents and why did she denounce the appellant at
the police headquarters before daybreak, rejecting later on, the proposal of
marriage by the appellant?  All these
circumstances strongly reject the theory of appellant’s innocence.

WHEREFORE, premises considered the appealed judgment
is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge (now CA Justice) Celso L. Magsino.