G.R. No. 70308. December 14, 1987
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO S. SONICO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PADILLA, J.:
Appeal from the judgment* of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch XXIV, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, dated 3 December
1984, in Criminal Case No. 286-K, finding the accused-appellant Antonio S. Sonico guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape,
as defined and penalized under Article 335(3) of the Revised Penal Code, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the offended party, Loida S. Baclig, in the amount of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), without imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to pay the costs[1].
The facts, as found by the court a quo, are as
follows:
“The victim, Loida S. Baclig, testified that one day in July, 1975, after
lunchtime, she went to the house of the accused who is her granduncle (the
latter is the husband of the sister of the victim’s grandmother) and whom she
fondly calls “Lelong Anton”, to get her
pillow and blanket which she intended to use the night before; that after
getting hold of the said articles in one of the rooms at the second floor of
the house of the accused, the latter pulled her to another room on the
northeastern part of the house, after which he closed the door and one of the
windows which was then open; that the accused made her sit down on the bed with
her feet touching the floor after which he lifted her buttocks a little and
removed her panties while the accused was kneeling; that after having removed
her panties, the accused removed his own pants and underwear while standing on
the floor, after which he pushed her and made her lie down on the middle of the
bed by raising her legs which were then hanging; after having pushed her
towards the middle of the bed, he let her spread her legs, went on top of her
and inserted his penis into her vagina by performing the “up and down
motion” for about ten (10) minutes; that after having satisfied his lust,
the accused got down and while smiling at the girl, warned her not to report
the matter to anyone, otherwise, he would kill her. The accused was in possession of a kitchen
knife at the time. Despite what
happened, the girl picked up the pillow and the blanket, went home and reported
to school late in the afternoon. When
she went to urinate, she noticed blood stains on her skirt. On the following morning when she took a bath, blood stains were still in her
garments.
Miss Mariana Pe Benito and Mrs. Francisca
Suero, both teaching at the Cabugao
North Elementary School, took the witness stand one after the other and
testified about their lingering doubts and suspicions regarding the abnormal
enlargement of the breast of Loida which they began
to notice in July, 1975 and which prompted them to summon her parents in
November, 1975 after the girl had revealed the violation of her honor by her
“Lelong Anton” sometime in July, 1975. It was upon the proddings
of said witnesses that a medical
and physical examination was conducted on the person of the victim, Loida S. Baclig, by Dr. Soledad
S. Pira of the Gabriela
Silang General Hospital.
x x
x In a
medico-legal certificate issued by Dr. Pira,
dated December 3, 1975, she indicated the following findings:
– markedly enlarged breast, bilateral which is
warm to touch. No discoloration of the areala. Nipples
indented.
– Movable 1 inch diameter palpable mass at left
anterior axillary fold.
I. E. Findings:
– Pubic hair scarce.
– Hymen
– old laceration at 9 o”clock
– Vaginal
canal, admits one finger easily but two fingers with resistance.
– Cervix, small, hard, closed.
Bi-manual Exams:
– Uterus not enlarged.
– Adnoxae – palpable
mass, no tenderness”[2]
The accused, Antonio S. Sonico, denied
having committed the crime charged against him.
He could not think of any reason why he was charged of such a crime nor
could he ascribe any evil or ulterior motive to the offended party or her
mother who filed the complaint for rape against him[3]. The accused testified also that his daughter,
Trining Seguban, tried to
persuade the complainants from proceeding with the case “to preserve
domestic tranquility because we are related” and “because my daughter
have pity on me as an old man”[4]. Leonila Baclig, mother of the offended party, rejected the
proposal.
Appellant, in his brief, raises the following assignment of
errors:
“1. THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE COMPLAINANT AND THE COMPLAINING VICTIM
WHO EXECUTED THEIR SWORN STATEMENT AND FILED THE INSTANT COMPLAINT FOR RAPE
AFTER ALMOST FIVE (5) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME;
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING CREDIBILITY
TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINING VICTIM AND HER WITNESSES DESPITE THE
TESTIMONY OF THE MEDICO-LEGAL OFFICER TO THE CONTRARY AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF
THE ALLEGED VICTIM FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS AFTER THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE; and
3. THE TRIAL COURT IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY
OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT WHEN THERE IS NO MORAL CERTAINTY THAT
RAPE WAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED ON THE ALLEGED DATE”[5].
According to the accused,
“it is not only apparent but clearly appreciable that there has been grave
and serious doubt in the credibility of the complaining witness when it took
her so long a time (four to five
months) to make her revelations only after she was confronted of a suspected pregnancy arising out of the
enlargement of her breasts”[6].
The delay of four (4)
months in the filing of the complaint does not cast a doubt on the credibility
of the charge. It should be noted that
the accused threatened to kill the victim should she report the incident to her
parents. The threat directed at an
eleven (11) year old girl is enough reason for the delay in exacting the truth
from her. It is not uncommon for young
girls to conceal, for sometime, the assaults on their honor because of the
rapists’ threat on their lives[7]. In People
vs. Oydoc, the
Court said:
“One should not expect a fourteen-year old girl to act like an
adult or mature and experienced woman who would know what to do under such
difficult circumstances and who would have the courage and intelligence to
disregard a threat on her life and the members of her family and complain
immediately that she had been forcibly deflowered. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal
for sometime the assaults on their virtue because of the rapists’ threat on their lives, more so when the
rapist is the child’s own stepfather living with her”[8].
In support of his second assignment of error, accused contends that
the finding of the trial court that the presence of an old laceration at 9:00 o’clock shows that the victim was
“ravished by the accused” is all too sweeping, and does not find
conclusive confirmation in the testimony of the medico-legal officer. Accused further claims that even the
medico-legal officer could not make any conclusion on the presence of said
laceration.
The contentions of accused deserve scant consideration. The testimony of the medico-legal officer is
consistent with, and confirms the testimony of the victim that she was
raped. But, even without a medical certificate which is not
essential to prove the commission of rape, the testimony of Loida
Baclig alone is sufficient to convict the accused of
the crime charged[9].
We are here
confronted with a situation where there was only one witness to the commission
of the crime, the victim herself. Loida Baclig’s testimony clearly
and categorically pointed to the accused as the author of the crime. Her testimony is herein quoted:
“x x x
Q I
see that you are shedding tears, Why?
Will you please tell the Court?
A I
felt pains, sir.
Q Why? Why do you feel pains?
A Because
of the wrongdoing committed by my grandfather against me, sir.
Q Who
is that grandfather of yours who committed wrongdoing to you?
A Antonio
Sonico, sir.
x x
x
Q If
that grandfather of yours whose name is Antonio Sonico
is in the courtroom, will you please point at him?
A That
one, sir. (Witness pointing to a person
inside the courtroom, and when his name was asked, he answered Antonio Sonico).
Q You
said that he committed wrongdoing to you.
What is that wrongdoing he has committed?
A He
besmirched my reputation, sir.
Q You
said that he besmirched your reputation.
What did he do to you?
A He
raped me, sir.
Q Where
did he rape you?
A Right
in their house, sir.
Q Where
is his house located when he raped you?
In what barrio and municipality?
A At
barrio Quezon, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, sir.
Q When
did he rape you?
A In
July, 1975, sir.
Q Can
you still remember the date in the month of July 1975 when Antonio Sonico raped you?
A No
more, sir.
x x
x
Q You
said that sometime in the month of July, 1975, that was a day which you could
no longer remember now, was the date when Antonio Sonico,
the accused in the case raped you. What
time of the day did he rape you?
A After
lunch, sir.
Q Will
you please tell the court why you went to the house of Antonio Sonico after lunch on that day when he raped you?
A I
went to get my blanket and my pillow, sir.
x x x
Q When
you went to the house of Antonio Sonico after lunch
on that date when he raped you, who was the person in the house of Antonio Sonico when you entered the house?
A. He
was alone, sir. (Witness pointing to the
accused, Antonio Sonico).
Q When
you saw him for the first time, where was he?
A He
was lying down on the ground floor of their house, sir.
Q On
what was he lying then?
A On
a bed, sir.
Q Did
he see you.
A Yes,
sir.
Q Upon
entering the house and you saw him lying down on a bed on the ground floor of their house, where did you go after
you entered the house?
A I
went upstairs, sir.
Q Why
did you go upstairs?
A Purposely
to get my blanket and my pillow, sir.
x x x
Q When
you went up to the house of Antonio Sonico, going to
the second floor, to what particular place or room in the second floor did you
go?
A I
went to the room of “Auntie Lita“, sir.
Q Who
is this “Auntie Lita” you mentioned in
relation to Antonio Sonico?
A His
daughter, sir.
Q Did
you enter the room of your “Auntie Lita“?
A Yes,
sir.
x x
x
Q When
you entered the room of your “Auntie Lita“,
what did you do?
A I
took my blanket and my pillow, sir.
Q After
taking your blanket and your pillow, what did you do?
A I
wanted to go home then, sir.
Q When
you wanted to go home, what happened?
Will you please tell the court?
A My
grandfather, Antonio Sonico pulled me, sir.
Q What
did you do also, if any, when he pulled you?
A I
tried to cling on a “set” which was then upstairs, sir.
Q Was
he able to pull you?
A Yes,
sir.
x x
x
Q And
when he pulled you, to where, in what place did he pull you?
A He
brought me to the room of “Auntie Trining“,
sir.
x x
x
Q How
is she related to Antonio Sonico, the accused in this
case?
A “Auntie
Trining” is the daughter of Antonio Sonico.
Q That
room of your “Auntie Trining” whom you
mentioned and to where the accused pulled you, is it also in the second floor
of the house?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Was
he able to pull you inside the room of your “Auntie Trining“?
A Yes,
sir.
Q After
he was able to pull you inside the room of your “Auntie Trining“, what did he do?
A He
made me sat down on the bed, sir.
Q On
what part of the bed did he place you to sit?
A On
top of the bed, sir.
x x x
Q After
he was able to pull you inside the room, what did he do with respect to the
door of the room?
A He
closed the door, sir.
x x x
Q After
the accused has pulled you inside the room, closed the door and closed the
window on the northern side, what did he do next?
A He
removed his pants and also his underwear, sir.
Q How
far was he from you when he removed his pants and his underwear?
A He
was near, sir.
x x x
Q When
Antonio Sonico was doing those things you have
narrated, namely: he pulled you inside
the room; closed the door of that room behind you and closed the window on the
northern side and removed his pants and his underwear, will you please tell the
court what were your feelings then at that time, if any?
A I
was in fear, sir.
Q After
he removed his pants and his underwear, what did he do next?
A He
removed my panty, sir.
Q Did
you not resist when he removed your panty?
A I
was afraid, sir.
Q Why
were you afraid of him?
A x
x x when he pulled me, he
warned me not to talk. That if I will
talk, he will kill me, sir.
x x
x
Q After
Antonio Sonico had removed your panty, what did he do
next to you?
A He
forced me to lie down, sir.
Q On
the bed where you were seated?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
after he was able to force you
to lie down, what did he do next?
A I
was made to move my legs apart, sir.
Q And
after that, what did he do?
A He
went on top of me, sir.
Q After
he went on top of you, what did he do?
A He
performed the up and down movement.
x x
x
Q Was
he able to insert his private parts into your private parts?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
did you feel after he has inserted or when he inserted his private parts into
your private parts?
A I
felt pains, sir.
Q Why
did you not resist when he went on top of you before performing that sexual
intercourse with you?
A Because
he warned me, sir.
Q Did
you see anything from him during that time?
A There
was, sir.
Q What
did you see? Please tell the court?
A A
small knife (kutsillo), sir.
Q When
you said “kutsillo“, what do you mean?
A It
is kitchen knife used for slicing, sir.
x x
x
Q Can
you tell the court where did he place that kitchen knife before he went on top
of you?
A He
placed it in his pants, sir.
Q In
what place in his pants did you see him placed that kitchen knife?
A At
the pocket of his pants, at the back, sir.
x x
x
Q Can
you tell the court how long, more or less, did Antonio Sonico
stay on top of you performing sexual intercourse on you?
A Ten
(10) minutes, perhaps, sir.
Q After
raping you, what did he do?
A When
I glanced at him, I saw him laughing, sir.
Q Laughing
at what or whom?
A When
I was crying, sir.
Q What
did you do also after he had raped you?
A I
put on my panty, sir.
Q How
about his pants and his underwear which he had earlier removed from his
body? What did he do with them?
A He
also put on his pants and his underwear, sir
Q After
putting your panty after he had raped you, where did you go?
A When
I was about to leave, he warned me not to report the matter to my father and my
mother, sir.
Q After
that, where did you go?
A I
went to get my blanket and my pillow, sir.
Q Where
did you get your pillow and your blanket before you went home?
A In
the sala of their house, upstairs, sir.
Q Why
were they in the sala?
A When
he pulled me, I lost hold of
them, sir.
Q After
getting the blanket and your pillow, where did you go?
A I
went home, sir.
Q Did
you ever enter school?
A Yes,
sir.
x x x
Q Who
were the persons in your house when you reached your house after the accused
had raped you?
A Only
my grandmother, sir.
Q Did
you not report the wrongdoing committed on you by the accused to your
grandmother?
A No,
sir.
Q Why?
A I
was then afraid because I have been warned, sir.
x x x[10]“.
The afore-quoted testimony was corroborated by Dr. Soledad Pira who examined the victim. The medical certificate issued by said
witness, shows the existence of an old laceration in the girl’s hymen at 9:00 o’clock[11].
There is no doubt that rape was committed on the victim and that
the accused committed it. The defense of
denial interposed by the accused is not sufficient to over-throw the
declaration of the offended party that she was raped by the accused[12]. Against such denial, the version of the
prosecution deserves more consideration and is worthy of full faith and
credence. In the case of People vs.
Bocasas, we said:
“Firstly, his mere denials, constituting self-serving negative
evidence, cannot obtain greater evidentiary weight than the declarations of a
credible disinterested witness x x x“[13].
The offer of settlement by the daughter of the accused, for reasons
already stated herein, points to no other conclusion than that the accused was
really guilty of the crime charged.
A girl less than twelve (12) years old would be incapable of
narrating such story in a straight-forward manner against one considered as her
granduncle, unless the wrongdoing was actually committed by him against her
honor.
This is a case of statutory rape.
Loida Baclig was
less than twelve (12) years old at the time of the commission of the
crime. Under paragraph 3 of Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty for the crime of rape
committed on a minor less than twelve (12) years old is reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED,
with costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera,
Paras, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.
* Penned by Judge Florencio A. Ruiz, Jr.
[1]
Decision, pp. 11-12
[2]
Decision, pp. 2-5
[3]
Tsn, June
22, 1984, pp. 19-20
[4]
Tsn, June
22, 1984, pp. 15-17, 21-23
[5]
Brief for the appellant, p. 4
[6]
Id. at p. 8
[7]
People vs. Alcid, 135 SCRA 280, 292
[8]
125 SCRA 250, 256
[9]
People v. Aragona, 138 SCRA 569, 577-578;
People v. Pielago, 140 SCRA 418, 422
[10]
Tsn, August
16, 1976, pp. 4-18
[11]
Exhibit “A”, Original Records, p. 4
[12]
People v. Canoy, 137 SCRA 124, 128
[13]
137 SCRA 531, 539