G.R. No. 72354. June 30, 1987
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO PENA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PARAS, J.:
We begin with this serious indictment: A person inflamed with lust who dares ravish angelic innocence is
not a human being. He is a jungle
creature of Satan born.
This is an appeal from a
decision of the trial court finding accused guilty of the crime charged
allegedly committed as follows:
“That on or about 4:00 o’clock more or less, in the morning of
April 15, 1984, in the City of Cotabato, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused armed with a sharp-pointed instrument, by means of violence
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of the complainant Nancy Tejas, against her will and in her
own place of business where she sleeps.
“Contrary to law, with the aggravating circumstance that the
said offense was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, the latter
not having given provocation for the
offense, specifically under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.” (p. 15, Rollo)
Evidence for the prosecution consisted in the testimonies in open
court of the complainant Nancy Tejas, Romeo Angeles, Sgt. Alberto Anora, Maj.
Antonio Garado, Dr. Danda Juanday, Junar de Guzman, and Elena Tejas while evidence for the defense consisted of the
testimonies of Ernesto Balan, Maria Teresita, Pena and accused-appellant Antonio
Pena, Jr.
After an exhaustive study of the evidence presented, the trial
court rendered a decision,[1]
its dispositive portion reading as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the GUILT of the accused
ANTONIO PENA having been proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt for
having committed the offense of RAPE as defined in Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code in relation to Article 27, of the same code, hereby sentences the
accused ANTONIO PENA to suffer an imprisonment of THIRTY (30) years of
reclusion perpetua, and to pay the sum
of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS unto the complaining witness Nancy Tejas
as moral damages with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and
to pay the costs of this suit.
“The accused shall be credited with the full period of his
detention.
“SO ORDERED.
“Cotabato City, Philippines, September 6, 1985.” (p. 38, Rollo)
Hence, this appeal, accused interposing a lone assignment of
error, to wit:
“The court a quo gravely
erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code despite the existence of evidence
warranting his acquittal.” (p. 63, Rollo)
In seeking the reversal of the trial court, appellant questions
the credibility of complainant raising several arguments viz: 1) If it were true that accused was already
outside armed with a pointed weapon waiting for the
complainant, he could not have known that the latter will be going out, unless
there was a previous understanding between them; 2) If complainant was really
raped at the main door as testified to by her, the fact that she did not seek
the help of the male employees sleeping inside the pubhouse near the main door,
who could have been easily awakened by her cries and who could have discovered
the alleged dastardly acts of accused, cast doubts on her claim
against accused; 3) It is impossible for accused to satisfy his lust on the
complainant within so short a time (four to five minutes)
especially with his maong pants on although zipped open in front unless done with the cooperation and consent of the alleged
victim.
To have a better grasp of
the issues at bar, reproduced herein is the Statement of Facts, presented by
appellant in his brief:
“Romeo Angeles, the first witness for the prosecution
testified, among others, that Nancy Tejas
is his sweetheart and they are engaged to be married after she finishes her
studies. In April 1984 at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon he was suddenly visited by her at his place in Davao
City. She was then crying with swollen
eyes. She informed him that Antonio
Pena raped her. They decided that she
file a complaint in Cotabato City but they have to report the matter first to
her mother. He identified in open court the
person of Antonio Pena whom he had known in the month of February 1984 after having met him at the
Ellen’s Folk House. When asked how he
met the accused, he answered that he was assigned at the MIRRICO and he had
known the accused as a singer at the Ellen’s Folk House. He further testified that he was the sweetheart of the victim for the past two years having met her at the restaurant of the victim’s mother.
“Nancy Tejas the complainant
herself testified that she is 18 years old, single, student and residing at
Rosario Heights, Cotabato City. She
testified that at about 4:00 o’clock in the morning of April 15, 1984 at
Ellen’s Folk House, she went out from her room to urinate and while she was
out, Antonio Pena suddenly covered her mouth with his left hand, while his
right hand was holding a bladed weapon pointed
at her neck threatening to kill her and her family as she attempted to shout
for an assistance. Scared, she remained
silent. The accused then drag her to
the main door and upon reaching it she was pushed and caused to stamble (sic)
on the cemented floor. Then accused
placed his body on top of her and, threatening with a pointed weapon, he began
removing her short pants and underwear with his left hand, while his right hand
is still pointing the bladed weapon
to her neck. She resisted but everytime
she tried to move, accused will press the pointed weapon on her neck; that she
was nearly wounded and sensing the accused’s determination to kill her, she did
not do anything and was forced to submit herself. And accused was able to sexually abuse
her. After the accused finished his
evil satisfaction, he went out while she went straight to her room and cried. She further testified that she did not know where the
accused slept in the evening of April 14, 1984. Prior to the incident, she saw the accused drinking with a
certain Januar, Boy and Dennis occupying
table No. 5 inside the Ellen’s
Folk House. They usually closed their
store at 11:30 o’clock in the evening and during that night she saw the
accused drinking inside the store and before she went to sleep she still saw
the accused drinking with some friends. She testified that she was outside of her room when she was dragged by the
accused who suddenly covered her mouth
with his left hand. She affirmed her
statement that a pointed weapon
was placed on her neck and had been threatened to be killed. She identified the weapon used by accused
Antonio Pena which had been marked as Exhibit “A” for the prosecution. She also testified that there were lights
near the comfort room and outside their room and that she was able to recognize
Antonio Pena. She further testified
that she was examined and was issued a medical certificate by Dr. Danda
Juanday. After she was raped, she felt a burning sensation in her vagina and
she allowed herself to be examined by reason thereof. After examination, she suspected of having a contracted venereal disease from accused Antonio Pena. She
testified further that after the incident she did not have any sexual
intercourse with any other man or with the accused himself.
“Sgt. Alberto Anora, another witness for the prosecution
testified that he is a peace officer member of the Philippine Constabulary assigned
with the 480 PC Coy, stationed at PC Hill Cotabato City. That he arrested a person by the name of
Antonio Pena on April 18, 1984 at 8:00
o’clock in the evening on the complaint of Elena Tejas because her daughter was
raped by Antonio Pena. He testified
that the accused was brought to the PC Headquarter at PC Hill Cotabato City and
was investigated. He asked Antonio Pena
why he raped Nancy Tejas and the latter answered him that Nancy Tejas did not
like him. He also testified that there
was no search warrant issued for the arrest of the accused.
“Mayor Antonio Garado testified in substance that he
investigated accused Antonio Pena on the alleged complaint of Nancy Tejas. During the investigation he searched the
body of Antonio Pena and found the scissors in his pocket which had been recognized
by the complainant Nancy Tejas to be the weapon used by the accused during the
commission of the crime.
“Dr. Danda Juanday testified in substance that she examine
(sic) Nancy Tejas on April 18, 1984 at around 11’00 o’clock in the evening and as a result of the
examination she issued a medical certificate which had been marked as Exhibit
“C” for the prosecution. She
declared that Nancy Tejas was complaining about painful urination with foul discharge. Her findings reveals that there was sexual contact a few days earlier
and venereal disease can not be ruled out and in fact suggested that there
should be the smear examination and medication. There is no spermatozoa found in the vagina although she was positive
for gonorrhea.
“Junar de Guzman testified that on April 14, 1984 around 11:00
o’clock in the morning he was at the restaurant known as Ellen’s Folk House
drinking together with another waiter
named Boy. Thereafter, Dennis
and Toto joined them. He testified that
Antonio Pena, Toto and Dennis drank red horse beer up to 2:30 o’clock in the
following morning. That Nancy Tejas and
a certain Sonia slept in a room at Ellen’s Folk House and he himself slept at
the table which is around 3
meters away from the room where Nancy Tejas and Sonia were sleeping. His companion, Dennis, slept on the sofa
while Boy went home. He testified that
accused Antonio Pena slept in another table which was around 7 meters away from
the table where he was sleeping. He
further testified that he almost drunk 3 and a half bottles of beer and was
very drunk that he felt dizziness. He
does not know of anything that happened that evening because he was so drunk
and woke up only around 7:00 o’clock in the morning.
“Elena Tejas the last witness for the prosecution testified
that in the evening of April 14, 1984, she was at Ellen Folk House and
Restaurant supervising her men who were coming from their Tagalog turo-turo
restaurant nearby. That she instructed her daughter to sleep there that evening
while she will sleep at the Tagalog restaurant because on the following day
she will go to the market. Before she
left that evening she talked with the accused, Antonio Pena, and the
latter asked her permission to allow
him to sleep at the Folk House since there was no more ride for him to
go home. On April 18, 1984 she met her
daughter crying who told her of the incident of April 15, 1984 wherein she was
fordibly dragged from her bedroom where the boys were soundly sleeping. Her daughter Nancy told her that she is
filing a complaint for rape against Antonio Pena, Jr. She testified that the accused was arrested
while he was singing at the Folk House
and during the course of her testimony identified the scissors which was
earlier presented.”
Evidence for the Defense:
“Ernesto Balan, the first witness presented by the defense,
testified that he knows accused Antonio Pena and complainant Nancy Tejas
because they go and sing together at
Ellen’s Folk House. He testified that
his brother Anthony Cang was singing at Ellen’s Folk House before he was
replaced by Antonio Pena and that is
when he come to know the two. He
further declared that he had been going with Antonio Pena for one month before
he was invited by the PC.
“Maria Teresita Pena another witness testified that on April 8,
1984 at around 10:30 o’clock in the morning three persons arrived at their
house to attend the birthday party of her grandchild. While she was preparing the table she saw these three persons bringing with them
a casette tape recorder. She heard that
Ernesto Balan asked his son Antonio Pena whether he had broken his relationship
with Nancy Tejas and the accused asked why Ernesto Balan explained that while
they were taping at JB de luxe Nancy Tejas asked him if the accused really
loves her and he countered whether the accused is her sweetheart. She testified that her son Antonio Pena was
not treated with any disease. She
denied that the accused raped Nancy Tejas because if indeed her son raped Nancy
Tejas why did it take four days for the authorities to apprehend his son when
in fact he had been staying at Ellen’s Folk House.
“Antonio Pena the accused-appellant himself testified that he
is a singer by profession. Before he
was arrested, he was working at Ellen’s Folk House and was first employed
thereat on February 19, 1984. He stated
that he first met Nancy Tejas in February 1984 and that he stopped working when
he was arrested on April 19, 1984 because he was charged with rape by Mrs.
Elena Tejas and Nancy Tejas. He claimed
that he was at Ellen’s Folk House in the evening of March 26, 1984 with Nancy Tejas talking with him. That he and Nancy Tejas were eating
together. They were talking about his
work including his salary. He further
testified that on March 26, 1984 he slept in their house in Notre Dame
Village. That he was at Ellen’s Folk
House at 9:00 o’clock in the morning although he would start singing at 6:00
o’clock in the evening. He stayed at
Ellen’s Folk House until the evening of March 27, 1984. He slept at Ellen’s Folk House because he
was told by Nancy to sleep thereat because it was already very late for him to
go home. He testified that the following
day March 28, 1984 at 2:00 o’clock in the morning he had intimate relationship
with Nancy Tejas and had sex for the first time with her. He testified that he also courted Nancy Tejas in the month of February
1984 and she accepted him as her sweetheart. After March 28, 1984 he had several sexual act with complaining witness Nancy Tejas although he could not
determine the number of times. He
denied having raped Nancy Tejas. He
stated that what happened is their mutual consent. On April 15, 1984 he reported to work up to April 18, 1984. He affirmed that he was arrested in the evening
of April 18, 1984 while he was singing. He denied that he was the owner of the scissor but admitted to have seen
it in the possession of Nancy Tejas. He
admitted that the scissor was taken from his pocket because he got the same
from the counter of Ellen’s Folk House having been left there by Nancy Tejas at
the top of the counter. The scissor was
used for cutting colored papers which is to be placed on the stage. He denied that he was suffering from
gonorrhea because he had himself examined.”
The counter statement of facts presented by the prosecution in its brief is as follows:
“Romeo Angeles was surprised when his sweetheart of two (2)
years Nancy Tejas visited him unexpectedly at their place in Davao City at 5:00
o’clock in the afternoon on April 15,
1984. Upon seeking him, Nancy sobbed
uncontrollably. Her eyes were swollen
(tsn., pp. 4-6, 10, 13?14, 20-21, June 4, 1984). Bits of information fell into place as Nancy
related to Romeo Angeles in sobs the 4 to 5 minutes ordeal in the hands of appellant
Antonio Pena, Jr. She informed Romeo
that she intended to formally complain against appellant for rape to the
authorities. She requested him to
accompany her to Cotabato City to report the incident to her mother (tsn, pp. 6
& 14, Ibid.).
“Nancy Tejas is a third year nursing student at Notre Dame
University. She was a consistent honor
student (tsn, pp. 6-7, January 9, 1985). Upon the instruction of her mother Helena Tejas, Nancy Tejas helped
manage and supervise Ellen’s Folk House and Restaurant. She first set foot at their business establishment on March 30, 1984 where she met
appellant who was employed there as a singer (tsn., p. 7, August 2, 1984; tsn.,
pp. 10-11, January 9, 1985).
“On April 15, 1984,
at about 4:00 o’clock in the morning, Nancy Tejas went out of her room at
Ellen’s Folk House and Restaurant to
answer nature’s call. Ellen’s
Folk House is situated at Makakua Street, Cotabato City. Waiting outside her room was appellant. He immediately covered her mouth with his
left hand. Nancy tried to resist but
when felt the cold blade of steel touch her neck, she froze with fear. Appellant threatened to kill her if she
shouted for assistance. Nancy was
scared stiff. Fear benumbed her whole
being. Appellant forcibly dragged her
to the main door and then roughly pushed her down the cemented floor. Placing his body on top of her and
threatening her with a sharp pointed weapon, appellant began removing his
short pants and underwear with his left hand. His right hand still clutched the weapon pointed menacingly on Nancy’s
neck. Nancy resisted. But each attempt was frustrated by
appellant, who pointed the sharp weapon
at her neck. Nancy was almost
wounded. Appellant was determined to
possess her. Fear rose across Nancy’s
nerves. Appellant feasted on the young
body of Nancy for 4 to 5 minutes. Afterwards,
he hurriedly left her. Nancy went back
to her room. She realized, she was
raped and cried (tsn, pp. 26-27, 30-31, Ibid.).
“Two (2) days after the rape incident, Nancy felt burning sensation
in her vagina. She had herself
medically examined by Dr. Danda Juanday at Cotabato Regional Hospital on April 18, 1984. She complained to him of painful urination with foul
discharges. His findings summarized in
Exhibit “C” state: ‘External
Genetalia, well formed. Folliculities
noted at the mons pubis. Admit 2
fingers with ease. Cervic close, firm
tender. Uterus-tender, small,
contracted. Remarks: Sexual contact a few days ago. Venereal disease cannot be ruled out. Suggest smear and medications.’ The results
of the laboratory test were: ‘(1)
Positive for intracellular and extracellular gram negative diplococci
resulting N. Gonorrhea, (2) No spermatozoa found.’ (tsn, pp. 37-42, 44, June 4,
1984; tsn, pp. 4-11, July 13, 1984).
“Helena Tejas met her daughter Nancy at Davao City on April
18, 1984. Nancy was crying. She reported to her what happened at their
folk house restaurant at about 4:00 on April 15, 1984 where appellant sexually
assaulted her. Nancy was determined to
file a complaint for rape against appellant. She consented. On the same date
(April 18, 1984), they reported the
incident to the COMDISCOM in
Cotabato City. Appellant was arrested
by Sgt. Alberto Amora while singing at the folkhouse. He was taken to the PC, headquarters for investigation. Found in his possession was a pair
of scissors admitted to be the weapon used in intimidating Nancy
Tejas (Exhibit “A”, tsn, pp. 17-19, June 4, 1984; tsn, pp. 3-4, 7-8, 12-14,
July 5, 1984; tsn, pp. 8-10, 17, August 2, 1984).
“A sample of appellant’s urine was taken by Dr. Faisal
Samanodi and subjected to laboratory test. Per the medical certificate of Dr. Samanodi dated April 23, 1984 (Exhibit “D”), the physical
findings state: ‘1. Conscious, coherent and positive for
alcoholic breath. 2. Essential negative findings’ while the
‘LABORATORY FINDINGS: 1. Gram stainings: – Positive for extracellular and intra-cellular gram negative
diplococci resembling N. Gonorrhea.’ (tsn, pp. 4-7, November 28, 1984; tsn, p. 12, January 9, 1985).”
Briefly it is appellant’s contention that the sexual intercourse
between himself and Nancy Tejas in the early morning of April 15, 1984 was
mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by them
since they are sweethearts and that no force was employed to intimidate
the latter to perform the act with him. Appellant contends further that what prodded complainant to file the
rape complaint was her belief that one of the male employees woke up and noticed
what they were doing although the accused believed otherwise.
Appellant’s contentions hold no water.
The undisputable findings of facts made by the lower court reveal that the claim of
appellant that Nancy Tejas was
his sweetheart is without basis and is not proven by evidence. The lower court found thus:
“First, according to the accused Antonio Pena, he courted
Nancy Tejas in February and was accepted as her sweetheart. But could they be sweethearts in so short a
period of time when Nancy Tejas was a nursing student at the Notre Dame University and he was studying at the Notre
Dame Village High School during daytime,
and the distance between the two schools are greatly faraway from each
other. Or even granting that Nancy
Tejas was going to Ellen’s Folk House in the afternoons, so that they could
possibly converse with each other, but accused Antonio Pena starts singing at
5:30 every afternoon in the month of February until 11:30 o’clock in the
evenings. And in that month, accused
was not sleeping in the evenings at Ellen’s Folk House. Certainly, there was not so much a time for
two persons to become lovers when they rarely meet within a certain period.
“More so, Nancy Tejas was in the month of February, 1984 the
current sweetheart of Romeo Angeles, a fact known to the accused Antonio
Pena. Unless complaining witness Nancy
Tejas is woman of sexual aberrations, probably to have two sweethearts at the
same time and have sex with both of them would be justified. The evidence however show otherwise.
“But Nancy Tejas as shown by evidence is a second year nursing
student when she was raped; she was a third honor student, and a student of a
prestigious local university. And if
she was at Ellen’s Folk House she was to assist only her mother during her off-classes
hours.
“Again could the complaining witness Nancy Tejas and accused
Antonio Pena in the month of March, 1984 be sweethearts and succeeded in having
sexual intercourse for several times? The Court cannot give so much weight in such testimony. First, we find under ordinary course of
events that accused Antonio Pena could not have been sweethearts with Nancy
Tejas in February, 1984 as shown above. Added to this is the fact that Nancy Tejas in the month of March was
still studying and testified that it is only during her free time when she has
no duty at the hospital that she will assist her mother. The Court therefore gives credence to the testimony that
she came to know the accused only on March 30, 1984, after the closing of
schools for summer vacation. This fact
was not disputed by the counsel for the accused during his cross-examination of
Nancy Tejas. She have known the accused
for almost 15 days only. Nowhere in the testimony of the accused Pena did
he cite specific dates that they
were together between February and
March, 1984. All accused could say is
that they meet at the Ellen’s Folk House on a certain period. This is so
because there was really no time for them to meet for so long a time because of their studies. Certainly, they could not ‘intimate
relations between April 1 to April 15, 1984, much more sexual relations within
such a period’ time.
“Accused Antonio Pena claimed that they have sexual
intercourse for the first time on March 28, 1984 at 2:00 o’clock in the
morning. March 28, 1984 is a Thursday,
still a school day and Nancy Tejas testified that she had still ”classes at
the NDU during the previous days prior to March 30, 1984” (p. 3, T.S.N.
rebuttal testimony of Nancy Tejas). And
this was towards the end of the school year.
“Again accused Pena testified that he had sex with Nancy Tejas
on March 28, 1984 for several times. Yet when asked by the Fiscal how many times whether 5, 10 or 15 times, he said he could not remember. And to think that this was his first time to
have sexual intercourse with Nancy Tejas, he could not now remember how many
times did he have sex with her. Again,
against human reason, accused now conveniently forgets the number of sexual
acts, when such an event could rarely escape a man’s mind it being a bestial
instinct in every human being. And if
it is true that he had several sexual intercourse with Nancy Tejas that night,
certainly other people sleeping at Ellen’s Folk House could have known it
unless they were only the two left that night which the evidence did not show.
“But a reversal of his testimony was again made. He testified that he had sex with Nancy
Tejas at 2:00 o’clock in the morning of March 28, and another at 4:00 o’clock
same morning, and confirmed later that they have sex only twice and not several
times. He even testified that he had
sex with Nancy Tejas several days after but could no longer remember the dates,
but he can vividly remember two days when they had such an intercourse – March
28 and April 15, 1984 (pp. 11 to 16 T.S.N., testimony of Antonio Pena taken
Nov. 4, 1984). One need not to have
great knowledge of psychology, to conclude that the statements of accused
Antonio Pena was a litany of lies.
“Again, accused
Antonio Pena testified and vividly described that it was Nancy Tejas who
proposed sex with on March 28, 1984. Accordingly, she asked that they keep the
matter secret because her sweetheart might know it.
“Reason dictates a Filipino woman would not propose sex especially
it is the first time they will have the act. It is the man that proposes and asserts until the woman gives to this
desire. Human experience will dictate
that even men have to propose sex with
prostitutes with a pay. We find no
derogatory character in the person of Nancy Tejas, nor evidence that she is a
woman of ill-refute.
“Again, accused Antonio Pena testified that on his first sex with
Nancy Tejas on March 28, 1984, that Nancy Tejas was not wearing any panty or
underwear. Is this normal for a woman
to be not wearing any underwear during her first sex with a particular
man. Unthinkable, but Antonio insist on
it. Definitely, this is a lie.
“The testimonies of Ernesto Balan and Maria Teresita Pena,
mother of accused is bereft of proof. There was not in their testimony showing positively the relationship of
sweethearts between Antonio Pena and Nancy Tejas. All were speculative, hearsay
and not based on a solid existence of facts to show such relationship. (pp. 35-37; Rollo)
The trial court ruled that the testimony of the accused suffers
from lack of credibility. Evidence to
be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from a reliable source, but it must
in addition, be credible itself. Stated
otherwise, it must be natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to
believe. In trying to prove his alleged
relationship with complainant,
appellant presented contradictory testimonies that betrayed his cause. Additionally, the trial court found that the
testimony of accused is one of an instructed witness, it being admitted by the
accused that he was instructed by his lawyer on what to say in the
cross-examination.
Undoubtedly, Nancy Tejas
was an unwilling victim. She was
intimidated by fear to submit to the lustful desires of the appellant with the
sharp weapon pointed at her neck. Accused-appellant
knew beforehand that Nancy Tejas would be sleeping inside the pubhouse. He was aware of her habits in the morning
and he saw the chance he had been waiting for. He purposely gave drinks to the other male employees who were sleeping
inside the pubhouse. He made sure that
they were all sound asleep and too dead drunk at that time of the night or
early morning even to notice what was happening. He waited for Nancy that
fateful morning to ravish her as an effective way to inflict humiliation and
degradation on her person because of the shabby treatment he imagined to have
received from her. Appellant admitted
that the complainant did not like him and that she was engaged to be married to
someone else.
Nancy Tejas was only 18 years of age at the time the incident
happened, a third year nursing student at a reputable university and a
consistent honor student, engaged to be married to Romeo Angeles. There is no evidence to show that she is a
woman of ill-repute or of a flirtatious and wanton nature as to invite or
provoke appellant, a mere employee in her mother’s pubhouse, to have sexual
intercourse with her. Young, innocent
and decent as she is, she was cowed by fear and shock because of the outrageous
act of appellant on her person and honor. Consent obtained by fear of personal violence is no consent at all. Though a man puts no hand on a woman, yet if, by the use of mental and moral
coercion the accused so overpowers her mind out of fear that as a result she
dare not resist the dastardly act inflicted on her person, accused
is guilty of the crime imputed on him.
The incident so devastated and debilitated Nancy Tejas that she
had to seek her fiancee to relate the heinous act inflicted on her by the appellant,
knowing that she could trust her boyfriend, in the absence of her mother who
was then in another town. If ever it took her three (3) days from
April 15, 1984, to formally complain with the proper authorities, it was
because of the fear of embarrassment. But she risked it all to seek justice for the affront and
insult committed upon her person by the accused-appellant, transmitting to her a venereal disease in the process.
The guilt of appellant cannot be rebutted by his claim that he
did not leave his place of employment, even after the alleged commission of
rape. Appellant was confident that
Nancy Tejas being an educated woman of good
reputation would not denounce him without risk of her being humiliated
publicly. He thought she would not have the courage to expose him. How wrong
he was!
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby
AFFIRMED, with the modification
that the portion about subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, is hereby
DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.
[1]
Penned by Hon. Judge Eduardo P. Singayao, RTC, Cotabato City.