THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELPIDIO CABADING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch
XXXIII of Bauang, La Union, finding the appellant Elpidio Cabading guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Rape, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with all the
accessory penalties provided by Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code; ordering
the accused to indemnify the victim the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), and to pay the costs.

SO
ORDERED.” (p.
44, Rollo)

As found by the trial court in its assailed decision, the
complainant’s version of the rape incident is as follows:

On August 8,
1978, the
complainant Benita Huliganga together with her
brother Valerio and her sister Lily Grace Banayat, were staying in the house of their
grandfather Alejo Gacad at Brgy. Naguilian, La Union.  Her
husband, Carlos Huliganga, was away.

At around ten o’clock (10:00) that evening, while the complainant was
breastfeeding her child, she heard someone push the door of the house which was tied with a thin wire,
thinking that her husband had arrived, she did not move nor utter any
sound.  She realized that the intruder
was not her husband but the appellant
when the latter raised her mosquito net. 
She recognized the appellant, a neighbor, with the aid of a kerosene
lamp that was lighted in the room.

The appellant immediately put his palm on per mouth and went on top of her.  Thereafter, he twined his feet around hers,
raised her dress and put down her panty. 
Then, he held his
penis and inserted it into her vagina.

The complainant could not extricate herself from the appellant
because the latter was strong and heavy;
neither could she make an outcry as his palm was covering her
mouth.  The appellant, however, failed to ejaculate inside
her private part.  He stood up when she was able to move
her head.  Before he left, he threatened
to kill her or her child and husband: 
“if somebody will know about this.” (pp. 7-14, Tsn., July 2, 1979)

On the same night, the complainant and her companions transfered to the house of their other grandfather,
Faustino Gacad. 
The next morning, they proceeded to their parent’s house near the foot
of the mountain where she related the incident to them.  Thereafter, the complainant was accompanied by her mother and they reported
the matter to the police.

The complainant was examined by Dr. Luis Duldulao who issued a medical certificate (Exh. “B”) with the following findings:  no external signs of spermatozoa and physical
injuries on the patient except for a minute
abrasion on the face, located on the
right jaw. According to Dr. Fidel Agcaoile, a medical expert, the abrasion to the right jaw could
possibly have been caused by the placing of a hand on the mouth of the patient. 
(p. 40, Rollo)

On cross-examination, the
complainant declared further that when the appellant covered her mouth with his
left palm and went on top of her, he was holding a knife with his right hand,
and he threatened to stab her or her child “If she talks.” (p. 43, Tsn. July 2, 1979) When
her husband arrived about dawn the next day, she told him about the outrage on
her honor and he accompanied her to file the complaint (p. 26, Tsn. July 2, 1979)

The appellant put up
alibi as
his defense.  He claimed that he was at his house (about
twenty meters away from the complainant’s house) with his wife and children, ages one and two, at the time when the incident
took place.  (p. 40, Rollo)

Finding the complainant’s
version more credible, the trial court convicted the appellant as charged.

Hence, the present
appeal.

We find merit in this appeal.

“The Court has stressed that in view of the severity of the penalties for the offense of
rape, justified by the ‘traumatic consequences for the unfortunate victim and
grievous injury to the peace and good order of the community’, there is need
for extreme care on the part of the judiciary to avoid an injustice done to an
accused.  For it is equally true that
this is an offense to which as is often
the case, only two people can testify, thus, requiring the most
conscientious effort on the part of the arbiter to weigh and appraise the
conflicting testimonies.  If a reasonable doubt exists, the verdict
must be one of acquittal.” It must be borne in mind that it is an accusation easy to be made, hard to be
proved, but harder to be defended by the accused, though innocent.  The evidence for conviction must be clear and
convincing to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.” (People v. Estacio, 537 SCRA 111).

In the case at bar, numerous circumstances glaringly detract from the credibility of the testimony
and version of the complainant
resulting in the failure of her case to meet the test
of moral certainty and guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

First, the complainant
did not make any manifest resistance expected of a woman defending her honor and chastity. 
She testified that her only attempts at resistance were mere attempts to
rise which We believe are not the manifest resistance required
and expected of a woman defending her
honor and chastity.  When she recognized
the appellant at the time he raised her mosquito net, there is no evidence on
record that she made any outcry for succor. There is likewise no evidence on record
that she put up a struggle when the appellant “went on top of her”,
“twined his legs into hers” “raised her dress” and put down
her panty.” (p. 12, Tsn. July 2, 1979) On
direct examination, the complainant admitted that while the alleged rape was
being committed, she did not do anything. 
She testified, thus:

“FISCAL QUERO:

CONTINUING:

Q –       –          What
transpired next when he was lying on top of you and twined his legs to your
legs?

A –       –          He raised my dress and put down my panty.

Q –       –          And
what more transpired?

A –       –          He
held his penis and inserted it into
my private part, Sir.

Q –       –          What
about you, what did you do when he inserted his penis into your private part?

A –       –          I
cannot move your Honor, because he held me tightly.

Q –       –          Why,
did you not shout?

A –       –          How
could I shout when he placed his palm on my mouth?

Q –       –          And
how long was Elpidio Cabading
on top of you?

A –       –          For
a few moments.

Q –       –          Why,
what happened?

A –       –          A
few moments because I was able to move my head.

Q –       –          What
about when you moved your head?

A –       –          That
is the time when I was able to move my head that is the time he stood up.  ( pp. 12-13, Tsn, July 2, 1979)

The complainant’s failure to do anything while allegedly being raped renders doubtful her charge of rape. 
(People vs. Estacio, p. 46 SUPRA)

Second, the complainant declared
on cross-examination that the appellant “was holding a knife with his right hand” (Ibid p. 43) We find this circumstance a mere afterthought as it
was not mentioned by the complainant
on direct examination.  The complainant could not have forgotten such
a vital circumstance if it were
really true.  Neither did she provide details about the knife which was not presented in evidence during the
trial.  Besides with one hand
allegedly holding a knife and the other hand gagging her mouth, she could not
have been held tightly by the appellant to prevent any determined struggle or
resistance on her part.

At any rate, the incredibility of the manner by which the
complainant was allegedly raped by the appellant was previously ruled upon by this Court in People vs. Apat (114 SCRA 620), to wit:

“The manner by which the appellant
raped Gregoria, as narrated by her, defies the
imagination.  It may hardly be envisioned
how a man can successfully consumate the sexual act
on an unwilling woman with his left hand placed over her mouth (supposedly to
prevent her from shouting for help) and with his right hand holding a hunting
knife pointed at the woman’s forehead and while so positioned, was able to
manage to remove the panty of the woman, spread her legs, unbutton his short
pants, and perform the sexual intercourse.”

Finally, We are inclined
to believe that the ulterior motive of the complainant in filing the rape case
against the appellant is to avoid retribution by her outraged husband who found
out about her sexual union with the appellant during his absence from their
conjugal abode (pp. 24-26, Tsn., July 2, 1979).

The court finds the trial court’s appreciation and assessment of
the evidence on record upon which it based its verdict of guilt, faulty and
incorrect.

Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the accused is hereby ACQUITTED of the
crime charged.

SO ORDERED.

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

Sarmiento, J., on leave.