THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, VS. JULITO NAGUITA, DEFENDANT/APPELLANT.

Appellant Julito Naguita was charged with the crime of rape, on the
basis of a complaint signed by Purita Naguita, in an information which read as
follows:

“x x x                         x x x                 x x x

That on or about the 8th day of August 1981, at 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, more or less, in the barangay of Casinglot, Municipality of Tagoloan,
Province of Misamis Oriental, Republic of the Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously thru force and intimidation,
attack, assault and box Purita Naguita and have sexual intercourse with the
said Purita Naguita, against her will and consent.”

x x x              x x x                 x
x x”^[1]

Julito Naguita was arraigned on 3 September 1982 and entered a plea of not guilty.^[2]
After trial, he was found guilty of the offense charged in a decision dated 3 July 1985 of the Regional
Trial Court of
Cagayan de Oro City,
the dispositive portion of which states in part:

“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Julito Naguita guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as charged in the abovequoted
information, contrary to and in violation of Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code and taking into account that there are no privileged or ordinary
mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attendant to the commission of the
offense, this Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, together with all the accessory penalties provided for by law,
and to pay the costs.  The accused is
further ordered to pay moral damages to the offended party in the amount of
P30,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

x x x              x x x                x
x x”^[3]

The facts of the
case as established by the lower court are as follows:

“The evidence adduced by the prosecution through the
testimonies of Luther Ebabacol, Toribio Empasis, (and) Dr. Cherissa R. Canete,^[4] the physician who conducted the
physical examina­tion on the offended party, tends to establish that the
offended party was married to the late Jimmy Naguita with whom she has seven (7) children.  Jimmy, her husband, died on 23 November 1982; that on the
morning of August 8, 1981,
Purita Naguita, together with her husband and son, were weeding their tobacco
plants at their tobacco field in Casinglot, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental.  At about 5:00
P.M., she went to her banana plantation just 100 meters from their
house to find out if there were matured bananas.  She brought with her a scythe.  Her husband at that time went to fetch water.  While she was looking up at the banana
plants, the accused Julito Naguita suddenly approached her from behind and once
near her, immediately clasped her mouth with his one hand, while the other hand
encircled her around her waist.  She
struggled to extricate herself free from his hold and was able to extract the
hold of the accused which was covering her mouth.  She then shouted for help for two or five
times but the accused boxed her, hitting her on the diaphragm, which caused her
to fall unconscious to the ground.  She
did not know what transpired after that and when she recovered consciousness at
her house, she noticed that her vagina was dripping with semen.

Luther Ebabacol and Toribio Empasis, who were together at the
residence of the offended party at the time of the incident, heard the shouts
for help of Purita Naguita.  At first they
did not heed the cry of help, but upon hearing the last shout, they responded
to the call for help and ran towards the place where the shouts
originated.  Luther Ebabacol was the
first to arrive at the scene of the incident, but when he was still quite at a
distance, he saw the accused having sexual intercourse with Purita, but upon
seeing him, the accused picked up his pants and ran away.  Immediately thereafter, Toribio Empasis also
arrived and he instructed Luther Ebabacol to fetch the husband of Purita.  In the meanwhile, he covered the vagina of
Purita which was exposed with her dress already lifted.  Upon arrival of Jimmy Naguita, Purita was
carried to their house where she regained consciousness.

x x x              x x x                x
x x”^[5]

Dr. Cherissa Canete testified on the results of the physical exam
she had conducted on complainant two (2) days after the incident and
authenticated a medical report she had prepared on the results thereof, which
was offered as Exhibit “C” for the prosecution.  The report stated that the complainant
suffered abrasions at the base of the middle and ring fingers of her right
hand, at the inner side of her left forearm and that she suffered a contusion
on the outer side of her left leg.^[6]

Appellant presented a different story before the trial court:

“On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the defense,
through the testimonies of Hermanito Neri, Amelia Almaden and Julito Naguita
himself, while admitting that the accused had sexual intercourse with Purita,
he claimed that the same was performed with the mutual consent of the accused
and Purita Naguita who were lovers.  This
love affair commenced on the evening of July 10, 1976, on the eve of the
wedding of the niece of the accused and continued until August 8, 1981, which
was their last sexual intercourse and which culminated in the filing of the
present charge.  Their first sexual
intercourse was performed on the evening of July 10, 1976, which was triggered by the apparent
advances of Purita, who pinched his side for three times when he passed near
her, while she was cleaning the spices and told him to come back where she
was.  After cleaning the pig which they
butchered that afternoon, the accused went to the place where Purita was.  He was offered a glass of tuba, so in turn he
gave her also another glass of tuba, which they both drank.  After that and without much ado, she stepped
on his feet and at the same time saying, ‘You do not understand what I am
doing?’ to which the accused responded and said, ‘We will wait for the people
to leave and if you really love me, follow me.’ The accused then left and true
to his expectation, Purita followed him and they proceeded behind the kitchen
of the house, where they embraced and kissed each other and subsequently had a sexual
intercourse.  From then on, their love
tryst continued and on the later part of 1980, they had sexual intercourse
which was witnessed on several occasions by a close friend of the accused,
Hermanito Neri, whom he (the accused) at times also requested to go to Purita
to arrange for their sexual meetings at their rendezvous.”^[7]

In this appeal, Julito Naguita assigns the following as errors in
the lower court’s decision:

1.  The lower court erred in
not holding that complainant and accused had been sweethearts since July 10, 1976 and had been used to
having sexual intercourse prior to the incident in question;

2.  The lower court erred in
not holding that complainant and accused had sexual intercourse on August 8, 1981 in question upon their
mutual consent, and;

3.  The lower court erred in
not acquitting the accused even on reasonable doubt and in ordering accused to
pay P30,000.00 to complainant as
indemnity.”^[8]

The ultimate issue posed in this case is whether the lower court
erred in believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses tending to show
that on 8 August 1981 appellant sexually embraced the private complainant after
knocking her unconscious, and in disbelieving the claims of the defense
witnesses that what had really taken place on that date was a tryst between
illicit lovers.

The Court accords great respect to the factual conclusions drawn by trial courts, particularly on the matter of
credibility of witnesses, since the trial judge had the opportunity of
observing the deportment and demeanor of witnesses while listening to them
speak, enabling him to form at first hand a judgment as to whether witnesses
were telling the truth or not.^[9]

Appellant’s present appeal has failed to show why the Court
should depart from this general rule.

Appellant seeks to establish an exception to the above general
rule by contending that the trial judge overlooked a fact of substance, which
would probably alter the legal conclusion drawn in this case, if it had been
considered.  He points but that the complainant
was present in court when he and Hermanito Neri declared as defense witnesses
that she shared an amorous relationship with appellant and yet the complainant
never denied this allegation during her rebuttal examination.  In fact, she did not even raise this matter
in her rebuttal.  Appellant then asks the
Court to conclude that complainant’s silence constitutes an admission of the
truthfulness of his claim that he had a “special” relation­ship with
her, that they had been lovers for years.^[10]

The argument does not persuade. 
While the complainant did not specifically deny the mentioned assertion
of appellant, she had certainly disputed the same by declaring to the lower court, during her direct
and cross examination, that appellant had copulated with her against her will on 8 August 1981, by seizing her
without warning and then knocking her unconscious with a fist blow to her
belly.^[11]
This circumstance rules out any admission on complainant’s part of the
truthfulness of appellant’s defense that she had consented to sex with him on
that date.

More importantly, the trial judge roundly rejected appellant’s
claim of an amorous relationship with the complainant:

“Moreover, the testimony of witness Hermanito Neri, instead of
helping the cause of the accused, did disservice to the defense, as it is not
likely that married persons would allow themselves to be seen performing sexual
intercourse, thus running the risk of making their illicit relationship an open
secret.  To top it all, the demeanor of
the accused and his principal witness during their testimonies only revealed
and betrayed their propensity of
falsifying facts which seriously dishonored the offended party.  All said, this Court find in this case the
prosecution’s evidence more credible than that of the defense x x x.

x x x               x x x         x x x

x x x the evidence on record will further show that the husband of
the offended party died on November 23, 1982, long before the trial of this
case actually started, (actual trial started only on April 7, 1983) so that if it is true that they were
intimate lovers and that the offended party was really madly in love with the
accused, she then would, all of a sudden, lose her interest in further
prosecuting this case, considering that there would be no more stumbling block
or obstacle to their illicit relationship, her husband having already
died.  On the contrary, the offended
party’s grim determination to prosecute this case to the finish neither wavered
nor faltered a bit but (sic) she braved the risk of a public trial, exposing herself publicly and in court,
airing acts so distasteful and detestable to modesty, urged and impelled by the
force of her earnest and honest
desire of obtaining a (sic) redress and atonement of her grievance and quest
for justice.

x x x              x
x x      x x x”^[12]

And assuming arguendo that appellant and complainant had
in the past shared an illicit
relationship, such circum­stance is not a defense to a charge of rape so long
as it is established that the particular instance of coitus, which is the subject
of the information, took place against the woman’s will, as here.^[13]

Appellant also attempted to impugn the credibility of the
complainant by contending that her testimony was inherently improbable
because:  1) she could not have been
knocked unconscious because she had been aware of falling to the ground face
up; 2) her claim that she had been punched in the belly was contradicted by the
absence of external signs of injury on that part of her body; and 3) she did
not explain her failure to use the scythe either to ward-off the appellant or
to extricate herself from his amorous clutches.^[14]

Once more, the Court is not persuaded.  Whether the effect of the blow to the stomach
was instantaneous loss of consciousness for a few seconds after the blow, does not alter the established
circumstance that appellant had used physical force to overcome her resistance
to the sexual assault.

The absence of external injuries on the belly of a rape victim
does not rule out the possibility that a blow had in fact been administered to
the belly by the offender.  Medical
authorities state that such a blow is more likely to cause injury to the internal organs behind the belly,
rather than leave visible signs on the epidermis of the belly itself.^[15]

The complainant’s failure to defend herself with the scythe she
was carrying maybe readily conceded. 
However, under cross
examination, the complainant had explained and demonstrated to the lower
court’s satisfaction that she could not use the instrument effectively to
defend her honor.  Appellant had taken her by surprise before she
could react, appellant’s right arm having pinned her scythe-bearing right arm
above her elbow and against her
side, in such a way that she could not have brandished the instrument against
appellant, without endangering her own safety.  In the
ensuing struggle to free herself from appellant’s clutches, the complainant
lost her grip on the scythe and
it fell away.^[16]

Under these circumstances, complainant’s credibility would not be
affected by her failure to employ the scythe. 
After all, the law does not require a victim to resist unto death the sexual assault being perpetrated upon
her person.  All that the law requires is proof that the offender had
employed such force as was sufficient to overcome the victim’s resistance and
that this resulted in the consumma­tion of the offense.^[17]

Finally, appellant contends that the complainant had a motive to testify falsely against him because she maliciously
filed the complaint to extort money from him. 
He had always refused to pay money to Purita because he was innocent of
the charge of rape.^[18]

The trouble with this contention is that it is based solely on
the testimony of appellant and the trial judge
considered him an unreliable witness. 
Moreover, though appellant claimed that the spouses Jimmy and Purita
Naguita had demanded money from him through the auspices of Tagoloan Mayor
Dongcoy Emano, he failed to present the latter as a corroborating defense
witness on this matter.  Appellant thus
failed to show by clear and convincing evidence any claimed illicit motive on
the part of complainant Purita that could affect her credibility as a witness in this case.^[19]

Independently of the contentions raised by appellant and
considered in this appeal, the Court must observe that there is sufficient
evidence of record showing to a moral certainty his culpability of the offense
charged.  In addition to the direct and
circumstantial evidence of coerced sexual intercourse furnished by the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution submitted in evidence the torn
dress and underwear which private complainant had worn at the time of the
incident.^[20]
Taken, together, the testimonial and physical
evidence clearly showed the force exercised upon complainant which culminated
in the rape.^[21]

All things considered, the only error the Court can appreciate
from the decision under appeal is the trial court’s improper reference to
“life imprisonment” as the penalty imposable on appellant.  The proper technical nomenclature, of course,
is reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, subject only to the abovementioned
modification, the Decision of the trial court dated 3 July 1985, finding the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and ordering him to pay moral damages of
P30,000.00, is hereby AFFIRMED.  No
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Record, p. 1.  Although the copy of the
information appearing at page eight (8) of the Rollo contains no
specification of the year when the offense was committed, a duplicate original
copy of the pleading appearing in the record, as quoted and cited above,
contains a duly authenticated correction supplying the missing information.

^[2]
Record, p. 65.

^[3]
Decision p. 7; Rollo, p. 39.

^[4]
The body of the lower court’s decision, as well as the record of the case, both
indicate that aside from the prosecution witnesses just enumerated, the private
complainant herself, Purita Naguita, was presented as a material witness for
the prosecution.

^[5]
Decision, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 33-35.

^[6]
Record, p. 2; TSN, 9 November 1983,
pp. 6-8 and 12-13.

^[7]
Decision, p. 3; Rollo, p. 35.

^[8]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 2-3; Rollo,
pp. 77-78.

^[9]
People v. Magaluna, G.R. No.
66755, 23 January 1992,
p. 8.

^[10]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 3-4; Rollo,
pp. 78-79.

^[11]
TSN, 17 May 1983, pp. 92-95 and 137-140.

^[12]
Decision, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 38-39.

^[13]
People v. Blance, 45 Phil. 113,
116 (1923); People v. Taduyo, 154 SCRA 349 (1987); People v.
Poculan, 167 SCRA 176, 198 (1988); see also People v. Timbang, 189 SCRA
279, 287 (1990).

^[14]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 4-6; Rollo, pp. 79-81.

^[15]
People v. Feliciano, 195 SCRA 19, 26 (1991); People v. Renojo,
132 SCRA 365, 375 (1984).

^[16]
TSN, 17 May 1983, pp. 131-133 and 135-139.

^[17]
See People v. Belon, 194 SCRA 447, 456 (1991).

^[18]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 7; Rollo, p. 82.

^[19]
See People v. Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557, 564 (1991).

^[20]
TSN, 17 May 1983, pp.
96-100; TSN, 9 November 1983,
pp. 15 and 17.

^[21]
People v. Magaluna at p. 12.