PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WARLITO FABRO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Convicted of Rape by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Lingayen, Pangasinan,^[1] in Criminal Case No. L-3172,
Accused-appellant, Warlito Fabro,
has interposed this appeal.

Despite repeated
notices/orders to file Brief, Accused-appellant has failed to do so (Rollo, pp. 24,
25, 26 & 42).  His father had withdrawn all documents from
the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO), now the Public Assistance Office
(PAO) on 24 August 1987 on the ground that they were hiring their
own lawyer (Rollo, pp. 29, 31).  They have not done so to date, however.  This is a perfect
example of a case delayed for reasons not attributable to this
Court but by reason of the inaction of the very party who is normally
interested in an early resolution.  The
Court has deemed it best, therefore, to decide the appeal without such Brief
and to consider Accused-appellant as having waived his right to file the
same.  The Court cannot keep this case
pending indefinitely in its docket subject to the pleasure of an accused
and to the detriment of the prompt dispensation of justice.

The prosecution’s version
of the case follows:

On January 7, 1985 at
around one o’clock in the afternoon, Josephine Blanco, who was then fifteen
years old, single, and a third year high school student, was walking alone on a
pathway in Barangay Cabangaran,
San Quintin, Pangasinan,
while on her way to attend her classes
at the San Quintin High School.  Passing by a tamarind tree, where
accused-appellant Warlito Fabro
was then hiding, the
latter, armed with an eighteen-inch bolo, suddenly held her hands and pulled
her to a nearby secluded and forested
area where she was ordered by Warlito to undress and
lie down or else be killed.  When
she shouted, he immediately covered her mouth.  Fearful of Warlito’s
threat, Josephine had no choice but to obey his orders.  He then went on top of her, embraced her,
kissed her, and ravished her twice. 
After the second intercourse, she told him she had to urinate and, after
pretending to do so, stood up and ran as fast as she could, completely naked,
towards her house where she immediately recounted her ordeal to her brother Danilo, and her father Lorenzo (TSN, October 21, 1986, pp.
3-9).  Lorenzo then ordered his sons, Danilo and Romeo, to look for the Accused-appellant at the
crime scene but the latter was no longer there.  Lorenzo then went to the police authorities
to report the incident and to seek assistance. 
Advised by the police to submit Josephine to a medical examination (TSN,
October 21, 1986, pp. 20-22), Lorenzo then took her to the Municipal Health
Officer of San Quintin, Pangasinan.  The following were the latter’s

“Physical Findings:

“1. No signs of
injuries in external parts of the genital and other parts of the body.

“2. New fresh
bleeding lacerations (two) of the hymen at 6
o’clock and 8 o’clock positions which shows that the rupture
is recent.

“Alleged case – Rape – Jan. 7, 1985 at about 1:00 P.M. in Bgy. Cabangaran.

“Period of Healing – 7-10 days
barring complications” (Exhibit, B, Records, p. 3)

The next day, January
8, 1985, the sworn
statements of Josephine (Records, p. 6), her father Lorenzo (ibid., p. 5) and a
certain Lolita O. Mina, who saw accused-appellant running away from the crime
scene (ibid., p. 7), were taken at the San Quintin
Police Station.  On January
10, 1985, Josephine
and Lolita O. Mina again executed affidavits regarding the incident before
Judge Pedro Suyat, Municipal Circuit Trial
Judge of the 10th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Natividad-San
Quintin, Pangasinan (ibid.,
pp. 8-9).

For its part, the defense
narrates:

On January
7, 1985 at around one o’clock in the afternoon, Accused-appellant was walking on his way home from Bgy. Nagapugan towards Bgy. Cabangaran, San Quintin, Pangasinan.  When he stopped to urinate behind a tree, he
saw Josephine walk by and when she saw him she remarked that he was
“rude” (“Ukinnam, Bastos
ka”).  He answered Josephine by
saying “Will you come near me and
I want to show you how rude am
I” (Ipakitak kenka ti kinabastos ko“).  Josephine
“responded” positively to his “invitation” and he then took
her to a “camachili tree” where she removed
her clothes and sat down.  He then
inserted his two fingers in her vagina twice after which he told her to put her
clothes on and go home.  Josephine stood
up and ran away “without any clothes” on (TSN, February 19, 1987, pp.
36-43).

The Trial Court rejected
the foregoing version of the defense as “too fantastic and utterly
incredible to be believed,” “inherently improbable, inconsistent with
human experience and against the natural course of things,” and
“contrary to reason and common sense” (Records, p. 140).  It considered the prosecution version as
“more in conformity with experience and the natural course of things under
the often repeated doctrine that no woman especially a 15-year-old, single, rural lass, would
willingly expose herself to the embarrassment of a public trial wherein she would have not only to admit but to narrate the
violation of her person as in
the instant case” (ibid., pp. 139-140).

Conviction was thus meted
out by the Court a quo as follows:

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape.  There being no
aggravating circumstance since the bolo allegedly used by the accused was not
presented, nor mitigating circumstance, the accused is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
accordance with law (Art. 63 and 335 of the Revised Penal Code).  The accused is further ordered to pay
Josephine Blanco an indemnity of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) and the
costs of this suit.

“SO ORDERED.” (Decision, pp.
6-7, Records, pp. 140-141).

Under the attendant
facts, the elements of Rape are indubitably present, namely:  1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of
a woman, and 2) that such act is accomplished with the use of force and
intimidation.  Quoted below is an excerpt
from Josephine’s testimony attesting to the concurrence of those requisites:

“Q.  Now, while you were going to school on January 7,
1985 at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, do you remember anything that
happened?

“A.  There is sir.

“Q.  Will you kindly state what is that incident?

“A.   When I was going to
school sir, I was walking at that time there was a person who was hiding behind
a tamarind tree.

“Q.  How far were you
from that person when you saw him for the first time hiding behind the tamarind
tree?

“A.   I was still far.

“Q.  What did you do after seeing that
person behind the tamarind tree?

“A.   I was frightened
sir because he held my hand.

“Q.  What did you do when
he held your hand?

“A.   I shouted, sir.

“Q.  How about that
person what did he do next after you shouted?

“A.   He held me sir and
then covered my mouth.

“Q.  What did you do
after you were held and covered on the mouth?

“A.   I asked him sir if
(sic) where will be bring me.

“Q.  What was his answer, if any?

“A.   He told me to just
follow.

“Q.  What did you do
after you were ordered to follow him?

“A.   I followed him sir.

“Q.  Why did you follow
him aside from being afraid?

“A.   He was holding a
bolo sir that is why I followed his order and that he said he is going to kill me.

“Q.  Can you describe to this Court that
bolo which he was holding when you said he was holding a bolo?

“A.   Yes, sir.

“Q.  Will you describe
that bolo?

“A.   There was no handle
sir, it is very dull and rusty.

“Q.  How long was that
bolo?

“A.   (Witness
demonstrating about 18 inches long).

xxx            xxx           
xxx

“Q.  When you reached
that place where he ordered you to
go what happened there?

“A.   He told me that I
will remove my clothes.

“Q.  What happened when
he told you that you are going to remove your clothes?

“A.   He told me that I
will lie down.

“Q.  What did you do?

“A.   He does (sic) what
he wanted to me.

“Q.  When he ordered you
to lie down did you comply with that order?

“A.   No sir and he said
that if I will not lay down he
will kill me.

“Q.  How about your
clothes, what happened to your
clothes?

“A.   I removed it sir.

“Q.  What kind of clothes
were you wearing at that time?

“A.   T-shirt and a skirt
which I used in going to school.

“Q.  After your clothes
were removed what happened?

“A.   He does (sic) what
he wishes (sic) to me.

“Q.  Specifically what
was that done to you?

“A.   He went on top of
me.

“Q.  After having been on
top of you what did he do while on top?

“A.   He was pushing up
and down.

“Q.  Aside from pushing
up and pulling what else did he do?

“A.   He embraced and
kissed me.

“Q.  Aside from kissing
and embracing, what else happened to you?

“A.   He levelled a bolo to me.

xxx            xxx          
xxx

“Q.  What is that that
was done to you?

“A.   He made a sexual
intercourse with me.

xxx            xxx          
xxx

“Q.  Where was this bolo
that he was holding at that time he was having sexual intercourse with you?

“A.   He was at the same time holding it.

xxx            xxx          
xxx

“Q.  How many times did
he have sexual intercourse with you?

“A.   Two times, sir.

xxx            xxx
          xxx

“Q.  After having
performed the second sexual intercourse what did he do, if any?

“A.   I stood up sir
because I told him that I will urinate. 
I pretended to urinate.

“Q.  Were you able to
stand up?

“A.   Yes, sir.

“Q.  After having stood up
pretending to urinate, what did you do?

“A.   I ran away, sir.

“Q.  What was your
appearance when you ran away?

“A.   I was naked, sir.

“Q. Where did you go?

“A.   I went towards
home, sir.” (TSN, October 21, 1986, pp. 4-9).

Josephine’s testimony is firm, categorical, and straight-forward.  The dastardly act perpetrated on her had
compelled her to run home, stark naked, in fear and sheer desperation, just so
she could escape the evil clutches of Accused-appellant.  There is no indication whatsoever that she
had any ill motive in filing the rape charge considering that Accused-appellant
is a complete stranger to her.  This Court has consistently held that the
testimony of a rape victim is credible where she has no motive to testify against the accused (People
v. Esquillo, G.R. No. 71311, March 31, 1989, 171 SCRA 571).

The absence of
“injuries in external parts of the genital and other parts of
(Josephine’s) body” upon medical examination (Exhibit B, Records,
p. 3) does not disprove the crime.  Rape
may be committed even if no physical force had been used.  Intimidation is sufficient and this includes
the moral kind such as the fear engendered by threatening an innocent teenager with an 18-inch bolo.  Accused-appellant kept the bolo pointed at
Josephine as he abused her.  This fear is
sufficient to terrify a 15-year-old into inaction (People v. Hortillano, G.R. No. 71116, September 19, 1989, 177 SCRA
729).  The force used need not be
irresistible.  It suffices that it be
present as long as it brings the desired result.  All consideration of whether it was more or
less irresistible is beside the point (People v. Momo, 56 Phil. 86 [1931]).

Josephine’s conduct
immediately after the assault on her person also inspires belief beyond doubt
that, indeed, she was the victim of Accused-appellant’s lust.  The conduct of the woman immediately
following the alleged assault is of utmost importance as tending to establish
the truth or falsity of the charge of rape (People v. Garcia, et al., G.R. Nos.
L-45280-81, June 11, 1981, 105 SCRA 6).  As the trial Court aptly put it:

“x x
x It must be noted that immediately after she
was abused she reacted to what is expected of one who is a victim of a heinous
act.  Because of her traumatic experience
she even cast aside her shame to run home naked and upon reaching home reported
to her brother and father what happened to her. 
On the same afternoon, she and her father and even her brothers on the
order of her father began to look for the malefactor only to be discovered
later that the culprit was already in the custody of the police authorities of
San Quintin, Pangasinan.  There at the police headquarters, the
complainant identified the accused as the one responsible of deflowering
her.  Important, likewise, is her
submission for medical examination just few hours after the incident with the
result that she was indeed sexually assaulted” (Decision, pp. 5-6;
Records, pp. 139-140).

We find apropos the observation in a host of cases that the
traditional modesty of the Filipina, specially, a young and innocent country
girl, would deter her from filing a complaint for rape and suffering the
torment if not the ignominy of having to testify in a Court of justice if in
truth she had not been really raped (People v. Sacabin,
G.R. No. L-36638, June 28, 1974,
57 SCRA 707; People v. Ignacio, G.R.
No. L-35494, September 18, 1974, 60 SCRA 11; People v. Tejada,
G.R. No. L-42608, February 6, 1979, 88 SCRA 217; People v. Oydoc,
G.R. No. 61679, October 26, 1983, 125 SCRA 250).  No young Filipina of decent repute would
publicly admit she had been raped unless that were the truth (People v. Sambangan, G.R. No. L-44412, November 25, 1983, 125 SCRA 726).

We are not persuaded by Accused-appellant’s
story that Josephine voluntarily “acceded” to his
“invitation” to come near him and undress herself without being
forced or intimidated.  Accused-appellant
was a complete stranger to Josephine and it is inconsistent with human
experience that she would submit herself willingly upon his mere “invitation.”

We quote with approval the
following observations of the Trial Court:

“The  accused’s
defense that the complainant voluntarily went with him upon his invitation to
prove his rudeness, then undressed herself without being forced and/or
intimidated after which she sat down and the accused inserted his two fingers
in her vagina for two times is too fantastic and utterly incredible to be
believed.  It is contrary to reason and
common sense (People vs. Saylan, 130 SCRA 1591).  It is inherently improbable, inconsistent
with human experience and against the natural course of things.  x x x In short, the story of the accused may be likened to a
man cornered with no option but to try to minimize if possible his liability in
the light of the situation where he is in.” (Decision, pp. 5-6, Records,
p. 140).

The penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed
by the Trial Court is in order.  However,
contrary to the Trial Court’s opinion, the bolo need not be presented to
establish an aggravating circumstance. 
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the use of a deadly weapon
immediately calls for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death.  But with the abolition of capital
punishment, it is reclusion perpetua
that should be imposed.

In  fine, the evidence on record convincingly measures up to the yardstick
established by law to support conviction.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED, with
the modification that the payable indemnity is increased to P30,000.00 consistent with current case
law.  Costs against accused-appellant Warlito Fabro.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento,
and Regalado,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Judge Hugo B. Sansano, Jr., presiding.