G.R. No. 80532. November 08, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRISTITUTO ALEGADO Y BULLO @”TOTOY,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
NOCON, J.:
Rape is a crime which is not normally committed in the presence
of witnesses, hence, courts merely rely on the credibility of the complainant’s
testimony as weighed against the credibility of the accused.[1]
Understandably, accused-appellant zeroes in on the alleged inconsistencies in
the rape victim’s testimony to extricate himself from criminal liability. Denying any such inconsistencies, the People
point out to the stark-naked fact that the accused-appellant hid for fifteen
(15) years right after the rape to elude arrest. Yielding to the Court’s constitutionally derived power to review
all criminal cases in which the penalty of reclusion perpetua is
imposed,[2]
accused-appellant leaves his fate to the court’s disposition.
As synthesized by the Solicitor General, the facts of the case
are as follows:
“On 15 November 1970, at about 7:00 A.M, complainant Alejandra
Evangelista was sent by her parents Ignacio Evangelista and Mercedes
Evangelista to get her father’s gun at her sister’s residence in Mangatarem,
Pangasinan. She was then sixteen (16)
years old and a grade five pupil of Quetegan Elementary School (TSN, January
14, 1986, p. 2).
Complainant walked from their residence in Barangay Calumbuyan,
Mangatarem, Pangasinan to Quetegan, Pangasinan and from there she rode on a
mini-bus going to Mangatarem town proper. By noon of the same day, complainant went home by taking a jeep to
Barangay Quetegan and from there she had to walk, passing Barangays Bulalacao
and Linmansangan, to reach Barangay Calumbuyan (Ibid., p. 3).
While walking along the road of Barangay Bulalaco, complainant
noticed that she was being followed by two individuals. Complainant identified the first as the
appellant but she did not recognize his companion. Soon the appellant and his companion parted ways and the former
continued following the complainant.
Moments later, appellant was able to overtake the complainant.
Suddenly, appellant held the complainant and thrust a knife at the right side
of her neck (Ibid, p. 4). He pulled the complainant toward the bushes about ten
(10) meters away from the house of the Diaz Family. Appellant continued to drag her to a forested area about fifteen
(15) meters from the road (Ibid, p. 5) where he pushed the complainant to the
ground and she fell on her back. Appellant immediately knelt and, with his right hand, he removed his
pants. Complainant attempted to stand
but she was pushed again by the appellant (TSN,
January 27, 1986, p. 4). While
the appellant was on his knees, he pulled down the complainant’s trousers and
her underwear.
Complainant pleaded not to touch her but she was ignored by the
appellant. As the complainant
continued to resist, appellant slapped her on both sides of her face and then
held her shoulders as he started to insert his penis into her vagina. Despite the complainant’s resistance, appellant succeeded in inserting
his penis.
Appellant continued to satisfy his desire on the complainant while
the latter tried to push and kick the appellant until she was able to free
herself from the appellant’s hold. Complainant immediately stood up and ran toward the road while shouting
for help. An old man named Mama Ado
dela Cruz responded but by the time he reached the place where the complainant
was molested, appellant had already run away (TSN, January 14, 1986, p. 6).
Dela Cruz took the complainant to the house of Barangay Captain of
Bulalacao where she waited for her parents. When her parents arrived, they reported the incident to the municipal
health officer who accompanied them to San Carlos General Hospital, San Carlos
City, Pangasinan (Ibid., p. 7).
The medico-legal examination on the complainant was made by Dr.
Juanita Abrenio. Her examination was offered as Exhibit
“A” which is reproduced as follows:
This is to certify that ALEJANDRA EVANGELISTA, 16 years old, single
and resident of Calumb(o)yan, Mangatarem, Pangasinan, had been examined in this
hospital on November 15, 1970, with the following findings:
Physical Examination:
1. Linear abrasions, left thigh;
2. Lacerated wound at the 3rd digit, right foot;
Internal Examination:
1. Hymen showed lacerations at 12:00 o’clock, 3:00 o’clock and cechymosis
at 1:00 o’clock.
2. Vaginal bleeding, slight (menstrual flow).
3. Vaginal introitus admits one (1) finger with difficulty.
Laboratory Examination:
1. Vaginal smear – negative for sperm cells.
The abovementioned injuries will heal with medical attendance and
in the absence of complications from three (3) to five (5) days.”[3]
Unfortunately, accused-appellant managed to evade arrest for
fifteen (15) years. Thus, while
Alejandra D. Evangelista, the rape victim, filed the complaint on November 17,
1970 — two days after the rape[4] —
the Information charging accused-appellant with Rape was filed only on July 2,
1985,[5]
after he was arrested a month before the filing of said Information.[6]
On April 2, 1987, the trial court rendered judgment finding
accused-appellant guilty as charged, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the offended party the
amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages.[7]
Hence, this appeal where accused-appellant faults the trial court
in convicting him despite:
“(1) the contradictory
or inconsistent testimony of the complainant Alejandra Evangelista thereby
creating doubt x x x (as to) the
crime charge(d); and
“(2) failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”[8]
Accused-appellant claims that a “deep perusal” of
Alejandra’s two sworn statements, the first taken during the first stage of the
preliminary investigation conducted by the Municipal Judge of Mangatarem,
Pangasinan, and the second taken at the office of the 153rd PC detachment at
Mangatarem, Pangasinan, “shows glaring irreconcilable inconsistencies and
contradictions that bring doubts and suspicion of (sic) the crimes
charge(d).”[9]
He asks the Court to consider the following:
“1. In her direct
testimony, complainant Alejandra Evangelista testified that she was walking
ahead of the accused and the latter was following her with a companion whom she
failed to recognize. (TSN, Jan. 27,
1986, p. 4). Whereas in her sworn
statement, she stated that she was following the accused and the latter stopped
and waited for her.
2. Continuing her
testimony, she declared that accused was able to catch up with her and overtake
her. Then accused poked a balisong at
her right neck and pulled her to a forested area. (TSN, Ibid, p. 5). In her
sworn statement, she stated that when she got near the accused, the latter
embraced her, held her and dragged her in the bushes of an isolated area.
3. She testified as well
that accused removed first her pant(ies) and accused followed this by removing
his pants and went on top of her (Ibid, p. 5). It appears on her affidavit that accused first removed his pants and
trousers and then followed her panty and went on top of her.
4. She declared that
accused had sexual intercourse with her for about ten (10) minutes (Ibid, p. 5)
but in her sworn statement she said that it took him more than two (2) minutes
to have sexual act with her.
5. That when accused had
sexual intercourse with her, she struggled by kicking him but she was slapped
on her right and left face. She was
able to extricate herself after accused had successfully molested her. She ran away and shouted for help and she met
Aldo dela Cruz who helped her retrieve her pant(ies) at the scene of the
crime. She was brought by dela Cruz at
the house of Brgy. Captain of Limansangan (Ibid, 6). Compared this to her sworn statement, she stated that after the
accused had sexual contact with her for about two minutes, he took hold of her
nipple and boxed her several times on her thigh and stomach. She tried to escape and shouted for help and
when accused overtook her again, she was kicked, her hair was grabbed and
pulled. She fell to the ground with her
face downward and accused stepped on her several times. Then several person who heard her shout came
to her rescue and helped her gather her things. Then Aldo dela Cruz was called by these persons to identify
her.”[10]
On the other hand, the Solicitor General claims that
accused-appellant’s contention is without merit because:
“Appellant never presented during the trial the two allegedly
inconsistent statements of complainant. Hence, the complainant was deprived of the chance to explain the alleged
discrepancies. Under section 13, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines, complainant’s testimony can not
be impeached by mere allegation of those previous statements. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
xxx (said) provision mandates the proper procedure for impeaching a
witness by evidence of alleged inconsistent statements. This procedure requires ‘laying the
predicate,’ that is: (a) by confronting
the witness with such statements, with the circumstances under which they were
made; (b) by asking him whether he made such statements, and (c) by giving him
the chance to explain the inconsistency. If the statements were made in writing, the documents must be shown to
the witness before he may be asked to explain the discrepancy. Unless the witness is given the opportunity
to explain the inconsistency, the impeachment is incomplete (Regalado, Remedial
Law Compendium, Sixth Revised Edition, p. 537, Citing U.S. vs. Baluyot,
40 Phil. 385; People vs. Rosabal, 50 Phil. 780; People vs. Escosura,
46 O.G., 918, et al.). In the case at
bar, the appellant never raised the alleged inconsistent statements during the
trial. Consequently, such statements
cannot now be used to impeach complainant.”[11]
Be that as it may, issues not raised in the court below cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal.[12] But
even assuming that it was the prosecution itself which offered said sworn
statements as part of the People’s evidence and accused-appellant is now
pointing out the inconsistencies between Alejandra’s sworn statements and her
testimony in court — and therefore obviating the need of impeaching her
testimony by means of prior inconsistent statements[13]
— the alleged inconsistencies, if any, do not militate against her credibility
as the Court has repeatedly held that since sworn statements are at most always
incomplete and inaccurate and do not disclose the complete facts for want of
inquiries or suggestions,[14] said sworn statements are generally considered
to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.[15] Accordingly, accused-appellant’s first
assignment of error has no merit.
Accused-appellant harps on the alleged pregnancy of the
complainant resulting from the alleged rape incident and her eventual abortion
a month later. He states that such is
not possible for she was menstruating at the time of the alleged rape.[16]
The Solicitor General explains that the vaginal bleeding of the
complainant was caused by the sudden penetration of appellant’s penis in her
vagina. He says that the words
“menstrual flow” in the medical report were in parentheses because
the examining physician was not positive that the slight vaginal bleeding was
also caused by the complainant’s menstrual period.[17]
Vaginal bleeding is NOT an element in rape as what is important
is that the rape victim testified that the appellant sexually abused her with
force and intimidation and against her will.[18] When
a rape victim says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary
to show that rape has been committed,[19] and
if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on
the basis thereof[20]
because as related in People vs.
Uliti:
[N]o decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim
and thus run the risk of public contempt – the dire consequence of a rape charge – unless she is, in fact, a rape
victim (People vs. Paringit, 189 SCRA 478). (At page 12)
Neither is the alleged pregnancy an important element in the
crime charged, its relevancy being only that if the offended party had given
birth to a live baby then the accused-appellant would be ordered to support the
fruit of his lecherous desires.[21]
Accused-appellant claims further that:
“There is no ample evidence on record to support the trial court’s
finding that complainant received death threats from the accused after the
incident. This finding would run
counter to prosecution’s theory that after the incident, accused was never seen
in their barangay and went into hiding and surfaced only two years after. Thus, how could accused make good his threat
on complainant if he was nowhere to be found.”[22]
On the other hand, the Solicitor General contends that:
“Complainant’s statement that she received death threats from
appellant is credible. Appellant lived
only two hundred (200) meters away from the house of complainant. Hence, it was not impossible for appellant
to display threatening gestures at complainant who was compelled to work in Manila
for several years in order to get away from appellant. x x x.”[23]
We have gone over the testimony of the offended party and we find
no evidence that complainant received death threats from accused-appellant
right after the rape incident.
What the Court finds is that the accused-appellant threatened the
rape victim with a “balisong” at the time he was raping her in
order to intimidate her into submitting to his carnal desire, as shown by the
complainant’s testimony in the court below, to wit:
“Q Now, as you were walking along from Quetegan
bound to your house in Calumboyan, passing through Bullalacao, and
Linmansangan, did you see accused Cristituto Alegado?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Where
did you see him?
A I
saw him on the crossing of the road at Barangay Bullalacao and Linmansangan.
Q What was he doing when you saw him?
A Walking,
Sir.
Q Was
he alone?
A They
were two, sir.
Q Did
you recognize his companion?
A Not
so much. I did not recognize him well,
sir.
Q Do
you know the name of his companion?
A No,
sir.
Q When
you were walking alone and the accused ran, his companion whom you do not know
were following you, what happened?
A When
I was walking along the road and Cristituto Alegado and his companion, was also
walking following me, the other companion left him and then his Cristituto
Alegado catch up with me and upon overtaking me, he poked his balisong at me,
then held me and pulled me, sir.”
xxx xxx xxx
“Q Now,
you said that Alegado, the accused, pointed something at your neck, what was
that which he pointed to you?
A Balisong,
sir.
Q Where,
specifically, at your neck?
A Here,
sir, below my right ear.
Q What
did he say, if any, when he pointed that balisong at the right side of your
neck?
A He
told me not to talk, sir.
Q What
did you do when you were told not to talk?
A I
cried, sir.
Q And
earlier, you stated that he placed his arms around and pulled you to where you
were laid by Alegado?
A He
pulled me up to the forested area, sir.”
xxx xxx xxx
“Q Upon reaching that forested area, what
happened?
A He
pushed, me, sir.
Q When
he pushed you, what happened to you?
A I
fell on my back, sir.
Q What
did the accused do when he pushed you and pulled you at your back, what did he
do?
A He
first pointed his balisong at my neck and then removed my pant(ies) then
removed his pants and then went on top of me, sir.
Q When
the accused went on top of you, what did you do?
A I
struggled, sir.
Q Did you say anything when
he went on top of you?
A None,
sir.
Q
Why?
A He first slapped me, sir. At first I told him not to touch me after
which, he slapped me left and right of my face and then held my two shoulders
and then inserted his penis inside my vagina, sir.
Q When the accused inserted his private part on
your vagina, what did you do?
A I
struggled, sir, by pushing him but I cannot do anything because he is stronger
in holding my two shoulders.
Q How
long did the penis of the accused stayed in your vagina?
A About
10 minutes, sir.”
xxx xxx xxx
“Q Now,
how many hands did he use in removing his pants?
A He removed his pants with his hand and the other hand is holding a
balisong and the hand that is holding that he used in holding the balisong is
is left hand, sir.
Q Now,
we go back to the time when you were being pulled by the accused, what hand did
he use in holding the balisong, when he poked the balisong?
A
Right hand, sir.
Q How
do you know that it was the right hand of the accused?
A I
saw it, sir.”[24]
While Alejandra’s mother testified that she saw accused-appellant
for the first time in their barangay only after two years[25]
which, of course, the latter vehemently denied,[26] what
is important in considering flight as an indication of guilt is the period when
the accused-appellant was arrested in relation to the filing of the
complaint. Accused-appellant managed to
elude arrest for fifteen (15) years as can be seen from the order of the
municipal trial court, as follows:
“ORDER
In the order of the court dated November 17, 1970, accused was
given P25,000.00 as Bail Bond for his temporary liberty. After this court has carefully examined the
circumstances of the case, it finds out that the order of the court in 1970
needs an amendment for the following reasons:
That the accused Cristituto Alegado has evaded the law for about
fifteen (15) years, and that the offense committed by him is very grave
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death;
That accused is known to be publicly notorious, and has been
threatening the complainant when she and her witness testified against him as
per statement of the mother of the complainant;
WHEREFORE and in view of the foregoing, the order of the former
judge dated November 17, 1970 imposing the Bail Bond of accused to be
P25,000.00 is hereby amended and that NO BAIL is recommended.
SO ORDERED.”[27]
As the Court recently held in People vs. Castor:[28]
“All the protestations of innocence by the accused-appellant
are belied by his flight. x x x . It has long been settled that the flight of the accused is
competent evidence against him as having a tendency to establish his guilt
(U.S. vs. Alegado, 25 Phil. 510 [1913]); unexplained flight is a circumstance
from which an inference of guilt may be drawn, for the wicked flee even when no
man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion (U.S. vs. Sarikala, 37 Phil. 486 [1918]; see
also, People vs. Garcia, G.R. No.
69581, 21 May 1992).[29]
Lastly, accused-appellant claims that:
“[T]he attitude and demeanor of Mercedes Evangelista, mother of
complainant is improper, unnatural, and unfitting from a person being aggrieved
of the alleged heinous act of the accused. This can be gleaned from her testimony, to wit:
‘Q: After
that when you saw him you never talked to him neither did he talk to you, is
that correct?
A: No.
Q: You
never reprimanded to (sic) the accused or show any anger when you first saw him
after the incident?
A: No,
sir.
Q: You
never showed to him when you saw him any sign of anger?
A: None,
sir.
Q: You
smiled at him when you saw him?
A: Yes,
sir but I kept silent.“[30] (Emphasis
in the original)
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, explains that
“Mercedes Evangelista’s (the mother of complainant) reaction was
intentional so as not to invite a violent reaction from the appellant or cause
him to flee and elude arrest once more.”[31]
In fact, in answer to the trial court’s clarificatory question,
the complainant’s mother stated that she reacted in the way she did to
psychologize the accused so he won’t be angry at her:
“COURT:
I want to clarify.
x x x
Q Earlier,
you said that two years after the incident, the accused appeared, you just kept
silent, why?
A So
that he could psychologize me that I am not angry at him, sir. (sic)”[32]
(Emphasis supplied)
As correctly suggested by the Solicitor General, Alejandra’s
mother wanted to create the impression that she had already accepted the fact
of Alejandra’s rape and was no longer seeking justice — in order to give
accused-appellant a false sense of security, and enable the police authorities
to arrest him and stand trial for the rape.
WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the appeal, the Decision of
the court below, finding accused-appellant Cristituto Alegado y Bullo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
People vs. Tereso, 194 SCRA 154.
[2]
Section 5, subsection 2 (d), Article VIII, Constitution.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 137-140.
[4]
Ibid., p. 19.
[5]
Ibid., p. 6.
[6]
Original Records, p. 11.
[7]
Decision, People vs. Alegado, Criminal Case No. L-3258,
April 2, 1987, penned by the Hon. Cornelio W. Wasan, Sr., presiding judge,
Lingayen RTC, Branch 39; Rollo, pp. 22-31.
[8]
Rollo, p. 92.
[9]
Id.
[10]
Op
cit.,
pp. 93-94.
[11]
Ibid., pp. 142-144.
[12]
In People vs. Buendia, 210 SCRA 531, the appellants therein attached
affidavits to their brief by which they wanted to show that the vacant lot near
the scene of the buy-bust operation, where they were arrested for selling
marijuana, did not exist. The Court dismissed the same noting that:
“x x x (they were) belatedly submitted,
and therefore raising a nagging question as to their credibility, no
explanation is even given why the affidavits were not submitted before the
trial court.” (At page 539)
[13]
Section 13, Rule 132, Rules of Court.
[14]
People vs. Dominguez, G.R. No. 100199, January 18, 1993.
[15]
People vs. Dabon, G.R. No. 102004, December 16, 1992.
[16]
Rollo, p. 94.
[17]
Ibid., p. 147.
[18]
People vs. Mabunga, G.R. No. 96441, November 13, 1992.
[19]
People vs. Sueta, G.R. No. 94549, August 9, 1993 citing People vs.
Aboneda, 169 SCRA 530 and other cases.
[20]
People vs. Uliti, G.R. No. 103403, August 24, 1993 citing People vs.
Calixtro, 193 SCRA 303 and People vs. Isip, Jr., 188 SCRA 648.
[21]
Paragraph No. 1 (3), Article 345, RPC.
[22]
Rollo, p. 95.
[23]
Ibid., p. 148.
[24]
TSN, January 14, 1986, pp. 4-6; TSN, January 27, 1986, p. 4.
[25]
Ibid., May 13, 1986, p. 6.
[26]
Ibid., October 30, 1986, pp. 3, 4, 8, 9 and
10; January 15, 1987, p. 2; February 5, 1987, pp. 2 and 5.
[27]
Original Record, p. 14.
[28]
G.R. No. 93664, December 11, 1992.
[29]
At p. 11.
[30]
Rollo, p. 95.
[31]
Ibid., p. 148.
[32]
TSN, May 13, 1986, p. 8.