G.R. No. 82303. December 21, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO PASCUA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
SARMIENTO, J.:
Based on the sworn complaint of the alleged offended party,
Magdalena Cambaleza, dated April 23, 1984, the assistant provincial fiscal
of Nueva Ecija, Marcelina Tangunan-Annang, filed
on October 8, 1986, an information dated October 6, 1986, in the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Cabanatuan City,
Branch 27, alleging the following:
That sometime in November, 1982, at about 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, by the riverside of Gabaldon, Province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation by using a
bladed weapon, a “bayonet,” did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with
Magdalena Cambaleza Y Suara,
then less than 12 years of age, to
her damage and prejudice in the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS representing actual, moral
and consequential damages.[1]
Upon arraignment on February
20, 1987, the accused, with the assistance of counsel, entered a
plea of “not guilty” to the
offense charged.
After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment finding the accused
Rodrigo Pascua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape and sentenced him “to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify Magdalena Cambaleza, the offended party, the sum of P25,000.00 with
costs.”[2]
The evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that the
complainant-victim, Magdalena Cambaleza, was born on December 17, 1970[3]
and is one of the four children of Agnes Suara and
the late Domingo Cambaleza. Agnes is the common-law wife of the accused,
Rodrigo Pascua, with whom she has likewise four
children. She and Rodrigo, and all her
eight children, were living under one roof in the house of Rodrigo, in Sitio Dalag, Barangay
Ligaya, Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija at the time of the
purported commission of the crime. They
all started living together in 1983 according to Agnes.
The prosecution claims that sometime in November, 1982, the young
Magdalena left their house to meet the accused near a
river in Sitio Dalag. The latter pulled her towards the river bank
and, intimidating her with a bayonet, made her lie down on the ground. He stripped off her pants and panties and
then thrust his organ into her genital, causing her to cry out in pain.
The alleged incident was disclosed by the girl to her mother when
she and her stepfather returned home.
The accused, however, denied Magdalena’s
story. Even so, to avoid a repetition
of the incident reported by her daughter, Agnes instructed Magdalena
to go to Barangay Ligaya,
an hour’s walk from their sitio, where she would be
employed as a maid in the house of a Mrs.
Precy Dayao. In the meantime, she forgave Rodrigo and
continued to live with him in his house until September, 1986.[4]
Following Rodrigo’s instruction, she told no one about her daughter’s story.
But that was not the end of her daughter’s purported
tribulations.
About two years later, on March
30, 1984, the accused went to Mrs. Dayao’s
house to inform Magdalena that her mother had been taken
ill and was confined in a hospital in Cabanatuan City. Reluctantly, Magdalena
went with the accused to the bus terminal and both boarded a bus heading for San
Jose City. When they reached the city, they hitched a
ride on a cargo truck bound for Nueva Vizcaya. They
alighted somewhere in said province and rested for the night in an uninhabited nipa hut in the fields.
Magdalena was roused from sleep by the accused who was on top of her, with a bayonet aimed at her. She felt pains in her vagina.
The following morning, the accused repeated the same act on the complainant. Thereafter, he brought her to his cousin’s
house in San Jose City
and left her there while he proceeded alone to Isabela. After the accused had gone, Magdalena
told the cousin of the accused that she had been raped by him (Rodrigo Pascua).
When the accused returned to San Jose,
his relatives refused to let him take the complainant with him, and instead
insisted that the complainant remain in their house until her mother came to
fetch her.
The complainant’s testimony is vague as to the date when Agnes went and
picked her up from the house of the accused’s cousin
in San Jose.
After Agnes fetched her daughter from the house where she was
left in San Jose, she took the
complainant to Gabaldon, to report to the police
authorities the rape of her daughter. A Sinumpaang Salaysay was
executed before a police investigator
by the complainant on April 23, 1984,
wherein she narrated what she had gone through in the hands of the accused in
November, 1982 and on March 30, 1984.[5]
Seventeen months after her alleged first rape, or on April 26, 1984, the complainant was
medically examined in Laur, Nueva
Ecija, by Dr. Felimon V. Veneracion, the rural health-physician. A medical certificate[6]
was issued, stating among other things:
FINDINGS
External Examination
– negative for extra-genital physical injuries.
Breast – fully developed.
Internal Examination – Absence of pubic hair, labia.
Hymen – thin and
opening linear in shape show old healed laceration of the hymen at 3:00 and 6:00
o’clock position in the face of the clock. Hyminal
oriface admits one finger with resistance. Vaginal canal right Cervix
presence of mucoid discharge.
CONCLUSION:
1) No extra-genital physical injuries are noted in the person of
Magdalena S. Cambaleza
2) Physical virginity lost.
A complaint sworn to by Magdalena Cambaleza
was filed against the accused with the Municipal Circuit Court on April 23, 1984. However, the complaint was archived on November 30, 1984.[7]
Nonetheless, the accused-appellant was arrested on November 18, 1986 in his house in Ligaya, Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija.[8]
When the trial commenced, it is claimed
by the prosecution that Agnes, the mother of Magdalena, received from the
accused two (2) letters,[9]
written in the Ilocano dialect and begging for the
complainant’s forgiveness.
On the other hand, the defense of the accused consisted solely of
his testimony.
He stated that in 1974, he moved to Barangay
Ligaya, a small place with only ten houses, the
nearest of which was ten meters away from his own house.[10]
He had only a
common-law relationship with Agnes Cambaleza,
mother of the complainant. Agnes and her
four children started to live with the accused and his own
four children in 1974 which is contrary to the prosecution’s assertion that
they only started living together in 1983.[11]
Rodrigo denied having raped Magdalena Cambaleza
in 1982 as charged. He also denied the
prosecution’s version that Magdalena had worked as a maid for Mrs. Dayao who happens to be the wife of the uncle of the
accused; Magdalena, he alleged, did go to Mrs. Dayao’s
house but only a year later, in 1983, and she stayed there for merely a week
because her gangmates invited her to join them in
planting onions in Mrs. Dayao’s farm.[12]
The accused Pascua was fifty
(50) years old at the commencement of the trial and is a farmer by
occupation. He owns two hectares of land
on which he grows a variety of crops.
His annual harvest from onions yields him an annual income of P15,000.00; from pechay, P3,000.00;
and from palay, the equivalent amount of 60 cavans. Jerry, one
of Agnes’ sons, helped him tend the field.[13]
In 1982, the accused avers, Agnes began to gamble. Gradually her gambling became an obsession,
and, feeling apprehensive that her frittering away of his earnings would have
adverse effects on their family, he found himself applying force on her just so
she would come to her senses. Frustrated
by her refusal, Rodrigo started beating her up; his doing so, according to the
latter, made Magdalena, Agnes’ daughter and the alleged
rape victim, very angry. At one time, Magdalena
threatened to report him to the barangay captain,
Eduardo Yasoy, for beating up and choking her mother.[14]
The same barangay captain was suspected
by Rodrigo of carrying on an affair with his common-law-wife, Agnes. Rodrigo testified that a week before he was
arrested, he fetched Agnes who was playing mahjong in the house of one Flores. He surprised the barangay
captain and Agnes when he came upon them with the barangay
captain’s arm placed around her. Rodrigo
mauled Agnes for that scandalous behavior.[15]
Then there was that night when Rodrigo came down from the mountain after
gathering “buho” and found the same barangay captain in his house, again with his arm around her.[16]
Convinced more than ever that she was
the paramour (“kabit“) of the barangay captain, Rodrigo gave Agnes her worst
beating that night. That same night,
Agnes fled to the house of the barangay captain.
The following
morning, the accused was summoned to the barangay
hall by the barangay captain. There were four (4) councilmen when Rodrigo
arrived at the place. The barangay captain was not present, but he sent a message
through one of the councilmen
for the accused not to maul his common-law wife. Afterwards, Rodrigo was sent home.[17]
A week later, on November
18, 1986, the barangay captain, with the
help of three Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) men, arrested Rodrigo at his
house. Agnes and her “kabit,” barangay captain
Eduardo Yasoy, visited Rodrigo at the municipal jail
of Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija where he had already been detained for three
months. During that visit, he was told
by the barangay captain that if he gave him P50,000.00, the case against him would be dropped. Rodrigo refused, saying he would not pay
anything as he was innocent. At that
time, he had not even been informed of the reason for his arrest.[18]
It was only when he was transferred by the police and the barangay
captain to the provincial jail at
Cabanatuan City
that he was told that he was being indicted for rape.
The accused denies having written the letters presented by the
prosecution which begged for pardon and mercy.[19]
In the first place, he says he does not know how to read and write, and it was
only in the provincial jail that he learned how to sign his name.[20]
It is noteworthy that the two letters, Exhibits “C” and
“C-1,” both identically dated “6-30-87,” are nicely written in a very legible
handwriting in ink.
Rodrigo claims that he never abused Magdalena; that the alleged
rape at Sitio Dalag did not
take place; that he did not fetch her at Laur and
bring her to the Baliwag Transit terminal in Cabanatuan City; that he did not take her on a trip to Nueva
Vizcaya; that he did not bring her to San Jose City;
that the journey to and the rape in Nueva Vizcaya did not happen; and that he has no relatives in San
Jose City.[21]
The accused-appellant assigns the following errors in his appeal:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
RAPE ON A VERSION THAT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE AND INCREDIBLE.
II
THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT ACCUSED’S DEFENSE WAS
A SIMPLE DENIAL.[22]
The focus of attention should be on the alleged first rape
incident at Sitio Dalag. The alleged second rape happening at Nueva Vizcaya is of no matter
because it is not in issue here
and surprisingly Rodrigo has not been accused of the same up to now. Rodrigo is accused only of the rape allegedly
committed in 1982. However, we can not
help but turn an exacting eye on the alleged second rape incident in 1984
because it poses a lot of questions on the testimonies of the complainant and
her mother and their credibility, especially in this prosecution for a capital
offense and for which Rodrigo was meted out by the trial court the maximum
penalty imposable under our constitution–life imprisonment.
The accused-appellant argues that even if prosecution witness Dr.
Veneracion found old healed lacerations at 3:00 and 6:00
o’clock in the face of the clock at the opening of the vagina, he
cannot tell whether said lacerations were due to rape.[23]
Thus, the medical examination is not decisive and practically worthless to
corroborate the charge of rape in
1982 for which the accused was indicted and convicted by the trial court even
assuming that the indicated “old healed laceration(s) of the hymen” were caused
through sexual intercourse.
It is surprising to note that Dr. Veneracion
admitted, on cross-examination, that the alleged victim, Magdalena,
was still a virgin at the time when he examined her.
Q: You
mentioned, after what I read that hyminal orifice
admits one finger with resistance. Vagina canal tight.
Is this not the character of the organ of a woman which (who) has no sex
experience.
A: Normally
that should be the vagina of a girl
of her age.
Q: Just
for clarification, so by the very character of these findings, you are more
inclined to say that these findings is (sic)
suggestive of a woman of virginity?
A: Well,
I think that is
correct.[24]
Medical science supports the conclusion of Dr. Veneracion, the examining physician.
As a general rule, the vaginal canal of a virgin is tight and the rugosities are sharp and prominent. Insertion of the finger or instrumentation
shows certain degree of resistance.[25]
Under certain circumstances, medical examination is not a
prerequisite for the prosecution and conviction of the accused in the crime of
rape and that virginity is not a defense.
However, here, the complainant avers that there were three (3) complete
physical coitions (one in November, 1982 and two on March 30, 1984). These allegations of three intercourses become
prominent in the light of the medical examination showing that Magdalena
was still a virgin at the time of the examination. There is something fishy in her testimony
which tends to negate her assertion that she was brought to Nueva
Vizcaya where she was supposedly twice abused.
The Nueva Vizcaya
“interlude” behooves us to scrutinize it closely because it is
uncommon for a man to take a
14-year old girl to a province where he is a total stranger, then walk for a distance in an unfamiliar field,
pass the night in a strange hut he has accidentally found where he abuses her
twice, and then return home the following morning.
It becomes even more bizarre when the victim’s mother, Agnes, who
should have been infuriated at the second and third rapes of her daughter,
still continued to live with the rapist.
From Agnes’ own lips, she lived with the accused up to September, 1986.[26]
The accused was, therefore, all the while in their (his) house at the time the
complaint for rape was filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court on April
23, 1984, during its pendency before said court until
it was ordered archived on November 30, 1984,[27]
up to and including the day when he was arrested on September 18, 1986
(November 18, 1986 according to the accused-appellant), or for a period of one
(1) year and five (5) months.
All told, the falsity of the charge is manifest. As pointed out by the accused-appellant:
x x x This long span of time during
which the accused was not arrested despite his uninterrupted presence in the
house as aforesaid, is surprising and eloquently belies the fury of a woman
outraged seeking swift redress and speedy justice. And if the rape case was filed on April 23,
1984 and even archived on November 30, 1984, there must be some other reason
why the accused boxed, kicked and choked her, and not because he was preventing
her from making a report of the
rape.[28]
Examining meticulously the
testimonies of Magdalena and her mother, Agnes,
we find several material inconsistencies that further eviscerate the case for
the People. First, Magdalena
positively asserted that her mother Agnes first caused the arrest of the
accused before she fetched her in San Jose
City in 1984.[29]
This is not true as the accused
had always been in his house in Sitio Dalag, Barangay Ligaya, Gabaldon up to the time he was arrested in 1986
(September 18 according to the prosecution, November 18 according to the
defense). Moreover, Agnes said it was Magdalena
who “suggested that I cause the arrest of his uncle (accused).”[30]
Second, they (Agnes and Magdalena)
made it appear that their house was isolated and they had no neighbors to run
to from whom to seek help or report the alleged rape incidents.[31]
On the contrary, Agnes admits that they did have immediate neighbors, “x x x even if I shouted our
neighbors could not help me.”[32]
Third, Magdalena avers that in Nueva
Vizcaya, she and the accused walked far into a field
until they saw a nipa hut where they spent the night
and where she was abused.[33]
This deviates from what she stated in her affidavit, i.e., that she was abused
in the cargo truck.[34]
Fourth, in the nipa hut, she was abused once in the
night and again in the morning.[35]
In her affidavit, she was abused only once.[36]
Shifting our attention now to the alleged first rape incident for
which the accused was charged and convicted, again, we are intrigued by
Magdalena’s account as to how she happened to encounter the accused on the day she claims
to have been raped by the river at Sitio Dalag in November, 1982 (on November 19, 1982, according to
her mother[37]). Sitio Dalag is far from their house. It is an isolated place. There are no houses along the way according
to Magdalena.[38]
It is unusual that a girl below 12 years of age would make such a trip alone without informing her
mother, brothers, and sisters who were all in the house when she set out for Sitio Dalag. A young girl would normally ask someone to
accompany her to a distant place, or, at the very least, inform her family
where she was going.
Q You said that you walk (walked) about
an hour from your house just to meet your
father-in-law, (should be step-father) do you remember having said that?
A Yes, sir.
Q There
are no houses along the way that you walked?
A None, sir.
Q In
fact, you did not met (meet) any persons when you meet (met) your father-in-law
(should be step-father)?
A None, sir.
x x x x x
Q When
you left your house who were present there?
A My mother, my brothers and my
sister, sir:
Q When
you said brother you were
referring to your brother by the first husband of your mother?
A Yes, sir.[39]
We find it difficult to believe that the rape, if it did take
place, was a chance encounter
between the young Magdalena and her 45-year old
stepfather.
The Solicitor General proposes that “it was appellant who,
perhaps using his moral ascendancy influenced over complainant who is his
stepdaughter, lured or commanded the latter to go to the river bank which was a little far from their house, in
order to accomplish his lewd
design. This is apparent from the fact
that when complainant returned home
immediately after the incident, she told her mother that she was fooled (“niloko“) by appellant, who raped her at the river bank
(tsn., July 28, 1987, pp. 22-23)”[40]
(Emphasis ours).
This conjecture is controverted by the
very evidence for the prosecution. What
the mother, Agnes, declared was:
Q Will
you please tell the Court what did Magdalena reported
(report) to you?
A Magdalena
reported to me that her uncle fooled (niloko) her at the river bank.
Q What do you mean that Magdalena
was fooled (niloko)
by her uncle at the river bank?[41]
x x x x x
A That
she was raped.[42]
On the other hand, the direct testimony of Magdalena
herself, which is more decisive, showed that it was her own idea to meet him
and that she was not lured or commanded by him to go to the river bank.
Q You said a while ago that in 1982
during the month of November, on a date you cannot exactly remember, that you
were raped by your stepfather Rodrigo Pascua, will
you explain to this Court what do you mean when you say that you were raped?
A I
met him at Barangay Ligaya
and that was where I was raped.
Q: What
I was asking is, will you tell the Court how you were
raped?
A: When
I met him at Barangay Ligaya
and when we came near the bank x x x.[43]
(Emphasis ours)
Given the above testimonies of the complainant and her mother,
the accused-appellant strongly disputes the hazy scenario painted by the
prosecution:
x x x Here lies precisely what makes the mind restless. It boggles the imagination how a girl of her
age, below 12 at that, could possibly make such a trip. There was no plausible reason for her to do
it. She had not done it before. And she was not asked to do it. The accused is not even shown to have left
the house and if he did, no one knew where he went and at what time he would
come back. It is, therefore, intriguing
how she could have known that he would pass in said place and at such precise
time of the day. Even a full grown man
could not accomplish such a feat — meeting his parents without being asked to
and first informed where and when. And
to think that she left alone without informing her mother, brothers and sisters
who were all in the house is inconsistent with the innate instinct of fear in a child who would normally ask for
company to overcome it. In short, the
alleged journey was a thing of make-believe.”[44]
We have repeatedly stated that:
When the evidence is inconsistent with human experience the same
cannot be considered a sufficient basis upon which to rest a judgment of
conviction.[45]
Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a
credible witness, it must be credible in itself — such as the common
experience and observation of mankind
can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human
testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and
experience. Whatever is repugnant to
these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance.[46]
The trial court should not have merely limited its observation of
the conduct of Magdalena on the witness stand, who was already sixteen (16)
years old and already married at the time she testified, which it described as
impressed with “naturalness and candor,”[47]
disregarding altogether that her narration on how, where, and when she was
abused, which is very crucial, contradicts ordinary observation, knowledge, and
experience.
The attitude of Agnes, the mother, is quite revealing. Beyond allegedly confronting the accused on
her daughter’s report of her chastity being violated, she did nothing. She did not complain to the authorities and
even allegedly forgave him. The record
is bereft of any evidence to show a mother’s wrath or anger which is the natural
consequence of so grave an offense as that committed against her young daughter
and imputed to the accused.
While rape is a most detestable crime, and ought to be severely
and impartially punished, it must be borne in mind that it is an accusation easy
to be made, but hard to be defended by the party accused, though innocent. As is usually the case, the testimony of the
complainant would be the only evidence presented by the prosecution on how the
alleged rape was perpetrated, and the same should be regarded with utmost
caution and the accused should not be convicted unless the complainant’s
testimony is impeccable and rings true throughout.[48]
These safeguards must be scrupulously observed otherwise an innocent accused
may languish in jail for the remainder of his lifetime.
The testimony of the complainant is not truthful as the trial
court would make us believe. Her story
smacks of concoction rather than proclaims the truth. Trial courts
should put prosecution testimonies under severe testing. Every circumstance or doubt favoring the
innocence of the accused should
be duly taken into account. The proof
against him must survive not only the test of reason and logic, but, above all,
that of experience.
Although the trial court did state that “a mother would not
sacrifice her daughter, who was already married, to tell a story of defloration
(People vs. Jones, 137 SCRA 166),” and “a victim of rape will not
come out in the open if her motive is not
to obtain justice (People vs. Ignacio, 60 SCRA 11),”[49]
that is not always the case as the Court noted long ago.
The books disclose too many instances of false charges of rape,
attempted rape and kindred offenses to permit the courts to enter a judgment of
conviction of a crime of this nature without having in mind the possibility
that the complaining witness may have been actuated by some sinister motive in
bringing the charge.[50]
It cannot be denied that the complainant would harbor ill
feelings against the accused since she had witnessed him beating up her mother
on a number of occasions on account of her compulsive gambling. And the mother, on her part, would have more
reasons to get back at her common-law-husband since he had beaten her up many
times and more so because it appears that her love for him was already lost and
transferred to the barangay captain Eduardo Yasoy.
Defense evidence shows that Rodrigo had frowned on Agnes’
addiction to gambling since 1982.[51]
His advice that their family would suffer if she continued with her vice was
unheeded.[52]
She even squandered their earnings giving part thereof (P3,000.00)
to Barangay Captain Eduardo Yasoy.[53]
Ineluctably, Rodrigo used force on her almost daily–beating, choking, and
slapping her–hoping that she would see the light. Instead, she retaliated by refusing to do the
regular chores of a wife.[54]
It was not
home sweet home anymore.
Magdalena observed these developments with
her own eyes which naturally ignited a deep feeling of resentment against her
step-father. In Agnes’ own testimony:
x x x she (Magdalena) was the one who suggested that I (Agnes)
cause the arrest of his uncle (accused), because she knew that his (her) uncle
was maltreating me, and if he is put in jail he might reform his way of
treating me.[55]
Thus, bearing false witness against one’s neighbor (in this case,
one’s step-father) is not a remote
possibility, most especially if the motive is to exact revenge on the
accused. Moreover, we find plausible the
testimony of the accused that his common-law wife had become the paramour (kabit) of the barangay
captain. This accusation, repeatedly and
explicitly specificated by the aggrieved Rodrigo on
the witness stand, was surprisingly not rebutted by the common-law wife, the
mother of the complainant, nor by her alleged
paramour. This comes as a source of
wonder to us; it is a wonder as well that the prosecution would not repudiate
this lie — if it was a lie.
The barangay captain’s standing in the
community may appear to be a modest position of authority, but in the rural
areas, like a sitio, it can wield considerable
influence and power sufficient to hatch a plot against the accused and make it
stick, as in this case. It would not
then be of any wonderment that barangay captain
Eduardo Yasoy had shown an unusual interest in the
case against the accused. Thus, it was
this barangay captain, together with his Civilian
Home Defense Force (CHDF) members Sofio Asuncion and Pascual, who arrested Rodrigo.[56]
It was the
same barangay captain who instructed the barangay council members to warn Rodrigo not to maul Agnes
again. Worse, at the municipal jail of Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija, and in the presence of Agnes, this barangay captain shamelessly tried to extort from the
accused saying that if he (accused) would give fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) they can have his case settled.[57]
Likewise, this was not rebutted by the barangay
captain. If this is not extortion, at
the very least it casts suspicion on the motive behind Magdalena’s,
Agnes’, and Yasoy’s filing of a criminal complaint
against Rodrigo and actively cooperating in his prosecution. When he was transferred to the provincial
jail in Cabanatuan
City, Yasoy
was with the police escorts.[58]
We go back to the two letters of repentance, supplication, and
mercy purportedly written by Rodrigo and offered and admitted as evidence by
the prosecution, obviously intended to help prove his guilt. The letters
were not proven to be his as adverted to earlier. Not only did Rodrigo vehemently deny writing
the letters, he affirmed that he did not even know how to read and write.[59]
The letters[60]
addressed to Agnes were made to appear that they originated from the accused
who was begging for mercy.
The letters could not have possibly come from the accused who had been under detention in the provincial jail, Cabanatuan City,
for more than a year continuously to the present. This is established by the envelop itself[61]
where the rubber stamp mark of the post office of Bongabon,
Nueva Ecija appears,
indicating that they were mailed in said
municipality, and not in Cabanatuan City.
In addition, there is the admission of Agnes that the signatures
appearing in said letters were not those of the accused.[62]
Is there any need to say more? These
falsified letters presented in evidence by the prosecution depict not only
weakness of the accusation but also indicative of the plausibility of the
defense contention that the whole thing is a cruel concoction motivated by revenge
and greed.
There is another factor which has helped abrade the merit of the
cause of the prosecution. The rape of
which Rodrigo stands accused is alleged to have been committed in 1982. Yet, there was delay in the filing of the
complaint (1984), longer delay in the arrest of the accused (1986), and more
delay in the commencement of the trial (1987).
This protracted delay is attributable mainly to the complainant and her
mother and very probably aided and abetted by the barangay
captain who seems to be occupying not a
minor role in this episode. Not
only that, the accused was arrested in November 1986 despite the fact that all
the time he was living with Agnes in his home.
The prosecution commenced only in late 1986 — a considerably long time after the
commission of a
deplorable crime against a minor’s honor. Although
the lower court declared that the lateness of the disclosure of the crime was excusable, we do not preclude the
possibility of fabrication. The longer
it takes to report to the authorities the commission of a crime, the greater
the possibility that the crime never happened.
And if the incidents really did happen,
we find it incomprehensible that the accused would be charged only for a
“rape” allegedly committed in 1982, and not for those alleged two
rapes committed in 1984 as
well. This long delay, augmented by the
non-prosecution of two other alleged heinous offenses committed against the
same offended party, by the same man, at the very least, creates a reasonable
doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Our findings in the case at bar should not create the mistaken
impression that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses should always be
looked at with askance. What we are
driving at is that every accused is presumed innocent at the onset of an
indictment. But, it has often happened
that at the commencement of a trial, people’s minds, sometimes judges too, would have already passed sentence against
the accused. An allegation, or even any
testimony, that an act was done should never be hastily accepted as proof that
it was really done. Proof must be
closely examined under the lens of a judicial microscope and only proof beyond
reasonable doubt must be allowed to convict.
Here, that quantum of proof has not been satisfied.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, 9.
[2]
Decision, rollo,
35-36.
[3]
Exhibit “D”, Baptismal Certificate, Original Record with Exhibits, 121.
[4]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987,
20-21.
[5]
Exhibits “B”, “B-1”, and “B-2”, Original Record, id.,
117.
[6]
Exhibits “A” and “A-1”, Original Record, id.,
116.
[7]
Exhibit 3, Original Record, id., 182.
[8]
T.S.N., Sept. 8, 1987, 10.
[9]
Exhs.
“C”, “C-1” and “C-2”, Original Record, id.,
118-120.
[10]
T.S.N., Sept. 8, 1987, id., 7.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id., 12.
[13]
Id., 15.
[14]
T.S.N., Sept. 30, 1987,
11-12.
[15]
Id., 2.-3.
[16]
Id., 8-9; not Agnes in
the house of the barangay captain as mentioned in
par. 2, p. 7 of the trial
court’s decision.
[17]
Id., 10.
[18]
Id., 12-15.
[19]
Exhs.
2; 2-A; 2-B; C; C-1; and C-2, Original Record, 118-120.
[20]
Exhibits 1 and 1-A, Original Record, id., 181.
[21]
T.S.N., Sept. 8, 1987, id., 10, 14-16.
[22]
Brief for the Accused-Appellant, 11.
[23]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987, id., 16-17.
[24]
Id., 17-18.
[25]
SOLIS, LEGAL MEDICINE, 487 (Revised Edition, 1987).
[26]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987, id., 21.
[27]
Exhibit 3, Record, id., 182.
[28]
Brief for the Accused-Appellant, id., 21.
[29]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987,
47-48.
[30]
Id., 35.
[31]
Id., 40.
[32]
Id., 32.
[33]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987, id., 45;
T.S.N., August
14, 1987, 12.
[34]
Exhibit “B”, Affidavit of Magdalena Cambaleza, Record, id., 117.
[35]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987, id., 46.
[36]
Exhibit “B”, affidavit of Magdalena Cambaleza, Record, id., 117.
[37]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987, id., 24.
[38]
T.S.N., August 14, 1987, 3.
[39]
T.S.N., August 14, 1987, id.,
2-4.
[40]
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, 10.
[41]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987, id.
22.
[42]
Id., 23.
[43]
Id., 40.
[44]
Brief for the Accused-Appellant, id., 12-13.
[45]
People v. Broqueza, No.
L-62467, October 31, 1983, 125 SCRA
549.
[46]
Borgvilla vs.
Court of Appeals, No. L-47286, January 7, 1987, 147 SCRA 20.
[47]
Decision of the trial court, 8, last par.
[48]
People vs. Mauro del Pilar,
G.R. No. 75852, August 11, 1988,
citing U.S. vs.
Flores, 26 Phil. 262, 269; and People vs. Tapao,
No. L-41704, October 23, 1981, 108 SCRA
351, 354.
[49]
Decision of the trial court, id., 12.
[50]
U.S. vs.
Ramos, 35 Phil. 671.
[51]
T.S.N., Sept. 8, 1987, id., 19.
[52]
Id.
[53]
T.S.N., Sept. 30, 1987, id., 8.
[54]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987, id., 35.
[55]
T.S.N., July 28, 1987, id., 35.
[56]
T.S.N., Sept. 30, 1987, id.,
12-13.
[57]
Id., 13-14.
[58]
Id., 15.
[59]
T.S.N., Sept. 30, 1987, id.,
19.
[60]
Exhibits C and C-1, Record, id, 118-120.
[61]
Exhibits “2” and “2-b” (Exhibits
“C-2” and “C-4” for the prosecution), Original Record, id.,
120.
[62]
T.S.N., August 14, 1987, id.,
17.