PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONILO ALBURO, ZALDY RODRIGUEZ, AND JOHN DOE, ACCUSED, RONILO ALBURO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

We affirm the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch XIX,^[1]
finding Ronilo Alburo
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
with all the accessories of the law; to indemnify Evelyn Cantina in the sum of
P10,000.00 as moral damages, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.

On 3 February 1986, Evelyn Cantina filed a complaint for Forcible
Abduction with Rape against Ronilo Alburo, Zaldy Rodriguez and John
Doe.  The complaint reads:

“That on or about the 27th day of January, 1986 at about 6:00
P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Ronilo
Alburo, who was armed with a butcher’s knife,
conniving and confederating together with Zaldy
Rodriguez and John Doe and mutually helping one another, with deliberate
intent, by the accused, Zaldy Rodriguez and John Doe
holding one Evelyn Cantina and preventing the latter from disembarking from the
Jeep driven by accused Ronilo Alburo
took her to Beverly Hills against her will and once there, said accused Ronilo Alburo, by means of force
and intimidation, did then and there have carnal knowledge of said Evelyn
Cantina without the consent and against the will of the latter.” (p. 1, Original Record)

Accused  John Doe was
subsequently identified as Dionisio Sumalinog.

Upon being arraigned, the accused individually entered pleas of
not guilty.  Towards the end of the
presentation of the prosecution evidence, the prosecution moved for the
dismissal of the complaint against Zaldy Rodriguez
and Dionisio Sumalinog.  The motion was granted and trial proceeded
only against Ronilo Alburo.

The prosecution evidence upon which the Trial Court based its
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is summarized in the People’s Brief as
follows:

“At or about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of January 27,
1986, Evelyn Cantina was already dismissed from her classes at the Abellana National High School, located at Jones Avenue, Cebu City.  From
there, her classmates, Priscilla Atillo and Aniceta Bringuila, accompanied
her in walking towards Colon Street, Cebu City, to
buy some medicine.  Not long after, a
passenger jeepney plying the Guadalupe-Carbon market
route stopped by the side of the road. 
The driver, Ronilo Alburo,
invited the three girls to board his jeepney.  As Colon Street is very near, Evelyn Cantina
declined the invitation at first.  Alburo was however, insistent in giving the three girls a
lift.  Finally, the latter accepted the
invitation by taking the front seat, with Evelyn sitting right beside the driver.  At that time however, Zaldy
Rodriguez and Dionisio Sumalinog
were already seated at the passengers’ area at the back (t.s.n.,
pp. 18-21, April 24, 1986, Priscilla Atillo).

“Upon reaching the corner of Jones Avenue and Colon Street,
the jeepney driven by Alburo
stopped at the red traffic light.  At
this juncture, Bringuila and Atillo
disembarked.  Evelyn was also about to
alight but she was prevented by Alburo who threatened
to raise her skirt if she insists on alighting and following her two companions
Bringuila and Atillo tried
to help Evelyn by pulling her out but meanwhile, the green light turned on and
the jeepney sped off towards Juan Luna Street (t.s.n., pp. 17-26, April 24, 1986, Priscilla Atillo).

“Reaching Juan Luna, the jeepney
then made a U-turn on its return trip to Guadalupe.  Mean­while, Zaldy
Rodriguez transferred to the front seat beside Evelyn (t.s.n.,
p. 20, August 6, 1986, Evelyn
Cantina).

“Anticipating that the jeepney
driven by Alburo would make a return trip to
Guadalupe, Atillo and Bringuila
posted themselves beside the corner of Colon and Juan Luna Streets near the Cebu City Savings Bank, where vehicles would stop at the
red light signal (t.s.n., p. 34, April 24, 1986,
Priscilla Atillo).

“Indeed, on its way to Guadalupe, the jeepney
driven by Alburo stopped at the corner of Colon and
Juan Luna Streets when the red light signaled. 
Evelyn attempted to go down from the jeepney
but, she was prevented by Zaldy Rodriguez who placed
his leg as barricade.  Realizing that
Evelyn was being prevented from
disembarking, Atillo and Bringuila
who stood by the roadside, close to the jeepney,
attempted to pull Evelyn from the vehicle. 
However, they did not succeed. 
Then the jeepney again sped off and headed
towards Jones Avenue when the green light turned on (t.s.n.,
p. 22, August 6, 1986, Evelyn Cantina).

“On the way to the Capitol and upon reaching the Fuente Osmeña Police Station, the
jeepney turned left along B. Rodriguez Street.  When it was already near the Southern Medical
Center, Zaldy Rodriguez and Dionisio
Sumalinog got off from the jeepney,
leaving only Alburo
and Evelyn on board.  Alburo
then drove off, turning right at V. Rama Avenue,
passing thru Englis, the
place where Evelyn resides.  The latter
then begged Alburo that she be
allowed to disembark.  Alburo did not heed Evelyn’s plea.  Instead, he pulled a knife and threatened to
slash her side if she would disembark. 
The jeepney then proceeded to Beverly Hills (t.s.n., pp. 27-30, August 16, 1986, Evelyn Cantina).

“Thinking that Evelyn might have been dropped by Alburo at her residence in Englis,
Atillo and Bringuila
boarded another jeep.  They were hoping
that Evelyn was already home and that they could get the notebook which one of
them left with her.  However, only
Evelyn’s mother was there.  They then
realized that Evelyn was really in trouble and so they related to her mother
what happened.  Alarmed by such information,
the latter sought the help of Ester Dakay, a neighbor
and close friend (t.s.n., pp. 5-10, May 13, 1986,
Priscilla Atillo).

“The husband of Ester Dakay, a jeepney driver who fully knew Ronilo
Alburo and the latter’s route from Guadalupe to
downtown, Cebu City, called up by phone Evelyn’s
father, who came home not long after (t.s.n., p. 26,
May 13, 1986, Ester Dakay).  Together, they then formed search teams to
look for Evelyn.  Lourdes Cantina and
Ester Dakay went as search team No. 1.  Riding on a taxi, they searched the
reclamation area and made inquiries from the motels.  On the other hand, Evelyn’s father as well as
her uncle, rode on two separate motortcycles,
making up search teams 2 and 3,
and scoured the streets of the city. 
However, the search proved futile (t.s.n., pp.
29-32, May 13, 1986, Ester Dakay).

“In an isolated area at barangay
OPPRA (Capitol Hills), Alburo stopped the jeepney.  Holding the
knife, he went down from the jeepney and
threateningly came close to Evelyn.  He
then pointed the knife at her and told her that something would happen to her
if she would shout.  Then he pushed
Evelyn’s head against the steering wheel which rendered the latter unconscious.

“When Evelyn
regained her senses she found herself without her panty anymore.  Blood was on her vagina and she felt pain on
her stomach.  She saw Ronilo
Alburo with his face close to hers, getting up from
her then raising his pants.  She cried
and asked Alburo what he had done to her.  He did not answer her inquiries.  Instead, he made her walk for a while,
outside of the jeepney, accordingly to ease the pain
she felt.  Then he made her sit back on
the front seat with him, still under threat of death (t.s.n.,
pp. 11-19, August 15, 1986, Evelyn Cantina).

“It was already dark when Alburo
drove back to the City.  Still under
threat of death, Evelyn remained seated beside him.  To make it appear that nothing really
happened, Alburo even picked up some passengers along
the way (t.s.n., p. 33, August 15, 1986, Evelyn
Cantina).

“At about seven o’clock in the evening, while Lourdes and
Ester were standing near Power Foods Restaurant at Jones Avenue, Ester spotted
the jeepney coming from the Capitol heading towards
downtown.  Ester signaled the jeepney to stop.  As
the jeepney slowed down she saw Evelyn seated between
Alburo and a male passenger (t.s.n.,
pp. 40-41, May 13, 1986,
Ester Dakay).

“Evelyn who appeared very weak and who was in tears, alighted
from the vehicle upon order from her mother Lourdes Cantina.  As she was embraced by Ester, she whispered
to Ester that Alburo should not be allowed to abscond
because he had raped her (t.s.n., pp. 42-43, May 13,
1986, Ester Dakay). 
A commotion followed as an altercation between Lourdes and Alburo started.  The
passengers at the back area disembarked. 
Ester and Evelyn then sat down at the passenger’s area with a certain Boyet Junio, a Barangay Tanod (t.s.n., p. 48, May 13, 1986, Ester Dakay).

“During the confrontation, Lourdes demanded that Alburo should bring Evelyn and Ester to the Fuente Osmeña Police
Station.  At first, Alburo
refused claiming that nothing wrong had happened between him and Evelyn.  When Ester told him he had nothing to be
afraid of if he was telling the truth he however, relented and drove the jeepney towards Fuente Osmeña (t.s.n., pp. 43-45, August
15, 1986, Evelyn Cantina).

“Lourdes did not board the jeepney
as she decided to look for her husband in order to inform him that they had
already found Evelyn.  While the jeepney was proceeding towards Fuente
Osmeña, Alburo changed his
mind.  He made a left turn at Visitacion Street on the pretext that he would pick up a
friend who could accompany him to the police station.  At Visitacion
Street, Alburo parked the jeepney.  He took out the engine key and the cash
collections, then left the vehicle.  As Alburo had gone, Evelyn narrated to Ester how she was raped
by Alburo.  She
even gave to Ester the knife which was left in the jeepney
by Alburo (t.s.n., pp.
54-57, May 13, 1986, Ester Dakay).

“After about 15 minutes, Ester realized that Alburo would not return anymore.  She then called by phone the jeepney owner who came later and drove them to Fuente Osmeña Police Station (t.s.n., p. 60,
p. 65, May 13, 1986, Ester Dakay).

“When Ester and Evelyn arrived at the Fuente
Osmeña Police Station, Lourdes was already
there.  The two women then reported to
the police the abduction of Evelyn by Rodriguez, Sumalinog
and Alburo. 
Ester also submitted the knife (Exhibit ‘A’) to the police.  Thereafter, Lourdes and Ester accompanied
Evelyn to the Southern Islands Medical Center for the latter’s medical
examination.  As they could not be
accommodated there immediately, they went to the Cebu
City Medical Center (t.s.n., pp. 52-53, August 15,
1986, Evelyn Cantina).  At the Cebu City Medical
Center where Evelyn was examined by Dra. Juliet Lastimosa and was found to have fresh lacerations on her
vagina with positive presence of spermatozoa (t.s.n.,
pp. 52-53, August 15, 1986, Evelyn Cantina). 
The medical certification (Exhibit ‘B’) was issued by Dra. Lastimosa on the following morning.

“On that same evening, Ester, Lourdes and Evelyn made a second
appearance at the police station and the complaint for abduction with rape was
formally lodged by Evelyn.  Her affidavit
was initially taken by the Investigator. 
The knife (Exhibit ‘A’) which was submitted earlier
that night remained in the possession of the police.  As the panty (Exhibit ‘E’) and the skirt
(Exhibit ‘D’) were still worn by Evelyn, they were submitted only the following
day.  The skirt was torn on the right
side (Exhibit ‘D-2’) and had some blood stains (Exhibit ‘D-1’).  The panty also had some blood stains (Exhibit
‘E-1’).” (pp. 3-11, Brief
for the Appelle)

Appellant, on the other hand, presented five (5) witnesses and offered
several documentary exhibits in his defense. 
His theory runs thus:

“Accused Alburo’s theory or main
line of defense is that he and Evelyn Cantina were sweethearts, thus, if ever
there was sexual intercourse between Ronilo and
Evelyn on 27 January 1986, it was with the free and voluntary consent of
complainant Evelyn Cantina.  The defense
witnesses testified to the fact that on several occasions they saw Evelyn
riding the jeepney driven by Ronilo and the former was seating beside the accused at the front seat of the
motor vehicle.  One of the witnesses even
testified to the effect, that she saw Evelyn visiting Ronilo
at the latter’s rented room for a number of times.  In short, the accused tried to convey before
the trial court that it is of public knowledge in the neighborhood of Ronilo that the accused and Evelyn were lovers.” (pp.
5-6, Brief for the Accused-Appellant)

The Trial Court gave no credence to the defense version and, as
heretofore stated, sentenced Appellant to reclusion perpetua.

Before us now, Appellant maintains:

“I.       The lower court
erred in giving credit to the claim of the prosecution that the alleged
offended victim Evelyn Cantina was forcibly
raped by the accused-appellant Ronilo Alburo.

“II.      The trial court
erred in giving credit to the testimony of the offended party which lacks
candor or credibility and probability, and in not considering that her testimony was due to fear of her
parents that they would castigate and punish her if found that she and Ronilo were lovers.

“III.     The trial court
erred in not considering that the facts and circumstances presented as evidence
by the prosecution militates against a finding of
rape.

“IV.    The trial court
erred in not believing that the accused-appellant Ronilo
Alburo and Evelyn Cantina were sweethearts and
lovers, and that the carnal act done by them on 27 January 1986 was motivated
by mutual passion and love and therefore voluntary.

“V.     The trial court
erred in not believing the testimonies of the appellant Ronilo
Alburo and of Dina Lopez, Placido
Alegrado, Manuel Rama and
Corazon Gabato, defense witnesses, who declared that on several occasions they saw
Evelyn riding the jeepney.

“VI.    The trial court erred in not acquitting the
accused-appellant at least on the ground of reasonable doubt.” (pp. 7-8, ibid.)

After evaluation of
the evidence in its totality, we
are not persuaded by the theory that Appellant and Evelyn were
sweethearts.  If they were, surely,
Evelyn would not have jeopardized their relationship by accusing him of having deflowered
her and, on top of it all, filing a criminal charge against him.  Evelyn’s picture, allegedly given to
Appellant as a remembrance of their romantic relationship, was actually given
to Ruel Sipi, her former
boyfriend.  She emphatically denies having
given Appellant any such token.  Neither
was Appellant able to present any convincing evidence to substantiate his claim
like love letters, notes and other symbols of affection.

Moreover, if, in
fact, they had been lovers, Evelyn would have boarded Appellant’s jeep
voluntarily and alone unaccompanied by
her two classmates.  If the latter had
any inkling that Evelyn did want to go with Appellant, they would not have
shown so much concern for her
welfare and safety like following the passenger jeepney
driven by Appellant to the traffic lights, trying to pull Evelyn down from the jeepney, failing in which, they eventually reported the
incident to Evelyn’s mother.

Appellant’s argument that Evelyn charged him with the crime out
of fear of her parents who did not approve of their relationships is unconvincing because, if it had been
so, Evelyn could have easily told
her mother after the latter had
successfully traced their whereabouts that nothing untoward had happened
between her and Appellant.  Her normal
reaction would have been to cover-up for the man she loved and had had a clandestine affair with.  But, on the contrary, Evelyn lost no time in
denouncing Appellant and exposing to her family and the authorities the
disgrace that had befallen her.

Appellant’s other assigned errors focus on the issue of
credibility of witnesses in respect of which it is well settled that Appellate
Courts will not generally disturb the factual findings of Trial Courts which
are in a better position to weigh the conflicting testimonies, having heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial unless it is found that
the Trial Courts have plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value
that, if considered, might affect the result of the case (People vs. Cruz, Sr., G.R. No. L-71462,
June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 609, citing
other cases).

In reviewing the evidence adduced by the prosecution for this
crime of Rape, we have likewise been guided by three well-known principles,
namely, (1) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility, is difficult
to prove, but more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to
disprove; (2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) that the evidence for the prosecution
must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength
from the weaknesses of the evidence for the defense (Reyes, Revised Penal code,
Book II, 1981 ed., p. 850).

The factual milieu of this criminal charge before us gives us no
reason to depart from these established rules. 
On the contrary, we find that Appellant had taken Evelyn away against
her will, with lewd designs, subsequently forced her to submit to his lust and
rendering her unconscious in the
process, thereby justifying his conviction for the complex crime of Forcible
Abduction with Rape under Article 48 in relation to Articles 335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code, with which he has herein been charged.

WHEREFORE, the
judgment  appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED, with the modification of the amount of indemnity to be paid the
offended party, which is hereby increased to P20,000.00,
in line with decisional jurisprudence.

Costs against accused-appellant Ronilo Alburo.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Penned by Leoncio P. Abarquez.