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

People versus Alburo

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Ronilo Alburo, a jeepney driver charged with the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. The complainant, Evelyn Cantina, a high school student, alleged that Alburo, with two companions, prevented her from disembarking from his passenger jeepney, carried her against her will to an isolated place, and there had carnal knowledge of her by force and intimidation. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of how the Supreme Court reviews rape convictions: the three guiding principles in the appreciation of rape evidence, the deference owed to the trial court's assessment of credibility, and the treatment of the sweetheart defense.

Procedural History

Evelyn Cantina filed her complaint for Forcible Abduction with Rape in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. After arraignment, all the accused entered pleas of not guilty. Toward the end of the prosecution's evidence, the prosecution moved to dismiss the complaint against Zaldy Rodriguez and Dionisio Sumalinog, the person originally named as John Doe, and the motion was granted, so trial proceeded against Ronilo Alburo alone. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with all the accessories of the law, ordered him to indemnify the victim in the amount of 10,000 pesos as moral damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Alburo appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors against the findings of the trial court.

Facts

At about five o'clock in the afternoon of the twenty seventh of January, nineteen eighty six, Evelyn Cantina had just been dismissed from her classes at the Abellana National High School in Cebu City. With her classmates Priscilla Atillo and Aniceta Bringuila, she walked toward Colon Street to buy medicine. A passenger jeepney on the Guadalupe to Carbon market route stopped beside them, and its driver, Ronilo Alburo, insistently invited the three girls to board. They accepted, and Evelyn took the front seat beside the driver, while Zaldy Rodriguez and Dionisio Sumalinog sat at the back.

At the corner of Jones Avenue and Colon Street, the jeepney stopped at a red light, and the two classmates disembarked. Evelyn tried to alight as well, but Alburo threatened to raise her skirt if she insisted. Her companions tried to pull her out, but the light turned green and the jeepney sped away. On the return trip, at another red light, Zaldy Rodriguez barred her way with his leg, and again her classmates failed to pull her free. Near the Southern Medical Center, Rodriguez and Sumalinog got off, leaving only Alburo and Evelyn on board. When she begged to be allowed to disembark, Alburo pulled a knife and threatened to slash her side.

In an isolated area at Capitol Hills, Alburo stopped the jeepney, pointed the knife at her, and warned her not to shout. He pushed her head against the steering wheel, rendering her unconscious. When she regained her senses, her panty was gone, there was blood on her vagina, and she felt pain in her stomach. She saw Alburo getting up from her and raising his pants. Meanwhile, her classmates had told her mother what happened, and search teams were formed. Near Power Foods Restaurant, Ester Dakay, a family friend, spotted the jeepney and signaled it to stop. Evelyn, weak and in tears, alighted and whispered that she had been raped. Alburo first agreed to go to the police station, but then parked at Visitacion Street, took the engine key and the cash collections, and fled on foot, leaving behind the knife, which Evelyn gave to Ester. At the Cebu City Medical Center, Dr. Juliet Lastimosa found fresh lacerations on Evelyn's vagina with positive presence of spermatozoa. The defense claimed that Alburo and Evelyn were sweethearts and that the sexual act was voluntary. The trial court rejected this and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's claim that Evelyn Cantina was forcibly raped by the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credit to the testimony of the offended party despite its alleged lack of candor and credibility.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not considering that the facts and circumstances presented by the prosecution militated against a finding of rape.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not believing that the accused and the complainant were sweethearts and lovers, and that the carnal act was voluntary.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not believing the testimonies of the accused and his defense witnesses.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused at least on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, on the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, provides:

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

The Court applied this provision in relation to Articles 335 and 342, treating the taking of the victim with lewd designs and the subsequent rape as one complex crime.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, on rape, provides:

When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

The Court found that the carnal knowledge was accomplished both by force and intimidation and while the victim was unconscious.

Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, on forcible abduction, provides:

The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall forcibly take away a woman against her will, with lewd designs.

The Court found that the accused took the victim away against her will with lewd designs, which made the abduction a necessary means for the rape.

Ruling

The Court affirmed the conviction on all the assigned errors. On the first three issues, it held that the evidence established that the accused took Evelyn away against her will, with lewd designs, forced her to submit to his lust, and rendered 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.

On the sweetheart defense, the Court was not persuaded. If they had been sweethearts, Evelyn would not have jeopardized the relationship by accusing him of deflowering her and filing a criminal charge. Her picture, allegedly given to him as a token, had actually been given to her former boyfriend, and she emphatically denied giving the accused any such token. The accused presented no love letters, notes, or other symbols of affection. If they had been lovers, she would have boarded his jeepney voluntarily and alone, unaccompanied by her two classmates, who instead showed so much concern for her safety that they followed the jeepney, tried to pull her down, and reported the incident to her mother. The claim that she charged him out of fear of her parents was likewise unconvincing, because she could easily have told her mother that nothing untoward had happened; instead, she lost no time in denouncing him.

On the credibility of witnesses, the Court applied the settled rule that appellate courts will not generally disturb the factual findings of trial courts, which are in a better position to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment, unless the trial court plainly overlooked facts of substance and value that might affect the result. The Court also applied three well known principles in reviewing rape evidence: 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; that because of the intrinsic nature of the crime, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weaknesses of the defense. Finding no reason to depart from these rules, the Court resolved the last issue against the accused and affirmed the judgment, increasing the indemnity to 20,000 pesos in line with decisional jurisprudence.

Doctrine

First, forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code when the taking of the woman against her will with lewd designs is a necessary means for committing the rape, and the penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period. Second, the sweetheart defense is unavailing where it is unsupported by love letters, notes, or other tokens of affection, and is contradicted by the victim's conduct, such as boarding the vehicle with companions and denouncing the accused at the first opportunity. Third, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's factual findings and assessment of credibility absent a showing that it plainly overlooked facts of substance and value. Fourth, in rape cases the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution, and the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own merits.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, with the modification that the indemnity to the offended party was increased to 20,000 pesos, with costs against the accused.

Remember This

Remember the three guiding principles in the review of rape evidence and the rule that the sweetheart defense must be proved by convincing tokens of affection, not mere assertion. Examiners like to use this case on the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape under Article 48 and on the deference given to the trial court's credibility findings.