PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELMER DANGUILAN Y LASAM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

For resolution of this Court is the appeal interposed by the accused,
Elmer Danguilan y Lasam, after he was convicted for the crime of
“RAPE” by the Honorable Ricardo A. Baculi, Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 02, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, in a decision dated March 10,
1989, based on the Criminal Complaint and Information that read as follows:

“CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT

“That on or about May 19, 1979, in the municipality of
Peñablanca, province of Cagayan, and within the preliminary jurisdiction of
this Honorable Office, the said respondent, Elmer Danguilan, with lewd design
and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the undersigned against my (sic)
will and consent.”

“I N
F O R M A T I O N”

“That on or about May 19, 1979, in the municipality of
Peñablanca, province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, Elmer Danguilan y Lasam armed with a small pointed
bolo, with lewd design and by the use of force, violence and intimidation, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and felonious­ly have sexual intercourse
with the offended party, Marilou P. Carag, against her will.” (Rollo, p.
39)

The complainant, Marilou P. Carag, 19 years old, single, helper
at the St. Louis College canteen and a resident of Bagumbayan, Tuguegarao,
Cagayan, alleged together with her witnesses, that at about 6:00 o’clock in the
evening on May 19, 1979, Elmer Danguilan and his sister, Vin Danguilan, went to
their house to invite her, her sister, Jannete and her cousin, Miriam Pelagio,
to a dance at Centro, Peñablanca, Cagayan. Elmer is married to one Cora Pelagio, a first cousin of Marilou’s
mother. (Ibid., p. 41)

After the father of Marilou gave his permission, the ladies and
the accused took tricycles bound for Peñablanca. Along the way, some girls were also invited and the group
proceeded to Peñablanca, arriving at Centro at 8:30 o’clock in the
evening. They stopped at a waiting shed
at the junction going to Callao. Shortly thereafter, Cora Pelagio, the wife of Elmer, arrived with Jun
Biete and in a short while, Cora and Vin left to drink at Cora’s house.

Momentarily, Jun Biete, an army trainee and Marilou’s alleged
suitor, arrived and talked with the accused at a distance of about seven (7)
meters from Marilou, Jannete and Miriam. Suddenly, Elmer stabbed Biete with a knife and then turned to Marilou,
held her hands and with a knife pointed to her breast and pulled her away. Jannete and Miriam cried for help to no
avail. Marilou struggled to free
herself and asked Elmer to release her, but the accused told her to stop
resisting or else he will kill her. The
accused pulled Marilou to a wooded
area and proceeded to a deserted ‘bahay kubo’, where accused boxed her stomach
three times, thus she fell down and laid flat gasping for breath.

The accused removed his long pants and brief, lifted Marilou’s
dress, removed her panty and succeeded in sexually abusing her. Although she struggled and cried, she was
not able to do anything because the accused threatened to kill her. She could not leave the hut as the door was
closed.

The following morning, May 20, 1979, the accused spoke to Marilou
and said, “do not leave now, I will marry you. I will separate your auntie and if you like we can join the
NPA.” When Marilou had the chance, she ran away and reached the road where
she waited for a ride, boarded a jeep and went home. That same day, Marilou’s parents, her sister Jannete and cousin
Miriam, went to the PC authorities and complained but they were told to go
back. On May 29, 1979, the crimi­nal
complaint was filed after she was examined at the Cagayan Provincial Hospital
by a certain Dra. Teresita Reyes. (Ibid., pp. 41-43)

Miriam Pelagio and Jannete Carag, corroborated each other’s
testimony and that of Marilou except the portion pertaining to the sexual
assault on Marilou by the accused. They
added that Jun Biete is the suitor of Marilou. (Ibid., pp. 46-47)

The other prosecution witnesses corroborated the allegations of
Marilou. The treatment of Jun Biete for
stab wounds was the subject of the testimony of Dr. Francisco Cepeda, Senior
Resident Physician of the Cagayan Provincial Hospital, Bienvenido Asejo,
Cashier II of the same hospital, while Eddie Clores testified that he was the
one who introduced Jun Biete to Marilou and that Biete subsequently courted
her. (Ibid., pp. 50-51)

For the defense, a different version was presented. Elmer Danguilan alleged that Marilou joined
him when he hid in the nipa hut of Silverio Paras after stabbing Jun Biete
because Marilou was Elmer’s “mistress”. Having an intimate relationship with Marilou, the accused claimed
that they had several sexual encounters prior to May 19, 1979. The accused admitted having stabbed Jun
Biete for trying to molest Vin Danguilan, his sister. The testimonies of other defense witnesses are noted to have
inconsistencies, but what is particularly noticeable was the absence of Cora
Pelagio, wife of the accused and aunt of the victim. (Ibid., pp. 51-55)

The accused admitted that he had sexual intercourse with Marilou
that evening of May 19, 1979 in the nipa hut of Paras. He alleged that the following morning his
wife Cora together with his father, Domingo Danguilan, arrived and that Marilou
and his wife had an altercation with the latter calling the former
“puta”, and a “worthless niece.” (Ibid., pp. 53-54, 235)

Vin Danguilan, testified that two (2) days before the rape incident, she had known that Elmer and
Marilou had “some kind of relationship for she had seen a kissmark or love
bite on the neck of Marilou while in the house of Cora Pelagio which Marilou
covered with a handkerchief which Vin snatched from Marilou’s neck. She used to catch them in the neighborhood
kissing each other.” (TSN, January 5, 1982, pp. 33-34)

Likewise, Vin alleged on cross-examination that “she loved
her sister-in-law Cora that she was scandalized when Elmer and Marilou were
kissing and told Cora to observe them.” (Rollo, p. 56)

Elmer’s father testified that it was Marilou who followed the
accused after she got a dress front Vin, his daughter, shouting to Elmer,
“wait for me”, and then both the accused and Marilou ran to the woods
to hide. He added that the following
day, May 20, 1979, his daughter-in-law, Cora Pelagio, went to their house at
about 6:00 o’clock in the morning, looking for her husband Elmer. Domingo informed Cora that Elmer went to the
nipa hut of Paras, so Cora asked him to accompany her there. Upon reaching the place, Cora went upstairs
and subsequently he heard an altercation. After some time, he asked Elmer, Cora and Marilou to go home and they
all went home. Likewise, Domingo
testified that Marilou has gone twice to their house before the May 19, 1979
incident. (TSN, Dec. 17, 1981, pp. 173,
175-179)

Accused, Elmer Danguilan, 27 years old, married to Cora Pelagio,
aunt of Marilou Carag, testified that at about 8:30 o’clock in the evening of
May 19, 1979, he was at his father’s home. Then he heard his sister, Vin shout “Elmer please rescue me Jun
Biete wanted to insult (sic) me.” Rushing, he saw Biete holding the shoulders
of his sister with both hands. He
pushed back Biete and told him that Vin is his sister, but Biete fought back
and boxed him, however, Elmer was able to avoid the blow, and because Biete was
drunk, he fell with face downward, but stood up and picked up a stone. At this point, accused saw a broken bottle
and hit Biete on the left side of his chest and neck. (TSN, May 9, 1985, pp. 225-226)

After hitting Biete twice with the broken bottle, the accused
declared that he ran northwards in the direction of the house of Silverio Paras
but before reaching the said place, somebody who turned out to be Marilou Carag
called him and so they went together and slept in the house of Paras. The accused claimed that Marilou Carag
joined him because her relatives left her and besides, she had been his
mistress since May 9, 1979, after meeting her on the 9th day novena of
Marilou’s deceased relative. (Ibid.,
pp. 226-227, 231)

The accused likewise claimed that he slept with Marilou three
times since he came to know her at a dance on May 5, 1979. They had sexual intercourses on May 12 and
May 16, 1979 and the last one was on May 19, 1979. (Ibid., pp. 233-234)

From the facts and circumstances stated above, while the version
given by the prosecution with respect to the place where the stabbing took
place and the dragging of Marilou to the forested area varied with the version
of the accused and his witnesses, the certainty of the sex act is not
denied. As a matter of fact, the accused
admitted having carnal knowledge of the victim only once that night of May 19,
1979 since she allegedly had her period. (TSN, May 9, 1985, pp. 233-235) Although the admissions by the accused
were flavored with his assertion that Marilou was his mistress and that they
already had several sexual encounters prior to the May 19, 1979 incident,
(Ibid., pp. 233-234) the trial court found the version of the prosecution more
believable. There is nothing in the
records that leads us to a different conclusion. The prosecution evidence is convincing that Marilou was forcibly
taken as hostage after Jun Biete was stabbed by the accused, and at the house
of Silverio Paras, she was forced to have intercourse with the accused by means
of threat and intimidation. Thus, the
crime of rape was undeniably consummated, because at that point in time. Marilou did not submit to the accused of her
own free will. The stabbing of
Marilou’s suitor, Jun Biete, was for all intents and purposes, the result of an
intense desire by the accused to have sexual access to Marilou.

Even granting for the sake of argument that Jun Biete was stabbed
for attempting to molest Vin, the sister of the accused, he (Elmer) did not
have any reason for running off with Marilou, dragging and taking her with him
against her will.

As regards the defense of the appellant that Marilou was his
mistress, this was correctly treated by the trial court as a shallow alibi of a
desperate person who later came to his senses and after realizing the
seriousness of the offense he committed, concocted his jigsaw version. This brings to mind the case of People
v. Taduyo (154 SCRA 349 [1987]), where­in this Court rejected the
defense of the accused that the complainant was his common-law wife, as
follows:

“There is another reason why we are compelled to reject the
accused’s defense that he and Margarita were common law husband and wife. One may assume, arguendo merely,
that Rogaciano and Margarita did live together as pretended husband and
wife. But that by itself does not prove
that Rogaciano could not have raped Margarita, that Margarita
would never have denied Rogaciano sexual
access. Certainly, no presumption
arises that a common law wife will, or is willing to, submit to the common law
husband’s embraces always and under all circumstances. Proof of a prior history of a common law
marital relationship will not prevail over clear and positive evidence of
copulation by the use of force or intimidation.” (Underlined words were
italized in the reference cited.)

In the present case, there is no credible evidence whatsoever
that Marilou was a mistress of her aunt’s husband.

Another pronouncement in the Taduyo case that can be
adopted in this case with respect to the voluntary company provided the accused
by the complainant when she allegedly joined him at the nipa hut of Paras and
the altercation that ensued the following day between his wife, Cora and the
latter’s niece, Marilou is:

“The testimony of Rogaciano and his witnesses failed to
convince the trial court, (sic) this Court has neither reason nor inclination
to overthrow the findings of the trial court. x x x The defense could have easily presented the accused’s own cousin,
Anastacia Obong, who was supposed to have been present at the incident to
testify on it on behalf of the accused; but the defense did not do so. In any case, that story of Rogaciano is not
only uncorroborated but also to our mind, improbable and inadequate to explain
the supposed murderous attack by Margarita upon Rogaciano. x x
x We note that Rogaciano’s claim that he and Margarita had been living
together as common-law husband and wife, a relationship not easily kept secret
in a small rural community like Carayman, could have been easily established by
unrelated, competent and credible witnesses, e.g., by barrio people living in
the immediate vicinity of Margarita’s house or the accused’s own
relatives. The defense, however, failed
to present any such supporting testimony. x x x ” (Ibid., p. 350)

Furthermore, we have held that failure of the accused to adduce
evidence supporting his allegations that he and the complainant were in fact
sweethearts, did not give this Court cogent reason to alter the findings of the
trial court. This Court held in People v. Partulan (156 SCRA 490 [1987]) that:

“Far from the assertion of the accused-appellant, it is his
testimony which We find incredible. His
allegation that he and Nonita were in fact sweethearts for more than a year is
not supported by any letter, notes or other tokens. His theory that
Nonita (sic) wounds could have been brought about by his biting her during
their lovemaking is preposterous. x x x
“

Likewise, the minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the
complainant and her witnesses and the delay of about a week when the physical
examination was conducted on the complainant, does not diminish their
credibility. It is appropriate that the
ruling of this Court in a similar case, is reiterated hereunder:

“A careful analysis of the alleged inconsistencies in Nonita’s
testimony mentioned by the accused-appellant does not diminish the firm
conviction of this Court that she was indeed a victim of accused-appellant’s
uncontrollable lust for her body which led to the commission of this horrible
crime. Said inconsistent statements are
too minor to affect her credibility. Moreover, her allegations are substantiated by the medical findings and
by the testimony of Helen Enoviso who is related to accused-appellant, the
latter being the nephew of her husband.” (Ibid., p. 490)

The principle that conclusions as to the credibility in rape cases are primarily the
function of the trial court, can be reiterated in this case. Notwithstanding the conclusions of Vin, the sister of the accused, that
she saw a “kissmark” or “lovebite” on the neck of Marilou
because Vin allegedly saw them kissing in the house of a neighbor of Elmer and
Cora, the defense failed to introduce Cora Pelagio, or any other credible
witness who could have easily corroborated the scenario regarding the
altercation at the Paras nipa hut and the allegation of Vin concerning the
reported intimacy between Elmer and Marilou right in the vicinity where the
residence of Elmer’s in-law is located. (TSN, Jan. 5, 1979, p. 35)

The testimonies of the accused and his sister Vin allude an accusation
that Marilou could be a woman of low morals, easy-to-get and flirtatious. However, this inference has no positive
effect on this Court. Of similar import
is the case of People vs. Pena, Jr. (151 SCRA 638,
[1987]) wherein we ruled, that:

“x x x There is no evidence to show that she is a woman of
ill-repute or of a flirtatious and wanton nature as to invite or provoke
appellant, x x x to have sexual intercourse with her. Young, innocent and decent as she is, she was cowed by fear and
shock because of the outrageous act of appellant on her person and honor. Consent obtained by fear of personal
violence is no consent at all. Though a
man puts no hand on a woman, yet if, by the use of mental and moral coercion,
the accused so overpowers her mind out of fear that as a result she dare not
resist the dastardly act inflicted on her person, accused is guilty of the
crime imputed on him.”

Several contradictions in the versions of the witnesses for the
defense portrayed a not too well rehearsed drama and have all the more strained
the credulity of this Court. Some of
them are as follows:

1. Assertion by Vin Danguilan that Elmer asked permission
from his wife, Cora, that he was going to hide at the house of Silverio Paras
on the night of the incident. (TSN, Jan.
5, 1982, p. 25) If this is true, why did the elder Danguilan testify that
Elmer’s wife went to his house looking for his son the following day and
accordingly, accompanied her to the Paras’ nipa hut early morning of May 20,
1979; that the two women, Marilou and Cora, had an altercation and later all
the four of them went home together? (TSN, pp. 171, 175-179, supra)

Besides, if in fact, Elmer asked permission from his wife to go
to the nipa hut of Paras and Marilou followed him shouting, “Wait for me.”,
in the presence of Cora, but Cora did not protest nor make a scene about this
outrageous event, especially after Vin warned her to “observe”
Marilou and Elmer, this is highly incredulous, unbelievable and arrogates on
human nature and reason.

2. On cross-examination, Vin said that Cora went to their house
about noontime, looking for Elmer but she denied that her father, Domingo
Danguilan accompanied Cora to the nipa hut of Paras, because her father had
already left for the market to attend to his business of selling pigs. (TSN, Jan. 5, 1982, p. 16)

3. Even the alleged
“kissmark” or “lovebite” on the neck of Marilou mentioned
earlier, is unbelievable, when Vin concluded that it was caused by her brother, Elmer, whom she
saw kissing Marilou, in the neighborhood two days before the rape
incident. And yet when she was pressed
whether the kissing took place on May 17, 1979, she claimed she forgot. Further, while the defense may have been
emboldened to concoct the tale for fear of the stiff penalty for rape, this
assertion borders on stupidity to say the least, especially Cora is Marilou’s
auntie and Elmer is living with his in-laws. Thus, to violate the sanctity of his marriage right in the sanctuary of
his wife’s family is an aberration by itself, how much more doing the unlikely
within the view of their neighbors.

Likewise, the fact that the complainant formally lodged her
complaint a few days from the incident, is of no moment. (Rollo, p. 6) As held in the Pena, Jr.
case above, “delay for three days in formally complaining to the
authorities due to fear of embarrassment, is excusable.” (supra, p.
639) More important is the fact that from August 8, 1979 when a warrant of
arrest was issued up to November 21, 1979 when the accused was apprehended, he
remained at large in hiding.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the
Honorable Ricardo A. Baculi, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 02,
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, dated March 10, 1989, is AFFIRMED. The indemnity to be paid by the appellant,
Elmer Danguilan, to the private complainant in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P30,000.00, is, however, increased from P30,000.00 to FORTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P40,000.00). The appellant is
ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Davide, Jr., Romero, and
Melo, JJ., concur.