PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOBLE BACALZO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Bacalzo

The Case

People versus Bacalzo is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Noble Bacalzo for the crime of rape committed against Loreto Apilado. The accused was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and he asks the Supreme Court to reverse that conviction. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one decision, the settled rules on the weakest defenses of denial and alibi, on the credibility of a lone complaining witness in a crime that often has only two witnesses, on what proof of penetration requires, and on why the absence of sperm, lacerations, or physical injuries does not defeat a charge of rape.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch Eighteen, presided over by Judge Benito Dacanay, tried the accused and rendered a judgment of conviction for rape, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, faulting the trial court for convicting him on what he called a weak defense and for finding him guilty despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reviewed the records, weighed the conflicting testimonies, and affirmed the conviction with a modification on civil indemnity.

Facts

At around ten o'clock in the evening of January 4, 1985, Loreto Apilado, who was then staying at the house of her daughter Florida in Santiago Norte, San Fernando, La Union, obtained permission to go to Carlatan where her eldest daughter Aida lived. She rode a tricycle and walked through an alley. About six or seven meters into the alley, in front of the house of Noble Bacalzo, the accused held her hands. She tried to free herself and asked him what he was going to do. He did not answer; he boxed her on the right cheek, and boxed her again, and she fell unconscious.

When she regained consciousness, she was naked at the bank of a fishpond, her mouth tied with cloth, with the accused, also naked, on top of her and pointing a knife at her waist. She felt his flaccid penis inside her vagina, which he had pushed in with his finger, and he moved his buttocks up and down. He then withdrew, shook his organ, and remarked why it would not harden. He threatened to kill her family if she reported the incident. He dragged her naked to the kitchen of his house, where she pleaded for her clothes because she was shivering from the cold. He threw her pants and blouse at her, and she dressed, removed the cloth, and ran to Aida's house.

Aida, cleaning the house at around five o'clock in the morning of January 5, 1985, asked why her mother was very dirty. Loreto told her that Noble had made a fool of her. They reported the matter to Barangay Captain Ernesto Lumang, who directed that she be brought to the Provincial Hospital, where Dr. Maria Teresa Sy examined her. The examination showed a contusion-hematoma on the right jaw and upper lip, abrasions on the left cheek and neck, multiple abrasions over the back, shoulder, and buttocks; the vagina admitted two fingers with ease; the vaginal smear for sperm cells was negative; the Florence test was negative; the cervix was clean; and no cervical or vaginal lacerations were noted. Two days after the incident, Loreto went to the police sub-station and gave her statement. For his part, the accused interposed denial and alibi, claiming he had gone to bed early and attended a wedding in Caba the next day, and that the complainant, whom he described as a habitual drunkard, fabricated the story to extort money.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused on the ground that his defense was weak.
• Whether or not the prosecution established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the absence of sperm cells, lacerations, and external injuries in the medical findings.
• Whether or not the complainant's alleged lack of resistance and her supposed drunkenness and unchaste character create doubt on her testimony.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, on proof beyond reasonable doubt, provides:

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

The Court uses this standard to measure whether the prosecution's evidence, though short of absolute certainty, produced moral certainty of the accused's guilt.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that although alibi is generally one of the weakest defenses, it acquires commensurate strength only where no positive and proper identification of the offender has been made, because the prosecution still bears the burden of proving guilt and the weakness of the defense does not relieve it of that responsibility. Here, there was a clear and positive identification of the accused by the complainant right after the incident, when she told her daughters and the barangay captain, and she repeated it in her complaint affidavit and in open court. The Court held that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed, provided her testimony is clear and free from contradiction, and it found no improper motive on her part. The claim that she cried rape to extort money was debunked, since she testified that she was interested only in vindicating her honor and pride.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the argument that the medical findings negated rape. It held that mere penetration of the penis into the outer lips or labia majora of the female organ, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, suffices to warrant a conviction. The absence of spermatozoa could be due to lack of ejaculation, and in rape the slightest penetration is enough; proof of emission is not necessary. The absence of external injuries did not imply consent, since the complainant was a married woman in whom such manifestations may no longer be expected, and force need not be irresistible; all that is necessary is that the force used is sufficient to consummate the evil purpose.

On the third issue, the Court held that the crime had already been consummated even before the complainant could resist, so the lack of resistance was inconsequential; any final consent after she realized the outrage would be a mere resignation to a fact already perpetrated. As to her character, the Court held that the victim's character in rape is immaterial, and even unchastity is no defense where the illicit relations were committed with force and violence. The Court affirmed the findings of the trial court on credibility, found no exceptive circumstance, and held that alibi cannot stand against positive identification.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. Alibi is the weakest of defenses and gains strength only when the offender has not been positively identified, because the prosecution never sheds its burden under the moral certainty standard of Section 2 of Rule 133. A clear and straightforward testimony of a rape victim, free from contradiction and untainted by improper motive, is sufficient to convict. Penetration, however slight, into the labia majora consummates rape; emission and hymenal laceration are not required. The absence of sperm, lacerations, or external injuries does not negate rape, and force need not be irresistible. The victim's character, including unchastity or drunkenness, is immaterial and is no defense where force and violence are proved.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, with the modification that the accused is ordered to pay the complainant an indemnity of 30,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that in rape the slightest penetration is enough and proof of emission is not necessary. Examiners use this case to test the weakness of alibi against positive identification, the sufficiency of a lone credible witness, and the irrelevance of the victim's character and of the absence of physical injuries.