PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO TIAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Eduardo Tiad was accused of having raped the complainant, Morita
Paciente, on her way home at three o’clock in the morning of October 31, 1984, at Sitio Tubog, Barangay Ned,
Municipality of Lake Sebu, Province of South Cotabato, Philippines.

Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.

The following facts were established at the trial:

At about 3:00 o’clock in the early morning of October 31, 1984, the
complainant, Morita Paciente, 43 years old, who had just attended a coronation
ceremony in the elementary school of Tubog as part of the fiesta celebration of
Sitio Tubog, Lake Sebu, South Cotabato, was on her way home with her six-year
old son, Edgar, and barriomates Igmedio Puyong and his wife, Dolores. Her house was one (1) kilometer away from
the school house. Since it had rained,
the road was slippery.

When the group reached the house of Julito Palanog, they stopped to
light their lamps. Igmedio Puyong
lighted his petromax lamp, while complainant lighted an oil wick lamp (consisting of a bottle of kerosene whose wick was
submerged). At that time, the accused,
Eduardo Tiad, was following them on the same trail. When they paused to light their lamps, he was able to overtake
end pass them by. At an intersection,
the Puyong spouses went another way to their own house, while the complainant
and her son headed for theirs. Complainant testified that she did not notice that the Puyong spouses
had separated from her and her son. She
continued walking in the same direction which the accused had taken (pp. 5-8,
t.s.n., December 10, 1985). (“Segue la kami sunod sa iya.”) Later on, she noticed that
they were passing a different route (pp. 2-9, Ibid.)

When the complainant came near the accused, the latter allegedly
snatched the kerosene lamp that she was holding and struck her on the head with
it (pp. 6-9, Ibid.) Complainant
exclaimed “Ano adto man?” (What is it?) And before she could do
anything, the accused removed his handkerchief from his head and used it to gag
her mouth. He boxed her, pushed her to
the ground and strangled her neck with his left hand while unbuttoning his
pants with his right hand and removed it (pp. 9-10, Ibid.) The accused rode astride her, removed her
panty, placed it on the ground, masturbated to achieve an erection, and then
forcibly had sexual intercourse with her (pp. 10-13, Ibid.). The complainant
did not get up nor shout nor resist for fear that she might be killed (pp. 10?11,
Ibid.) She pleaded: “Doy, please have
mercy, don’t do this on (sic) me because heaven might curse you.” However,
the accused simply replied: “Never
mind” (p. 12, Ibid.).

Complainant attempted to repel the sexual assault by firmly closing
her thighs together and holding on to her dress but she was allegedly too weak
and afraid to put up a strong resistance. The accused was able to separate her
legs and forced himself upon her (pp. 12-13, t.s.n., December 10, 1985).

Earlier, when complainant’s son, Edgar, saw the accused astride his
mother, he called out “Tatay!” When his mother shouted: “Gar, you run away,” he ran toward
their house (p. 15, Ibid.). As
soon as Edgar reached their house, he woke up his father and told him what had
happened. Together they rushed to the
place where his wife was waylaid (pp. 5-7, t.s.n., March 4, 1986).

Meanwhile, having satisfied his lust, and alerted by the barking of
dogs, the accused hurriedly took his pants, placed them on his shoulder, and
headed for home. Before leaving, he warned the complainant
not to tell anyone about the incident, otherwise he would have the rebels pick
her up. She promised: “I will not report.” (t.s.n., pp.
15-18, December 10, 1985).

The complainant walked toward her home. On the way, she met her husband and son, and one Jose
Solomon. She immediately told her
husband what had happened. Later that
day, the couple reported the incident to the chief of police who was then in a
house at Tubog. The chief of police
advised her to go to the police station at Lake Sebu to give her statement on
the incident. But she was able to go to
the police station only five (5) days later on November 3, 1984 because of the
continuous rain and lack of money for their transportation. She did not submit herself to a medical
examination, despite the advice of the Station Commander and the Police
Investigator, for lack of funds and ignorance (pp. 15-22, t.s.n., December 10,
1985).

The sworn statement she gave to the police was marked as Exhibits A
to A-3 of the prosecution (pp. 15-22, Ibid.).

On the other hand, the accused’s version of the incident was as
follows:

“That he was at Sitio Tubog at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon
of October 30, 1984 since there was a fiesta; that he saw the complainant,
Morita Paciente at a store near the plaza; that the complainant was then
drinking beer and chewing nuts and that was the time the accused-appellant
asked her when she will pay her P1,000.00 indebtedness; that the complainant
merely said: ‘If you are in a hurry,
then file the case because anyway, we have no papers’ (p. 55, TSN, Nov. 27,
1987). The accused-appellant merely
left her and saw her again at around 3:30 in the early morning of October 31,
1984 apparently coming from the coronation rites of the town fiesta. The accused-appellant was then with the
Spouses Igmedio and Dolores Puyong and many others whom he only knew by their
faces; that the accused-appellant once again reminded the complainant of her
debt but she repeated what she told the accused-appellant earlier before which
infuriated him. He then slapped and
boxed her in the right shoulder; that the complainant was able to parry the
slap of the accused-appellant and both of them fell to the ground and while
they were both on the ground, the accused-appellant held her neck and said: ‘I will kill because you used to refuse to
pay my money for so long’ and the complainant shouted, ‘Help, help, Dodoy will
kill me,’ and ‘Release me Doy, release me; I will pay you this coming harvest’
(p. 56, TSN, Nov. 27, 1987). After
that, the accused-appellant released the complainant and he went home.”
(pp. 7-8, Appellant’s Brief.)

After the trial, the lower court rendered judgment on April 22,
1988, finding the accused guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to indemnify the
complainant, Morita Paciente, for moral damages in the amount of P25,000; and
to pay the costs.

The accused has appealed the decision to this Court, alleging
that the trial court erred:

1.     
in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses;

2.     
in holding that there was force and threats employed by the
accused to consummate his sexual desire on the complainant despite the absence
of a deadly weapon;

3.     
in holding that the silence of the accused on the incident is
equivalent to an admission of the crime of rape;

4.     
in awarding moral damages to the complainant despite the
absence of evidence to support it; and

5.     
in not acquitting  the
accused of the crime of rape.

As pointed out by the Solicitor General in his brief for the
People, the crucial issue in this case is the credibility of witnesses,
particularly, the complainant and the appellant (People vs. Barranco, 177 SCRA
103).

The complainant positively identified  the appellant as the person who sexually assaulted her against her
will. The appellant admitted that he
manhandled her and failed to deny or refute her charge that he raped her. Thus observed the lower court:

“x x. The testimony of complainant appears
credible, in fact, all of the facts revealed by her were expressly admitted by
accused in his own testimony. The
exceptions are the facts leading to and concerning with (sic) the sexual
intercourse forced by him on her, for accused had just kept silent since he was
served a copy of Exhibits A to A-3, the sworn statement of complainant until
his case was rested.” (p. 99, Rollo.)

The Court does not believe that the complainant concocted the
rape charge. She is a respectable
member of the community where she lives and no credible evidence exists to show
that she is a woman of
ill-repute. That she drinks beer does
not prove that she is a drunkard or was drunk at the time she was raped. That she has sagging breasts (she has
suckled six children) does not prove that she is a woman of loose morals. She would not herself have urged her little
boy to run home and summon his father, nor would she have immediately reported
the outrage to her husband and to the authorities if the attack upon her by the
appellant had been perpetrated with her consent. We note the finding
of the trial court that:

“x x x. There could be
no reason why complainant confessed to her husband and gave her statement to
the police and before the court if she was not sexually ravished by the accused
against her will and by force and/or threats. She subjected herself to an untold humiliation, in fact, even courting
the rage of her husband. If it were
with her consent she could have just concealed the true incident from her
husband and thus the ordeal undergone by her could have been prevented. But such was not the case for truly raped
she was by the accused who had not denied it.” (pp. 100-101, Rollo.)

The appellant’s being unarmed at the time of the assault did not
negate his use of force, violence and intimidation against the complainant, for
he in fact admitted that he slapped and boxed her, hit her with her kerosene
lamp on the head, and wrestled her to the ground. Since he is a man of powerful physique, the use of his fists against his small
pregnant victim constituted sufficient force and violence to intimidate the
latter.

There is no taint of untruth and unnaturalness in statement of
the complainant that the accused lowered his pants to have sexual intercourse
with her, but he removed them and slung them over his shoulder when he fled
upon hearing the barking of dogs indicating that help was near. In his hurry to
flee, it was probably easier for the accused to wiggle out of his pants which
he had already pulled down, than to pull them up, button them, and run.

The complainant and the accused appear to have been good
neighbors previously, as evidenced by the fact that sometime in the past,
Morita was able to borrow, and the accused gladly loaned her, P1,000. That was probably the reason why she had no
apprehension of evil when she and her son followed him on the way home at three
o’clock that rainy morning, after the Puyong spouses had separated from them.

Finding no reason to disturb the trial court’s factual observations
which are supported by the evidence, we affirm the conviction of the accused
for the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed
but with modification of the award of moral damages to the complainant, Morita
Paciente, which we hereby increase to P30,000 in accordance with recent rulings
of this Court. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Feliciano, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.