PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANKIE ARENAS, VICTOR HAYAG, NOEL SERRANO, REY FOJAS, ALMARIO BIGALBAL ALIAS MAR AND NOLIE PAREJA, ACCUSED, ALMARIO BIGALBAL …

Appellant Almario Bigalbal,
together with Frankie Arenas, Victor Hayag, Noel
Serrano, Rey Fojas and Noli Pareja, was charged before
the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 23 with
the crime of rape allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about the 27th day of January 1989, in the
Municipality of Tanza, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and assisting each
other, while then armed with an icepick, by means of
force and intimidation, did, then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take turns in
having sexual intercourse with said Agustina Aranas y Alcala against her will
and consent, to her damage and prejudice.” (Rollo,
p. 4)

Arenas, Hayag, Serrano, Fojas
and Pareja remained at large and did not face
trial.  Accused-appellant Bigalbal was the only one arrested and brought to
trial.  He pleaded not guilty to the
charge of rape.

The prosecution’s
evidence, as summarized by the Solicitor General in his Brief, is set forth
below:

“On January 27, 1989
on or about 8:30 in the evening,
while Agustina Arañas was in the house of her aunt, in Brgy. Punta, Tanza, Cavite, helping
in the preparation of the food for the wedding party to be held the day
following, accused Frankie Arenas, Victor Hayag and
Noel Serrano approached her.  Vic Hayag poked an icepick at her
telling her, he (Hayag) would kill her if she shouts
(pp. 3-4, TSN, Sept. 5, 1989).  Vic Hayag together
with Noel Serrano dragged her outside of the house and brought her to ‘bajada‘ (local term meaning up-hill portion) in Brgy. Punta, Cavite.  At the ‘bajada‘ she
saw Noel Serrano, Rey Fojas and
appellant Almario Bigalbal.  (Should also include Noli Pareja as per Exh. A, Records) Upon
reaching the place, Vic Hayag removed her bra and her
shorts, then raped her.  She
struggled.  She did not shout because the
accused poked an icepick at her right waist, then
Frankie Arenas took his turn in raping her and while Frankie was on top of her,
Vic Hayag was holding the icepick,
and warning
her not to tell anybody or they would kill her.  Noel Serrano then took his turn in raping
her, also threatened her, Vic Hayag holding the icepick while appellant Almario Bigalbal held her hands
and Rey Fojas
holding her feet (pp. 9, 10 and 11, TSN, ibid). 
After satisfying their lust accused left (p. 12 TSN., September 5,
1989).  When asked what she felt after
she was raped by the three (3) accused, she answered that she felt
pain in her private part (p. 13, TSN,
id).

After she was raped, Agustina Arañas went to her aunt’s house, arriving there at 12:00 midnight.  She was met by her cousin, but she did not
tell her that she was raped because Vic Hayag threatened
her not to reveal what had happened or she would be killed (pp. 20-31, TSN, Sept. 11, 1989).  Her mother noticed kiss marks on her neck and
breast, but she did not tell her what caused the marks out of fear (pp. 26-27, TSN., ibid).  On January 28, 1989, on the prodding of
her mother, Teodora Aranas,
Agustina told the former that she was raped by Vic Hayag, Frankie Arenas, Noel Serrano and Rey
Fojas, (p. 29-30, TSN., Sept. 12, 1989).  That same day after she told what happened, her mother and brother accompanied her to the Camp
and there narrated to Costelo, a PC soldier, the
details of her harrowing experience (pp. 27-28, TSN, Sept. 11, 1989).

Dr. Alberto M. Reyes, supervising medico-legal officer, NBI, who
examined Agustina, made the following findings:

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

GENITAL EXAMINATION:

No extragenital physical injury noted.

Pubic hairs, fully grown, moderate, labia mejora, coaptated.  Fourchette, tense,
Vestibule, pinkish, Hymen, originally annular, tall, thick, with a healed
complete laceration at 3:00 o’clock position corresponding to the face of a
watch, edges of which are sharp and coaptable.  Hymenal orifice, admits a tube, 2.5 cm. in diameter.  Vaginal walls, tight.  Ruggosities, prominent.

CONCLUSION:

1.     
No evidence (sic) sign of extragenital
physical injury noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.

2.     
Recently healed hymenal
laceration, present.

APPROVED:

(SGD. RICARDO G. IBARROL, JR., M.M.

Acting Chief

Examined by:

(SGD. ALBERTO M.
REYES, M.D.

Medico-Legal Officer

NOTED:

(SGD.) ATTY. MANUEL C. ROURA

Deputy Director, Technical Services’

(PP. 7, 8 & 9, Decision)

Teodora Aranas,
mother of the complainant testified that on January 27, 1989, Agustina left
the house and when she failed to return home the next day, she went to Salinas
and met her there.  She noticed kiss
marks on her neck and breast.  When she
asked Agustina about these marks, the latter refused
to tell her.  Teodora’s
insistent prodding however, broke her daughter’s
silence.  Agustina
confided to her about the rape.  Mrs. Aranas accompanied complainant to the Camp at the 215 PC
Coy, Tejero, Rosario,
Cavite.  Complainant narrated the details of the rape
(pp. 10-11, TSN, September 12, 1989).  A complaint was filed originally before the
Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite by Agustina
Aranas.  Her
case was referred to the National
Center for Mental Health for
psychiatric examination.  Result of the
examination (Exh. “C”; pp. 12-14, TSN, September 12, 1989) follows:

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION
:

Patient was seen thrice at the Out-Patient Service of the NCMH
dated February 27, 1989, March 3, 1989 and March 10, 1989. 
On her latest follow-up, she was accompanied by her sister and
brother-in-law.  Seen
as a female in her late adolescence, dark complexioned, fairly groomed in streetclothes. 
Behaved and cooperative.  Coherent and relevant.  Answers queries appropriately in a clear and
audible manner, but needs to be prodded. 
Movement was noted to be childish at times, would cover her mouth with
her hands as she answered.  Eye contact
was fair.  Mood
generally anxious.  Affect was
adequate.

Claimed she was brought to the Center, ‘para
magpatingin dahil sa kaso na
rape’.  She reported being raped last
January 27, 1989.  Narrated
that she went to the house of her cousin to help in the preparation for a
wedding.  At around 8:30 p.m., while standing outside the house of
her cousin she was allegedly approached by 3 men whom she named as ‘Victor Hayag, Frankie Arenas at Noel Serrano’.

Further continued that, ‘tinutukan ako ni
Victor ng icepick at sabi ay sumama ako sa kanila
kung ayaw kong masaktan.’ She was then brought near a river where ‘pinaghahalikan ako, hinubaran at pinasok ni Victor ang
kanyang titi sa puwerta ko
habang hinahawakan ang kamay ko
nila Frankie at Noel’.  Noted to be teary eyed as she related her
experience.  Denied any
perceptual disturbance.  Negates any homicidal nor suicidal inclinations.  Sensorium was
clear.  Oriented to 3
spheres.  Memory is fair.  She can give fair account of herself.  Claimed that she is 19 years old, born on
August 28, 1969, 6th of 8 siblings.  Can
do simple mathematical calculations like 10-4=6, 30-5=25, answered
that there are 4, 25 centavos pcs. in
one peso.

When asked to interpret the saying ‘ang lumakad ng matulin
kung matinik ay malalim‘ she replied ‘hindi ko po alam
iyon‘.  Denied mental illness.

PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT:

Test Administered:

Raven’s Progressive Matrics

Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Tests

Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Tests

Draw a person

Test results and evaluation

Raven’s Progressive Matrics

T. Score = 14

Grade V = intellectually defective her
score lies below the 5th percentile for her age group.

Rigidity can be seen the way she answers
the Raven’s Progressive tests.

Projective data connote a person whose emotional
life is so inhibited and constricted to be able to generate any response hence
she tends to be sensitive and critical in social relationship.

Failure in establishing her true sexual
role is seen.

Overall reproduction of the Bender Visual
Motor Gestalt tests shows distortions like rotation, simplification,
concretion, fragmentation retrogression, as well as crossing and closing
difficulty which can be attributed to psychological malfunctioning.

REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the observations and examination done on Agustina Aranas, she was found to
be suffering from Moderate Mental Retardation. 
She is not psychotic or insane hence has the capacity to answer
questions to be propounded (sic) by
court.

(SGD.) JOSE T. LOVERIA, M.D.

Attending Physician

APPROVED BY:

(SGD.) EDUARDO T.
MAABA, M.D.

Medical Specialists

In-charge, Out-Patient Service”

(Rollo, pp. 79-88)

The defense version is summarized by the appellant as follows:

“Accused Almario Bigalbal,
18 years old, single, jobless, resident of Punta, Tanza,
Cavite
denied the charge.  He claimed that on
January 27, 1989 at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening he was at home watching
T.V., and at about 8:00 o’clock he was playing 41 with Isagani Arenas, Jacinto Alarca and Romulo Bigalbal, his brother up to 12:00 o’clock (pp. 2-3, TSN, Nov. 3, 1989).  That accused Frankie Arenas, Victor Hayag, Noel Serrano, Rey Fojas and Nolie Pareja are known to him because they are his barriomates (p. 4, TSN, Nov. 3, 1989).

On January 27, 1989
in the evening he did not see them and the last time he saw them was when
subpoenas were handed to them about this rape case (P. 4, TSN, November 3, 1989).  He denied to have seen Agustina
Arañas in the evening of January 27, 1989. 
He also denied to have assisted raping Agustina
Arañas.  He
corroborated the testimonies of Isagani Arenas and Cecilio Arenas with respect to the number of houses in Bo. Punta, the location of the house of Elpidio
Tahimik, and on the sketch (Exh.
“2”) which he drew and indicated bahada,
the stores, the house of Tahimik, and the electric
post along the highway (pp. 7-9, TSN, Nov.
3, 1989).  He also testified
on the time the lights on the stores and electric posts are lighted and
out.  He declared that there is shorter
time in going to the house of Tahimik from his house
than going to the bahada from his house which is
double the time (p. 13, TSN, Nov. 3, 1989), and one will spend about five (5)
minutes from his house before one could reach the house of Tahimik
and from his house to bahada 5 to 6 minutes (p. 14,
TSN, Nov. 3, 1989).  He states that he
doesn’t know any reason why Agustina Arañas will point
to him as the one who assisted in raping her (p. 22, TSN, Nov. 3, 1989).

After the testimony of the accused, Atty. Beltran asked for an
ocular inspection to determine the distance between the house of Elpidio Tahimik up to the bahada where the victim was taken by the accused, the
location of the houses, the stores and the electric post, which was granted by
the Court.

On November 7, 1989,
the court had an ocular inspection of the place where the incident happened
together with Atty. Raymundo Beltran, defense
counsel, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Solomon N. Villanueva, the parents of the
complaining witness and prosecution witnesses. 
A report was made and marked as Exh. “3” for the defense (p. 64, Rec.).” (Rollo, pp.
61-63)

After trial, the lower
court rendered a decision convicting the accused-appellant, the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Court finds Almario Bigalbal GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and hereby sentences said accused to
suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua;
to indemnify Agustina Aranas
the amount of P30,000.00 and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Trece
Martires City,
January 18, 1990″

(Rollo, p. 33)

In his appeal, the
appellant assigns the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court:

I

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF AGUSTINA ARANAS THAT SHE WAS TAKEN
BY VICTOR HAYAG AND HIS COMPANIONS FROM THE HOUSE OF ELPIDIO TAHIMIK IN THE
EVENING OF JANUARY 27, 1989
UNDER THREAT OF BEING KILLED IF SHE DID NOT GO WITH THEM.

II

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT THAT SHE WAS
DRAGGED FROM THE HOUSE OF ELPIDIO TAHIMIK THAT EVENING TO THE ‘BAJADA’ (Rollo, p. 46-a)

III

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF AGUSTINA ARANAS THAT SHE WAS RAPED
BY VICTOR HAYAG, FRANKIE ARENAS AND NOEL SERRANO WITH THE ALLEGED HELP OF THE
ACCUSED REY FOJAS AND ALMARIO BIGALBAL.

IV

THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ALMARIO BIGALBAL OF THE CRIME OF RAPE,
CONSIDERING THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AND EVEN IF
THE CRIME HAS BEEN PROVEN, THE PARTICIPATION OF THE ACCUSED APPELLANT ALMARIO
BIGALBAL HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.” (Rollo, p. 46-b)

As to the first assignment of error, the appellant contends that Agustina’s allegation that she was forcibly taken by Hayag, Arenas and Serrano is unbelievable considering that
there was a wedding preparation going on and it was impossible for her
relatives not to see these three accused forcibly taking her.

The Court finds the appellant’s argument unmeritorious.  The complainant testified that her relatives
went inside the aunt’s house and she was left alone in the terrace when Hayag, Arenas and Serrano arrived (TSN, pp. 6-7, September
11, 1989).  This explains why none of the victim’s relatives witnessed her abduction.

Bigalbal likewise maintains that Agustina’s
testimony that she was dragged for one hour up to the “bajada”
defies credibility.  He points out that
if she was indeed dragged for almost an hour, then there should have been
bruises on her hands and arms but surprisingly, the medico-legal report did not
disclose any unusual finding of medical significance.

On this issue, we quote
with approval the observation of the Solicitor General:

“Appellant makes much importance to
(sic) the word ‘dragged’.  It is not
clear in the records whether or not the word ‘dragged’ reflects the correct
translation into the English language when complainant, who was testifying in
the local dialect, testified as to the manner she was forcibly taken out of the
house.  It is still possible that
somebody may be ‘dragged’ while still capable of walking.  Under the circumstances of the instant case,
rape can still be committed without unusual significant marks on the victim’s
neck, legs, thighs, hands or arms.” (Rollo, p.
91)

Moreover,
the psychiatric report on the
victim (Exhibit “C”, Original Records; Rollo,
pp. 21-24) shows that the victim is suffering from moderate mental
retardation.  Agustina
stated that she was dragged from her aunt’s house to the “bajada” for an hour. 
But when asked how long an hour is, she replied, “It was a long time” and when asked if she knows
how many minutes there are in an hour, she answered, “No, Sir, I do not
know” (TSN, page 16, September 11, 1989).  The ocular inspection report of the crime scene (Exhibit 3, Records, page 64)
indicates that it took only ten minutes ordinary walk from the house of the
victim’s aunt to the “bajada“.  It is therefore possible that her claim that
she was “dragged” for an hour is incorrect, grounded on a distorted perception of time.

Even assuming that there
really were no physical injuries inflicted, the absence of such injuries does
not negate the commission of rape.  (See People v. Abonada, 169
SCRA 530 [1989]; People v. Mustacisa, 159 SCRA 227
[1988]; People v. Alfonso, 153 SCRA 487 [1987].

The appellant attempts to highlight other inconsistencies in Agustina Aranas’ testimony. 
He directs this Court’s attention to her previous statement that she was
raped by accused Rey Fojas
(TSN, page 38, September 11, 1989) and her later claim that Fojas
only held her hands (TSN, page 40, September 11, 1989).  This apparent conflict may be reconciled by
the fact that the appellant, being moderately mentally retarded, has, every now
and then, a different grasp of the question propounded to her and is confused
as to the meaning of rape:

“Q.   Rey Fojas also raped you?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Do
you know what is the meaning of rape?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   What
does it mean?

A.    They
kissed me and put kiss marks on
my neck.

Q.   That
is what you know about rape?

A.    No,
sir.

Q.   What
do you mean when you said you were raped?

A.    If I was raped I got pregnant.  (TSN, p. 36, September 11, 1989)

The Court finds, however,
that the complainant is nonetheless consistent in her testimony with respect to the identity of
those accused who had carnal knowledge with her.

The appellant moreover
challenges the truth of the victim’s statement that while Hayag,
Serrano and Arenas took turns in raping her, Vic Hayag
poked an icepick at her right waist while the appellant,
Fojas and Pareja took turns
holding her hands and feet.  Almario Bigalbal reasons that
there simply was no need for him to hold the hands of the complainant since Hayag was already poking an icepick
at her.  The Court does not agree with
him.  Agustina
testified that Hayag poked the icepick
at her right waist to keep her from shouting and despite the icepick,
she was still struggling (TSN, p. 10, September 5, 1989). 
It was therefore necessary for the appellant and the other accused to
hold her hands and feet in order to facilitate the consummation of the rape.

The fact that Agustina kept silent for two days before revealing the rape
to her mother does not diminish the
reliability of her testimony.  Her
silence was rooted on her fear for her life since she was warned, at the risk of being killed, not to tell anybody about the rape.  Considering her mental state, such threat
produced an overpowering effect on the victim, sufficient to conceal her ordeal
from her relatives until she was grilled by her mother.  (See People v. Manaay, 151 SCRA 31 [1987]).

In  retrospect, the appellant’s assigned errors principally relate to
the credibility of the rape victim, Agustina Aranas.  On the issue
of credibility of witnesses, the Court has always stressed that
findings of the lower court are accorded great weight and are not to be disturbed unless the court overlooked certain facts of substance and
value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.  (People v. Somera, 173  SCRA 684 [1989];
People v. Baysa, 172 SCRA 706 [1989]; Aguirre v. People, 155 SCRA 337 [1987]).

As to the probative value
of the complainant’s testimony, the lower court made the following observation:

“The manner in which she answered the
questions propounded (sic) to her on direct examinations and cross
examinations, her obvious sincerity and readiness to disclose the facts injured
(sic) of her of course characterized boldness when she identified and pointed
to Almario Bagalbal with
tears flowing from her eyes impressed the court with truthfulness of her
testimonies.  (Original Records, pp.
86-87)

On the other hand, with respect to the credibility of the appellant, the lower court had this to say:

“Accused Almario Bigalbal’s demeanor on
the witness stand and each time that he was in Court during the hearing of this
case denied credence of (sic) his story. 
He appeared to the Court as one who does not appreciate the gravity of
the offense imputed against him, to whatever penalty may be imposed upon
him.  The unconvinced (should be unconcerned)
demeanor of the accused on the witness stand as if the crime is not serious
gives an impression of incredibility to his defense to the rape charge.  (People v. Marbebe,
128 SCRA 537).  (Original Records, p. 89)

We defer to the foregoing
findings of the lower court which, having
had the opportunity to assess
the behavior of the witnesses, gave more credence to Agustina Arenas’ testimony.

The other inconsistencies
in Aranas‘ testimony that are adduced by the appellant are minor contradictions that do not detract from her
credibility.  (People v. Velasco, 175
SCRA 442 [1989]) Besides, the Court cannot expect a rape victim to recall every
sordid detail of her traumatic experience.

The appellant was positively identified by the victim as one of those who held her hands
while she was being raped.  Where there
is no evidence to show that the victim, a 19-year
old moderately mentally retarded provincial lass, was actuated by improper motives, her
identification of the accused as one of the culprits should be given full faith
and credit.  (See
People v. Aragon, 164 SCRA 78 [1988]; People v. Ladrera,
150 SCRA 113 [1987]).

The appellant’s defense
of alibi cannot likewise prevail over positive identification by the
complainant.  (People
v. Demecillo, 186 SCRA 161 [1990]).

Moreover, the appellant
has not shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be present
at the crime scene or at the vicinity thereof at the approximate time the crime
was committed.  (People v. Alejo Cuyo y Mortero and Felix Buen y Paredes, G.R. No. 76211, April 30, 1991; People v. Roberto Soriano y Bruan, et al., G.R. No.
74783, April 22, 1991; People v. Marapao, 188 SCRA
243 [1990]; People v. Reunir, 157 SCRA 686 [1988]).

In a final attempt to exculpate himself, the appellant presented Cecilio Arenas whose testimony suggested that the
complainant voluntarily went with Hayag, Arenas and
Serrano.  (TSN, pp. 9-11, October 6,
1989) The Court however doubts the veracity of Arenas’ statement considering that he is the father of one of the
accused, Frankie, who is still at large. 
Moreover, the defense has not presented any evidence to show that Agustina is a woman of ill-repute or of a flirtatious and
wanton nature to incite or provoke Hayag, Arenas and
Serrano to have sexual intercourse with her. 
(See People v. Pena,
Jr., 151 SCRA 638 [1987].  On
the contrary, the psychiatric report on the victim portrayed her as an
emotionally inhibited and socially sensitive and critical person.  (Exhibit C, Original Records; Rollo, p. 23)

We cannot overlook
the fact that all the appellant’s co-accused have
remained in hiding.  The Court has always
repeated that flight of an accused signifies an awareness of guilt and a consciousness that he has
no tenable defense to the rape charge (See People v. Dante Bartulay, G.R. No. 83696,
December 21, 1990; People v. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220 [1990]; People v. Rey, 172 SCRA 149 [1989]; People v. Avero,
165 SCRA 130 [1988]). The disappearance of the five accused lends credence to Agustina’s charge of rape. 
While the appellant did not take flight, he was nevertheless positively
identified by Agustina.

As previously mentioned,
the rest of the accused were never charged and arraigned before the lower
court.  Without necessarily prejudging
their cases until jurisdiction over them is acquired and their
respective defenses are thereafter presented, the Court nevertheless finds that
the commission of rape has been
established beyond reasonable doubt and that appellant Bigalbal’s participation therein is
undeniable.  The records, however, do not
clearly indicate that Bigalbal participated in all
the three rapes allegedly
committed upon the victim.  Under the
circumstances, the Court holds that the appellant may be found guilty, as co­-conspirator and principal, of only one count of
rape.

That conspiracy
accompanied the commission of rape is borne out by the evidence on record.  The combined actuations of all the accused, including the
appellant, indicate a common design to commit the crime of rape.  While the appellant himself did not have
carnal knowledge of the victim, his tacit and spontaneous cooperation by
holding her hands, instead of preventing the rape,
makes him a co-conspirator.  As such he
becomes a principal in the commission of rape.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED
subject to the modification that the civil indemnity is increased to P40,000.00 in accordance with the Court’s recent ruling in
People v. Banayo (G.R. No. 86938, March 22, 1991).

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.