PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GREGORIO MADRIDANO Y TACBAO ALIAS TATA AND RONNIE DAG-ON Y LAGHAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

They first came to rob, then returned to rape. The robbery is under a different information
and court; we do not deal with it here. What concerns us is the alleged rape, or rapes, committed by the herein
appellant, who continues to deny them.

There were two of them originally accused and eventually
convicted. Notices of appeal were filed
on their behalf by Atty. Leo G. Rey of the Public Attorney’s Office, Department
of Justice, who was told to file their brief. He did not. Required to show
cause why he should not be disciplined for his disobedience, he explained that
he had filed the notice of appeal without consulting the two convicts who, upon
a later interview with them, confessed their guilt. He therefore asked to be relieved as their counsel.^[1]

The two convicts were required by the Court to comment on this
explanation. Only Gregorio Madridano
replied, denying that he had admitted his guilt and asking that he be permitted
to continue his appeal with the assistance of a new lawyer.^[2] His
plea was granted. Atty. Romeo B. Igot
was appointed by the Court as his counsel de oficio and filed the
appellant’s brief in due time.^[3] The
other convict, Ronnie Dag-on, did not bother to comment and is hereby deemed
not to have appealed at all. The
judgment of the trial court is final and executory as to him. The decision is here being reviewed only as
it is challenged by appellant Madridano.

There were four witnesses who testified for the prosecution.^[4]
Their collective testimonies, principally that of Perlita Dag-on, the alleged
victim, tended to show that she had indeed been raped twice by Madridano with
the assistance of Ronnie Dag-on.

The incident happened on March 2, 1989, at about nine o’clock in
the evening, at barangay Old Nongnongan, San Carlos, Bukidnon. As related by Perlita, three men, including
Madridano and Dag-on, robbed her Aunt Luzmin Dag-on that same night and then
left. After a few minutes, they came
back to her house and demanded that Perlita come down. Afraid for their lives, Perlita obeyed, but
accompanied by Luzmin and her six-year old niece, Richelle. The men took them outside the house into a
clearing, where the third man, Efren Ganaba, detained Luzmin.^[5]
The rest of the group proceeded farther down the field. Madridano tripped Perlita, making her
stumble, whereupon he fell upon her and was able to undress her. She struggled against him, however, so he
called on Dag-on to help him subdue her. Dag-on came to his aid and pulled up Perlita’s arms as she lay on the
ground and locked her head with his elbow. Perlita continued to resist as best she could, but in the end Madridano
succeeded in penetrating her. That was
the first time.^[6]
A few minutes later, his lust not yet sated, Madridano was upon her again, with
Dag-on still helping, and she had to suffer the same outrage all over again.^[7]
Then they released her and, together with the child Richelle, who had watched
everything in tears and terror, took her back home and left.^[8]

Perlita and Richelle stayed outside until morning when they found
their Aunt Luzmin walking in the field. With the help of neighbors, they took her to the hospital for treatment
of her injuries. Perlita went to her
father’s house to tell him her Aunt Luzmin had been robbed and hurt. It was only much later, after her father had
visited her aunt, that she summoned enough courage to tell him that she had
been abused by Madridano with Dag-on’s help.^[9] He
immediately reported the matter to the authorities. Perlita was subjected that same day to medical examination by Dr.
Carlos Gamboa, who made the following findings.^[10]

Diagnosis/Findings: P.E. –
No sign of external injury except at the lateral portion of left scapular
region. Echymatic with superficial
linear abrasions, about 2 inches in length.

Perenial and vaginal exam. Hymen – presence of old, healed laceration of 3:00, 5:00, 7:00 and 11:00 o’clock. Admits one finger easily.

Laboratory Exam: Gram
staining for vaginal smear for the presence of spermatozoa.

Slide I  – No spermatozoa seen.

Slide II  – No spermatozoa seen.

Madridano’s defense was denial and alibi. He said he could not have committed the
rapes because he was in barangay Santo, Ritaotao, in the province of Bukidnon,
working in his Uncle Marcelo Bulatao’s farm. He had been there since February 25, 1989, until his arrest on May 24,
1989, for the rape of Perlita, whom he did not know before that date.^[11]
He was corroborated by his uncle and Anastacio Sulatan, a neighbor.^[12]

Ronnie also pleaded alibi, alleging that he was in Kalinan,
Davao, from February 5, 1989, until May 22, 1989, the date he was arrested.^[13]
He had no corroboration. He admitted
Perlita was his cousin and that he had several conversations with her earlier,
before leaving for Davao.^[14] He
also said he stayed in his Aunt Luzmin’s house for two months and that he knew
Madridano.^[15]

Rejecting their defense, Judge Vivencio P. Estrada of the
Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay, Bukidnon, found them both guilty of rape
and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify Perlita Dag-on in the amount of P15,000.00, and to pay the costs.^[16]

Madridano now claims this was all a mistake and that he should
never have been convicted at all.

We do not think so. The
mistake was his. He should never have
raped Perlita at all.

Alibi is especially weak in the face of the positive
identification of the accused. In the
case at bar, there was such identification, both of Madridano and Dag-on, by
the victim herself. Perlita recognized
their voices; she had heard and had even talked to them before the incident.^[17]
Although they were initially masked, the masks, which consisted only of
t-shirts wrapped around their faces, fell off during the struggle and Perlita
could see their faces in the bright moonlight.^[18] No
less importantly, Perlita related that after the rapes, when they took the two
girls back to their house, Madridano and Dag-on were no longer masked.^[19]
Hence, Perlita relied not only on her identification of their voices, which the
appellant says she could not have remembered from their alleged casual conversations,
but upon her recollection of the face of the man who raped her as the mask fell
off during their struggle.

Madridano’s face was thrust on hers. He was on top of her. She
could not have failed to see the man who was pushing her thighs apart to lay
wide open the threatened target. How
could she not remember that terrible face that was leering at her as he forced
his lechery into her? How could she not
remember the lust in that face, the lascivious greed that fed the wicked
craving in his loins when, even as she lay pinioned and exposed, he impaled and
defiled her?

The defense stresses that the medical report shows no signs of
violence on Perlita’s body and not even spermatozoa in her vagina, let alone
the fact that the lacerations in her hymen are old and healed.

Perlita testified, however, that Madridano threatened her with a
hunting knife he was holding,^[20] and
in any case her arms and head were restrained by Dag-on as Madridano raped
her. The doctor declared that the
scratches on her back could have been caused while she struggled on the ground.^[21]
According to Perlita, she felt a sticky substance in her vagina after the rapes^[22]
but, as Dr. Gamboa surmised, this could have been washed away when she cleaned
herself.^[23]
As for the healed lacerations, there was no allegation from the prosecution
that the victim was a virgin at the time she was raped, only that she was
raped. Rape does not necessarily mean
defloration.^[24]
A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. The fact that the lacerations are old and
healed – which could have been, according to the doctor, “two weeks old,
one month old, one year old”^[25] –
does not disprove that Perlita was raped on March 2, 1989.

We dismiss the defense argument that the appellant should be
exonerated because his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This Court would be the first to insist on
the application to him of the constitutional presumption of innocence as this
is one of the great guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the accused. But the evidence against the appellant is
overwhelming. He has been positively identified by the victim, who had no motive
for testifying falsely against him. By
contrast, his alibi is unconvincing, as the trial court and this Court have
found. Even with the presumption of
innocence in his favor, the evidence of the prosecution, being heavier, must
tip the scales of justice against him.

The Court notes that although it has been proved that Gregorio
raped Perlita twice that same night, the information charged him with only one
rape. Under the rule he does not
deserve, he cannot be punished in
this case for the second rape.^[26] The
Court is also revolted by the fact that Gregorio raped Perlita in the presence
of the six-year old Richelle, who did
not have to be exposed to the obscene incident. Unfortunately, this circumstance also cannot increase the penalty
imposed on him, which is already the maximum prescribed by law.

The phallus is not a battering ram breaking down the gates of
chastity. Like the gallant lover, it
may enter the lady’s chamber only upon invitation and consent.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED except for
the civil indemnity, which is increased to P30,000.00. It is so ordered.

Griño-Aquino, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Explanation, Rollo, pp. 20-21.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 20-21.

^[3]
Ibid.

^[4]
Perlita Dag-on, her aunt Luzmin Dag-on, the victim’s father Marcelino Dag-on
and Dr. Carlos Ma. Gamboa; Decision, p. 48.

^[5]
TSN, November 21, 1989, pp. 4-6.

^[6]
Ibid., pp. 6-9.

^[7]
Id., p. 11.

^[8]
Id., p. 12.

^[9]
Id., pp. 13-15.

^[10]
Exhibit A, Rollo, p. 7.

^[11]
TSN, February 6,1990, pp. 31-36.

^[12]
Ibid., pp. 46-53.

^[13]
Id., pp. 39-40.

^[14]
Id., p. 43.

^[15]
Id., p. 40; 43.

^[16]
Decision, Rollo, pp. 47-50.

^[17]
TSN, November 21,1989, p. 10.

^[18]
Ibid, pp. 9-10; TSN, January 5,1990, p. 18.

^[19]
Id., pp. 12-13.

^[20]
Id., p. 7.

^[21]
TSN, January 5,1990, pp. 3-4.

^[22]
TSN, November 21,1989, p. 13.

^[23]
TSN, January 5,1990, p. 6.

^[24]
People v. Banayo, 195 SCRA 543; People v. Bacani, 181 SCRA 393.

^[25]
TSN, January 5,1990, p. 4; p. 7.

^[26]
People v. Robles 170 SCRA 557; People v. Corral, 157 SCRA 673;
Mabilde, Jr., Jr. v. Jabson, 68 SCRA 456.