PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENE SALUNA Y MANGUBAT, ALIAS TITING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Titing must have been
hell-bent on gratifying his lust that not even the escape of Virginia from his
hold nor the strong probability that she would report to the authorities or
seek help from others could deter him from his lecherous assault on her friend
Arceli.

The version of the
prosecution, sustained by the trial court, is that at about 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of 21 October 1988, in Katipunan, Rogongon, Iligan City, Arceli
Fernandez, a 13-year old student, after delivering “tuba” to one
Gerry Bongabong, was walking home with a friend, Virginia Arnaiz, also a
student, 15 years of age. Suddenly,
accused Rene Saluna y Mangubat alias Titing, a tenant of Bongabong, appeared
from nowhere. He asked the girls where
they were going and they replied that they were on their way home. Then he grabbed Virginia but the latter
struggled to be free. Virginia having
slipped away, he moved fast on Arceli by holding her hand and dragging her
forcibly to a forested area nearby in Kapisahan, Rogongon, Iligan City. Virginia dashed for her safety and never
looked back.^[1]

With a scythe on hand, Titing forcibly stripped Arceli of her
T-shirt, pants and panties and positioned himself on top of her. Arceli shouted for help. Titing boxed her on her left temple, causing
her to faint. By the time Arceli
recovered consciousness, Titing had already raped her. He then shackled her hands with her own
pants and blindfolded her with her T-shirt. She sensed him walk away. He was
laughing, saying, “Don’t cry anymore because nobody could hear you shout.”^[2]

Virginia lost no time in reporting the incident to the Civilian
Home Defense Force (CHDF) unit in Katipunan, Rogongon. With CHDF men and others, they repaired to
the scene where Arceli was taken away by Titing. But they found no one there. The team proceeded to the houses of Titing and a sister-in-law of his but
Titing was not there either. The search
party then proceeded to the purok center of Kapisahan after leaving two CHDF
men at his house. But having been told
by the purok president that the accused had not passed that way, the team
returned to his house. There they found
him already in the custody of the CHDF men they had left behind.^[3]

The CHDF men presented
Titing to Virginia. Upon seeing him,
Virginia identified him as the man who waylaid them. When asked about Arceli, Titing pointed to the area where he took
her. Finally, at around 8:30 o’clock
that evening, they found Arceli, crying. She was wearing only her
sando and panties, her hands tied together, her eyes still blindfolded.^[4]

The outrage was reported
at once to the authorities and Arceli executed her affidavit.^[5] A physical examination conducted the
following day by Dr. Eustiguio Oliverio of the Iligan City Public Hospital
showed that Arceli sustained “2 linear abrasions, left zygoma; multiple
linear abrasions, both upper and lower extremities; multiple linear abrasions,
lateral lumbar; hematoma, left temporal area ‘1’ x ‘1-1/2’; vaginal exam: fresh hymenal laceration at 3:00 o’clock
position 2 examining fingers readily admitted into vaginal canal.”^[6]

Titing was accordingly charged for rape. At the trial, the prosecution presented
Arceli, Virginia and Dr. Oliverio. For
the defense, only the accused Titing testified. He claimed that the imputation against him was a lie and alibied
that at the time of the supposed rape he was in Kapisahan panning gold.^[7]
He narrated that he would see Arceli
every time he would go to Sitio Katipunan to buy meat and fish but “they
have not quarrel (sic) with, neither has complainant any axe to grind against
him.” He denied knowing Virginia.^[8]

On 31 January 1990, Titing was found guilty of rape and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua. But Judge Amir Pukunum Pundogar did not award indemnity
for moral damages because he was “convinced of the accused’s financial
distress.“^[9]

In this appeal, Titing contends that the trial court erred in
convicting him for rape despite the failure of the prosecution to establish his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He
points out that the sexual intercourse with Arceli was with her consent
considering that “her companion Virginia Arnaiz x x x was able to escape unhurt.” He rationalizes that he
would not have dared to sexually assault Arceli knowing fully well that he
would be the first target of inquiry as the prime suspect.

The accused considers the failure of complaining witness to
escape from his clutches as tacit consent to have sex with him. According to him, if her companion was able
to escape unhurt, it is surprising why Arceli failed to do likewise, and that
her manifest inaction to save herself is not the normal behavior of a woman
whose virtue was seriously threatened.

Significantly, the theory of the defense that Arceli consented to
the sexual act is inconsistent with his earlier claim of alibi which he raised
before the trial court. As if realizing
the inherent weakness of his alibi, he now shifts his position on appeal by adopting
the stance that Arceli consented to his sensuous advances. This last-ditch effort of the accused
further reduces to mediocrity his already tenuous defense. On the other hand, it strengthens all the
more our belief that indeed he committed the crime charged. His identity is no longer in dispute;
neither his direct participation in the perpetration of the crime. By adopting the theory that his victim
consented to his sexual desires he is inevitably deemed to have admitted the
sexual act except as to consent which, as shown by the evidence, was never
given. On the contrary, the testimony
of Arceli dovetails with the physical injuries which she sustained in different
parts of her body, and with the torn pieces of clothing, some even stained with
blood, which are consistent with her claim that she was sexually abused by the
accused without her consent. Thus –

“Q: Were you able to
get away as what Virginia Arnaiz did?

“A: No, sir because I
was tightly held by his hand.

“Q: You want to
impress with that quite far distance he was merely holding your left hand with
his right hand following a distance?

“A:   Yes, sir.

“Q:  Did you persist or
you struggled to desist from going with him?

“A:   I tried my best to
struggle but it was so tight that I could not even shout for help.

“Q:  While shouting, people
around were able to hear you, is that correct?

“A:   No, sir because the
place where I solicited for help has no houses.

x x x x

“Q:  What
were you doing when the accused was undressing you?

“A:   I
shouted for help.

“Q:  In other words, at that
precise time the accused was undressing you, you were conscious because you
were able to shout for help, is that what you meant?

“A:   Yes, sir.

x x x x

“Q:  After regaining
consciousness you saw scratches on your hand, do you know what caused those
scratches?

“A:   Because I was dragged by him.

x x x x

“Q:  You said you were
brought to the hospital and you further testified that you were examined
physically, can you tell, rather recall what part of your body was examined by
the doctor?

x x x x

“A:   My
part was taken.

“Q:  What do you mean my
part was taken, who took, what was taken?

“Atty. Edres:

I would like to place on
record when the witness answered (s)he pointed to the accused.

x x x x

“Q:  You stated during
the direct as well as in the cross that the accused was carrying a scythe and
it was pointed at you, what instance the scythe was pointed at you?

“A:   Before that he was
already pointing the scythe at my neck during the time he rode on top of me.

“Q:  You mean to impress
the court while he was riding on top of you, the accused was holding the
scythe?

“A:   Yes, sir.

“Q:  So you know the
reason why the accused was using the scythe and threatened you?

“A:   He was threatening
me with the scythe because I kept on shouting. That is why he threatened me with the scythe.

“Q:  Why
do you have to shout when he was merely riding on you?

“A:   Because
he threatened me with a scythe.

“Q:  In
other words, you shouted because of the scythe or he was riding on you?

“A:   Because
he was riding on me.”^[10]

All told, the evidence
against the accused overwhelmingly points to his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Consider the following
damning circumstances: (a) Titing was
positively identified by the complaining witness as the one who forcibly
dragged her to the forest of Kapisahan and deflowered her against her will; (b)
he was likewise positively identified by Virginia as the one who waylaid her
and Arceli while they were on their way home; (c) when asked by the CHDF men,
he readily pointed to the exact location where he took Arceli; (d) by his
theory of consent, he unwittingly admits his sexual congress with his victim;
and, (e) his defense of alibi is so weak it cannot prevail over the clear and
convincing evidence against him.

We are left no choice. The conviction of the accused must therefore be sustained. All the elements of rape as defined in Art.
335 of the Revised Penal Code have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

However, a word must be said about the refusal of the trial court
to impose civil indemnity in favor of the offended party in view of the imputed
indigence of the accused. It must be
stressed that the indemnity awarded under Art. 345, par. (1), of the Revised
Penal Code^[11]
should be absolute and is never
conditioned upon the financial capacity of the accused. The discretion of the trial court is only
with regard to the fixing of the amount of the indemnity upon consideration of
the facts of the case.^[12] Thus, as it appears from the record that the
13-year old complaining witness suffered unspeakable physical stress and
emotional torment in the hands of her lecher, who after satisfying his
libidinous intentions callously and mercilessly left her alone, abandoned at
night in the wilds of Kapisahan, hogtied and blindfolded, and completely
exposed to the elements, it is but just and fair that he should indemnify her
and the amount of P50,000.00 may be considered reasonable.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision convicting the
accused RENE SALUNA Y MANGUBAT alias TITING for rape under Art. 335 of
the Revised Penal Code and imposing upon him a prison term of reclusion
perpetua is AFFIRMED. The
accused is further sentenced to INDEMNIFY complaining witness Arceli Fernandez in the amount of P50,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., on official
leave.

^[1]
TSN, 18 January 1989, pp. 3-5, 7-8; 19 January 1989, 4-6.

^[2]
TSN, 19 January 1989, pp. 6-7, 9-12.

^[3]
TSN, 8 December 1988, pp. 5-8; 18
January 1989, p. 11.

^[4]
TSN, 8 December 1988, pp. 8-9.

^[5]
Exh. “1”, Records, p. 3.

^[6]
Exhs. “G” and
“G-2”, Records, p. 18.

^[7]
TSN, 7 December 1989, pp. 3-4.

^[8]
See Decision penned by Judge Amir Pd
Pundogar, RTC, Br. 3, Iligan City, 31 January 1990, p. 6; Rollo, p.
17.

^[9]
Decision, Records, pp. 109-117.

^[10]
TSN, 19 January 1989, pp. 23-24, 27, 30-33.

^[11]
Art. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against
chastity. – Persons guilty of rape,
seduction or abduction, shall be sentenced:

1. To indemnify the offended woman.

2. To acknowledge the offspring,
unless the law should prevent him from so doing.

3. In every case to support the
offspring.

The adulterer and the concubine
in the case provided for in Articles 333 and 334 my also be sentenced, in the
same proceeding or in a separate civil proceeding, to indemnify for damages
caused to the offended spouse.

^[12]
People v. Licerio, 61 Phil. 361
(1935).