PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE R. MIÑANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant, Vicente R. Miñano, was charged with the
crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 1673 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
81, Fourth Judicial Region, Romblon, Romblon. The complaint filed in said case reads, as follows:

“That on or about the 13th day of March, 1988, at around 8:00
o’clock in the evening, in barangay III-Poblacion, municipality of Romblon,
province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of the undersigned offended party, single and 15 years of
age, against her will.

Contrary to law.”^[1]

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant entered the plea of not
guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued. On January 21, 1991, the trial
court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused VICENTE R. MIÑANO
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape under the Criminal
Complaint, dated December 6, 1988, and hereby sentences him to a prison term of
reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify
the complainant Bernardita Lalisan the balance of P12,000.00, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs.

The accused is likewise ordered to support his illegitimate child
Vicenta ‘Beverly’ Miñano in the sum of P200.00 monthly which shall be given to
her mother, Bernardita Lalisan, at her residence, within the first five (5)
days of each corresponding month from judicial or extrajudicial demand.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Hence, the present appeal.

The facts of this case are, as follows:

The victim, Bernardita Lalisan, 15 years old, single, testified
during the direct examination that she has been staying in the house of the
accused-appellant since she was in Grade II. Her usual task was to wash the clothes, take care of the children and
feed the pigs. On March 13, 1988, at
around 8:00 in the evening, the children of the accused-appellant, namely,
Sunny Boy, Dodoy, Noel and Dinah, told her to prepare the table because they
will be attending a social function. Later, she was left alone in the house. While she was preparing the beddings, the accused-appellant
arrived. He closed the door and windows
and put off the light. She was wrestled
by the accused-appellant by putting her two hands at her back. She was not able to shout because the
accused-appellant pressed her mouth with his fist. While lying on her back, the accused-appellant spread her legs
with the use of his knees. He pulled
down her panty with the use of his hands. She could not tell exactly if the penis of the accused-appellant
penetrated her vagina because she fainted. When she regained consciousness, she felt pain on her neck, shoulder,
legs and vagina. She noticed blood in
her vagina. She then slept together
with Dinah, who arrived after the incident. Several months thereafter, her menstruation stopped. She inquired from her mother why her
menstrual cycle stopped and she was told that it was only natural because it
was still new. When she submitted
herself to physical examination on August 27, 1988, she learned that she is
pregnant. After March 13, 1988, she did
not have any other sexual relationship with any man. On November 30, 1988, she gave birth to a girl whom she named
Vicenta Miñano.^[3]

On cross-examination, the victim testified further that she left
the employ of Mr. & Mrs. Miñano after classes in Grade III closed. She had herself examined by a doctor
because her skin was already yellowish, she became anemic and weak, and her
belly was becoming bigger. After it was
confirmed by
the doctor that she was pregnant, she filed a criminal complaint against
the accused-appellant. When the
accused-appellant took off his trousers, her back was towards him and she did
not think that the accused-appellant would do something bad. She was not able to go out of the house
because the accused-appellant held her mouth and restrained her hands. The wife of the accused-appellant arrived at
exactly 8:00 that evening, but she did not reveal to her the incident that
happened because she did not know what he inserted in her vagina and what will
happen to her. Neither did she report
the matter to the police authorities. What she reported to her mother was about the stopping of her
menstruation but she did not mention anything about the sexual abuse, not even
to her father because she did not know whether or not she was pregnant. The accused-appellant was able to spread her
legs when her panty was pulled down to her ankles. The accused-appellant’s penis was firm and hard. She lost strength when the accused-appellant
spread her legs. In connection with
this case, she executed an affidavit of desistance.^[4] Bebot
Madali, whom she recognized as a policeman in their municipality, gave her
eight thousand (P8,000.00) pesos as payment for the amicable settlement of this
case. The amount was handed over to her
in the presence of her parents and the fiscal. She was forced to sign said affidavit by Bebot Madali and was instructed
not to reveal the matter to other persons. The actual amount they were demanding for the settlement of this case
was twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos. She expected that the balance of twelve thousand (P12,000.00) pesos
would be paid by the accused-appellant for having sexually abused her.^[5]

In the victim’s rebuttal testimony, she added that one night,
when she was getting the pot, the accused?appellant kissed her. His wife, who saw them, got angry. But the accused-appellant explained that he
treated the victim as his grandchild.^[6]

Eleazar Madali, member of the INP Police Force of Romblon,
testified that it was their desire that the victim’s affidavit be executed
because they wanted this case to be settled. He is the son-in-law of the accused-appellant and it was his own money
which he gave to the victim. It was the
parents of the victim who went to their house and demanded that the amount of
four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos they were intending to pay for the lawyer be
given to them instead and eventually
this case would be settled. The victim
and her parents were demanding from him the total amount of fifteen thousand
(P15,000.00) pesos but since he could not afford it he told them that it was
the only money he could give.^[7]

Carmen Lita P. Calsado, Chief of the Romblon District Hospital,
identified the signature of Dr. Melchor P. Magsino appearing in the
medico-legal certificate.^[8]
Regarding this certificate, she testified that the first entry means that the
size of the uterus is compatible to a six (6) month pregnancy; the second entry
refers to the age of pregnancy or gestation which was five (5) months, three
(3) weeks and three (3) days, to be exact; and the third entry pertains to the
old lacerations of the hymen at 3 and 9 o’clock positions and according to her,
such lacerations could   have been caused
by sexual intercourse. She could not
determine whether or not the victim was a virgin at the time of the alleged
sexual abuse. The last entry indicates
that the victim was pregnant for five (5) months, three (3) weeks and three (3)
days and she was not in labor. Counted
from March 13, 1988, when the alleged sexual intercourse took place, up
to August 27, 1988, when the victim was examined, her uterus was within the age
of pregnancy.^[9]

On the part of the defense, Carmen Miñano, wife of the
accused-appellant, testified that at around 8:00 in the evening of March 13,
1988, the entire family was in their house. It is not true that they went out to attend a social function,
especially herself, since it would be prejudicial to her health. It was their habit to eat supper together in
order that the food will be distributed equally among them. She remembered having gone out of the house
on July 9, 1987, when her older brother died. The victim used to go out bicycle riding until 10:00 in the
evening. She even scolded her and
reported her to her parents who reprimanded
her also. In spite of that, the victim
still goes out bicycle riding during nighttime, at times when she was already
asleep. The victim left their house on
March 11, 1988. She does not know the
reason why the victim left. She slept
at around 9:00 that evening of March 13, 1988 together with the accused-appellant
and two small grandchildren who were in-between them. Outside, in front of the door of their room, was Noel who was
sleeping on a folding bed. There are
many houses adjacent to their house. From the time the victim left their house, she never saw or met her
again. She visits her children and
grandchildren about three (3) times a week but during daytime. Since 1988, she had no more sexual
intercourse with her husband.^[10]

Dr. Jose Magalong, Physician-in-Charge of the Romblon District
Hospital, testified that a woman on actual menstrual period is not fertile and
would suffer normally for two (2) to eight (8) days with the average of five to
six days. It would take about twelve
(12) days from the start of menstrual cycle of a woman that she would be
fertile and that the duration of the fertility of a woman varies. Although there is a difference in the sexual
urge of a young man and that of an old man, that would be insignificant. As to aggressiveness between the two, in
their study, there was no evidence of any significance with regard to that. By mentality, it does not refer to his
educational qualifications but to the motives of the person. It is directed by his emotion and not by
his educational attainment, although some educated men would be more
aggressive than others.^[11]

The accused-appellant, 73 years old, testified that he retired as
District Supervisor of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports on April
5, 1982. He is a Roman Catholic. He has been a member of the Knights of
Columbus since its organization in their municipality and had occupied the
positions of council warden, grandknight and District Deputy. As a lay minister, he conducted liturgy and
also helped in the distribution of the hosts during communion. Like the priest, he preached the gospel,
which he observed and followed. In
February, 1988, he went to Manila to accompany his wife for her medical
check-up, wherein she was advised by the doctor not to go out during nighttime
because of her poor health. He never
remember having gone out together with his wife except on one occasion and that
was during the death of her elder brother, which was on July 5, 1987. The victim stayed with them for quite
sometime as household helper. She was a
good bicycle rider and even takes the bicycle they formerly had, in the evening
after her household chores. In March,
1988, aside from his daughter Dinah, three sons, namely: Noel, Dodoy and Sunny Boy and his two
grandchildren lived with them. Noel
slept on the bed just at the door of the nipa house where he
(accused-appellant) sleeps. On March
13, 1988, he and the members of the family did not go out on any special
occasion. The victim at the time was no
longer staying with them since she
left their house on March 11, 1988. The
house of their barangay captain is just about five (5) meters away from his
main house, while on the northern portion of their house are the houses of Oñas
and Fallaria. Adjacent to his house is a billiard hall which operates nightly,
and the banging of the ball could be heard very well by him. At the side of
their nipa house is a house owned by a person from barangay Li-o and it is
occupied by high school students and an employee of the Assessor’s Office. On the night of March 13, 1988, there were
many passers-by. Their main house was
well-lighted with five (5) illuminating lamps and they switch on the lights
when they are inside the house.

On cross-examination, the accused-appellant declared that the
victim must have filed the charge of rape against him with the anticipation
that he would come across with certain monetary consideration. He had no hand or idea with respect to the
amicable settlement being made by his
son-in-law and the family of the victim.^[12]

In this appeal, the accused-appellant assails his conviction by the trial court. It allegedly failed to take into account the
following: 1) several inconsistencies
in the testimony of the victim; 2) delay in filing the complaint; 3) admission
of the victim that she was menstruating when the rape incident happened; and 4)
affidavit of waiver and desistance which was executed by the victim.

The accused-appellant maintains that the testimony of the victim
does not inspire belief because it is replete with inconsistencies, to
wit: a) the rape was alleged to have
been committed at 8:00 in the evening of March 13, 1988, but it is the habit of
the accused-appellant’s family to eat dinner together at 8:00; b) the wife of
the accused-appellant allegedly left after taking her dinner and arrived at
exactly 8:00 that evening, at the same time that the rape was committed; and c)
if the victim lost consciousness, she could not have remembered vividly what
the accused-appellant did prior to the sexual abuse. The complaint against him was filed several months after the rape
incident and only after the victim was found pregnant. The victim admitted that she was
menstruating during the rape incident, so that he could not have impregnated
her. The victim’s affidavit of
desistance was executed in order to extort money from him.

The Office of the Solicitor General is in full conformity with
the questioned decision of the trial court.

We shall confine Our disquisition on the first and second
allegations of the accused-appellant because the rest is inconsequential in
resolving this appeal.

As aforementioned, the trial
court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime charged against
him. Its ruling was based principally
on the finding that:

“xxx the testimony of the complainant, without the usual
eye-witness corroboration, (is) credible and positive and satisfies the Court
beyond reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. This innocent and immature girl, who barely
started in grade school out of the boondock where she came from and living as a maid with a more urbanized
family at the central part of the capital town of Romblon, could not have
concocted her story and denounced her former employer. In fact, in the course of her testimony, it
was observed that there was that certain underlying bitterness, at times
bursting in somewhat controlled shedding of her tears, so unnerving to be
observed in a girl of such a tender age.”^[13]

Although this Court ordinarily relies on
the factual findings of the trial court, recognizing its superior competence to
assess the credibility of the witnesses through direct observation of their
deportment on the stand, We decline to apply this policy in the case before Us.^[14]
It is not enough that the victim expressed her emotions to the fullest while
testifying, the totality of the evidence should be considered before reaching
the conclusion that, indeed, her testimony is credible and positive. A meticulous examination of the records and analysis of the arguments of
the parties enabled Us to unearth the truth behind the victim’s serious charge
of rape against the accused-appellant. The prosecution has not sufficiently established his guilt to the point
of overcoming the constitutional presumption of innocence that he enjoys.

In a rape case, the uncorroborated testimony of the victim may be
adequate under certain circumstances to warrant conviction. But for
this rule to obtain, the lone testimony of the victim must be clear and
free from any serious contradictions. Her story must be impeccable and ring true throughout or bear the stamp
of absolute candor.^[15]
Glaring circumstances, culled from the testimony of the victim, detract from
the credibility of her version^[16]
of the rape incident that
transpired in the evening of March 13, 1988. First, she narrated what the accused-appellant did upon entering the
room:

”Q – And
you stated a while ago that while you were in the room fixing the beddings, Mr.
Miñano came alone, is that correct?

A – Yes, sir.

Q – And then he started taking off his trousers, correct?

A – Yes, sir.

Q – And then, after taking
off his trousers, he closed the windows and the door, correct?

A – Yes,
sir.

Q – When he came alone in
this particular room and you noticed that he was taking off his pants, what
appeared to your mind?

A – My back was towards him and I did not notice him.

Q – But you stated a while
ago that you noticed Mr. Miñano taking off his pants, is that correct?

A – Yes, sir.

COURT:

You translate that last words.

A – When he took off his trousers he has his underwear and my back
was towards him and it was then that he held my hands at my back.”^[17]
(underscoring supplied)

In other words, although the victim was
not facing the accused-appellant when he entered the room, still, she was able
to give a detailed description of what he did. That is quite taxing to one’s imagination. Second, she was categorical in her direct examination that the
accused-appellant inserted his penis in her vagina:

“Q – After that, what happened?

A – He inserted his penis.

Q – Where did he insert his penis?

A – On (sic) my
vagina.”^[18]

However, she later vacillated during the same direct examination:

“Q – And
do you know why you did not have your menstrual cycle anymore?

A – I do not know, I do
not even know what he inserted.”^[19]

and in the subsequent cross examination:

“Q – The following morning, you did not
tell Mrs. Miñano what happened to you?

A – I did not because I do
not know what he inserted and I don’t know what will happen.

Q – So, that is the only reason why you did not tell Mrs. Miñano
the following morning what Mr. Miñano did to you because you did not know what
he inserted to you, is that correct?

A – Yes, sir.

Q – And you did not know
whether it was his finger which he inserted into your vagina?

A – No, sir.

Q – What did he insert in
your private parts? (sic)

A –  It was his penis.”^[20]

” x x x.

“Q – And
because you fainted, we could now say that you did not know what thing did
(sic) Mr. Miñano inserted in your vagina because you were unconscious?

A –  It was he who inserted
his penis and I could not see because he was closing my eyes with his hands?
(sic)^[21]

“x x x.

“Q – What is your understanding when
somebody tells you that a woman was sexually abused by a man, what is your understanding?

A – I do not know, sir, I
cannot understand. He just inserted and
I do not know what he inserted.”^[22]

“x x x.

“COURT:

Okey, this word again ‘disgrasiya,’
what do you mean by that word ‘disgrasiya’?

A –  Because it was he who
personally wrestled me, it was he who really inserted his penis on my vagina and if not for this case I should
have gone to school.”^[23]

It seems that her mind really fluctuated
during the entire course of her testimony. One thing sure though, she knows what a penis is:

“COURT:

You know what is a
penis?

A – Yes, sir.

Q – Do you have penis?

A –  None, sir.”^[24]

The victim’s behavior after she recovered consciousness is even
more perplexing. The conduct of a woman
immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost importance, as tending
to establish the truth or falsity of the charge.^[25] A
rape victim’s natural reaction upon regaining consciousness would be to rush out to seek help.^[26]
In this case, the victim was too casual, too nonchalant about her supposedly
harrowing experience in the hands of the accused-appellant. According to her, she slept together with
Dinah in her room. Dinah arrived after
the rape incident.^[27] She
did not reveal the incident to the wife of the accused- appellant upon her
arrival due to the ridiculous excuse that she (victim) was already fast asleep
and she did not know what the accused-appellant inserted in her vagina and what
will happen.^[28]
She did not report the incident to her mother.^[29]
Neither did she inform her father due to another ridiculous excuse that she did
not know whether or not she was pregnant,^[30] nor
the police.^[31]
It is quite unnatural for a girl not to reveal the assault on her virtue
immediately after it has happened especially when there is no threat on her
life,^[32]
or when there is no restraint on her liberty, as in this case.

The victim’s behavior in the morning of the following day is
simply incredulous. She still went to
school.^[33]
In the light of human experience, a rape victim could not possibly recover
immediately from a traumatic experience.^[34]

After the incident, her relationship with the accused-appellant
was cordial.^[35]
A week after the incident, she left the house of the accused-appellant^[36]
because classes in school have ended^[37] and
she felt lonely.^[38]
These are reasons that are leagues apart from the rape incident. But before she left, she asked the
permission of the accused-appellant and his wife because she knew quite well
that it would be bad if she does not do so.^[39]
Viewed in its entirety, her behavior after the rape incident was truly
inconsistent with the charge of rape.

What strikes the attention of the Court further, is the fact that
the victim filed the complaint only on December 6, 1988.^[40] It
took her more than eight months to complain about the incident which occurred
on March 13, 1988. The prosecution did
not endeavor to explain the delay. It
is probable that had the victim not become pregnant, she would not have
disclosed the incident at all to anyone.^[41]

The accused-appellant sets up the main defenses that at the time
of the rape incident, their entire family was at home and the victim left their
house on March 11, 1988. Although these
were adequately corroborated by his wife, not much credence should be given to
her testimony. It is undeniably tainted
with bias since it springs from the natural desire of a wife to bail out her
husband from criminal liability even to the extent of lying.^[42]
We thus find his defenses weak. However, it is an enduring rule that the prosecution must rely on the
strength of its evidence rather than on the weakness of that of the defense.^[43]
This Court has no option but to declare that the prosecution has failed to meet
the exacting test of moral certainty and proof of guilt of the
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is imperative that We reverse the trial court’s guilty verdict.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
REVERSED. The accused-appellant is
ACQUITTED of the crime of rape.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
P. 13, Rollo.

^[2]
P. 82, Rollo.

^[3]
Pp. 9-16, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[4]
Exhibit “1.”

^[5]
Pp. 16-38, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989; pp. 161-165, TSN, Aug. 9, 1990.

^[6]
Pp. 160-161, TSN, Aug. 9, 1990.

^[7]
Pp. 40-42, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[8]
Exhibit “C.”

^[9]
Pp. 47-56, TSN, Jan. 25, 1990.

^[10]
Pp. 67-99, TSN, May 4, 1990.

^[11]
Pp. 104-114, TSN, June 15, 1990.

^[12]
Pp. 121-153, TSN, Aug. 9, 1990.

^[13]
Pp. 79-90, Rollo.

^[14]
People v. Tereso, G.R. No. 84354, 194 SCRA 154
(1991).

^[15]
People v. Permison, G.R. No. 89664, 199 SCRA 635 (1991).

^[16]
People v. Permison, supra; People v. Leopante, G.R. No.
85328, 187 SCRA 190 (1990).

^[17]
Pp. 19-20, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[18]
P. 13, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[19]
P. 15, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[20]
P. 21, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[21]
P. 25, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[22]
P. 28, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[23]
P. 37, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[24]
P. 28, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[25]
People v. Baderes, G.R. No. 38413, 153 SCRA 253 (1987).

^[26]
People v. Herrick, G.R. No. 85137, 187 SCRA 364 (1990).

^[27]
P. 14, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[28]
P. 21, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[29]
P. 24, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[30]
P. 25, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[31]
P. 22, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[32]
People v. Mejias, G.R. No. 79677, 168 SCRA 33 (1988); People v.
Cuarteros, G.R. No. 68764, 195 SCRA 285 (1991).

^[33]
P. 14, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[34]
People v. Mejias, supra.

^[35]
Pp. 28-29, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[36]
P. 17, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[37]
P. 16, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989; p. 158, TSN, Aug. 9, 1990.

^[38]
P. 37, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[39]
P. 29, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[40]
P. 19, TSN, Aug. 11, 1989.

^[41]
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 60665, 125 SCRA 244 (1983).

^[42]
People v. Loste, G.R. No. 94785 (1992).

^[43]
People v. Permison, supra.