PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PABLO DACQUEL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision dated November 23, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court of
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 28, which convicted the appellant, Pablo
Dacquel, of the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
to pay the victim the sum of P30,000
as moral damages and the costs.

As found by the trial court the facts of the case are as follows:

“On the night of October 6, 1988 at about 7:00 p.m. while she
was in the Centro of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, the accused approached the victim,
Ofelia Caser, and by pointing a knife to her throat was able to force her to
board a jeep. The jeep which was bound
for Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya had a load of five passengers. She did not ask any aid from any of the
passengers because she was afraid. Upon reaching a waiting shed, they
alighted and the accused forced her to lie on the bench by continuing to point the knife at her throat. The accused then raised her skirt, pulled
down her panty, brought out his penis and inserted it into her vagina. She felt pain. No other person was around at that time. She wanted to shout but the knife was still
pointed at her throat. The accused had
sexual intercourse with her only once. Afterwards,
she noticed blood on her dress, but as her sister Lolita Caser, might see it,
she washed it. From the waiting shed,
they returned to Solano where the accused left her at the Poblacion. On that night, she slept with her
neighbor. The following morning she
told her sister about the incident. Thereafter they went to the police. She was brought to and examined
in the hospital. According to Dr.
Jocelyn A. Toria, Ofelia Caser was examined on October 8, 1988 and was found to
have lacerations in her hymen at 5, 8 and 9 o’clock, at about 3 mm. each and
one laceration, perinium, about 1 cm., which was a break just below the
vagina. No seminal fluid was found in
the vagina as Ofelia was menstruating when examined. According to the said physician, the wounds
were 2 to 3 days old as they were still
fresh during the examination.” (pp. 12-13, Rollo.)

The information against Dacquel reads:

“That on or about the 6th day of October 1988 in the
Municipality of Bayombong, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, with lewd
design, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, have carnal knowledge with Ofelia Caser thru
force, coercion, and intimidation and against her will to her damage and
prejudice including her heirs and assigns.” (p. 17, Record.)

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court rendered judgment
finding him guilty as charged.

Hence, this appeal in which the appellant alleges that the trial
court erred:

1.     
in finding that he had carnal knowledge of Ofelia Caser
through force and intimidation; and

2.     
in convicting him based on the weakness of his defense and not
on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution.

The accused met Ofelia Caser four (4) years earlier (when she was
only eleven years old) in the house of a certain Mr. Barrero in Solano where she
worked as a housemaid and he had been hired to do some carpentry work.

Appellant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the
15-year-old complainant, but it was allegedly voluntary or by mutual
consent. He denied that he forced her
to board the jeep with five (5) other passengers and that he poked an
eight-inch knife at her throat throughout their trip to Bayombong. He capitalized the trial court’s observation
that part of the complainant’s testimony “leaves something to be desired
and unconvincing” (p. 14, Rollo). The court believed, nevertheless, that stratagem, rather than force, was
employed by the accused to convince the teenage housegirl to go with him “to
Manila.” The court believed that
he convinced her “that he had a job waiting for her in the city, for in
answer to a question asked by the private prosecutor, the accused stated, ‘She
said she has no money and insisted on me I will bring her to Manila and upon
reaching Manila I will be the one to look for a job for her even as a helper. (TSN, Session of August 2, 1990, pp.
18-19.)’” (p. 14, Rollo.)

“The rule is settled that courts may believe one part of the
testimony of a witness and disbelieve another part, and courts are not required
to accept or reject the whole of the testimony of a particular witness.” (People vs. De Dios, 187 SCRA 228, 230.)

The trial court, however, believed that force and/or intimidation
was employed by the appellant to ravish the complainant for her testimony on
this aspect of the case was “straightforward and unequivocal” (p. 14,
Rollo). The pertinent portion of her
testimony is quoted below:

“ATTY. BAHIA:

“Q:   On the night of October 6, 1988, where did you meet Pablo
Dacquel if you met him?

“ATTY. EUROPA:

“xxx             xxx                   xxx

“A:   I saw him in the place where there was a fiesta in Solano.

“Q: When
you saw him that night in the fiesta,
what happened if there was something that happened?

“A:   He took me and then he loaded me in a ride.

“xxx             xxx                   xxx

“Q:
Did
he also go with you?

“A:   We were together.

“Q: From Solano, where did you
go with Pablo Dacquel?

“A:   Bayombong, sir.

“Q: In what definite place in
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya?

“xxx             xxx                   xxx

“Q: Could you describe the place where he brought
you that night?

“A:   To a waiting shed in Bayombong.

“xxx               xxx                 xxx

“Q: When you arrived there, will
you relate to the Court what actually happened?

“A:   He pointed a knife here (witness pointing to the base of her
throat).

“xxx              xxx                  xxx

“Q: When he placed the knife at
the base of your neck, what did
he do?

“A:   He removed the zipper of his
pants, raised my skirt, pulled down my panty and brought out his penis and inserted it into my
vagina.

“Q: Did he do that while you
were standing?

“A:
  I was lying down.

“Q: Where?

“A:
  On a seat, sir.

“Q: When he brought out or
removed your panty did you
consent?

“ATTY. EUROPA:

Objection, leading. You did not prove . . . . .

“PROSECUTOR GUILLERMO:

We
already proved that she is unlettered and she knows what she is talking about.

“COURT:

You please
reform the question.

“A:   I was shouting but the knife was placed on my neck.

“Q: When you were in the act,
that is when Pablo Dacquel inserted his
penis into your vagina?

“A:   Yes, sir.

“Q: What did you feel?

“A:   I cried, sir. It was
painful.

“Q: Why did you not shout?

“A:   How could I shout when the knife was placed on my neck.” (pp. 6-9, TSN, May 11, 1990.)

The trial court was “convinced that such force and intimidation was (sic) present” (p. 51,
Rollo). The court noted that:

“According to Ofelia, a big knife was pointed at her throat
when coitus took place. It must be
pointed out that the court observed the victim to be of low intelligence, and
despite this when the question pertains to that moment of truth, that moment of
sexual contact with the accused, she
was firm and unyielding in her allegation that she was abused.” (p. 51, Rollo.)

The force required in rape cases need not be too overpowering or
irresistible. What is essential is that
the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose which the offender had
in mind (People vs. Barcelona, 191 SCRA 100, 101).

Appellant, a married man, whom his own wife described as a womanizer,
alleged that he and Ofelia had intimate relations since 1986 and that on the
day in question, he and the complainant actually planned to elope to
Manila. It did not, however,
materialize, because they did not have enough money for the fare to Manila, so
they ended up only in a waiting shed in Bayombong where they consummated their
relationship. He alleged that the act
was not the first for the complainant for they had sexual intercourse twice
before.

Appellant further alleged
that in 1986, the complainant offered to him her body in payment for a debt of
P150 which she owed him, but in response, he
merely kissed her; and that subsequently, they had sexual activity twice before the incident in question.

This story was disbelieved by the trial court which found it
“unconvincing” (p. 14, Rollo), “highly incredible” (p. 15,
Rollo) and “inherently unworthy of belief” (p. 16, Rollo). The trial court pointed out that Ofelia did
not have to peddle her virtue because she was earning a salary as a househelper
of the Barreros.

Appellant’s allegation that he and the complainant had twice
engaged in sexual activity, was denied by the latter and refuted by the
examining physician, Dra. Torio, who did not find any old traces of lacerations
on the complainant’s hymen. Thus:

“ATTY. BAHIA:

“Q: More or less, could you tell
the Court with your findings when was this act committed?

“A:   Since the wound is just recent more or less, within 2 to 3 days,
the wound is still fresh.

“Q: When you examined Ofelia
Caser, the wound is still fresh?

“A:   Yes, sir.

“Q: With that findings, could
you determine if there was a prior intercourse?

“A:
  It is still fresh.

“COURT:

Suppose a prior intercourse was made the
laceration could be repeated?

“A:   It is probable, sir. (p. 7,
TSN, July 10, 1990.)

Appellant’s allegation that he and the complainant had planned to
elope on the day of the rape is pure invention for they had made absolutely no
preparations for that purpose. They
brought no clothes and the accused admittedly did not even have enough money
for the fare to Manila.

“Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible itself” (People vs.
Lim, 190 SCRA 706).

The trial court did not err in finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape. “Credibility is the sole province of the trial court” (People
vs. Januario de la Cruz y Hurado, 190 SCRA 328). The court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses who
appeared before it deserves our utmost respect for it had the advantage of
having directly observed their demeanor in court (People vs. Romenaldo
Murallon, 189 SCRA 488).

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the
appealed decision, we AFFIRM it in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Medialdea, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.