G.R. Nos. 105669-70. October 18, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY REJANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PUNO, J.:
Appellant JERRY REJANO, convicted[1]
for twice raping a girl not yet in her teens, turns to us for exculpation. His efforts are in vain.
On June 19, 1991, two separate criminal complaints were filed
with the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, against appellant by complainant MARISTELA
F. SANTIAGO, assisted by her mother DIVINA SANTIAGO. He was accused of committing two rapes — on August, 1990 and December, 1990 — as
follows:
“That sometime in the month of August (December), 1990, in the
municipality of Hagonoy, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of
force, violence and intimidation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
(sic) carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant, a twelve-year old,
against her will and consent.
“Contrary to law.”[2]
The resulting cases, docketed as Criminal
Cases No. 1035-M-91 and 1036-M-91, were consolidated and raffled to Branch 11
of the trial court. Appellant was
arraigned on August 16, 1991. He
pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Five (5) witnesses[3]
testified for the prosecution, four (4) for the defense.[4] The
nine (9) are related to one another, and to other individuals mentioned in
their testimonies. Appellant is the
husband of complainant’s cousin, defense witness Liza Rejano. She is the adopted daughter of Edilberto
Santiago, who is the brother of complainant’s late father.
Complainant, who was born on January 26, 1978,[5]
testified as the prosecution’s principal witness. She narrated that she was first raped one evening[6]
in August, 1990, in a lonely, open field far from the town proper of San Pedro,
Hagonoy, Bulacan. She was there to make
her third harvest of small crabs or talangka for the day. Appellant, who was also namimintol or
catching talangka, was the only other person in the field.[7]
When complainant finished gathering the last of the talangka
caught in her baited bintols or bamboo-and-net devices, she approached
appellant who had summoned her.[8] He
grabbed her left arm and forcibly took off her garterized shorts and panty. Complainant vainly fought back by kicking at
appellant. He, however, managed to push
her to the ground, and used his free arm to pin down her legs.[9]
She screamed for help, but only the trees in the field heard her. Nobody came to her rescue.[10]
Appellant then bestraddled complainant. She felt something round enter her vagina, causing her pain. “Aray,” she screamed. Again, no one heard her.[11]
Complainant does not
remember how long the sexual violation took place, but when it was over, she felt very weak. Soon after, appellant left. Complainant
stood up, put on her shorts, and went home, leaving her harvest of talangka
in the field to die.[12]
When complainant arrived at their house, she did not rouse her
mother, Divina, who was already deep in slumber. As she lay down beside her two sisters to sleep, complainant
resolved not to tell her mother about what appellant had done to her.[13]
Early the next morning, appellant called to complainant who stood
by the kitchen sink, washing her face. He was in his house, which is only a few meters from hers. He threatened her against telling anyone
about what occurred the night before. “Ine,
huwag kang magsusumbong, kung hindi, bubugbugin kita at papatayin,” he warned her.[14]
Complainant believed the threat, which appellant reiterated time and again
afterwards.[15]
Months passed. Complainant’s fear subsided.[16]
Soon, it was December, 1990, and the Santiagos were preparing for the Centro
harvest.[17]
The night before the three-day harvest, complainant went to the house of her Auntie
During Santiago. Appellant was also
there. He told complainant that she
could use his bicycle to go to the Centro the following day.[18]
Complainant took the offer to heart. The next day, she went to appellant’s residence to get the bicycle.[19] She found him standing by the bottom
of the three-rung staircase.[20] His wife and children were nowhere in
sight.[21]
Complainant remained outside the doorway. She saw the bicycle parked near the top of the stairs.[22]
Without warning,
appellant grabbed complainant and dragged her into the house and up its
stairs. Brandishing a “stainless beinte-nueve” with his right hand, he forcibly removed her shorts with his left, and
made her lie on the floor.[23] He mounted and penetrated her. Complainant felt terrible pain in her stomach.[24] Still wielding the knife, appellant warned
complainant not to shout.[25] She obeyed, and could only weep.[26]
After violently
deflowering complainant, he allowed her to take his bicycle. She rode it to the Centro which is quite far
from their house. She cried during the
trip. When she got to the Centro, she
joined her relatives in the harvest. She kept quiet about the rape, even when appellant arrived later that
morning.[27] That night, however, appellant’s wife, Liza,
confronted her about the presence in the Rejano residence of a “white
object which could only be the result of the doing of two persons,”
obviously referring to semen. Appellant
broke the story to Liza who admonished her not to tell anyone about the
incident.[28] By late January, 1991, her mother, Divina,
learned about the rapes[29] and
filed a complaint against appellant with the police authorities.[30]
On February 4, 1991, complainant underwent a physical examination
conducted by Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez, Medico-Legal Officer II of the
Bulacan Integrated Provincial Health Office of the Department of Health. His findings are embodied in his report, as
follows:
“CASE NO. G-08_______
“DATE: February 4, 1991
“MARISTELLA F. SANTIAGO, 13 years
old, female, single, Filipino, residing at San Pedro, Hagonoy, Bulacan.
“DATE, TIME &
PLACE OF EXAMINATION: February 4, 1991,
10:00 A.M., Bulacan Provincial Hospital, Malolos, Bulacan.
“ALLEGED DATE,
TIME & PLACE OF COMMISSION: August
1990, 7:00 P.M. Farm in Hagonoy.
“ALLEGED CASE: RAPE
“REQUESTING PARTY: REYNALDO V. SANTOS
Police Officer II
Chief, Investigating
Section
Hagonoy Police
Station,
Hagonoy, Bulacan
“GENERAL SURVEY:
HEIGHT: 150 cm. WEIGHT: 43.5 kgs.
Fairly nourished, fairly
developed, conscious, coherent, cooperative, ambulatory subject.
Breasts, developing, hemispherical. Areolae, light brown, 2.5 cm. in diameter. Nipples, light brown, protruding, .8 cm. in
diameter.
“GENITAL
EXAMINATIONS:
Pubic hair, no growth. Labia majora and labia minora, coaptated. Foruchette, lax. Vestibule,
pinkish, smooth. Hymen, originally
annular, moderately tall; moderately thick with a superficial laceration at
3:00 o’clock position. Edges are
rounded and non-coaptable. Its orifice
wide, admits a rube of 2.6 cm in diameter with moderate resistance. Vaginal walls, tight, rugosities, shallow.
“CONCLUSIONS:
1. No extragenital physical
injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.
2. Old hymenal laceration,
present.
3. Hymenal orifice, wide (2.6 cm in diameter)
as to allow complete penetration of an
average-sized Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any new
hymenal injury.”
(Exh. “E”; p. 44,
Original Records)
Dr. Mendez testified that the laceration
on complainant’s genitalia is old and healed, which means it occurred at least
four (4) months before the examination.[31]
Appellant mainly put forth the defense of denial and, with
regards the first rape, alibi. Appellant, and his wife and sister testified that they were visiting his
ailing father in Pinamalayan, Mindoro during the entire month of August,
1990. They were one in saying they left
Hagonoy on July 24, 1990, and
returned on September 1, 1990.[32]
After trial, the impugned Decision, dated March 30, 1992, was
promulgated. Accused was convicted, viz.:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds herein accused Jerry Rejano,
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of the crime of RAPE as
charged and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA
on each count and to indemnify complainant in the amount of Forty Thousand
(P40,000.00) Pesos. No pronouncement as
to cost.
“SO ORDERED.”
Appellant now urges –
“THE TRIAL COURT
OVERLOOKED SOME MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR MISINTERPRETED CERTAIN PIECES OF EVIDENCE
WHICH HAD THEY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE PROPER LIGHT, IT (SIC) WOULD HAVE
ACQUITTED ACCUSED-APPELLANT.”[33]
In particular, he argues, viz.:
“I.
Judge Gabo, who rendered the decision of
conviction was not the one who received the evidence. His only participation was to write the decision;
“II.
Doctor’s testimony accords strong basis for
accused (sic) acquittal;
“III.
Offended party’s claim that she was abused
by the accused in August, 1990 deserves scant consideration;
“IV.
Failure of complainant to do anything
before, during and after alleged rape and her conduct immediately after the
rape negate its commission. (People vs.
Cerilo Flores, 125 SCRA 244);
“V.
Accused’s defense of alibi, contrary to the
lower court’s holding, assumes significance.”[34]
We affirm the impugned decision.
Firstly, appellant takes exception to the finding of the trial
court that:
“This Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of the
offended party. In her testimony, she
came to lay out, in a clear and simple language, what had happened to her in
the hands of the accused. She had been
direct and straightforward in describing how the accused committed the crimes
against her chastity xxx”[35]
for the reason that Judge Gabo, Jr., who
penned the impugned Decision was not the one who heard the case. We find no merit in this argument.
Time and again, this Court has held that a decision is not
rendered erroneous by the fact that it was penned by a judge other than the one
who heard the evidence in the case.[36] In
such instances, however, the well-settled general rule that the trial court’s
findings as to credibility of witnesses be given great weight should not be
applied.[37]
This is because, not having heard the testimonies himself, the judge is in no
better position than the appellate courts to make such determinations.
After reviewing the entire records of the case at bench, we find ourselves in agreement with
Judge Gabo, and accord the mark of credence to complainant’s testimony. The transcript of her testimonies shows she was candid in answering the
questions propounded to her. The story
she presented is credible and consistent. Particularly impressive, to our minds, are the small details that pepper
her testimony, as exemplified by the following portions of her
cross-examination:
“xxx xxx xxx
“Court:
“Q How did you remember that it was in August
(referring to the first rape)?
“A Because it was in the season of catching
small crabs, Your Honor.
“Q Could it be also in June or July and not in
August?
“A During
those months, the small crabs are too small, Your Honor.
“Atty. Valmonte (defense counsel):
But are there crabs to
be caught also in September?
“A Very
few, sir. Only left-overs.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Atty. Valmonte:
“Q Why,
where did you come from immediately before you went to the place where you were
catching small crabs?
“A In
our house, sir.
“Q I
am puzzled because you could not tell when you were allegedly raped except by
saying that it happened in the months of August and December. How did you fix the time at 6:30 when you
left your house and you arrived there at 7:00 o’clock at the place where you
were raped?
“A Because
before I went to the field, I was
listening to the drama over the radio and after the drama, I proceeded to the
field, sir.
“Q What
drama were you listening?
“A ‘Sangdipang
Langit,’ sir and ‘Emergency 166.’
“Q Was
that the program which you were not able to finish when you went to the field?
“A They
were both finished before I went to the field, sir.
“Court:
Over what station?
“A DZRH,
Your Honor. From Monday to Saturday.
“Q From
your house up to the place in the field where you started catching small crabs, could that be
negotiated by 30 minutes?
“A Yes,
sir, because it is very far from our house.
“Q Aside
from Jerry Rejano, did you not see any other person when you arrived at that
place?
“A None,
sir.
“Q When
you arrived at the place where you were catching crabs, you did not see Jerry
Rejano?
“A No,
sir. I did not see him at once, sir.
“Q For
how long a time when you were there at the place when you saw Jerry Rejano?
“A Maybe
I was already able to catch three bintols, sir.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Atty. Valmonte:
“Q These
bintols
you mentioned, were these already in the field when you went there?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Court:
“Q When
did you place those bintols?
“A Around
3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Your Honor.
“Atty. Valmonte:
“Q How
did you determine the time in the gathering of these bintols?
“A That
is our practice, sir. To place the bintol
then after 30 minutes, we go back to gather the crabs, sir.
“Q You
placed the bintols according to you at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
that date and then you went there at 7:00 o’clock to gather?
“A I
placed the bintols and I was able to gather twice before I went home,
sir.
“Court:
“Q So
this is the third time?
“A Yes,
Your Honor.
“Q Were
you able to gather small crabs during the first two harvests?
“A Yes,
Your Honor.
“Q How
many?
“A Almost
one pail, Your Honor.
“Atty. Valmonte
“Q I
would like to be clear on this point. When you went to the place where you were allegedly raped when you were
in the field at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, what you would like to tell
the Court is to gather the third bintol?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q How
many bintols did you place there?
“A 29, sir.
“Q You
were able to get or collect your bintols when you were allegedly
raped?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q So,
on that occasion, only one bintol was removed by you?
“Atty. Ariñas (private prosecutor):
It is
misleading, Your Honor. According to
her, she was there to harvest
the third bintol.
“Court:
“Q How
many, out of the 29 bintols were you able to gather
before you were raped?
“A I
was able to gather all, Your Honor.
“Q How
much small crabs were you able to gather?
“A Only
few, Your Honor. About 2 kilos.
“Atty. Valmonte:
“Q Where
did you place those two kilos which you were able to gather?
“A Inside
the net, sir.
“Q I
heard you say that the accused Jerry Rejano and you went to him while you were
carrying the small crabs which you gathered (sic).
“A No,
sir. I was already finished gathering
the bintols. Before I approached Jerry Rejano, I put down the net at the last bintol.
“Q In
other words, you left your harvest behind?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q And
you did not go back to the place where you left your harvest after you were
raped?
“A No,
sir.
“Q And
you never went back that same night or thereafter to get your harvest?
“A The
following day, sir. In the afternoon, I
returned. I got my bintols.
“Court:
“Q And
what happened to your catch?
“A They
all died, Your Honor.”
“xxx xxx xxx”
(TSN of October 7, 1991, pp. 33-44)
“xxx xxx xxx
“Atty. Valmonte:
“Q According
to you, before the accused lent his bicycle to you, you were again abused. Where was he for the first time when you saw
him in his house when you went there to borrow the bicycle?
“A He
was in front of the stairway, sir.
“Q And
out of his house?
“A Inside
his house, sir.
“Court:
“Q How
many floors is that house?
“A There
are three steps, Your Honor.
“Q What
part of the house did you go when you went to the house of Jerry Rejano?
“A Beside
the door, Your Honor.
“Q You
did not go up the house?
“A No,
Your Honor, I did not go.
“Q Where
was the bicycle at the time when you went at the house of Jerry Rejano?
“A It
was upstairs, Your Honor.
“Q And
Jerry Rejano called for you to give you the bicycle?
“A No,
Your Honor.
“Q How
did you happen to go up?
“A He
dragged me upstairs, Your Honor.
“Atty. Valmonte:
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q And
when you were dragged upstairs, according to you… I withdraw that. You
mentioned that a knife was poked on you while you were being ‘molested’ or
being abused. Did you see that the
accused carrying that knife when he dragged you upstairs?
“A Not
yet, sir.
“Q When
for the first time that you saw the knife?
“A When
we were already upstairs, sir.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q When
you first saw the knife, was it carried by the accused?
“A Yes,
sir.
“Q What
kind of knife was that?
“A It
looks like a stainless beinte nueve,
sir.
“Q And
when did he put off that knife. When
did he release that knife?
“A When
he gave me the bicycle, sir.
“Q Where
did he place that knife?
“A I
did not know where he placed that knife, sir.
“Court:
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q After
the incident, according to you, Jerry Rejano gave you the bicycle. Was that bicycle within the premises where you
claimed you were abused?
“A The bicycle was located just near the stairways while we were a little
bit far from that place, Your Honor.
“Atty. Valmonte
“Q In
other words, the bicycle was at the ground?
“A No,
sir. It was upstairs, beside the stairs
at the last step, sir.
“Q And
you accepted the bicycle from the accused when he gave that to you?
“A Yes,
sir.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q Who
among those people there are your relatives whom you saw while doing the
harvesting?
“A There
were my Kuya Junior, Kuya Rudy as well as the helpers, Obet, Jerry and my
Amang, sir.
“Q You mentioned of a Jerry. Is he the accused?
“A Yes, sir.
“Q Who arrived first at the place where the gapasin was made, Jerry or you?
“A I did, sir.
“Q But later on, you were joined by Jerry Rejano?
“A Yes, sir.
“xxx xxx xxx”
(TSN of October 11, 1991, pp.
9-14)
Certainly, the thirteen-year-old
complainant cannot be considered sophisticated enough to falsely and
maliciously attribute the crime of rape to her cousin-in-law, and to weave
such an intricate and richly detailed story to support it. Moreover, as we held in the recent case of People v. Guibao, 217 SCRA 64 (1993):
“xxx It would be highly improbable for a barrio girl of tender
age and definitely inexperienced in sexual matters to fabricate charges, for no
reason at all, that will put herself and her family in a very compromising
situation xxx.
“xxx xxx xxx
“xxx (N)o woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a
story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter
pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated
solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.”
In the present case, the defense failed
to establish ill-motive on complainant’s part that would have spurred her to
accuse appellant as her rapist. The
uncorroborated imputation that the whole rape scenario was concocted by
complainant’s mother, to make appellant and his wife pay for intriguing against
her is utterly unbelievable. No mother
would stoop that low as to subject her daughter to the physical hardships and
shame concomitant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings.
Secondly, appellant seeks refuge behind the results of the
physical examination conducted on complainant. He argues that the medical findings show that complainant
“could not have been raped in December, 1990.”[38]
He is wrong.
It is true that Dr. Mendez found a single “old healed
laceration” on complainant’s genitalia, which could not have been sustained
less than four (4) months before the examination done on February, 1991. Nonetheless, it does not follow, as
appellant propounds, that this fact negates the claimed December, 1990 rape.
It is well-settled that perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen
or laceration of the vagina are not essential for the offense of consummated
rape.[39]
Mere penetration of the penis by the entry thereof into the labia majora of
the female organ, even without rupture of the
hymen, suffices to warrant a conviction for rape.[40] Furthermore, in the case at bench, it must
be noted that the very physical examination report adverted to by appellant
contains, inter alia, the following conclusion: “(h)ymenal orifice, wide xxx as to allow complete penetration of an
average-sized Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any new hymenal injury (emphasis supplied). Thus, it is physically possible for complainant to have been raped in December,
1990 without incurring a new laceration in her genitalia. This was clearly testified to by Dr. Mendez,
on cross-examination, thus:
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q When penetration of a male organ in full
erection could be had without producing hymenal injury, could it be possible
that the complainant had not only (one) sexual intercourse at the time of your
examination?
“A Possible,
sir.
“Q So, it is possible also that
more than one could be had between the period of August and December?
“A Possible,
sir.
“xxx xxx xxx”
(TSN of Sept. 27, 1991, p. 16)
Appellant’s third submission is that:
“If complainant lied in claiming she was raped by the accused
in December, 1990 as proven by the doctor’s findings, she likewise lied, or it
cannot be taken as solid basis without infringing accused’s constitutional
right to presumption of innocence, when she claimed that she was raped in
August, 1990 (sic).”[41]
In light of our conclusion that Dr.
Mendez’s medical findings do not in any way negate the commission of the second
alleged rape, this argument loses all persuasiveness.
Penultimately, appellant argues that complainant’s charge is
incredulous considering her actions before, during and after the alleged
rapes. We are not convinced.
Regarding complainant’s failure to immediately report the two
instances of rape committed against her, we deem it fit to reiterate our
holding in the case of People v.
Yambao, 193 SCRA 571 (1991), that:
“xxx (T)he silence of the offended party in a case of rape, or
her failure to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to
her and to report the matter to the authorities, does not perforce warrant the
conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the
accused are all baseless, untrue and
fabricated. Other relevant facts and
circumstances must be considered to determine the veracity of the
accusation. xxx Failure to report an
incident immediately does not cast doubt on the credibility of the charge
notwithstanding the fact that the delay is not in any way attributable to the
threats of death and intimidation given by the accused to the victim. xxx”
In the case at bench, the complainant is
a twelve-year-old barrio girl with only a Grade IV education. She cannot be expected to act with the
courage and intelligence of a mature and sophisticated woman, and immediately
report the assaults committed against her. Threatened and shamed by the experience, she chose to keep mum. Victims of rapes do not always immediately
go to the rooftop to denounce their assailants. In fine, silence is not an odd behavior on the part of rape
victims.
Appellant characterizes the resistance offered by complainant in
the field during the first alleged rape as “that of one who was not being
attacked,” and her acts at that time as “leav(ing) much to be desired
from one who had just become a victim of an heinous offense.”[42]
He particularly zeroes in on the facts: (1) that she “merely tried to kick” him and “merely”
screamed aray at that time; and (2) that she thought of putting on her clothes first before going home after the
alleged attack occurred. We disagree.
In the very recent case
of People v. Ibay, G.R. No. 101631 (June 8, 1993), we held:
“xxx Behavioral psychology teaches us that different people
react to similar situations dissimilarly. Most women would resist a sexual assault with a wild struggle. Others become virtually catatonic because of
the mental shock they experience. Yet,
it can never be successfully argued
that the latter are any less sexual
victims than the former. xxx”
Nor do we count against complainant’s credibility her act of
going to appellant’s house to borrow his bicycle in December, 1990,
notwithstanding her rape four months before. At that time, she was admittedly no longer afraid of appellant. It did not cross her simple and unsuspecting
mind that appellant’s offer that she use his
bicycle to get to the distant Centro could be misconstrued. In her youthfulness, she took appellant’s offer at face value. We do not hold this isolated act as a badge
of falsehood as to reject the total testimony of the complainant.
Finally, appellant
impugns the trial court’s disregard of his assertion that he was not in
Bulacan, but in Mindoro, during the entire month of August, 1990.
Alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to
disprove, and cannot prevail where, as in the case at bench, appellant was
positively identified as the perpetrator of the crimes charged.[43]
Appellant’s alibi is particularly vulnerable to attack because of his failure
to present unbiased witnesses to corroborate the same, as can be seen from the
following passages from his
testimony:
“Fiscal:
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q
You mentioned that you went to Mindoro
because your father at that time was in serious condition. Could you not also present any medical
certificate from any Doctor of Mindoro?
“A
No, Ma’am, because he was only treated
by a quack doctor.
“Q Can you present that albulario
to testify that this albulario
actually managed your father
and to show also that you were actually present at that time in Mindoro?
“A I am not sure Ma’am if I can present that
quack doctor because he is also sickly.
“Fiscal:
“xxx xxx xxx
“Q What is the name of that albulario?
“A Kodeng, Ma’am.
“Q But you are facing two (2) cases of rape
which is a very serious complaint, do you think that
it is not important for you to present this albulario for taking the initiative of . . .
“Atty. Valmonte:
Your Honor, I think that is a legal conclusion, Your Honor, please. A matter addressed from lawyer to lawyer.
“Fiscal:
“Q Do you not consider it important to present
this albulario considering
that you are facing charges of rape with two (2) counts?
“Atty. Valmonte:
Same objection, Your Honor.
“Court:
Witness may answer.
“Witness:
No Ma’am.
“Fiscal:
“Q Can
you present any document to prove that sometime in August, 1990, you were
actually in Pinamalayan Mindoro?
“A No,
Ma’am.
“Q Aside
from your family who have just testified, can you present somebody who is a
resident of Pinamalayan who will testify that you were actually in Pinamalayan,
Mindoro on August, 1990?
“A Yes,
Ma’am. My parents.
“Q Can
you present your parents at the next hearing of this case?
“Atty. Valmonte:
Your Honor, I think this
should be addressed to the discretion of a lawyer which actually is counsel’s
duty and responsibility.
“Fiscal:
“Q Aside
from your mother, is there anybody else who can testify or any officer of that
barrio where you reside who can appear and testify that you were actually
present there in August, 1990?
“A No,
Ma’am.
“xxx xxx xxx”
(TSN of December 27, 1991, pp.
7-10)
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code enumerates three
circumstances under which carnal knowledge of a woman is considered rape: (1) when the intercourse is done by the use
of force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and (3) when she is under twelve years of age. In the case at bench, the prosecution
successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant had forced sexual
intercourse with complainant in August and December, 1990. That is sufficient reason for us to sustain
appellant’s conviction for two counts of rape.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch XI,
dated March 30, 1992, is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J.,
(Chairman), Regalado, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., on leave.
[1]
By the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 11, presided by Judge
Basilio R. Gabo, Jr..
[2]
See Rollo, pp. 12-15.
[3]
Complainant Maristela Santiago; her mother and aunt, Divina and Dorotea
Santiago; police corporal and Divina’s kumpare, Pepe Domingo; and
Dr. Ronaldo Mendez.
[4]
Appellant Jerry Rejano; his wife, Liza; his sister, Belinda Caparas; and Liza’s
aunt, Atanacia Santiago.
[5]
TSN of September 18, 1991, pp. 7-8; See
Exh. “A” which is the baptismal certificate of Maristela
Santiago.
[6]
Complainant cannot remember the exact date of the assault. But, she is certain that it occurred in the
month of August, which is the
season for catching talangka. (TSN
of October 7, 1991, p. 33.)
[7]
Ibid., at pp. 8-9, 35.
[8] Id., at p. 9.
[9]
Id., at pp. 10, 19.
[10]
Id., at p. 12.
[11]
Id., at p. 11.
[12]
Id., at pp. 11, 25, 29-30, 43-44.
[13]
Id., at pp. 26-27; TSN of October 11, 1991, pp. 4-5.
[14]
Ibid., at pp. 30-31; TSN of October 7,
1991, p. 13.
[15]
Ibid., at p. 14.
[16]
TSN of October 11, 1991, p. 8.
[17]
Complainant cannot remember the exact date of the second rape, but she is sure
it was sometime in December, 1990, before Christmas. (TSN of October 7, 1991, p. 32.)
[18]
Ibid., at p. 15; TSN of October 11, 1991, p. 6.
[19]
Ibid., at p. 7; TSN of October 7, 1991, p. 16.
[20]
TSN of October 11, 1991, p. 8.
[21]
TSN of October 7, 1991, p. 19.
[22]
TSN of October 11, 1991, pp. 10, 12.
[23]
Ibid., at pp. 10-11.
[24]
TSN of October 7, 1991, pp. 16-17.
[25]
Ibid., at p. 20.
[26]
Id., at pp. 18, 20; TSN of October 11, 1991, pp. 15-16.
[27]
Ibid., at pp. 12-16; TSN of October 7, 1991, p. 19.
[28]
TSN of October 11, 1991, p. 17.
[29]
TSN of September 18, 1991, p. 11.
[30]
Ibid., at pp. 8-9, 13, 21-22; TSN of October 18, 1991, p. 7; TSN of
March 4, 1992, p. 6.
[31]
TSN of September 27, 1991, pp. 7, 12.
[32]
See TSNs of October 25, 1991, November 18, 1991, November 27, 1991,
December 13, 1991, and December 27, 1991.
[33]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[34]
See Appellant’s Brief, pp. 7-25; Rollo, pp. 46?64.
[35]
Impugned Decision, p. 3.
[36]
See People v. De Paz, 212 SCRA 56 (1992); People v.
Jaymalin, 214 SCRA 685 (1992); People v. Collado, 196 SCRA 519 (1991);
People v. Juanga, 189 SCRA 226 (1990); People v. Escalante, 131
SCRA 237 (1984).
[37]
See People v. Ablao, 192 SCRA 698 (199); People v.
Gerapusco, 143 SCRA 614 (1986); People v. Escalante, 131 SCRA 237
(1984).
[38]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 9; Rollo, p. 48. Actually, in the brief, the quoted portion was written as, “could
not have been raped in December, 1991.” This court recognizes the error as
merely typographical.
[39]
People v. Castro, 196 SCRA 679 (1991).
[40]
People v. Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557 (1991).
[41]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 10; Rollo, p. 49.
[42]
Ibid., p. 19; Rollo,
p. 58.
[43]
See People v. Cabuang, 217 SCRA 675 (1993); People
v. Dela Cruz, 217 SCRA 283 (1993); People v. Dominguez, 217 SCRA
170 (1993).