PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DONATO LAGROSA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Angelyn dela Cruz, an eleven-year-old lass and a grade five
pupil, assisted by her mother, Araceli V. dela Cruz, filed with the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Cuyo-Agutaya-Magsaysay in Palawan, a complaint for rape on two counts^[1]
against her adviser and teacher, Donato Lagrosa, Jr. A preliminary investigation was conducted by the court which
found cause to hold the accused for trial and forwarded the records of the case
to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan.

On 6 May 1991, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed two
separate, informations for Rape against the accused with the Regional Trial
Court of Palawan which docketed them as
Criminal Cases Nos. 9345 and 9346. They were subsequently raffled off to Branch 52 of the said court with
seat at Puerto Princesa City.

The accusatory portion of the information in Criminal Case No.
9345 reads:

“That on or about the 28th day of November, 1990, in the morning,
at the residence of Mr. Donato Lagrosa, Jr. at Barangay Balading, Municipality
of Cuyo, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused by lewd design pull ANGELYN V. DELA CRUZ into
his bedroom and immediately closed the door and once inside and by means of
force did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with said Angelyn V. dela Cruz, a girl of 11 years old and a pupil of
the said accused in Grade V at the Balading Elementary School against her will
and consent to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW and committed with aggravating circumstances, the
accused have taken advantage of his public position as teacher of the
complainant.”^[2]

The accusatory portion of the information
in Criminal Case No. 9346 is similarly worded,^[3]
except as to the date and place of the commission of the offense, which are 25
January 1991 and the health corner of the Balading Elementary School.

The accused entered a plea of not guilty in each case during his
arraignment on 10 June 1991.^[4]

At the joint trial on the merits, the prosecution presented as
witnesses the private complainant; her mother, Araceli; Dr. Alejandro Caiña;
and Mrs. Ofelia Montojo Fernandez. The
defense presented the accused; his son, Donato Lagrosa III; his wife, Eliza;
and Roy Villagracia as its witnesses.

The evidence for the prosecution, which is presented in detail in
the decision, is summarized as follows:

In school-year 1990-1991, complainant Angelyn dela Cruz, then
eleven years old,^[5]
was a grade five pupil of the Balading Elementary School in Cuyo, Palawan. The accused was the adviser of her class and
her teacher in all her subjects, except Science and Filipino which were handled
by the head teacher, Mrs. Ofelia Fernandez.

On 28 November 1990 at around 9:45 a.m., the accused instructed
Angelyn to get a “radio-phono” from his house, which is about ten meters away
from the school, so that his students could practice their dance number for
their school’s Christmas program. After
a short while, she came back to school with the “radio-phono.” However, he sent
her back again to his house to get the cover of the battery receptacle of the
“radio-phono.” Since she was already aware that nobody was in his house, she
requested Donato Lagrosa III, her classmate, and the accused’s son, to
accompany her. She was leading the way
and all the while she thought it was Donato III who was following her. When she turned her back while opening the
door of the house, she noticed that it was the accused who had followed
her. After they had entered the house,
the accused closed the door, held her right forearm, and dragged her inside his
bedroom. He pulled down her skirt and
panty and pushed her down to his bed. She tried to get up but he pressed down on her stomach with his left
hand. Then, with his right hand, he
unzipped his pants. He held out his
penis and forcibly inserted it into her vagina at least three times. She felt pain and noticed that her vagina
was bleeding. He “sucked” her lips. Thereafter, he let her stand to put on her
panty and shirt while he zipped his pants. He warned her not to tell her uncles about the sexual assault because
they might kill him; if she did so, he would
kill her. Then he gave her P5.00 and
told her to return to school, but she first went behind the banana plantation
near the accused’s house to conceal from her classmates the loathsome
experience she went through.^[6]

On 25 January 1991 at about 4:00 p.m., after playing with her
classmates, Angelyn went to the health corner located in her classroom to drink
water. The accused saw her and ordered
her to sweep the floor of the health corner which she did so. After she had finished sweeping, the accused
got the broom from her and returned it to the broom box. He then blocked her way as she was going out
and pulled her inside the health corner where he forcibly pulled down her skirt
and panty, tearing them in the process. He held her right shoulder with his left hand and unzipped his pants
with his right hand. She cried but he
ignored her. While standing with his
feet apart from each other, he successfully inserted his penis into her vagina
four times. After he had left, she got
her school bag and went home.^[7]

The complainant continued attending school. On the other hand, the accused showed his
fondness towards her by giving her money on several occasions. He also gave her “codigos” or wrote
in her test papers the answers to the questions in Math, English, EPP, and
Music, as a consequence of which she got high grades therein.^[8]

In the meanwhile, Mrs. Ofelia Fernandez, Head Teacher of the
Balading Elementary School, had been receiving repeated reports about the
attitude of the accused towards Angelyn. As a result, Mrs. Fernandez called the teachers to a meeting to make
inquiries. Her co-teachers, Mr.
Villagracia and Ms. Linda Omeda, revealed to her that they saw the accused on
two different occasions intimately conversing with Angelyn. The latter’s classmates likewise reported to
Mrs. Fernandez that their teacher, accused Donato Lagrosa, Jr., gave special
attention and favors to Angelyn.

To verify these reports, Mrs. Fernandez gave a summative test in
Science; Angelyn obtained the lowest grade in this test. When Mrs. Fernandez was asked by one of her
pupils why the complainant got the lowest score in her class but obtained the
highest scores in the subjects handled by the accused, she questioned her
pupil, Marita Belmonte, on why she got high grades in the other subjects. Marita divulged to her that in connection
with the examinations in Math and English, she saw the accused writing the
answers on a small sheet of paper and giving the said answers to Angelyn who
also passed them to her (Marita).^[9] On 29
March 1991, Mrs. Fernandez advised Angelyn’s mother, Araceli, to watch closely her daughter.^[10]
Araceli confronted Angelyn about the reports that the accused had been giving
unusual attention to her. Angelyn
initially denied these reports. Araceli
kept on asking her specially because the accused had been coming to her house
during the months of February and March, 1991. Finally, in the evening of 30 March 1991, Angelyn confided to her mother
that she was sexually abused by the accused on 28 November 1990 and on 25
January 1991.^[11]

On 1 April 1991, Angelyn and her mother went to the house of the
Barangay Captain of Balading to report the incidents. The Barangay Captain informed them that he could not solve the
matter. He, however, accompanied them
to the District Hospital of Cuyo, Palawan, for the physical examination of
Angelyn. Thereafter, they proceeded to
the Municipal Hall to file a complaint against the accused.^[12]

Dr. Alejandro Caiña, Medical Officer III of the Cuyo District
Hospital, examined Angelyn. Although he
found no fresh hymenal laceration, he positively declared that Angelyn had
previous sexual intercourse because he found an “old hymenal scar and her
female organ admitted two fingers with ease.”^[13]

The accused denied having raped Angelyn on 28 November 1990. According to him, he did not send her to his
house to get the radio-phonograph or the cover of its battery receptacle. His grade five students then had not yet
started rehearsing their dance number for the Christmas program. He also declared that he could not have committed the rape on
25 January 1991 because at the time of its alleged commission, he was with his
wife and other co-teachers in the office of Mrs. Ofelia Fernandez celebrating his birthday. For that reason, he had earlier dismissed his grade five students at 3:30 p.m.
and instructed them to water the plants and to go home thereafter. At about 3:45 p.m., he proceeded to the room
of Mrs. Fernandez and stayed there until 4:15 p.m. Then, together with Mr. Villagracia and Amado Timbancaya, he went
to his house. After his companions left
at 4:45 p.m., he attended to his household chores. He did not return to his office from the time he went to the
office of Mrs. Fernandez until the succeeding school day. He also denied having given money and “codigos” or prepared answers to Angelyn.^[14]

Finally, he claimed that the cases against him were filed through
the instigation of Mrs. Ofelia Fernandez who hated him because of his
unfavorable comments and criticisms against the official conduct, of her
husband, the Barangay Captain of Balading. The Fernandezes wanted him removed as a
teacher of the Balading Elementary School.^[15]

On 21 May 1992, the court promulgated its joint decision^[16]
finding the accused guilty in Criminal Case No. 9345 but acquitting him in
Criminal Case No. 9346. The decretal
portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises
considered, a joint judgment is hereby rendered:

A.   CRIMINAL CASE NO. 9345
— Finding the accused DONATO LAGROSA, JR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principal of the crime of statutory rape committed against Angelyn dela Cruz, a
female child only 11 years of age, and there being no modifying circumstances
appreciated, and not being entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua; to pay the offended
party, Angelyn dela Cruz, moral damages of P50,000.00, and the costs.

B.   CRIMINAL CASE NO. 9346
— On grounds of reasonable doubt, engendered by a finding that the evidence of
commission of the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 9346 has not been impressed
with that degree of credence sufficient to prove with moral certainty the guilt
of the accused, he is hereby acquitted of the offense charged.

SO ORDERED.”^[17]

From the above
adverse decision in Criminal Case No. 9345, the accused appealed to us. He seeks its reversal on the basis of his
lone assignment of error:

“THE TRIAL COURT ACTED
WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED DESPITE
COMPLAINANT’S MANIFESTLY DOUBTFUL ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED RAPE OF 28 NOVEMBER 1990.”^[18]

To convince us, he contends that (a) the
complainant’s testimony is incredible and improbable because if she was earlier
accompanied by her classmate, Donato Lagrosa III, the latter could not have
transmogrified into Mr. Donato Lagrosa, Jr., the accused;^[19]
(b) certain extrinsic facts, such as the 4-month delay in reporting the alleged
rape, which is quite unnatural for a girl who was a victim of an assault on her
virtue,^[20]
and the complainant’s unnatural conduct in showing up inside her classroom in
the morning of 28 November 1990 immediately after the alleged rape^[21]
negate her account of rape; (c) since he was acquitted in Criminal Case No.
9346 because “the trial court saw it fit to disbelieve Angelyn’s account” of
the incident therein, such a disbelief “certainly argues against her
credibility in general as well as specifically concerns her account of the
alleged rape of 28 November 1990.”^[22]

The appellee urges us to reject this appeal and to affirm in toto the challenged decision
because the arguments in support of the lone assignment of error are weak and
untenable.^[23]

We find the appeal to be bereft of merit.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that since Angelyn was under
12 years of age, carnal knowledge alone of her is rape. It is not required that the assailant used
force or intimidation, or that she is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious.^[24]

The resolution of this appeal hinges on the credibility of
Angelyn. It is a settled rule that this
Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining
the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the
significance of which has been misinterpreted.^[25] The
reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the
question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment
and manner of testifying during the trial.^[26] It
has the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if
they are telling the truth or lying through their teeth.^[27]
There are certain matters that aid the trial court in assessing the credibility
of a witness which are not available to the appellate court such as, the
emphasis, gesture, and the inflection of the voice of the witness.^[28]
In the instant case, the trial court had the distinct opportunity to make such
observations and to avail of such aids while Angelyn was on the witness
stand. We find no reason to dispute the
trial court’s judgment on the credibility of Angelyn.

Our own reading of her testimony discloses a pure and simple
barrio lass who, despite her traumatic experience, weathered the lengthy and
rigorous cross-examination in an unfamiliar, if not unfriendly, courtroom
atmosphere. She remained unshaken and
her responsive and concise answers only enhanced the truthfulness of her story
of defloration. This was not the only
ordeal she underwent after the assault on her virtue and the desecration of her
chastity; earlier, she allowed her private organ to be thoroughly examined by a
doctor if only to have medical proof that she was indeed raped. Time and again, this Court had said that no
unmarried woman would tell a story of defloration, allow the examination of her
private part, and thereafter permit herself to be the subject of a public trial
unless she was really ravished and she wants justice to be done.^[29]
This is specially true of a female below twelve years of age, like Angelyn, who
is still unaffected by mundane wiles.

Angelyn’s delay in reporting the crime does not cast doubt on her
credibility. At her tender age, she
could not be expected to react like a mature person. She was in a quandary because her own assailant was her teacher
and adviser who not only had ascendancy and control over her success or failure
in school but also threatened to kill her if she would report what he did to
her. Fear, more than reason, dominated
her. It has been held that delay in
reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim.^[30]
It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for sometime the assaults on
their virtue because of the rapists’ threat on their lives.^[31]

The claimed transmogrification of Donato III into Donato Jr. is a
play on the imagination. As explained
by Angelyn, although she had requested Donato III to accompany her the second
time the accused directed her to go to his house, she discovered when she
opened the door of the house that it was the accused who had followed her. It was not impossible for him to have
followed the victim without her noticing and it was established beyond doubt
that he indeed raped her inside the room of his house.

The accused’s allegation that Angelyn showed up inside her
classroom that same morning of 28 November 1990 after the rape incident is a
misrepresentation of fact. Angelyn
testified that after she was raped on 28 November 1990, she first hid herself
behind the banana plantation and cried.^[32] She
did not immediately return to her classroom because she was not yet ready to
face her classmates. Thus, her conduct
conformed to the natural reaction of a bewildered victim of a sexual assault.

Nor can the accused’s acquittal in Criminal Case No. 9346 be a ground for his acquittal
in Criminal Case No. 9345. Such
acquittal was based on reasonable doubt. The circumstances in Criminal Case No. 9346 mentioned by the trial court
in its decision are not attendant in Criminal Case No. 9345 where the accused
had the unhampered opportunity to satisfy his bestial lust on 28 November 1990
because only he and the complainant were in his house at that time and Angelyn
was lying down while he was on top of her.

The allegation of the accused that Mrs. Ofelia Fernandez induced
Araceli dela Cruz, Angelyn’s mother, to file criminal charges so as to remove
him as a teacher of Balading Elementary School is not convincing. If a mother would not sacrifice a daughter’s
honor just to give vent to a grudge as she knows fully well that such an
experience would damage her daughter’s psyche and taint her for life,^[33]
nor initiate a complaint for rape, or subject a daughter to a physical
examination and the humiliation of a public trial unless she was motivated by
an honest desire to have the culprit punished,^[34] then
with more reason that she would not do so merely upon the instigation of
another. There is no showing at all
that Araceli was under the overpowering influence of Mrs. Fernandez.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Mrs. Fernandez harbored any
ill-motive against the accused which could have moved her to use Araceli to
destroy him. He and Mrs. Fernandez were
obviously in good terms. He even held
his birthday party on 25 January 1991 in her office.^[35]
Mrs. Ofelia Fernandez also testified that she did not have any grudge against
the accused and that she and his wife are the best of friends.^[36]
Finally, the accused could not attribute to Angelyn and her mother any ulterior
or improper motive for charging him with rape. Since no such motive of Angelyn and her mother was shown, their
testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.^[37]

The accused took full advantage of his position as teacher and
class adviser of Angelyn. Using his
ascendancy over her, he made her a victim and a captive of his lust. What he did was highly condemnable. He flouted the public trust character of his
office which demanded from him service with utmost responsibility and
integrity;^[38]
and made a mockery of the solemn duties of one exercising special parental
authority^[39]
to educate and instruct his ward by right precept and good example and to provide
her with moral and spiritual guidance.^[40] He
paid no heed to the precept that as a teacher he was to be the paragon of
uprightness, morality, and integrity. The educational system is not the place for beasts like him.

WHEREFORE, finding the challenged decision in Criminal
Case No. 9345 of Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan to be in
accord with the law and fully supported by the facts, this Court hereby AFFIRMS
it in toto.

Costs against accused Donato Lagrosa, Jr.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Records, (OR) 21. The
complaint is dated 1 April 1991 and is supported by the affidavits of the
complainant and her mother taken on the
same date.

^[2]
OR, 1-2; Rollo, 5-6.

^[3]
Id., 19-20; Id., 7-8.

^[4]
OR, 35.

^[5]
She was born on 4 October 1979 (Exhibit
“D”; OR, 74); see also, TSN, 14 August 1991, 43.

^[6]
TSN, 13 August 1991, 3-12; 23-24.

^[7]
Id., 13-19.

^[8]
TSN, 13 August 1991, 21-25.

^[9]
TSN, 21 October 1991, 6-8.

^[10]
TSN, 14 August 1991, 51-52.

^[11]
TSN, 14 August 1991, 45-46.

^[12]
Id., 47-49.

^[13]
Id., 35-38; Exhibit “C”; OR, 75.

^[14]
TSN, 24 January 1992, 4-8; 11-15; 28-30.

^[15]
Id., 21-27; 33-34.

^[16]
OR, 92-112; Rollo, 19-40. Penned by Judge Filomeno A. Vergara.

^[17]
OR, 112; Rollo, 40.

^[18]
Appellant’s Brief, 1.

^[19]
Id., 4.

^[20]
Appellant’s Brief, 5.

^[21]
Id., 5-6.

^[22]
Id., 6.

^[23]
Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, 16, 24; Rollo,
102, 110.

^[24]
Article 335, Revised Penal Code; People vs.
dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 91865-­66 and G.R. Nos. 92439-40, 6 July 1993. See also,
AQUINO, R.C., The Revised Penal Code, vol. 3, 1988
ed., 395-396.

^[25]
U.S. vs. Ambrosio, 17 Phil. 295 [1910]; People vs. Enciso, G.R.
No. 105361, 25 June 1993.

^[26]
People vs. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 [1992] and a host of cases cited therein.

^[27]
People vs. Santito, 201 SCRA 87 [1991].

^[28]
U.S. vs. Macuti, 26 Phil. 170 [1913].

^[29]
People vs. Patilan, 197 SCRA 354
[1991].

^[30]
People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316
[1990].

^[31]
People vs. Oydoc, 125 SCRA 250
[1983]; People vs. Munda, 189 SCRA 425 [1990].

^[32]
TSN, 13 August 1991, 11.

^[33]
People vs. David, 177 SCRA 551
[1989]; People vs. Santos, 183 SCRA 25 [1990]; People vs. Yambao,
193 SCRA 571 [1991].

^[34]
People vs. Rosell, 181 SCRA 679
[1990].

^[35]
TSN, 24 January 1992, 13-14.

^[36]
TSN, 21 October 1991,13.

^[37]
People vs. Simon, supra.

^[38]
Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.

^[39]
Article 218, The Family Code.

^[40]
Article 220, Id.