PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUDY IGNACIO Y CAMSON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Rudy Ignacio was
convicted of twice raping Gloriann Tibayan, the twelve-year old daughter of his
common-law wife. In seeking reversal of
the judgment, he argues that the evidence of the prosecution is far too
implausible to support his conviction.

Ignacio is the live-in
partner of Flory Tibayan, by whom he has two children. Flory has two other older children by her
separated husband, namely Gloriann and Ryan, who was 9 years old at the time of
the alleged incident. Gloriann is the
complainant in this case.

Gloriann claims that she was first raped sometime in June, 1991,
at the residence of the accused in San Roque II, Bagong Pag-asa, Quezon City.^[1]
The offense was repeated two months later under practically the same
circumstances as the first except that he was discovered this time.^[2]

The trial court found that at around four o’clock in the morning
of August 10, 1991, Gloriann woke up and found Ignacio poking a knife at her
neck. He covered her mouth and twisted
her arm to discourage her resistance. He then removed her panty and mounted her, causing her intense pain as
he penetrated her maidenhood. The deed
done, Ignacio whispered to her, as he had done the first time, that he would
kill her family if she reported the incident to her mother^[3].

As he rose from the bed, however, he found himself face to face
with a nonplussed Flory, who had awakened to go to the bathroom.^[4]
Sensing something wrong, she asked Ignacio what he was doing there. Ignacio replied that he was checking through
the window if there was a robber. But
he did not sound convincing enough.^[5]

When he left the room, Flory asked Gloriann why she seemed to be
afraid. The girl did not immediately
answer. In her anger, Flory hit
Gloriann with a hanger. She could not
believe that nothing had happened because her daughter was covering her body
with a blanket. After a while, Gloriann
finally revealed that she had just been raped by Ignacio and that this was the
second time he had done this.^[6]

That same day, Flory took Gloriann to the PNP Crime Laboratory
for examination. She was found by Dr.
Dario Gajardo to be a non-virgin as indicated by the healed deep laceration in
her hymen.^[7]

The above narration was made by Gloriann and Flory in their
respective testimonies. Dr. Gajardo,
who affirmed his written report of Gloriann’s medical examination,^[8]
explained at the trial that among Filipino women, laceration of the hymen after
the first intercourse takes seven to fourteen days to heal.^[9]

The sole witness for the defense was Ignacio himself, who denied
the two rapes. He claimed that in the
early morning of August 10, 1991, he heard the dogs barking and stood up to
peep through the window, which was near Gloriann’s bed. It was then that Flory saw him and jumped to
her erroneous conclusion. He said that
the only reason he could think of for Gloriann’s false accusation was his
strictness toward her as a stepfather.^[10]

The trial court, disbelieving him, sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the two counts of rape. He was also required to indemnify the victim
in the amount of P50,000.00 for each offense.^[11]

In this appeal, Ignacio argues that 1) the testimony of Gloriann
regarding the date she reported the rape to her mother was not consistent with
the date given by her mother; 2) the rapes could not have been committed
undetected by the other occupants of the small room; 3) assuming that he had
carnal knowledge of Gloriann, the same was with the latter’s consent; and 4)
that it was in fact only through the prodding of Gloriann’s mother that the
complaint was lodged against him.

We note at the onset the absence of any ill motive on the part of
the complainant and her mother for imputing to the appellant the serious crime
of rape. The allegation that Gloriann
resented his strictness, even assuming this to be true, is not in our view a
sufficient inducement for such a serious charge. It is not believable that, simply to get even with Ignacio for
his supposed strictness, Gloriann would agree to suffer the indignities of a physical
examination of her private parts and the embarrassment of a public trial where
she would be required to relate the sordid details of her violation.

It is also difficult to understand why the mother would herself
initiate the prosecution of her own common-law spouse, whose second child by her
she was carrying in her womb at the time. We are convinced that Flory would not have filed the complaint out of
sheer malice, knowing that it would expose her own daughter to humiliation and
public curiosity and could send the father of two of her children to prison for
the rest of his life.

Gloriann’s failure to report the first incident cannot be
construed as consent to her defilement. The plain fact is that she was afraid because of Ignacio’s threat to
kill her and her family if she complained. Gloriann was barely over twelve at the time, besides being, as the trial
judge observed, rather slow mentally.^[12] As
we observed in one case:^[13]

One should not expect a fourteen-year old girl to act like an adult
or mature and experienced woman who would know what to do under such difficult
circumstances and who would have the courage and intelligence to disregard a
threat on her life and the members of her family and complain immediately that
she had been forcibly deflowered. It is
not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assaults on their
virtue because of the rapist’s threat on their lives, more so when the rapist
is the child’s own stepfather living with her.

There was no contradiction between Gloriann and Flory regarding
the date the daughter reported the first abuse to her mother. While it is true that Gloriann stated during
her direct examination that she immediately told her mother about the first
rape, she corrected this during her cross-examination. She said then that it was on August 10,
1991, after the second rape, that she told her mother of the earlier rape in
June.^[14]

The strongest argument of the appellant is the implausibility of
the alleged manner and place of the commission of the offenses. The defense focuses on the room where Gloriann
was allegedly raped twice at a time when it was occupied by all the other
members of the family. It is stressed
that there were in all five persons then in that room, which was partitioned
only with a television set and a cassette recorder. On one side was the bed of Ignacio and Flory (and presumably
their 4-year old child) and on the other side by the window was the bed of
Gloriann and her brother, Ryan. It was
by no means a big room, measuring only 8 x 8 square feet.^[15]

The defense maintains that in such a small and crowded room, with
Flory sleeping beside him and Gloriann just a few feet away with her 9-year old
brother, Ignacio would not even have dared, let alone actually committed, the
rape of the 12-year old Gloriann. Such
an act, not to say acts, would be contrary to human nature and
can only invite disbelief.

True. The acts of Ignacio
are really contrary to human nature and well nigh incredible. They are indeed unnatural. The appellant himself testified that he
raised the girl from the time she was six years old and that she herself looked
up to him as her real father. Nevertheless, that relationship – and her tender age – did not deter him
from forcing his lust on her, rupturing her innocence and shattering her
child-like confidence in him. That is
really hard to believe.

If such strong moral considerations could not deter him from his
evil acts, it is easy to understand that the physical inhibitions were less
dissuasive. The man had lust in his
heart. Lechery had befogged his
mind. He was willing to take chances
and in fact eluded discovery the first time. But he pushed his recklessness too far when he raped the girl again, for
he was this time almost caught in flagrante. As well he might have expected had he been thinking
clearly. His improbable defense now
seems to be that he would not have attempted the rape at all because he knew he
would surely have been detected. In
effect, he is now claiming, reductio ad absurdum, that the
discovery of the second offense is proof of his innocence.

The Court may take judicial notice of the interesting fact that
among poor couples with big families living in small quarters, copulation does
not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons around
them. One may also suppose that growing
children sleep more soundly than grown-ups and are not easily awakened by adult
exertions and suspirations in the night. Ryan may not have been roused from his deep sleep as Ignacio violated
Gloriann, but Ignacio did not reckon with the adult Flory, who was more
sensitive to the sounds in the dark.

It also occurs to the Court that the very implausibility of the
commission of the rapes is itself strong evidence of its truthfulness. Had the charge been merely concocted as the
defense suggests, Flory and Gloriann would have made it more acceptable by
inventing more believable circumstances not encumbered by the presence of all
the members of the family in the room when the rapes were committed. The fact that they did not choose to do so
suggests that they related the events as they really happened, without omission
or embellishment, even if they might appear improbable.

It remains to de-bunk the alternative defense that, assuming
there was sexual intercourse between Ignacio and Gloriann, the same was consensual. This is ridiculous. This kind of argument insults the
intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience. This is not even a case of consenting adults
for Gloriann was barely over twelve years old at the time of the rapes; and at
any rate there is no evidence whatsoever of any romantic relationship between
her and the appellant. Attys. Al A.
Castro and Virgilio M. Villanueva are warned against a repetition of this
fatuity. While the lawyer is expected
to exert his best efforts on behalf of his client, he must nevertheless do so
within the bounds of reason and common sense. Excess of zeal cannot justify paucity of logic and can can only
prejudice rather than advance a client’s cause.

What possessed Rudy Ignacio to commit the beastly acts upon the
twelve-year old child who trusted him and looked upon him as her real father is
beyond the comprehension of this Court. Hardened as we are to the depravity of many persons we have been called
upon to convict, we have yet to be inured to the cynical wickedness of a grown
man forcing his lasciviousness upon an innocent child, lacerating not only her
chastity but also her faith in human nature. We can only hope, given the resiliency of youth, that the trauma is not
irreparable.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the challenged
decision is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the
appellant. It is so ordered.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, Nov. 18, 1991, pp. 3-4.

^[2]
Ibid, pp.
5-6.

^[3]
TSN, Nov. 18, 1991, pp. 3-6.

^[4]
TSN, Jan. 29, 1992, p. 11.

^[5]
Ibid., p. 4.

^[6]
Id., pp. 5 and 8.

^[7]
TSN, Jan. 22, 1992, p. 3.

^[8]
Exhibit B.

^[9]
TSN, Jan. 22, 1992, p. 4.

^[10]
TSN, Feb. 21, 1992, pp. 5-6.

^[11]
Decision, p. 5. Penned by Judge Monina Arevalo Zeñarosa.

^[12]
Ibid.,

^[13]
People vs. Sonico 156 SCRA 419
citing People vs. Odyoc, 125 SCRA 250.

^[14]
TSN, Jan. 22, 1992, p. 8.

^[15]
TSN, Feb. 11, 1992, p. 5.