G.R. Nos. 54161-62. March 09, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO YMANA Y MANGAOANG ALIAS “ERNING”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
SARMIENTO, J.:
Two criminal complaints,[1]
duly subscribed and sworn to by the complainant Florita
Ymana, twenty-eight years of age, were filed against
the appellant, Ernesto Ymana, thirty-seven years,
with the Municipal Circuit Court of Sison-Pozorrubio,
Pangasinan, which, after preliminary investigation,
found a prima facie case in both complaints and consequently forwarded the
records to the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan,
Branch V, at Villasis, for trial on the merits. These criminal cases, involving two separate
and distinct felonies, were separately docketed as Criminal Case No. U-1430 for
Rape and Criminal Case No. U-1430-A for Acts of Lasciviousness. These cases, however, were jointly heard by
the trial court on the ground that “the complainant and the accused in
both cases are the same and the facts involved are intimately related.”[2]
Upon arraignment in both cases, the accused-appellant entered
pleas of not guilty.
After trial the court a
quo rendered a joint
decision[3]
on January 15, 1980, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt in both cases, the accused is hereby sentenced
as follows:
In Criminal Case No. U-1430 for Rape:
There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending
the commission of the offense, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the costs.
In Criminal Case No. U-1430-A for Acts of Lasciviousness:
There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending
the commission of the offense, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of TWO (2) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of arresto
mayor as minimum to TWO (2)
YEARS FOUR (4) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision
correccional as maximum and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED .”[4]
The complainant and the
accused-appellant are neighbors in the barrio of Amagbagan
in Sison, Pangasinan. As a matter of fact, they are second cousins and
bear the same surname. The
accused-appellant is married with five children.
The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:
On June 28, 1978,
at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, a girl by the name of Marites called the complainant, telling her that Erning (the accused) wanted her to pick his lice in the
house of one Romeo Reyes, one of their neighbors. Answering to this call, the complainant went
to the house where she found the accused lying on a sofa and Maria Juralbal,
aunt of the accused, who was
then washing the dishes.
The accused told the complainant to pick his lice and the latter
obliged. After Maring
finished washing the dishes, she left the house telling the complainant,
“You stay there, Baby,” because she was going to the east. Soon after Maring left, the accused, against the will of
the complainant, pushed her inside the room, closed the door and in spite of
the struggles of the complainant, he succeeded in pushing her down to the
floor. After spreading a red blanket, he
removed her panty and after removing his pants, went on top of her and had
sexual intercourse with her. He had
sexual intercourse with the complainant twice.
On the following day, June
29, 1978, the complainant went for a visit to the house of a
neighbor Elena “Eling” Flores. Eling Flores and
her two children were there. Not long
after, the accused arrived allegedly to ask for some ornamental plants. Then he told Eling
Flores to go out of the house as he wanted to talk to the complainant. Eling went to the street
and the accused soon thereafter pushed the complainant to the kitchen. In spite of the refusal of the complainant,
the accused succeeded in pushing her to the kitchen and once inside the
kitchen, he raised the dress of the complainant, stayed behind her and did the
push and pull movement as if he was having sexual intercourse with her. However, he did not succeed in inserting his
penis inside her private parts. He
brought out his penis, however, and told the complainant to play with it. She refused but the accused forced her to
hold his penis. After this, the accused
left and the complainant went home.
In the afternoon of the same
date, the complainant reported what the accused did to her on June 28 and 29 to
the wife of the barrio captain because the barrio captain was not in his house
at the time. She did not tell what
happened to her to her mother, Rosita Ymana, because
the latter was not in the house having gone earlier to the fields to pull palay seedlings. Her
father was in Manila where he was
working,
It was the wife of the barrio captain who told the mother of the
complainant what happened to her daughter and when she confronted her
daughter, the latter told everything to her.
After knowing what happened to her daughter, Rosita Ymana
went to Manila to inform her
husband who, upon learning what happened, came home with his wife. They brought their daughter to Dr. Simeon
Ferraro, Jr., Municipal Health Officer of Sison, Pangasinan, for examination and said doctor issued the
following medical certificate:
x x x x x x x x x
FINDINGS
EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished, female, adult, Filipino. The breast are fully developed, conical in
shape, slightly soft in consistency. The
nipples are prominent.
She is conscious, coherent, answers questions clearly and
spontaneously.
There are no other external findings noted.
INTERNAL FINDINGS:
Pubic hair fully grown but scanty.
Labia majora and minora
are coaptated.
Hymenal opening originally linear in shape and
showing healed incomplete lacerations at 1:00
and 6:00 o’clock
positions in the face of the watch. Hymenal orifice admits gloved forefinger and vaginal
speculum without pain. Vaginal orifice
slightly congested and slight abrasions at the labia minora. Vaginal rugosities
slightly obliterated.
CONCLUSIONS: Physical virginity lost.
x x x x x x x x x
The accused, Ernesto Ymana y Mangaoang, 37 years old, married, BSEED graduate and at
present employed as Senior Cash Clerk in the Kennon
Toll Gate, testified and made a sweeping denial of the charges against him in
connection with this case. He admitted
that he went to the house of Maria Juralbal to
deliver chewing tobacco to his Aunt Anecita Apostol, sister of Maria Juralbal,
on June 28, 1978 but he
declared that he never saw his second cousin, Florita
Ymana, while he was in said house. He likewise denied that Florita
picked his lice. He alleged that he
never noticed her presence. He also emphatically denied that he raped her
in the house in the manner testified to by Florita Ymana.
The accused likewise declared that at 10:00
o’clock A.M. of June 29,
1978, he went to the house of Elena Flores to ask for some
ornamental plants. He stayed there only for ten to fifteen minutes
and saw Florita Ymana, the complainant, in the house but he vehemently
denied that he pulled her to the kitchen and committed lascivious acts of her
person. He said that he has known Florita since birth.
He also denied that he went to the house of the complainant to beg
for forgiveness from her mother crying.
He said that he never talked to her.*
In this appeal, the accused-appellant interposed fifteen
assignments of errors[5]
which we reduce to two principal issues:
1. Did the trial court
err in giving credence to the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant and
in rejecting the evidence for the
defense?
2. Was the guilt of the
accused-appellant proven beyond
reasonable doubt?
And these two issues boil down to the heart of the appeal: Did the prosecution
present the quantum of proof necessary to overcome the presumption of innocence
and establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
The evidence for the
prosecution rests chiefly on the uncorroborated testimony of
the complainant. While it is true that this Court had affirmed judgments of conviction in the past based on the uncorroborated testimony of complainants, it had
likewise held that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the
injured woman should not be
received with haste when the conviction of the accused would depend at any
vital point on her (victim’s) uncorroborated testimony; in other words, her
testimony should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from
suspicion. Some insight into human nature
is of paramount value in judging matters of this kind, it has been added.[6]
It is extremely difficult here to discern from the testimony of
the complainant, which now is nothing but mere cold words in the record, her truthfulness and credibility.
But even then those cold words in the record, taken in their entirety,
can not make our minds rest easy that she was sexually abused or that she was
the victim of acts of lasciviousness.
True it is that the trial court judge was in a better position to observe
the complainant on whether or not she testified truthfully. But the determination of truth, the ferreting
out of what really happened is elusive.
And so it is in this case.
The testimony of the complainant can not be given credence, not
only because it was uncorroborated, but, more importantly, because the two
women she mentioned in her account of the alleged
rape and acts of lasciviousness as present immediately before their
commission and at the scenes of the two
disparate incidents and who would,
in the ordinary course,
corroborate her testimony, testified to the contrary.
The complainant, for instance, testified that when she arrived in
the house of Reyes, the place where the alleged rape was committed, in the
afternoon of June 28, 1978,
the day of the alleged rape the appellant and Maring Juralba, who was then washing dishes, were present. Thereafter, Maring
allegedly left the house and the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with
her, to wit:
COURT:
After Maring
closed the door behind her and you were already inside the house and she told
you “you stay there Baby” what did you do?
A. When
Maring left us and closed the door she told me that I
stay there because she is going to the east and then after that we were left, the two of us, Ernesto Ymana and I.
Q. When
Maring left what happened to you and Ernesto Ymana were the only ones left in that house?
A. This
is what happened, sir. Ernesto Ymana took off my dress and inserted his penis inside my
vagina and as a result blood came
out.[7]
x x x x
x x x x x
On the other hand, Maria “Maring”
Juralba testified thus:
Q. While
Ernesto Ymana was in the house of your sister, did
you see Florita Ymana?
A. She
was not yet there at that time.
Q. You
mean to say that she came to the house later?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. When Florita
came to the house of your sister, what else happened?
A. None,
sir.[8]
x x
x x x x x x x
Q. Now, when Florita Ymana testified on the witness stand, she stated that you left your
house while she was there. What do you
say to that?
A. No,
sir. I never left the house.[9]
x x x x
x x x x x
The trial court warned that Maria Juralba’s
testimony should be handled with extreme caution since the accused was her nephew.[10] The mere fact, however, that the said
witness, who was presented by the defense, is related to the accused
does not prove that she is biased or unreliable. Her relationship with the complainant neither
disqualifies her from testifying nor renders her testimony utterly devoid of
“believability,” considering the lack of showing of any improper motive
compelling her to testify falsely in favor of the accused.[11]
Moreover, this witness and the complainant are neighbors, and, in fact, close
friends.[12]
Another witness presented
by the defense is Elena “Eling” Flores. The complainant testified that the appellant
committed acts of lasciviousness against her in the house of this witness, who
is also her neighbor and close friend.
The complainant declared on the witness stand:
Q. How
did you happen to see the accused Ernesto Ymana in
the house of Eling Flores on June 29, 1978?
A. Ernesto
Ymana was asking for some ornamental plants from Eling Flores and at that time we, Eling
Flores and I, were also talking. The
accused told Eling, “Eling,
you go away because I wanted to tell something to Baby.”
x x x
COURT:
Did Eling
Flores go away?
A. Yes,
sir. Eling
Flores went away.[13]
When Eling
Flores allegedly left the complainant testified that the appellant then
performed the acts of lasciviousness complained of against her will.
But, as in the case of Maria Juralba, Eling Flores testified to the contrary:
Q. While you were in your house on June 29, 1978, at about ten o’clock in the morning, do you remember if
you have seen one Florita Ymana?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Where
did you see her?
A. In
our house, sir.
x x x
Q. What
was Florita’s purpose in coming to your house, if
any?
A. She
came to our house because we are close friends and we had a conversation.
Q. While
Florita Ymana was in your
house talking with you on June 29,
1978, at about ten o’clock
in the morning, have you ever seen the accused Ernesto Ymana?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What
did he do, if any?
A. He
came to ask for some ornamental plants.
Q. Was
he able to get ornamental plants?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now,
after taking ornamental plants from you, as you said, what else happened?
A. No
more happened because after having taken the ornamental plants, he went home.[14]
x x x
Q. When
Florita Ymana testified on
the witness stand, she said that
while she was in your house you left your house and went to the road at Amagbagan, Sison, Pangasinan. What is
your say to that?
A. No,
sir. I did not leave the house.[15]
x x x
We again find no reason for Eling
Flores to testify falsely against the complainant because they are (as in the
case of Maring Juralba)
close friends and neighbors. Proof of
this friendship is that it was the complainant herself who visited the witness
in the latter’s house for some friendly conversation.
It is clear that the testimony of the complainant and the version
of these witnesses completely contradict each other and cannot be reconciled. In the absence of clear, satisfactory, and
convincing testimony in support of the charges, a judgment of conviction cannot
be sustained in the face of the apparent improbability of the commission of the
crimes charged.
We agree with the oft-repeated-reminder that an ordinary Filipina
would not go through the shame and humiliation of testifying in open court as a victim of sexual abuse if it were
not true. Such a degrading ordeal would
forever be left in her memory and would most probably haunt her for the rest of
her life. Nevertheless, while rape is
truly a detestable crime, the probability looms large that it may be resorted
to as a contrivance to malign the accused who would be hard pressed to prove his
innocence[16]
and would thereby place his life, liberty, or fortune, or all of them together,
hanging in the balance. A charge of rape
based upon the sole testimony of the complainant should, or must, therefore be
regarded with utmost caution, and the accused should not be convicted unless
the complainant’s testimony is impeccable
and rings true consistently throughout.[17]
We are not unaware of the many instances of false charges of rape
and similar offenses in which the courts have rendered judgments of conviction
without having looked into the possibility that the complainant may have been
impelled by some sinister motive to trump
up the charges.[18]
It becomes our duty, therefore, to exercise the most painstaking care in
scrutinizing the uncorroborated testimony of
the complainant. After having done so in this instant case, we cannot accept the complainant’s
testimony hook, line, and sinker.
Whatever motive she may have had in bringing the charges against the appellant, whether it be the
animosity between the complainant’s family, together with her aunt, and the
appellant, as the latter testified,[19]
the unsubstantiated allegations of the complainant simply cannot stand against
the denial by the appellant as materially
supported by the testimony of other defense witnesses.
And then there is the medical certificate, earlier copied, issued
by Dr. Simeon Ferraro, the Municipal Health Officer of Sison,
Pangasinan who
conducted the physical examination
of the complainant. We hold that
the medical certificate does not satisfactorily and convincingly establish the
fact of sexual intercourse during the time and date of the alleged rape. Dr. Ferraro
declared on the witness stand:
x x
x
Q. Doctor,
according to your findings the hymenal lacerations
were already healed completely, is that right?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now,
and you do not know when those lacerations were completely healed?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. That
means, the lacerations could have been healed before June 28, 1978, am I right?
A. Yes,
sir.[20]
x x
x
Admittedly, the medical certificate showed that the complainant’s
physical virginity had been lost, but it does not follow that such loss is
attributable to rape. Certainly, the
possibility that she had sexual intercourse
before June 28, 1978
cannot be ruled out. Neither can the voluntariness of the sexual act. And his sexual partner might have been
anybody, not excluding the accused-appellant.
In addition, the medical certificate issued by Dr. Ferraro is not consistent
with the use of force on Florita. It is a mute but eloquent denial of any
external injury suffered by the complainant. Nary a scratch or a bruise on her body is recorded in the medical
certificate. Evidence is therefore wanting to corroborate the complainant’s
testimony on the use of force by the appellant to consummate the carnal act and
the resistance thereto by the complainant.
In every case of rape by
the use of force, where the complainant had the possession of her mental faculties
and physical powers at the time of the alleged rape, neither overcame by terror
nor threatened with some deadly weapon, a showing of resistance to the sexual
assault becomes imperative. Of course,
she need not resist to the point of being beaten to insensibility, but there
must be on her part the utmost reluctance and resistance to the best of her
ability and strength to establish the two elements of rape by use of force —
carnal knowledge by force by one of the parties and non-consent thereto by the
other. From the complainant’s testimony,
her lack of resistance to the alleged sexual assault against her by the
appellant is apparent:
x x
x
Q When
Maring left what happened and you and Erneto Ymana were the only ones
left in that house?
A This
is what happened, sir. Ernesto Ymana took off my dress and inserted his penis inside my
vagina and as a result blood came out.
Q What
did you yourself do when Ernesto Ymana . . . .
COURT
Now, before he did that did he say anything to you? Before Ernesto
raised your dress and put his penis inside your vagina, as you said, did he say
anything to you?
A None,
sir.
Atty. Pangasinan
Q You
yourself what did you do when he inserted his penis?
COURT
When he raised your dress? Did you do
anything?
A No,
sir, because Ernesto Ymana pushed me inside the room
of the house and there he did what he liked to do and he held my two hands at my back that is why I was not able to
struggle against him.
Q But
did you not tell him, why are you doing this to me? Did you not say that to
him?
A No,
sir.
Q Now,
let us see, did you consent to the act that he did to you?
A No,
sir. I did not consent.
Q Then
why did you not kick him or resist?
A I
struggled but he closed the door of the room that is why I can not go out of
the room.
Q Now,
what did you do by way of struggling or resisting his advances?
A None, sir.
x x
x
Atty. Pangasinan
Q. At
the time that Ernesto Ymana was raising your dress did you ever shout? At the time that he inserted
his penis inside your vagina did you ever shout?
A No, sir.
Q Why did you not shout?
A I
did not shout because I know there were no persons around.
Q Did
he place anything on your mouth to prevent you from shouting?
A There
was, sir.
Q What was that he placed in your mouth?
A He placed a part of the red blanket which
he used in wrapping me on my mouth that is why I was not able to shout.
Q When he placed his penis inside your vagina
what did you feel?
A It
was painful, sir.
Q What
was painful?
A My vagina was painful, sir. He inserted his penis inside my vagina and my vagina was painful.
Q When he was placing his penis inside your
vagina did you ever
attempt to push him away?
A No,
sir.
COURT
Q Why, why?
A He said, “keep still baby so I can
place it inside.”[21]
(Emphasis supplied.)
The aforequoted testimony of the complainant evidently does not
divulge any use or force by the appellant except that the latter only allegedly
pushed her inside the room and held
her hands. As a matter of fact, at the
risk of being repetitious, the Medical Certificate (Exhibit “A”)
issued by Dr. Simeon C. Ferraro, who examined the complainant on July 3, 1978, quoted in full earlier, does
not state any incriminatory external finding or anything indicative of sexual
assault. There is no showing of any
external or physical sign of the employment of force (there is no proof of
threat either), which lack, to the mind of the Court, at least creates a
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused, or for that matter, on the perpetration
of the crime of rape.
If there is lack of resistance, there is also lack of occasion to
use force. When there is no indication
of violence, no evidence of yielding through fear, no evidence of injury to the
assailant and the woman, nor tearing or disarray of her clothing, it cannot be
said that the woman resisted the alleged sexual assault. Failure to oppose or resist the carnal act
indicates consent and, therefore, precludes rape.
Moreover, granting arguendo that the
complainant was raped on June 28, 1978 by the appellant, it is incomprehensible
to the Court why did she not flee, why did she not cry out in protest, in
anger, or in apprehension, or even only
in fear, when the appellant, only a day after the alleged rape, allegedly
entered the house of Eling Flores and ordered her (Eling) to leave the house so he and the complainant would
be left alone. The complainant’s conduct
is uncharacteristic of a victim of recent sexual abuse. Yes, indeed, if the alleged rape the day
before happened as the complainant now claims, why would she allow an
opportunity for its repetition on the following day under practically
the same circumstances without raising hell? That, certainly, would be contrary
to human nature.
WHEREFORE, the joint decision appealed from is REVERSED and the appellant,
Ernesto Ymana y Mangaoang
is hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness on the
ground of reasonable doubt. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, 3-4.
[2]
Decision, 1; Rollo, 5.
[3]
Rollo, 5; rendered by Judge Rosalio C. Segundo.
[4]
Decision, 17-18; Rollo, 21-22.
* Decision, 3-8; Rollo, 7-12.
[5]
Brief for Appellant, 1-6; Rollo,
79.
[6]
People vs. Fausto, 51 Phil 852 (1928).
[7]
T.s.n., June
13, 1979, 7-8.
[8]
Id., 21.
[9]
Tsn., August
9, 1979, 23.
[10]
Decision, 15; Rollo, 19.
[11]
People vs. Masangkay, No. L-73461, October
27, 1987, 155 SCRA 113.
[12]
T.s.n., August
9, 1979, 23.
[13]
T.s.n., June
13, 1979, 15-16.
[14]
T.s.n., August
9, 1979, 3.
[15]
Id., 7.
[16]
People vs. Barbo, L-3098, March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 459; People vs.
Quintal, No. L-49656, November 25,
1983, 125 SCRA 734.
[17]
People vs. Tapao, No. L-41704, October 23, 1981, 108 SCRA 351.
[18]
U.S. vs.
Ramos, 35 Phil 67 (1916).
[19]
T.s.n., October 2, 1979, 12-18.
[20]
T.s.n., April
23, 1979. 16.
[21]
T.s.n., June 13, 1979, 8–11.