PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE MARAPAO AND CESAR RELIVO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Charged with rape under separate informations
were Felipe Marapao and Cesar Relivo
before the then Court of First Instance Branch I of South Cotabato in Criminal Cases 1758 and 1759,
respectively.

The information in Criminal Case No. 1758, reads:

“That on or about the 10th day of June, 1979 in the evening
thereof at Barrio Linek, Municipality of Kiamba, Province of South Cotabato,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused
armed with a garand rifle and by means of violence
and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with the complainant ANITA INSAN against her will.” (p.
18, Rollo)

The information in Criminal Case No. 1759, reads:

“That on or about the 10th day of June, 1979 in the evening thereof at Barrio Linek, Municipality of Kiamba,
Province of South Cotabato, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused armed with a garand rifle and by means of violence and intimidation, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully have carnal
knowledge with the complainant HEBELEN TANEDO against her will.” (pp.
18-19, Rollo)

Marapao was accused of having raped one
Anita Insan while Relivo
was accused of raping Hebelen Tanedo,
Insan’s friend. 
The complainants are both T’boli women.  Both cases were committed on the same
occasion, hence, were jointly tried.

The facts as summarized by the Solicitor General in his brief are as follows:

“On or about June 10, 1979 at around 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, Hebelen Tanedo
and Anita Insan were walking along a road at Barrio Linek,
Kiamba, South Cotabato,
waiting for Hebelen’s husband, George Tanedo, to pick them up to go to ltis (tsn., November 8, 1982, p. 4 and 16).  Just then, the accused Cesar Relivo, who came from the nearby MILUDECO Compound, passed
them by and asked them what they
were doing there.  Hebelen
replied that they were waiting for her husband (supra, pp. 5-6).  Thereafter,
Relivo left. 
Some time later when the sun had already set, Relivo
came back with his co-accused Marapao (supra,
p. 7) both carrying long firearms (supra, p. 24).  Relivo sat beside Hebelen,
held her arms and said “Do not be angry. 
I will tell you something.” Pointing his gun at her he threatened Hebelen that if she did not do as he pleased, she would be killed (supra,
p. 10).  Suddenly he embraced her and
placed himself on top of her.  Hebelen struggled but to no avail (supra, p. 8).  Relivo then
ravished her.

“In the meantime, Marapao had
succeeded in pulling Anita away to some grasses where he forced her to lie
down, removed his pants, tore her panty and succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her (tsn., November 9, 1982, p.
42).

“Both accused, giving vent to their unsatiable desires,
abused the women twice (tsn., November 8, 1982, p. 8 and tsn.,
November 2, 1982, p. 42), after which they left their broken victims weeping,
with the warning that if the women dared to report the incident, they would be
killed (tsn., November 8, 1982, p. 11).

“It took some time for Hebelen
and Anita to regain themselves, but when they did,
they left and headed for Itis.  There they told their parents everything (tsn., November 8, 1982, p. 11 and
November 9, 1982,
p. 43).  George Tanedo
arrived later and was also
informed of the dreadful news.  Hebelen and George, together with Anita and her
husband, proceeded to the MILUDECO office.  From these
they went to Kiamba and reported the crime before the
sala of Judge Mondragon (tsn., November 8, 1982, p.
12).” (pp. 3-5, Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee)

On the other hand, the defense version, as summarized by the
trial court, is as follows:

“Alfredo Logarte, a security
guard by occupation testified that on June 10, 1979 he was assigned as guard
supervisor of the security force of MILUDECO at Linek,
Kiamba, South Cotabato,
with 14 or 15 security guards under
his supervision; that the accused were members of the security force of MILUDECO and were detailed as guards of
MILUDECO on post No. 2 from 4:00 P.M. to 12:00 o’clock midnight; that at around
4:00 o’clock P.M. on June 10, 1979, the accused called him up by phone
requesting him to assume post No. 2, because of a report which both accused
wanted to verify up in quarry, which he did; that upon arrival at Post No. 2, both accused left their post and
went up the quarry to
verify the presence of some persons
thereat; that after twenty (20)
minutes both accused returned to their post and he (Alfredo Logarte) too, went back to his office, after both accused
told him the presence of two women thereat, whom they advised to leave the place as it was critical.  This witness also testified that as guard
supervisor on the night of June 10, 1979, the presence of both accused Cesar Relivo
and Felipe Marapao at post No. 2 was always checked by him through the
phone every thirty (30) minutes; that their presence in their post was also
shown by the detex clock which was punched by the
accused themselves every fifteen (15) minutes; that from 5:00 o’clock P.M. to
8:00 o’clock P.M. this witness has always checked the presence of both accused
at Post No. 2 every thirty minutes by phone; that in post No. 2, one shotgun,
gauge 12 was issued thereat and per scheduled these two accused were detailed at Post No. 2
from 4:00 o’clock P.M. to 12:00 o’clock midnight; that the first time this
witness called the two accused in Post No. 2 was at 5:30 the third was at 6:00,
the fourth was at 6:30; the fifth was at 7:00; the sixth was at 7:30 and so on
and so forth and every time he called the accused at said post, they readily answered.

“Cesar Relivo, accused in CC No. 1759 testified that he was a member of the security
Guard Force of MILUDECO at Linek, Kiamba,
South Cotabato, in June 1979; that as such security guard he was detailed on guard duty on Post No. 2 with Felipe
Marapao from 4:00 P.M. to 12:00 o’clock midnight;
that at about 4:00 o’clock P.M., they were called up by guard Supervisor
Alfredo Logarte for them to assume their post and to
verify a report of the existence of some persons or something on top of the
quarry; that after the arrival of Alfredo Logarte
they both went up the quarry bringing their firearms and they found two women, Hebelen Tanedo and Anita Insan whom they advised, after asking their presence
thereat, not to stay long in the place,
as it was critical, after which both accused went back to their
post.  This accused further testified
that they did not go back to the place where they saw the two offended parties;
that when they were arrested, they were surprised why they were charged with
the crime of rape against the two women they saw on top of the quarry; that
both accused were no longer connected with the Security Guard Force of MILUDECO
as they were retrenched after the incident.

“Leopoldo Pahinagan,
a bulldozer operator of MILUDECO, testified that at around 6:30 P.M. of June
10, 1979 he was actually on duty in view of a landslide on the logging road
going to Itis; that while thereat two women passed
by, one of whom he knew personally to be Hebelen Tanedo as she is a resident of Itis.

“Felipe Marapao, accused in CC
No. 1759, testified that he had been a security guard of Miludeco
in the month of June, 1979; that two days after the alleged rape committed by
him and Cesar Relivo on the offended parties, Anita Insan and Hebelen Tanedo, he met George Tanedo, husband
of the latter, telling him to testify in his favor against Cesar Relivo so that
they could get money from the company; that George Tanedo
was mad against Cesar Relivo.  On cross–examination this accused admitted
having been on duty as security guard of MILUDECO on post No. 2, which is around 100 feet
away from the quarry; that in the afternoon of June 10, 1979, he, together with
his co-security guard Cesar Relivo went up to the
quarry to investigate the report about the presence of suspicious persons after
their guard supervisor Alfredo Logarte gave them
permission to verify about the report; that they saw two women thereat and advised them to leave the place, as it was critical, after which both accused returned to their post while Alfredo Logarte
also returned to office,” (pp. 26-27, Rollo)

After trial, the trial court rendered a decision, dispositive
portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE,
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court hereby finds both accused (Felipe Marapao
in CC No. 1758 and Cesar Relivo in
CC No. 1759) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

“The penalty for the crime of rape if committed with the
use of deadly weapon is Reclusion Perpetua to Death.  There being two aggravating circumstances that of nighttime and use of deadly
weapon (gun) and no mitigating circumstances, this court hereby sentences each
accused to suffer the penalty of Death pursuant to Art. 63 (1) of the
Revised Penal Code as amended.  Felipe
Marapao in CC No. 1758 is ordered to indemnify Anita Insan in the amount of P6,000.00
and Cesar Relivo 
in CC No. 1759 is
ordered to indemnify Hebelen Tanedo
in the amount of P6,000
and to pay the cost.” (p. 2,
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee; p. 147, Rollo)

Accused-appellants filed a motion
for new trial dated November 7,
1984 with this Court alleging newly discovered evidence, to wit:

“The circumstances of its discovery came about when the
wife of the accused Cesar Relivo met the complainant Anita Insan and the latter inquired from the former the status of
the case, referring to the case of the husband of the former and the wife of
Cesar Relivo answered that her husband together his
co-accused, Felipe Marapao were convicted and were
sentenced to death. The complainant Anita Insan was
surprised and she said that “how could that be when I had signed a
statement wherein I said that your
husband and Felipe Marapao did not molest me and Hebelen Tanedo.”

“And thereafter, the wife of Cesar Relivo
asked Anita Insan, if she was still in possession of the statement she was referring to and Anita Insan said
“yes, I have it at home.”

“And so Mrs. Relivo and Anita Insan
proceeded to the house of
the latter and so they found the document which is hereto attached as an
annex.  The contents of which are self-explanatory and if presented to the Honorable Court
of Origin, the same could probably have made a different decision.

“It is perhaps noteworthy to mention at this point, that
the accused failed to formally offer in evidence their exhibits during the
trial although the failure to formally offer in evidence their exhibits may perhaps be attributable on the part
of the accused, yet if the same have been properly appreciated the trial Court may perhaps have rendered a different decision.” (underscoring supplied) (p. 55, Rollo)

In a minute resolution dated December 13, 1984, We denied
said motion for new trial.  A motion for
reconsideration of said resolution was subsequently filed but was likewise
denied for lack of merit in a resolution dated March 28, 1985.

Accused-appellants submit that the trial Court erred in the
following:

“1.
In not considering the findings of the medical examination of Dr. Benjamin G. Pagarigan (Exhs. C and C-1, CC. Nos. 1758-59) which were conducted a mere four (4) days after the alleged
crimes were committed, in view that:

‘(a)  Both complainants
bore no abrasions, hematomas or like deformities in
any part of their bodies;

‘(b)  Both complainants were free of any blood or
semen stains in the genital area;

‘(c)  Both complainants were free of any swellings; tenderness, lacerations or abrasions in
the vulva, vagina, hymen, labia majora and minora area,’

inspite
of the fact that both complainants alleged and testified that they were both
fighting back the assailants and were forcibly raped, not once, but twice.

“2. In
giving greater weight to the positive testimonies of the alleged victims which
are rife with inconsistencies more particularly the unnatural attitude taken by the victims after the alleged rapes were
committed.

“3. In not
considering the positive testimony of Leopoldo Pahinagan, who testified that while being on duty atop a
bulldozer on or about 6:30 p.m., the alleged victims passed him by, away from
the alleged site of the crimes.

“4. In not considering the positive testimony of Alfredo Logarto, guard supervisor that:

‘(a)  He repeatedly
checked on appellants at regular fifteen (15) minutes intervals;

‘(b)  The presence of the appellants at their post
was shown by the punching of
the TEX clock at
fifteen (15) minutes intervals;

‘(c)  The appellants only
had one (1) shotgun issued for their post on that fateful night.’

“5. In not considering the defense of alibi in
the appellants’ separate testimonies,

“6. In not considering the influential character, and practices
of George Tanedo, husband of one of the alleged
victims, in view that:

‘(a)  He exerted great
influence over the victims who were T‘boli women, to
the extent that he pre-conditioned their minds before the same gave their
testimonies;

‘(b)  He was accused of trying to extort money from
the company, MILUDECO;

‘(c)         There was vengeance on his part with
regard to the appellant Cesar Relivo for the latter’s
refusal to heed his proposal for extortion.

“7. In not
considering that the place where
the alleged rapes took place was not lighted and that the alleged
victims testified that they could not see each other because it was dark, which
casts serious doubt on the positive identification of appellants.

“8. In not considering that the tribe to which the alleged
victims belonged to, believe in polygamy and thus cannot be judged on christian ethics and morals.” (pp. 2-3, Brief for the
Appellants; p. 134, Rollo)

Resolving the first assigned error, complainants could not really
have borne cuts or bruises on their buttocks or legs or in any part of their
body since the rape occurred on plain, smooth ground (tsn., November 8, 1982, p.
35).  In addition, the examination was
conducted four days after the incident (tsn., March 23, 1983, p. 72), giving enough time for any
bruises to heal.  The trial court
correctly ruled when it said that the findings of the examining physician Dr. Pagarigan are not inconsistent with the crime charged.  The victims although still
minors were already married and hence, the injury that may have been caused to
the vulva, vagina or labia majora and minora, and hymen as is common to virgins, no longer
prevail or exists.  The findings therefor cannot be conclusive that the crime of rape was
not committed.  (p. 35, Rollo)

With regard to the second assigned error, We find the alleged “inconsistencies”
immaterial.  Appellants contend that the
victims stated in their affidavits that the former used garand rifles, but during trial, the victims said
that appellants were holding a
“long gun.” (tsn.,
November 8, 1982, p. 10).  We find the
apparent discrepancy to be slight and thus, it cannot affect their credibility,
since a garand rifle is actually a long gun.

Another “inconsistency” was about the logging
truck.  In their brief, they alleged that
Hebelen and Anita were waiting for a logging truck to bring them to Itis contrary to the victims’ claim that they were there
waiting for Hebelen’s husband to pick them up.

The transcripts reveal otherwise.

“Hebelen Tanedo was asked on
direct:

Q    Why were you at MILUDECO?

A     I was
waiting for my husband George at that place because we would be going to Itis.  (tsn., November 8, 1982, p. 16)

And then on cross she was asked:

Q    Mrs. Tanedo, is
it not a fact that when your husband did not arrive at that appointed time, you
could have gone home to Itis?

A     Because there was no more ride for us to take as it
was already nighttime.

Q    What ride were you expecting at the time?

A     A logging truck.”

(pp. 13-14, Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee; p. 147, Rollo)

Anent the third, fourth and fifth assigned errors, being
interrelated may be resolved in this wise. 
To bolster the defense’ claim of alibi, Leopoldo
Pahinagan testified that at around 6:30 P.M. of June 10, 1979, he was on overtime work bulldozing the
landslide on the MILUDECO logging road
at km. 13 going to Itis; that at that precise time he
met the two offended parties going towards Itis.  This piece of evidence tries to justify the
defense or alibi of the accused; that it would have been impossible for them to
have sexual intercourse with the offended parties because at the time that the
alleged rape was committed on June 10, 1979, the said offended parties were no
longer in the place where the alleged
rape was committed.  Against this
version, the complaining witness steadfastly maintained that they were
raped.  It is a well-known principle in
this jurisdiction that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the
offended party should not be received with precipitate credulity, when the
conviction depends on any vital
point on her uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from suspicion.  A little insight into human nature is of
utmost value in judging matter of this kind (People vs. Fausto, 51 Phil. 852).  (pp. 41-42, Rollo)

The testimony of Alfredo Logarte, the
guard supervisor is actually inconsistent with the appellant’s claim.  Logarte said that
he called up the appellants every thirty (30) minutes (tsn,
March 29, 1983, p. 155) while appellants said that the routine check call came
every fifteen (15) minutes (tsn, December 12, 1983, pp. 219-220).  Appellants should have presented their time cards to support their claim.  There is not even an iota of proof to
this contention.

It has been held over and over again that alibi cannot prevail over the well-settled rule that for it to be
accepted as a defense theory, a minimum
requirement must be that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at
the scene of the crime (People vs. Catipon, 139 SCRA
192; People vs. Gani, 139 SCRA 301; People vs. Aragona, 138 SCRA 569; People vs. Vergel, 134 SCRA 483;
People vs. Bihasa, 130 SCRA 62; People vs. Sambangan,
125 SCRA 726).  The evidence for the
prosecution shows that the post of appellants was only 100 feet or about 40
meters away from the rape scene.  And
also, the accused were positively identified by the victims.

With regard to the alleged “influential” character of
George Tanedo, husband of one of the alleged victims,
there is no showing that Tanedo intimidated the
victims into filing the complaint. 
Furthermore, appellants maintained that Tanedo
was trying to extort money from MILUDECO. 
As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General:

“This is illogical. 
This case is not against the company, but against two of its
guards.  If these guards are implicated,
the company suffers no damage.  Why then,
if Tanedo harbored a grudge against the company, will
he bother with the two accused.  He has
no motive.

“And granting that he did, appellants have failed to show
that it was through his machinations that this case was filed.

“Per contra, records reveal that the victims
voluntarily reported the case before Judge Mondragon,
subjected themselves to physical examination and the rigors of direct and
cross.  It is hard to believe that a
woman would undergo the trouble and inconvenience of a public trial and allow
an examination of her private parts if her motive was not to bring to justice
the person who abused her (People vs. Macatangay, 114
SCRA 473).” (pp. 19-20, Brief for the Appellee;
p. 147, Rollo)

Considering the seventh assigned error, appellants contend that
since the victims stated that it was nighttime when the rape occurred, it was
impossible for them to have positively identified the accused.  This is totally unmeritorious.  The natural illumination of the moon and the
stars are enough to enable a victim to recognize a stranger whose face was right next to hers while
raping her.  Furthermore, when the
victims went back to the
MILUDECO Compound, they were able to identify and single out these two men, out of the rest of MILUDECO’s
employees, as the culprits.

Lastly, whether the victim be Christian or
non-Christian, T’boli or Tasaday,
foreigner or Filipina, if the crime was committed within our jurisdiction, the
victim will surely be protected by our laws on rape.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the lower Court’s judgment is hereby
AFFIRMED with the modification that the penalty be reduced to reclusion perpetua in accordance with
the 1987 Constitution and the damages awarded are increased to P20,000 for each
of the victims in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.