THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NESTOR DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In two (2) separate complaints both dated July 26, 1989, Remedios
Centeno y Lagrosa, 15 years old, assisted by her mother, Remedios Centeno,
charged accused-appellant, Nestor de la Cruz with the crime of rape on two (2)
counts. The complaints alleged:

“Criminal Case No. 33236

“That on or about the
8th day of May 1989 in Kalookan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, with lewd design and with the
use of deadly weapon, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
lie and have sexual intercourse with complainant REMEDIOS CENTENO Y LAGROSA, 15
years of age, against her will and without her consent.

“Contrary to
law.” (p. 5, Rollo)

“Criminal Case No. C-33237

“That on or about the 20th day of June 1988 in Kalookan City,
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused with lewd design and with the use of deadly weapon, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and have sexual
intercourse with complainant REMEDIOS CENTENO y LAGROSA, 15 years of age, against her will and without
her consent.

“Contrary to
law.” (p. 6, Rollo)

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges
(p. 6, Records).

The prosecution’s account of the two incidents was summarized by
the trial court, as follows:

“The version of the prosecution could be viewed in this
manner: that on June 20, 1988,
complainant went to the house of accused Nestor de la Cruz to inquire about a
forthcoming karate tournament; instead of answering, accused invited her to the
house of a certain Mang Romy; while they were at the house, they went upstairs
as requested by the accused; suddenly, accused poked a knife at her neck and
she was forced to lie down on a folding bed. He warned her not to scream or else he will kill her and if she tells her
parents about the incident, they too,
will be killed. After that, he placed
the knife near her feet and started taking off her clothes and his clothes,
kissing her from the neck down to her breast. After removing her drawers, he placed himself on top of her and he
inserted his private organ into her private part. She lost consciousness after that due to extreme pain.

“The other instance was when she went to the residence of the
accused due to the insistence of her mother to have a fitting of her denture on
May 8, 1989 at around 8:00 in the evening. Upon seeing her, he pulled her inside the house and poked a knife at her
neck forcing her to lay down on the floor. He placed the knife near her feet and started taking off her clothes,
then he pulled off her shorts. She
pleaded to him not to repeat what he had done previously and asked for pity but
instead he placed himself on top of her and started to kiss her and embrace
her; thereafter, he placed his tongue inside her private part and then he inserted his organ to her private part; later
on, his finger was inserted too.

“Because of fear for
her life and family, she did not relate the incidents to her parents until one
day when her friend Judith Maningan, a karate student of the accused, related
to her friends that she was raped by the accused. It gave her the courage to report the incidents to the police
accompanied by her parents and friends including Judith Maningan.

“On recall, the
private complainant alleged that although the walls on the second floor of the house of Mang Romy were attached
near the roof and not totally covering the entire floor, there was no
electricity in the house nor in the neighboring houses on June 20, 1988, that
no passers-by could see what was inside
the house due to extreme darkness.”
(pp. 23-24, Rollo)

The accused denied that he had sexual intercourse with the victim
on two (2) occasions alleged in the complaint, the first, one year apart from
the second. He testified that it was
not possible for him to rape the victim in the house of Mang Romy on June 20,
1988 because the said house had no walls on the second floor where the victim
claimed that she was raped. Moreover,
the house was used by the barangay tanods in their place as a headquarters. Neither was it possible for him to rape the
victim in their own house on May 8, 1989 because on the said date, his students
in karate were assembled in their place and his wife was working in their house
(TSN, pp. 136-138). His testimony was corroborated
by his wife, Josefina dela Cruz, a certain Aurora Nielo who was a resident of
the same place and a member of the barangay tanod and one of his students in
karate, Charlina Garnudo.

After trial, a decision was rendered finding the accused guilty
of both crimes. The dispositive portion
of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Nestor de la Cruz y Lorica
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE on two (2) counts and
sentences him to double reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim
the amount of twenty five thousand (P25,000.00) pesos for each count or a total
of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as damages, and to pay the costs.”
(p. 27, Rollo)

From the judgment of conviction, the accused-appellant filed this
appeal alleging that the trial court erred in convicting him because the
evidence of the prosecution is not competent, convincing and satisfactory to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The main issue presented in the appeal is the credibility of the
main witness for the prosecution, the victim herself. The petitioner alleged that the testimony of the complainant on
how the alleged rape was committed was unnatural and against the ordinary
habits of life. Her testimony shows
that the intercourse, if there was such, was not committed by force or intimidation
but most probably, with her consent.

It was also alleged by accused-appellant that the trial court
should not have given credence to the testimony of the complainant. Her testimony revealed that the manner in
which the rapes were allegedly committed on two occasions was almost the same,
thereby indicating that complainant was rehearsed.

We quote below the portion of complainant’s testimony which
touched on the manner the crimes were allegedly committed. The first rape was allegedly committed on
June 20, 1988, as follows:

“Atty. Quimpo:

“Q.   Madam Witness, do you remember of any unusual
incident on June 20, 1989?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   What was this unusual incident that you are
referring to?

“A.    I went to the place of Nestor dela Cruz, sir,
in order to ask him whether the tournament to be held on the 21st will be held.

“Q.   And where is the residence of this Nestor
dela Cruz, Madam Witness?

“A.    At Blk. 4, Camada, Torcillo St.
Dagat-dagatan, Kalookan City, sir.

“Q.   Were you able to reach the residence of
Nestor dela Cruz?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   What happened when you reached the place of
residence of Nestor dela Cruz?

“A.    I asked him
whether the tournament scheduled will be held, sir, and after telling me that
it will be push (sic) through, he invited me to the house of a certain Mang
Romy, sir.

“Q.   Who is this
Mang Romy that you are referring to?

“A.    Our
neighbor, sir.

“Q.   And did you
go to the house of Mang Romy?

“A.    No,
sir. He invited me, sir.

“Q.   Were you able
to reach the house of Mang Romy?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   Now, how far
is this house of Mang Romy to (sic) the house of Nestor dela Cruz?

“A.    Only two
houses away, sir.

“Q.   When you went
to the house of Mang Romy, who was with you?

“A.    Nestor dela
Cruz, sir.

“Q.   And were you
able to reach the house of Mang Romy?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   What happened
in the house of Mang Romy?

“A.    He invited
me to go upstairs, sir.

“Q.   Court:

        Who invited you
to go upstairs?

“A.    Nestor dela
Cruz, your honor.

“Atty. Quimpo:

“Q.   And did you go
with Nestor dela Cruz upstairs?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   What happened
when you went upstairs in the house of Mang Romy?

“A.    He poked a
knife at me, sir.

“Q.   In what part
of your body did he poke a knife?

“A.    Here, sir.

        (witness
pointing to her neck). While at that
moment, he was embracing me, sir.

“Q. When Nestor
dela Cruz poked a knife at your neck, what happened after that?

“A.    He forced me
to lay (sic) down in the folding bed, sir.

“Court:

        Excuse me, you
said that Nestor dela Cruz poked a knife at your neck. Will you demonstrate to this court, how
Nestor dela Cruz embraced you at that time, assuming that you are Nestor dela
Cruz and the court interpreter is you.

“A.    Like this,
sir.

        (witness
demonstrating by placing her right hand, the hone holding the knife, over the
right shoulder directly to the neck, and then the left hand holding the
stomach. The person of the accused just
behind).

“Atty. Quimpo:

“Q.   Madam
witness, you mentioned that Nestor dela Cruz forced you to lay (sic) down on
the folding bed was he able to force you to lay (sic) down on the folding bed?

“A.    Yes,
sir. Because a knife was poked at me,
sir.

“Q.   Did Nestor
dela Cruz say something to you while he was doing that?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   What was this
that Nestor dela Cruz said to you?

“A.    That I must
not shout, sir, otherwise he will kill me.

“Q.   Did you say
something to Nestor dela Cruz at that instance?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   What was
that, that you said to Nestor dela Cruz?

“A.    That he must
not continue that act or his plan against my person and that he must took (sic)
pity on me, sir.

“Q.   Now, after
you were lying down on the folding bed will you tell us what happened?

“A.    He was
kneeling, sir, infront of me and he removed my t-shirt, and placed the knife
near my feet, sir. Infront of me.

“Q.   Was he able
to remove your t-shirt?

“A.    Yes, sir.

        Yes, sir, but I
was fighting back, sir.

“Q.   Now, what
happened after he was able to remove your t-shirt?

“A.    He also took
off my bra, sir.

“Q.   Was he able
to remove your bra?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   After he was
able to remove your bra, what, if any did Nestor do?

“A.    He began or
started kissing me, sir, from my neck down to my breast, sir.

        (witness demonstrated by pointing to her
neck down to her breast).2

“Q.   After kissing
you on the face, on the neck and in your upper part, what happened?

“A.    He rolled
down my short, sir.

“Q.   Was he able
to take off your short at that time?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   After that,
what did he do, if any?

“A.    He rolled
down my panty, sir.

“Q.   Was he able
to remove your panty?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   Now, after
your panty was removed, were you wearing any clothing? at that time?

“A.    Nothing
more, sir.

“Q.   Madam
Witness, when you were naked and already lying down on the folding bed, what,
if any happened after that?

“A.    He placed
his body on top of me, sir.

“Q.   And when he
placed his body on top of you, did or was Nestor dela Cruz wearing anything?

“A.    None, sir.

“Q.   Now, when
Nestor placed himself on top of you, what happened next?

“A.    ‘Ginalaw po
niya ako’.

“Q.   And what do you
mean by, ‘ginalaw niya ako’?

“A.    He kissed me
many times, sir, and all designs or acts of loothness (sic) he did to me, sir.

“Q.   What happened
after that, Madam Witness?

“A.    Because of
the extreme pain I suffered, sir, I lost my consciousness, sir.” (TSN, pp.
23-26)

As regards the alleged rape committed on May 8, 1989, she
testified as follows:

“Q.   And what did
you tell Nestor dela Cruz at that time?

“A.    Upon arrival at that place of Nestor dela
Cruz, I verified from him whether his information relayed to my mother
regarding my inclusion as participant in the coronation and that my denture
will be fitted is true and he answered in the positive, sir.

“Q.   And what happened after that?

“A.    After that, sir, he told me to wait for
awhile, that he will arrange the necessary thing in order that I will appear
beautiful, and then he went inside the room, and at that very moment when he
opened the door, he immediately pushed me going inside the house, sir.

“Q.   Now, what happened when you were pulled
inside the house by Nestor dela Cruz?

“A.    He poked a knife at me, sir.

“Q.   What
particular portion of your body was this knife poked at you?

“A.    Also here on
my neck, sir. Just like the first
occasion, sir.

“Q.   Are you
referring to the relative position of Nestor dela Cruz and you when
he first poked a knife on you on June 20, 1989? (sic)

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   Now, after Nestor dela Cruz poked a knife at
your neck, what happened?

“A.    He told me
to lay (sic) down, sir.

“Q.   Did you
follow him or did you lay (sic) down?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   Where did you lay (sic) down?

“A.    On the floor, sir.

“Q.   What happened
after you laid down on the floor?

“A.    He brought down the knife, sir.

“Q.   Where did he place the knife?

“A.    Also near my feet, sir.

“Q.   What happened after that?

“A.    He removed my shirt, sir.

“Q.   After he
removed your shirt, what else happened?

“A.    He took off my bra, sir.

“Q.   After he
removed your bra, what did he do, if any?

“A.    He also
rolled down my panty, sir.

“Q.   After
removing your panty, what else did Nestor dela Cruz do?

“A.    He took off
his short, sir.

“Q.   During that
time, did he say something to you?

“A.    Yes,
sir. That he will kill me if I will
shout at that very moment, sir.

“Q.   How about
you, did you say something to Nestor dela Cruz?

“A.    Yes, sir.

“Q.   What was
that?

“A.    That he must not repeat the same act against
me, and he must took (sic) pity on me, sir.

“Q.   After he removed his short, what did he do or
what happened after that?

“A.    He placed his body atop of me, sir.

“Q.   What happened
when he placed his body atop of you?

“A.    He kissed me many times, sir, and he
embraced me and he placed his tongue inside my private part and then he
inserted his private organ inside my private part, sir.

“Q.   What happened
after that, Madam Witness?

“A.    He fingered me, sir, or he inserted his finger inside my private
part, sir.

“Q.   What else did
Nestor dela Cruz did at that night?

“A.    He inserted
his private organ to my private part, sir.

“Q.   After that
what happened, Madam Witness?

“A.    I was crying, sir.

“Q.   And after that,
what happened after that, if any?

“A.    No more, sir.

“Q.   Did you tell
your parents about these incident, Madam Witness?

“A.    No, sir.

“Q.   And why did
you not tell them about these incidents?

“A.    Because he will kill me, if I will report the
incidents to my parents and then he will kill members of my family if I will
report the same.” (TSN, pp. 28-30)

There are three settled principles to guide an appellate court in
reviewing the evidence in rape cases: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to
prove it but more difficult for the persons accused, though innocent, to
disprove it (People v. Aldana, G.R. No. 81817, July 27, 1989); (2) in view of
the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense (People v. Villapana, G.R. No. 53984, May 5, 1988, 161
SCRA 72, cited in People v. Calixto, G.R. No. 92355, January 24, 1991, 193 SCRA
303).

Indeed, it is so easy to allege that one was raped by a man. As in this case, all that the victim had to
testify to was that the accused poked a knife at her, threatened to kill her if
she shouts, and under these threats, undressed her and had sexual intercourse
with her. The question then that
confronts the trial court is whether the complainant’s testimony is credible.

The matter of credibility of witnesses is peculiarly within the
province of the trial judge (People v. Tejada, G.R. No. 81520, February 21,
1989, 170 SCRA 497). In the instant
case, the trial judge, commenting on the credibility of the complainant’s
testimony ruled:

“Firstly, private complainant while on the witness stand
appeared candid, sincere, honest and was direct to the point in her
answers. As between her positive
testimony as against the denial of the accused, the Court gives credence to the
former because her testimony was logical, straight-forward and more
probable. Besides, her credibility was
not in any manner shaken by the exhausting and humiliating cross-examination,
to which she has been exposed. (p. 25, Rollo)

A cursory reading of the direct testimony of the complainant
revealed that her testimony was spontaneous, straightforward. However, a closer scrutiny of the
complainant’s testimony itself in relation to the revelations supplied by the defense
witnesses revealed some flaws.

Complainant did not state on direct examination the time she went
to the house of the accused-appellant. On cross-examination however, she said that she went to the accused’s
house at nine o’clock in the evening (p. 2, TSN) allegedly to inquire from the
accused whether the tournament scheduled the next day would push through.

Complainant testified that the accused invited him to the house
of a certain Mang Romy, which was two houses away from the accused’s
house. She was invited on the pretext
that the accused would tell her something very important. Then the accused asked her to go up to the
second floor. Two witnesses for the
defense, however, testified that the house of Mang Romy is a two-storey
structure with no walls, hence, whatever would have transpired in the second
floor and on a folding bed would be visible from the streets and from the
surrounding houses. None of the
neighbors reported any unusual incident on that date and time. It is improbable that the accused-appellant
would use such a conspicuous place to commit a crime and in such a
surrounding. These facts cast doubt on
the claim of the complainant that she was raped in that house of Mang
Romy. If ever something did happen that
night, she cooperated in its consummation.

It is likewise hard to believe that the accused-appellant in the
alleged second rape would use his own house where his wife and child live to
commit such heinous crime. Since the
said house was used not only as a residence, but also as a clinic and a
gymnasium, people are expected to come and go. The accused-appellant could not have accomplished the rape if the
complainant did not in any manner cooperate in its consummation in silence.

It cannot be believed that the accused-appellant used force or
intimidation in having sexual intercourse with the complainant. In the first place, the accused-appellant
did not seek the complainant with the intention of committing the crime. It was the complainant who sought the
accused-appellant in his house and who followed his order to go the unlighted
house of Mang Romy and to the second floor of the same house. Knowing that the house was not lighted, she
had no reason to go up to its second floor at the request of the
accused-appellant. Second, considering
that the house of Mang Romy had no walls, it was easy for complainant to shout
for help. It was alleged though that
the accused-appellant held a knife and threatened to kill her but complainant
also testified that the accused-appellant put down the knife near the
complainant’s feet while he was caressing and undressing her. She said that she fought back. How, she did not elaborate.

What strikes Us as unnatural is that while she had all the
opportunities to escape or shout for help, knowing that the accused-appellant
relaxed his guard on her while he allegedly removed her t-shirt, then her bra,
then kissed her neck, her breast then rolled down her panty and finally her
bra, she did not.

The same observation can be said regarding complainant’s account
of the second incident. Instead of
avoiding her ravisher, she again made herself available to the
accused-appellant. She knew that the
accused also just put down the knife near her feet, yet she failed to exert any
effort to thwart the attempt of the accused. She recalled that the accused kissed her several times, embraced her,
placed his tongue in her private part and inserted his penis in her
vagina. But she never testified on the
effort she exerted to prevent the accused from succeeding in having sexual
intercourse with her.

Another point that creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the
Court is that after both incidents, the complainant never reported the matter
to her parents. The parents as well
noticed nothing unusual with their daughter. If it were true that she was ravished, the most natural-thing for her to
do, considering her age of 15, just on the early stage of her womanhood, was to
manifest her outrage, report the incident to her parents or to the
authorities. And, instead, the matter
surfaced only after the complainant and her friends had a girls’ talk and where
she revealed to her friends that the accused-appellant had sexual intercourse
with her. She did not relate to her
friends that she was raped. She just
said “ginalaw ako” not “ginahasa ako.” It was only when her
mother heard of this story that she confronted her and they filed the case in
court.

We noticed also the discrepancy between her testimony during
trial and her statement made before the inquest fiscal on July 25, 1989. In the latter, she said that:

“x x x nagpunta ako sa bahay nila para tanungin siya
(referring to the accused-appellant) tungkol sa coronation ng contest ng
pagandahan sa sang-ayon sa kanya ay isasali niya ako na noung nag-uusap na kami
ako ay muli niyang hinatak at tinutukan ng patalim at pinilit na pahigain x x
x.”

In her direct testimony, however, she said that her mother forced
her to go to accused-appellant’s house to have her dentures fitted. There was a need to mention in her testimony
before the court that her mother forced her to go to the place of
accused-appellant to give the court an impression that her going to
accused-appellant’s place was not of her own volition. This was never mentioned in her sworn
statement before the fiscal and this matter could not have been omitted in her
first declaration if it were true.

It is probable that the herein accused-appellant had sexual
intercourse with the complainant. It is
doubtful, however, that force or intimidation was used by the former to
consummate the act in any of the instances complained of by the
complainant. Proof of the alleged
intimidation used by the accused-appellant on the complainant is not strong
enough and not uninterrupted as to have prevented the complainant from resisting
it or from crying for help.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is
REVERSED and the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against
him.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Cruz, and
Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.