RAPE AND THE SWEETHEART THEORY: THEORY: (1) People v. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, Ap!l 11, "#11 $ "In rape, the ‘sweetheart’ defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that t he accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. he second is as important as the first, because this !ourt has held often enough that love is not a license for lust." xxxx "he ‘sweetheart theory’ or ‘sweetheart defense’ is an oftabused #ustification that rashly derides the intelligence of this !ourt and sorely tests our patience. $or the !ourt to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compellin g evidence. he defense cannot #ust present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, t heory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is re%uired such as to&ens, mementos, and photographs. (") People v. G%&!, G.R. No. "#"'76, e*%+ 1', "#14 $ $or the '(sweetheart)* theory to prosper, the existence of the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. $ailure to adduce such evidence renders his claim to be self+serving and of no probative value. $or the satisf satisfacti action on of the !ourt, there should be a corrob corrobora oration tion by their their common common frien friends ds or, or, if non none, e, a substantiation by to&ens of such a relationship such as love letters, gifts, pictures and the li&e. () D*-%%/ v. People, G.R. No. 17674#, 0*e "", "#11 2 ppellant’s claim claim that they are lovers is untenable. $or one, such claim was not substantiated substantiated by the evidence on the record. record. he only evidence adduced adduced by appellant appellant were his testimony testimony and those of his relatives relatives -oyet and ieves Irish. ccording to -oyet, he &nows of their relationship because they were conversing and writing each other while ieves Irish saw them once wal&ing in the street. o the mind of the !ourt, these are not enough evidence to prove that a romantic relationship existed between appellant and (). . . .
Intimacies such as loving caresses, caresses, HOW WO3D S35H ROANT5 REATONSHP E PRO9EN Intimacies cuddling, cuddling, tender smiles, sweet murmurs murmurs or any other affectiona affectionate te gestures gestures that one bestows upon his or her lover would have been seen. . . . . . In People v. t he sweetheart defense, this !ourt held that: v. Napudo where the accused li&ewise invo&ed the '*he fact alone that two people were seen seated beside each other, conversing during a #eepney ride, without more, cannot give rise to the inference that they were sweethearts. Intimacies such as loving caresses, cuddling, tender smiles, sweet murmurs or any other affectionate gestures that one bestows upon his or her lover would have been seen and are expected to indicate the presence of the relationship. OR SWEETHEART SWEETHEART DEENSE TO E 5REDE 5REDE WHAT WHAT OTHER PROO AY S35E S35E /ome documentary or other evidence of relationship 'such as notes, gi fts, pictures, mementos* and the li&e. S3PPOSE APPEANT AND THE AEGED 95T WERE NDEED SWEETHEARTS, 5AN THERE 0es. man can employ violence upon her fiancee on t he pretext of l ove. ST E RAPE 0es.
-esides, even if it were true that appellant and () were sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily necessarily negate rape. (1efinitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fianc2e and worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. 3ove is not a license for lust.) -ut what destroyed the veracity of appellant’s (sweetheart) defense were the credible declaration of () that she does not love him and her categorical denial that he is her boyfriend. (4) People v. %lo, G.R. No. 17;"8, e*%+ "4, "##' 2 he "sweetheart theory" or "sweetheart defense" is an oftabused #ustification that rashly derides the intelligence of this !ourt and sorely tests our patience. $or the !ourt to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compellin g evidence. he defense cannot #ust present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, t heory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is re%uired such as to&ens, mementos, and photographs. here is none presented here by the defense. (;) People v. A!v%, A!v%, G.R. No. 176#6; Ap!l "", "##8 $
/imilarly, it must be stressed that the absence of spermato4oa in the private complainant’s sex organ does not disprove rape. It could be that the victim washed or urinated prior to her examination, which may well explain the absence of spermato4oa. (6)People v. A+c%o, A+c%o, G.R. No. 168"'' Oc
he prosecution, at all times, bears the burden of establishing an accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt5no matter how wea& the defense may be, it is not and cannot be the sole basis of conviction if, on the other hand, the evidence for the prosecution is even wea&er; he accused may offer no more than a feeble alibi but the !ourt is en#oined to proclaim him innocent in light of insufficient evidence proving his guilt. (8) People vs. %
he rule is that when a rape victim’s testimony is straightforward and candid, unsha&en by rigid crossexamination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its vital points, the same must be given full faith and credit. (1") People vs. D%*ll%, ;1' S5RA 48 2 he (sweetheart defense) is effectively an admission of carnal &nowledge of the victim and conse%uently places on the accused the burden of proving the alleged relationship by substantial evidence. (1) People vs. D*%o, ;1' S5RA 466 2 6ape is committed when the accused has carnal &nowledge of the victim by force or intimidation and without consent.
8hen the testimony of a rape victim is simple and straightforward, unsha&en by rigorous crossexamination and unflawed by any serious inconsistency or contradiction, the same must be given full faith and credit5when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committ ed. 9hysical evidence of bruises or scratches elo%uently spea&s of the force emplo yed upon the rape victim. -ehavioral psychology teaches that people react to sim ilar situations dissimilarly.
(14) People vs. e>!c, ;"; S5RA 488 2 In determining the %uilt or innocence of the accused in cases of rape, the victim’s testimony is crucial in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime in which only two persons are normally involved. (1;) People vs. 5%s<o, ;"' S5RA 8## 2 udges must free themselves of the natural tendency to be overprotective of every woman decrying her having been sexually abused, and demanding punishment for the abuser. (16) People vs. A*lo, ;# S5RA 67; 2 8hen a rape victim’s victim’s testimony testimony,, however, however, is straightforw straightforward ard and mar&ed mar&ed with consistency despite grueling examination, it deserves full faith and confidence and cannot be discarded. (17) People vs. H%p!, ;1 S5RA ""4 2 he (sweetheart theory) is effectively an admission of carnal &nowledge of the victim and conse%uently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence5to be worthy of #udicial acce accept ptan ance ce,, such such a defe defens nsee shou should ld be supp suppor orte ted d by docu docume ment ntar ary y, test testim imon onia ial, l, or othe otherr evid eviden ence ce.. (18) People vs. S % A
(A) POSSE ARG3ENT O THE DEENSE: (1) People v. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, Ap!l 11, "#11 $ "In rape, the ‘sweetheart’ defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that t he accused and the victim were lovers; lovers; and, second, that she consented consented to the alleged sexual sexual relations. he second second is as important important as the first, because this !ourt has held often enough that love is not a license for lust." xxxx $or the !ourt to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. he defense cannot #ust present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is re%uired such as to&ens, mementos, and photographs. (") D*-%%/ v. People, G.R. No. 17674#, 0*e "", "#11 2
Intimacies such as loving caresses, caresses, HOW WO3D S35H ROANT5 REATONSHP E PRO9EN Intimacies cuddling, cuddling, tender smiles, sweet murmurs murmurs or any other affectiona affectionate te gestures gestures that one bestows upon his or her lover would have been seen. OR SWEETHEART SWEETHEART DEENSE TO E 5REDE 5REDE WHAT WHAT OTHER PROO AY S35E S35E /ome documentary or other evidence of relationship 'such as notes, gi fts, pictures, mementos* and the li&e. () People v. A!v%, A!v%, G.R. No. 176#6; Ap!l "", "##8 $ /imilarly, it must be stressed that the absence of spermato4oa in the private complainant’s sex organ does not disprove rape. It could be that the victim washed or urinated prior to her examination, which may well explain the absence of spermato mato44oa. '// '//
> >7 >7 <7 <71I 1I!3 !3 !76 !76I$ I$I! I! 7 I/ 176 $$I1 $$I1@I @I !?<93I !?<93I > > 9? 66I@I= 66I@I= >?<7, />7 I<<71I730 ->71 1 /!6--71 >76 -?10 ?@76 1 ?@76 =I, >/, I <0 -7 9?//I-37 > ? /7<7 8/ 8/ $?1 ? >76 ?6I$I!7 $76 33 8>I!> I/ !?660 ? >7 <71I!3 7A<. >7>7.*
(4) People vs. e>!c, ;"; S5RA 488 2 In determining the %uilt or innocence of the accused in cases of rape, the victim’s testimony is crucial in view of the intrins intrinsic ic nature nature of the crime in which which only two person personss are are normal normally ly involve involved. d. '87 </ !B !B >7 !671I-I3I0 ?$ >7 !?<93I ? 96?@7 > />7 I/ 30I=.* 30I=.* (;) People vs. 5%s<o, ;"' S5RA 8## 2 udges must free themselves of the natural tendency to be overprotective of every woman decrying her having been sexually abused, and demanding punishment for the abuser. (6) People vs. 5e%llos, 0., ; S5RA 4' 2 In rape cases, the credibility of the victi m is almost always the single sin gle most important issue. '=I, !BI= !BI= >7 !671I-I3I0 ?$ >7 !?<93I* (7) People v. R!c%-o%, G.R. No. 1686"8, Dece-e 6, "##6 2 It would be the height of incredulity for livein partners between a young lady and a middle age man to display for others to see their intimate moments for even married husband and wife will normally see& a place where they are alone together to perform their romantic encounters secure from possible prying eyes. '87 ! 6=7 > >7 !?<93I !?<93I 1 >7 !!/71 !!/71 /?=> /?=> ? >@ >@7 >7I6 >7I6 6?<I 6?<I! ! 70 871 96I@!0 1 /7/7 ?$ 17!7!0.* (8) WE 5AN ASO ARG3E ON A RE9ERSE RE9ERSE PSY5HO PSY5HOOGY OGY EE5T EE5T,, TH3S: TH3S: (It is true that being sweethearts, the man has no right to have sexual intercourse with the woman against her will, for being sweethearts per se does not prove consent to the sexual act. It is also true that t hat ordinarily, no sane girl would fabricate a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and sub#ect herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape. o these, the defense agrees to the highest degree, for rape indeed is not #ust an act strictly prohibited by law but foremost, a moral evil that cannot and can never be countenanced. 6ape should be condemned for it has no place in our civili4ed society. s rational individuals with moral decency, we should not act in a manner that is below human standards. 6ape in whatever form is rape; it is wrong and definitely un#ust.
s for two young individuals who have fallen in love with each other, it is somehow difficult for them to resist that urge urge to spend a moment of romance together. together. 3ove, indeed, wor&s in a mysterious mysterious way. $or sweethearts sweethearts who are deeply and passionately in love with each other, the call of nature forces them to surrender. 8hat can we doC >umans, after all, are not only rational but sexual beings as well. 1o we have the right to prohibit lovers from engaging in romantic momentsC 9rovided, of course that no legal incapacity exists for them to be together. his is especially true if both sweethearts are already of legal age and are about to obtain their college diplomas. hese circumstances would indicate that they &now what they are doing and the conse%uences of their acts. ow then, should we punish them for their private act of purely romantic engagementC /hould we persecute them for their act of loving each otherC 8e do not thin& soD $or who are we to do thatC 8e are sure that everyone in this room has reached that point in his or her life of being romantically involved with another person. 3ove is a gift that we humans cannot really control. /hould we criminali4e a young man who gave in to sexual desires with his girlfriend, who in the first place, gave her unconditional and unblemished consentC young man with a credibility and family reputation reputation to protect, protect, a gentleman gentleman who has a wonderful wonderful life ahead of him, do you thin& he would have surrendered himself to his girlfriend if he &new all along that in the end, he will be accused of a morally unacceptable actionC o rational gentleman would consent to having carnal &nowledge with a woman, whom he is deeply in love with, if he will be charged of rape afterwards. !learly, no gentleman would destroy his reputation for mere sexual lust. he very gentleman who is now accused of having committed rape against his sweetheart, do you thin& that he is indeed guilty of the crime chargedC If there is one thing that he is guilty of, that is, he fell in love with a young woman whom he pursued for %uite sometime. Is that a crimeC 1efinitely notD ?therwise, all of us should have been sent already to prison for falling in love. he accused herein cannot and should not be held guilty for he never committed rapeD he romance that had transpired between the parties herein is purely consensual arising from passion. !onsensual for the lady complainant through her letters and text messages has repeatedly conveyed to the gentleman accused that she is ready to consummate their romantic relationship. hus, on that fateful day, after having having som somee drin& drin&ing ing spree, spree, the two lovers lovers indeed indeed had carnal carnal &no &nowle wledge dge.. -ut this happened happened only after after the
gentleman had repeatedly verified from his girlfriend if she is in fact consenting to such act. /ince the girlfriend had given her unconditional confirmation of her willingness to have carnal &nowledge with the gentleman, the latter had agreed to do it. nfortunately, due to fear of parental re#ection, not to mention being disowned and disinherited, the complainant herein instituted this action after her parents forced her to do so. his is a classic case of a young woman who was caught in the middle of having to choose between her parents, on one hand, and her boyfriend, on the other hand. s she does not want to disobey her parents and commit further acts that would infuriate them, she has to file a complaint for rape against her innocent boyfriend. =iven these circumstances and the pieces of evidence already presented, ladies and gentlemen, members of the #ury, and to this honourable honourable court, who is now the real victim in this caseC '>I/ ! -7 <17 96 96 ?$ >7 !3?/I= /977!>.*
() POSSE ARG3ENTS O THE PROSE53TON: (1) People v. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, Ap!l 11, "#11 $ It is wellsettled that being sweethearts does not negate the commission of rape because such fact does not give appellant license to have sexual intercourse against her will, and will not exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape. -eing sweethearts does not prove consent to the sexual act." (") D*-%%/ v. People, G.R. No. 17674#, 0*e "", "#11 2 S3PPOSE APPEANT AND THE AEGED 95T WERE NDEED SWEETHEARTS, 5AN THERE 0es. man can employ violence upon her fiancee on t he pretext of l ove. ST E RAPE 0es.
-esides, even if it were true that appellant and () were sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily necessarily negate rape. (1efinitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fianc2e and worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. 3ove is not a license for lust.) -ut what destroyed the veracity of appellant’s (sweetheart) defense were the credible declaration of () that she does not love him and her categorical denial that he is her boyfriend. () People v. %lo, G.R. No. 17;"8, e*%+ "4, "##' 2
’s ’s failure to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be ta&en against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto ma&e voluntary her submission to appellant’s criminal act. In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and #udgment at the time of the commission of the crime. s already settled in our #urisprudence, not all victims react the same way. /ome people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shoc&ed into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. /ome may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all.
that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the absence of such countervailing proof, the testimony shall be accorded utmost value. (6) People vs. P%/!l!%, ;18 S5RA ;8 2 his !ourt has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being sub#ect to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain #ustice for the wrong committed against her.
he delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to ma&e public the assault on her virtue is neither un&nown nor uncommon. (7) People vs. S*+%<, ;18 S5RA ;8" 2 $or the conviction of rape, it is not necessary that the same be supported by medical findings of in#uries as proof of in#uries is not an essential element of the crime. (8) People vs. D%*ll%, ;1' S5RA 48 2 he failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not ma&e voluntary the victim’s submission to the criminal act of the offender. (') People vs. D*%o, ;1' S5RA 466 2 6esistance is not an element of rape as rape could be perpetrated through the use of force or intimidation.
-ehavioral psychology teaches that people react to sim ilar situations dissimilarly. sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will5definitely a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fianc2e and, worse, employee violence upon her on the pretext of love. (1#) People vs. Ge/o!o, 0., ;" S5RA "16 2 he failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge. (11) People vs. 5oel!o, ;" S5RA 41' 2 he silence of a victim of rape or her failure to disclose her misfortune to the authorities without loss of material time does not prove that her charge is baseless and fabricated5it is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault on their virtues because of the rapist’s threat on their lives, more so when the offender is someone whom she &new and who was living with her. (1") People vs. e>!c, ;"; S5RA 488 2 6ape victims do not cherish &eeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated5errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. (1) People vs. el% 5*?, ;"' S5RA 1#' 2 It is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed to commit rape to be so great of such character as could not be resisted because all that is re%uired is that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.
It is instinctive for a young woman, unmarried woman to protect her honor and thus difficult to believe that she would fabricate a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, reveal her shame and permit herself to be the sub#ect of a public trial if she had not really been ravished. (14) People vs. 5%!e
It is not unusual for a rape victim to conceal the incident at least momentarily.
(1;) People vs. !%%, ;"' S5RA '' 2 here is no uniform behavior that can be expected from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested. (16) People vs. 5%s<o, ;"' S5RA 8## 2 he fact that the private complainant did not resist or attempt or flee or shout for help does not negate force or intimidation. (17) People vs. S% A
It is wellsettled that proof of physical in#uries sustained by reason of resistance to the sexual attac&er is not an essential element of the crime of rape5it is enough to show that the appellant did succeed in having sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will. he act of the complainant in filing a complaint against the accused, few hours after the rape incident happened, can be regarded as an indication of a truthful narration that indeed, she was raped by the accused; estimonies of child victims are given full faith and credit, since when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed commit ted. (18) People vs. !+oc, ;" S5RA ;"8 2 o woman would openly admit that she was raped and conse%uently sub#ect herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in detail how she was raped unless she was in fact raped. (1') People vs. %lo?o, ; S5RA 76# 2 he law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. ("#) People vs. So!%o, ;4 S5RA 14# 2 8hen the victim’s testimony is corroborated by the physician’s findings of penetration, then there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of t he essential re%uisite of carnal &nowledge.
man does not have an unbridled license to sub#ect his beloved to his carnal desires. ("1) People vs. e%e?, ;; S5RA 1;' 2 6ape is committed by having carnal &nowledge of a woman who is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious5 thus, there is rape where the woman was unconscious as when she was asleep when the carnal act was accomplished. ("") People vs. T*%?o, ;7 S5RA 4'4 2 he hesitance of the victim in reporting the crime to the authorities is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge, and this is especially true where the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm made by a person who exercises moral ascendancy over the victim. (") People vs. A/*!l%, ;4# S5RA ;#' 2 he crying of a victim during her testimony is elo%uent evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity borne out of human nature and experience. '>7!7, >7 !!/71 />?31 3/? !60 I ?97 !?6 ? />?8 > >7 I/ /I!767 1 I?!7.* ("4) People vs. El%, ;41 S5RA ;#8 2 he elo%uent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings attesting to her nonvirgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of the charges.
I INCLUDED THESE CASES BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE INTERESTING AND WE MAY USE THE SAME FOR OUR ARGUMENTS AND GUIDELINE:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. SILVINO SALARZA, JR., Accused-Appellant. (G. R. No. 11!"#, A$%$&' 1", 1)
BELLOSILLO, J.: DEATH, the punishment in extremis, was imposed on Silvino Salarza Jr !or rape "e now review his #onvi#tion
$areen Smith, British, was %&, sin'le, a television and sta'e a#tress Sometime in ())*, she #ame to the +hilippines and #hose Bora#a in A-lan and +ort Barton in +alawan !or her va#ation retreats In +ort Barton, she met Enri#o de Jesus, .ilipino, /0, #areta-er o! Elsa1s +la#e, a resort owned 2 his parents Soon enou'h a mutual attra#tion developed 2etween them whi#h ripened into an intense love a!!air that the would have se3 almost ever ni'ht
On %& April ())*, Enri#o 2rou'ht $areen to 4ar1s 5otta'e in Sitio Sa2an', B' 5a2au'an, and introdu#ed her to his 'randun#le, 6o'elio 4ara7on, and 'randaunts, 8enita 4ara7on and 4aria Ausan, who #olle#tivel owned and mana'ed the resort Enri#o and $areen o##upied 5otta'e 8o ( The spent the da at the 2ea#h where the dran- and swam The were later 9oined in 2 Enri#o1s !riend Silvino Salarza, Jr, a tourist 'uide, a press relations o!!i#er and a !isherman
In the evenin' Enri#o and $areen went to Sa2an' 5entro to'ether with Silvino, Julio 4orales and a #ertain Tonton to attend a dan#e The dan#e however was #an#eled so the pro#eeded to 5o#o rove 6estaurant and dran- a 2ottle o! rhum $areen did not drin- as she pre!erred red wine whi#h was not availa2le At eleven o1#lo#- the 'roup returned to 4ar1s 5otta'e where Enri#o awa-ened his 'randaunt 8enita and as- her !or two ;/< more 2ottles o! rhum, a!ter whi#h, the went 2a#- to the 2ea#h and #ontinued drin-in' This time $areen opted !or a 2ottle o! 2eer A!ter a while $areen said she !elt tired and sleep so she e3#used hersel! and retired to the #otta'e She was a##ompanied 2 Enri#o who le!t her there to sleep Ba#at the 2ea#h Enri#o as-ed his !riends to 'o spear!ishin' Althou'h Silvino went with them he later returned to the 2ea#h 2e#ause he #ould not stand the #old and was !eelin' dizz .rom this point on, the prose#ution and the de!ense presented varin' versions
A##ordin' to the prose#ution, at two o1#lo#- in the mornin' o! ( 4a ())* $areen wo-e up when she !elt some2od ta-e o!! her underwear *1+ The room was dar- as the resort mana'ement swit#hed o!! the li'hts at ten o1#lo#- $areen said she did not stop the man !rom removin' her panties as she thou'ht it was Enri#o, her 2o!riend, and she was hal!= asleep The man in turn removed his 2rie!s and pla#ed himsel! on top o! her, spread her le's, penetrated her and e3e#uted push=and=pull movements Later, the man so!tl whispered: >$areen, it1s not 6i#-? it1s Jun I love ou> A##ordin' to $areen, when she heard those words, she pushed him aside She #ried and 2e#ame hsteri#al She went to the 2athroom and washed hersel!, at the same time tellin' Silvino, >"h@ "h did ou do that to me@ ou have ruined everthin' ou -now that 6i#- and I are trin' to have a 2a2 o! our own, what will happen now@ I mi'ht 'et impre'nated 2 what ou did to me> Silvino, however, assured her that pre'nan# was out o! the uestion as he did not e9a#ulate
4aria Ausan heard $areen #r so she awa-ened 8enita Thin-in' that Enri#o was !or#in' himsel! on $areen, 8enita went near 5otta'e 8o ( and pleaded, > Rico, please naman, kung ayaw huwag mong pilitin." But she did not enter the #otta'e At this moment she noti#ed a li'hted petroma3 approa#hin' It was Enri#o with Julio and Tonton #omin' !rom the 2ea#h Enri#o hurriedl wal-ed to the #otta'e He saw Silvino #omin' out At on#e he assumed that Silvino must have molested $areen Cpon nearin' Silvino, Enri#o pun#hed him even 2e!ore $areen #ould narrate what happened to her 6o'elio 4ara7on and Julio 4orales then reported the in#ident at the poli#e station and +atrolmen Eleazar and 6odillo immediatel responded
On the other hand, Silvino #laims that it was $areen who was !lirtin' with him His version is that while at 5o#o rove 6estaurant, whenever Enri#o was not loo-in', $areen would whisper to him and pla#e her arm on his shoulder She would tal- to him a2out her sta in Bora#a with her sister Lu#ila and the men she met there In turn, he spo-e to her a2out his !ormer 'irl!riends "hen Enri#o invited him to 'o spear!ishin' he went with the 'roup 2ut a!ter a while he returned to the 2ea#h sain' he was !eelin' #old and dizz havin' im2i2ed one too man He even stum2led and !ell on the sand As a result, he 'ot sand all over his 2od so he pro#eeded to the pu2li# restroom !or a shower On the wa to 'et his t=shirt and #i'arettes he saw $areen lin' on the hammo#- She as-ed him !or a #i'arette and insisted that he ta-e his shower inside her #otta'e instead o! the pu2li# restroom whi#h was a2out a hundred meters awa He hesitated !or a while 2ut !inall a##eded
A!ter emer'in' !rom his shower he was surprised to see $areen on the 2ed She pulled him towards her and as-ed him to ma-e love to her She em2ra#ed him ti'htl and -issed him lust!ull He was surprised with the turn o! events and !elt un#om!orta2le 2e#ause o! Enri#o
whom he did not wish to o!!end, mu#h less 2etra, so he pushed her awa In her e3asperation she shouted, >Sh===t ou, ou are stupid> Then she rushed to the 2athroom and washed hersel! He heard the voi#e o! 8enita 4ara7on #omin' !rom outside 5otta'e 8o ( #allin' !or Enri#o and inuirin' what was happenin', apparentl thin-in' it was her 'randnephew with $areen havin' a lover1s uarrel So Silvino answered, >This is not 6i#-, Tia, this is me, Jun> He in!ormed her that he had 9ust ta-en his shower inside "hile Silvino and 8enita were tal-in', $areen was simpl -eepin' uiet As he went out o! the #otta'e he met Enri#o on the wa 8enita shouted, >Jun, 6i#- is #omin', ou1re dead> True enou'h Enri#o 2o3ed Silvino Tonton and Julio 'an'ed up on him, 2eat him, poured pepper on his 2od and pulled him towards the river .ear!ul that the would eventuall -ill him, Silvino #rawled towards the #o#onut 'rove and upon rea#hin' the road leadin' to Sa2an' 5entro he wal-ed to the poli#e station to lod'e his #omplaint On his wa, he met +oli#emen Eleazar and 6odillo 6odillo 2rou'ht him to the poli#e station while Eleazar #ontinued his wa towards 4ar1s 5otta'e to #ondu#t an investi'ation
But the trial #ourt was not persuaded 2 Silvino1s stor It pronoun#ed him 'uilt o! rape and imposed upon him the supreme penalt o! death The #ourt threw out his de#laration that $areen had 2een !lirtin' with him earlier and was the one who even proposed that the en'a'e in se3 that ni'ht It !ound in#redi2le that $areen would !all !or Silvino and su2stitute him !or Enri#o, rationalizin' that $areen was %& ears old, Enri#o /0, and Silvino alread %, and that Enri#o was 1F> tall, handsome, with a well=shaped !a#e and nose, while Silvino was not 'enerousl endowed and standin' onl at 1/> Besides, it ar'ued that a woman would not #har'e a person with the heinous #rime o! rape i! it were not true, !or she would not allow the e3amination o! her private parts and su29e#t hersel! to a pu2li# trial whi#h are 2oth em2arrassin' i! her a##usation was merel !a2ri#ated It uoted +eople v Sel!aison, *#+ where it was held that it was di!!i#ult to 2elieve that the #omplainants, who were oun' and unmarried, would tell a stor o! de!loration, allow the e3amination o! their private parts and therea!ter permit themselves to 2e a su29e#t o! a pu2li# trial i! the were not motivated 2 an honest desire to have the #ulprits apprehended and punished O2viousl the #ourt did not !ind it pertinent that $areen was alread %&, a sta'e and television a#tress, 2 her admission had several 2o!riends in the past with whom she had se3ual relations, and was possessed with a vi'orous appetite !or se3 as she was indul'in' in inter#ourse with Enri#o almost ever ni'ht without 2ene!it o! marria'e
Guite interestin'l, the In!ormation alle'es that Silvino had #arnal #ommuni#ation with $areen while she was asleep, with the use o! !or#e, a'ainst her will and without her #onsent
"e do not !ind the !a#ts su2stantiatin' the In!ormation "e must a#uit
Cnder Art %% o! the 6evised +enal 5ode, as amended 2 Se# ((, 6 A 0), rape is #ommitted 2 havin' #arnal -nowled'e o! a woman under an o! the !ollowin' #ir#umstan#es: ;a< 2 usin' !or#e or intimidation? ;2< when the woman is deprived o! reason or otherwise un#ons#ious? and, ;#< when the woman is under twelve ;(/< ears o! a'e or is demented The !a#ts o! this #ase do not 2 an means show the e3isten#e o! an o! these #ir#umstan#es? thus we #annot see how the trial #ourt have #onvi#ted and, worse, senten#ed the a##used to die
.irst, the #omplainin' witness was not 2elow twelve ;(/< ears o! a'e at the time o! the alle'ed #ommission o! the o!!ense She was alread thirt ;%&< ears old 8either was she demented
Se#ond, the In!ormation avers use o! !or#e 2ut the eviden#e ne'ates an use o! !or#e, na, not even intimidation, in the #ommission o! the o!!ense #har'ed In !a#t, as dis#ussed hereunder, the se3ual advan#es o! the a##used were done with the #onsent o! the #omplainin' witness althou'h she #laimed she thou'ht that the man who laid with her was her 2o!riend Enri#o Here it ma 2e ar'ued that #onsent to the se3ual a#t was 'iven 2 $areen onl 2e#ause o! her erroneous 2elie! that the man on top o! her was Enri#o, thus implin' that had she -nown it was someone else she would have resisted
The e3planation is not persuasive The eviden#e shows that this mista-e was purel a su29e#tive #on!i'uration o! $areen1s mind an assumption entirel #ontrived 2 her Our impression is that Silvino had nothin' to do with the !ormulation o! this 2elie!? he did nothin' to mislead or de#eive $areen into thin-in' that he was Enri#o In !a#t, Silvino pre#isel, and #on!identl, told her, >$areen, it1s not 6i#-? it1s Jun I love ou> It is thus o2vious that whatever mista-e there was #ould onl 2e attri2uta2le to $areen and her ine3#usa2le impruden#e and to no2od else 5learl, the !ault was hers She had the opportunit to as#ertain the identit o! the man 2ut she pre!erred to remain passive and allow thin's to happen as the did Silvino never used !or#e on her and was even most possi2l en#oura'ed 2 the !a#t that when he pulled down her panties she never o29e#ted? when her le's were 2ein' parted she never o29e#ted? and, when he !inall mounted her she never o29e#ted "here then was !or#e@
Third, $areen was not deprived o! reason or otherwise un#ons#ious when the a##used had inter#ourse with her Her lame e3#use was that she was hal!=asleep However she admitted that in the earl mornin' o! ( 4a ())* she wo-e up to !ind someone removin' her underwear Thuswise, it #annot 2e said that she was deprived o! reason or un#ons#ious She -new, hen#e, was #ons#ious, when her panties were 2ein' pulled down? she -new, hen#e,
was #ons#ious, when her le's were 2ein' parted to prepare !or the se3ual a#t? she -new, hen#e, was #ons#ious, when the man was pullin' down his 2rie!s to prepare himsel! li-ewise !or the #opulation? she -new, hen#e, was #ons#ious, when the man mounted her and lusted a!ter her virtue Her 9usti!i#ation was that she never o29e#ted to the se3ual a#t !rom the start 2e#ause she thou'ht that the man was her 2o!riend with whom she was havin' se3 almost ever ni'ht !or the past three ;%< wee-s as the were 'ettin' married and wanted alread to have a 2a2 In other words, her ur'e #ould not wait !or the more appropriate time
The prose#ution would have the a##used #onvi#ted o! rape under its hpothesis that the #omplainin' witness was hal!=asleep, er'o un#ons#ious, when the se3ual assault too- pla#e O2viousl, it had in mind the do#trine enun#iated in ()/) in +eople v 5or#ino, *+ and later in ()% in +eople v 5a2allero *-+ These #ases, however, do not appl 2e#ause the o!!ended parties there were unuestiona2l !ast asleep and not 9ust hal!=asleep as in the instant #ase when the a#t was perpetrated 5onseuentl, there was no opportunit !or them to either o29e#t or 'ive their #onsent as the were in deep slum2er at the time o! the #oition It was onl some time a!ter the wo-e up that the realized that the men havin' se3 with them were not their hus2ands the thou'ht them to 2e In #onvi#tin' the a##used, this 5ourt held, as the trial #ourts did, that the #rime o! rape had alread 2een #onsummated even 2e!ore the o!!ended parties wo-e up !rom their sleep In 5a2allero it was !ound that when 5onsor#ia, the o!!ended part, awo-e the appellant had alread introdu#ed his or'an into her 'enitals and in !a#t he was alread havin' se3ual inter#ourse with her "e mention this !a#t on a##ount o! a #ertain dou2t arisin' !rom the o!!ended part1s testimon durin' the dire#t e3amination relative to this detail, 2ut in the attempt o! the attorne !or the de!ense to #lari! this point durin' his #ross=e3amination, the o!!ended part #ate'ori#all a!!irmed that she had 2een unaware when the appellant introdu#ed his or'an into hers when the o!!ended part awo-e, the #rime o! rape #ommitted 2 the appellant was alread #onsummated, havin' had #arnal -nowled'e with the o!!ended part while she was un#ons#ious !or 2ein' asleep The o!!ended part1s #onsent to the a#t was su2seuent thereto and it was 'iven on the 2elie! that the man lin' with her was her own hus2and ;emphasis supplied< *+
The import o! this pronoun#ement is that it was no lon'er relevant, mu#h less si'ni!i#ant, that a!ter wa-in' up the o!!ended part #ontinued to have se3 with the man she thou'ht was her hus2and Her >#onsent> to the a#t was su2seuent to the rape, or a!ter the #rime was alread #ommitted? the !a#t that the #onsent even i! onl implied was 'iven on the 2elie! that the man was her spouse, was in#onseuential In the #ase o! $areen, her >#onsent> was 'iven prior to the #arnal a#t, i.e., the a#t was done 2e#ause o! her passivit, i! not #onsent
The re#ord a2ounds with indi#ia to dis#redit the theor o! the prose#ution that $areen was dead drun- when the alle'ed rape too- pla#ed Havin' #onsumed onl a small uantit o! rhum durin' the da, a##ordin' to her, and a 2ottle o! 2eer in the evenin' on a normal pa#e, she #ould not have 2een so drun- as to 2e deprived o! reason or otherwise rendered un#ons#ious "hen she returned to her #otta'e she immediatel !ell asleep as she was tired and remained so !or some time "hen she was supposedl molested at around two=thirt the !ollowin' mornin' she must have alread 2een, as we 2elieve she was, in !ull possession o! her mental and phsi#al !a#ulties "hatever into3i#atin' e!!e#t the rhum and 2eer mi'ht have had on her would have alread worn o!!
$areen hersel! #laimed that she wo-e up when she !elt someone removin' her panties This means she was !ull #ons#ious when some2od approa#hed her 2ed, removed her panties, spread her le's >althou'h not !ar apart 2ut 9ust enou'h to 'et her underwear o!!,> and then pro#eeded to per!orm #oital movements with her Her testimon that she -new that the >intruder> removed his own 2rie!s? that his penis was alread ere#t? that no e!!ort to !orepla was made 2e!ore penetratin' her in his !irst attempt? that the man did not -iss her nor tou#h her 2reasts? that she did not even 'uide his penis into the trou'h o! her !erminit? and, that he >pushed=and=pulled> on top o! her !or appro3imatel less than a minute, all validate our #onvi#tion that she was !ull #ons#ious not asleep nor even hal!=asleep o! what was 2ein' done to her !rom the 2e'innin' She was also aware that there was no li'ht as the 'as lamp inside the #otta'e was not li'hted and the ele#tri#it was alread shut o!!
4ost si'ni!i#antl, $areen was a#utel aware o! the manner 2 whi#h Silvino identi!ied himsel! >$areen, it1s not 6i#-? it1s Jun> 2e#ause she testi!ied that > 333 it was not pre#eeded 2 a uestion It was as i! Jun wanted to wa-e me up !ull> *!+ To repeat, all these details vividl re#alled and re#ounted 2 her inelu#ta2l indi#ate that she was awa-e all the time and #apa2le o! #omprehendin' the nature o! the se3ual a#t and o! e3er#isin' her own !ree will as to ield to or resist a Lothario1s li2ido
$areen had -nown Enri#o !or three % wee-s and sin#e then had 2een ma-in' love with him almost ever ni'ht It strains #redulit and understandin' that she #ould have mista-en Silvino !or Enri#o Their #onstant lovema-in' and to'etherness would have alread made her !amiliar with the phsi#al attri2utes o! Enri#o and a##ustomed to his !orni#atin' pe#uliarities $areen even asserted that Enri#o was not in#lined to se3ual inter#ourse when drun- and would usuall indul'e in !orepla 2e!ore a#tual #opulation These oddities are #ues whi#h reasona2l en'ender suspi#ion that the man she was havin' #arnal #ommuni#ation with was not her lover 2ut someone else She had the moral responsi2ilit not onl to hersel! 2ut to so#iet itsel! to as#ertain !irst the identit o! her >ravisher> 2e!ore ieldin' #ompletel to him It #an hardl 2e said that she was not imprudent, re#-less and irresponsi2le in 'ivin' in to her own se3ual impulses 4oreover, 2ein' almost a stran'er in
the pla#e, $areen should have 2een leer o! her surroundin's espe#iall at ni'ht In this re'ard, she should not have le!t her #otta'e door unlo#-ed as mu#h as she did leave pre'na2le and unshielded the portals o! her womanhood
In +eople v Ba#alzo, *+ the a##used 2o3ed his vi#tim into un#ons#iousness "hen the vi#tim re'ained her #ons#iousness she !elt the !la##id penis o! her ravisher still inside her va'ina and that therea!ter he removed his se3ual or'an He then warned her not to divul'e what had happened or else she and her !amil would 2e -illed .or#e, whi#h was used to -no#- the vi#tim into un#ons#iousness, was emploed 2e!ore the a#t was done to ensure its #onsummation In +eople v 5or#ino *"+ the #omplainin' witness was totall asleep and when she wo-e up the or'an o! the a##used was alread inside her 'enitalia In +eople v 5a2allero *+ the vi#tim was !ull asleep when the a##used had #arnal #ommuni#ation with her, su#h that when she wo-e up the #rime o! rape was alread #onsummated The same was true in +eople v Inot*1/+ In +eople v Dao, *11+ the rapist1s or'an was alread in the va'ina o! the o!!ended part when she wo-e up, so she pushed him awa and s#reamed But the a##used pulled out his revolver and threatened to -ill her i! she made an !urther out#r She !ainted, and the a##used #ontinued havin' se3 with her In !ine, in all these #ases raped was alread #onsummated 2e!ore the o!!ended parties #ould even e3er#ise their volition to 'rant or den a##ess to eroti# #onsortium
Cnder the #ir#umstan#es we #annot help entertainin' serious dou2ts on the #ulpa2ilit o! the a##used 6ape is a #har'e eas to ma-e, hard to prove and harder to de!end 2 the part a##used, thou'h inno#ent E3perien#e has shown t hat un!ounded #har'es o! rape have !reuentl 2een pro!erred 2 women a#tuated 2 some sinister, ulterior or undis#losed motive 5onvi#tions !or su#h #rime should not 2e sustained without #lear and #onvin#in' proo! o! 'uilt On more than one o##asion it has 2een pointed out that in #rimes a'ainst #hastit the testimon o! the in9ured woman should not 2e re#eived with pre#ipitate #redulit "hen the #onvi#tion depends on an vital point upon her un#orro2orated testimon, it should not 2e a##epted unless her sin#erit and #andor are !ree !rom suspi#ion A little insi'ht into human nature is o! utmost value in 9ud'in' matters o! this -ind *1#+
But even !rom the narration o! $areen, the elements o! the #rime o! rape are, re'ret!ull, misera2l wantin' There was no !or#e nor intimidation? $areen was not deprived o! reason nor otherwise un#ons#ious? and, she was not 2elow twelve nor demented
"HE6E.O6E, the de#ision appealed !rom is 6EKE6SED and SET ASIDE and a##used= appellant SILKI8O SALA6$A J6 is A5GCITTED o! the #rime #har'ed? #onseuentl, he is ordered immediatel 6ELEASED !rom #on!inement unless held !or some other law!ul #ause
LESSO8: THE +6OSE5CTIO8 "ILL DELKE I8TO THE C85O8S5IOCS8ESS O. THE KI5TI4 "HI5H 4A +6OKE THAT THE6E "AS 8O 5O8SE8T HO"EKE6, "E 4A DIS+6OKE THIS B 4AI8 IT 8O"8 .6O4 THE KI5TI4 HE6SEL. THAT SHE "AS 8OT A5TCALL C85O8S5IOCS DC6I8 THE ALLEED 6A+E I8 .A5T, SHE "AS A8 A5TIKE +A6TI5I+A8T THE6ETO SHE AKE HE6 +6IO6 5O8SE8T A8D 5O8TI8CED 5O8SE8TI8 B A5TIKEL +A6TI5I+ATI8 I8 THE A5T BASTA, DA+AT LC4ABAS 8A ALA4 8I KI5TI4 A8 DETAILS 8 EKE8T;S< O85E "E +6OKED THAT THE KI5TI4 "AS 5O8S5IOCS A8D SHE AKE HE6 5O8SE8T, THE8, THE6E IS 8O 6E4AI8I8 ELE4E8T O. THE 56I4E O. 6A+E A5GCITTED 8A SI A55CSED HEHE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BRYAN FERDINAND DY y LA MADRID and GIOVAN BERNARDINO y GARCIA, accused-appellants. [G.R. Nos. 115!"#!$. %an&a'y (, ))*
YNARES#SANTIAGO, J .+
Accused-appellants Bryan Dy and Giovan Bernardino were charged with Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness in a complaint initiated by Gina Marie Mobley under the following informations:
Criminal Case No. 12600-R:
hat on or about the EFth day of anuary, EGGH, in the !ity of -aguio, 9hilippines, and within the #urisdiction of this >onorable !ourt, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and ta&ing advantage of the unconscious state of the complainant who was then under the influence of drugs, have carnal &nowledge of the complainant =I <6I7
Criminal Case No. 12601-R:
hat on or about the EFth day of anuary, EGGH, in the !ity of -aguio, 9hilippines, and within the #urisdiction of this >onorable !ourt, the abovenamed accused, actuated by lust with lewd design and with deliberate intent to satisfy their lascivious desire, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously &iss her, fondle her breast, undress her and insert their fingers into her vagina, who was then unconscious by reason of the drugs employed on her by the accused, all against her will and without her consent, thereby inflicting upon the latter moral shoc&, fright, humiliation, dishonor and besmirched reputation on the part of the complainant and her family.
he two cases were tried !ointly" Accused-appellants refused to be arraigned and enter a plea# hence$ a plea of %not guilty& was entered on their behalf"
During the trial$ the following undisputed facts were established: 'omplainant Gina Marie Mobley$ together with her companion (elen )athleen ennican$ both American nationals$ were e*change students at the 'hengdu +niversity of ,cience and echnology in 'hengdu$ ,ichuan$ 'hina" Gina was taing up Biology" (elen was also a Biology ma!or and too 'hinese ,tudies as an additional course" Both were enrolled at the .acific Lutheran +niversity at acoma$ /ashington$ where Gina was a university scholar"
(aving heard of the renowned 0ilipino hospitality from their 0ilipino-American friends$ Gina and (elen decided to spend their semestral brea in the .hilippines" hey arrived in the country on 1anuary 23$ 2445" hey stayed overnight in Manila then went to Angeles 'ity the ne*t day" 6n Angeles 'ity$ they visited a bar and had coctails$ played billiards and went disco dancing"
he following morning$ 1anuary 27$ 2445$ they flew over Mt" .inatubo and viewed the lahar-covered areas on board an ultralight plane" hat afternoon$ they were driven from their hotel to the .hilippine Rabbit Bus terminal in Dau$ .ampanga$ where they were supposed to tae a ride to Baguio 'ity" /hile waiting for their bus$ they went to a ,haey8s .i99a .arlor near the terminal"
Gina and (elen too the table near the comfort room" Accused-appellants Bryan and Giovan$ who are brothers-in-law$ were seated at the ne*t table" /ith them was their driver$ Ri9al" Bryan recogni9ed the two girls from the Angeles 0lying 'lub$ where Gina and (elen rented the ultralight plane" Gina went to the comfort room" Bryan and Giovan approached (elen and introduced themselves" hey invited (elen to !oin them at their table$ but she declined"
/hile Brian and Giovan were still taling to (elen$ Gina returned" ,he presumed that (elen new them$ so she started to tal with the boys" Gina told them they came to the country to see the sights and that they wanted to e*perience 0ilipino hospitality" ,ince they could hardly hear each other above the din of the $ the girls agreed to !oin them at their table" he girls taled about their plan to go to Baguio 'ity and Banaue" Bryan and Giovan offered the girls a ride to Baguio 'ity" Gina and (elen taled the matter
between themselves" ;ventually they accepted the offer thining that they could save some money" Besides$ they thought the boys looed nice and trustworthy"
hey left ,haey8s at <:=3 in the evening and boarded a white 2442 four-door Mitsubishi sedan" Ri9al too the wheel$ while Bryan sat at the front passenger seat" (elen$ Gina and Giovan stayed on the bac seat$ in that order" Before proceeding to Baguio$ they stopped at a residential area where Bryan delivered some papers and piced up some !acets"
>n their way to Baguio$ they taled about school" he girls told them about their boyfriends$ while Bryan taled about his 6talian e*-girlfriend" Ri9al and Giovan did not !oin in the conversation at all" Bryan ased Gina whether she has taen drugs$ but Gina replied that she only drins alcohol occasionally"
he group arrived in Baguio 'ity at 23:5? in the evening" hey proceeded to the house of Bryan8s uncle$ but shortly afterwards$ they left to loo for another place to stay" hey went to the erraces (otel but found the rates too e*pensive" hen$ they checed the Baden .owell" he girls found the dormitory style accommodations to their liing and were about to unload their things$ when Bryan suggested the Benguet .ines ourist 6nn$ which he said he had already tried and had found to be a very fine hotel"
hey checed in at the Benguet .ines ourist 6nn at 22:33 in the evening" hey got two rooms on opposite sides of the corridor on the second floor" After a while$ Bryan and Giovan ased the girls out for some drins and dancing at the ,ongs 1a99 Bar along ,ession Road"
he parties8 versions of the events that followed differed"
According to Gina and (elen$ while at the ,ongs 1a99 Bar$ (elen dran a margarita$ te@uila and blow!ob with plenty of water" Gina dran ,ingaporean sling$ blow!ob and half a glass of Giovan8s mai tai" Bryan dran !ust one shot of te@uila while Giovan dran half a glass of mai tai" hey also had appeti9ers" Gina and (elen did not feel into*icated" hey !ust felt warm"
>n the other hand$ Bryan and Giovan narrate that (elen dran margarita$ dai@uiri$ te@uila and blow !ob while Gina had ,ingaporean sling$ te@uila$ blow !ob and mai tai" Bryan had a bottle of beer and two shots of te@uila while Giovan only dran one bottle of beer" hey ordered chicen wings and kropeck chips"
After the group left ,ongs 1a99 Bar$ Gina8s and (elen8s account went as follows:
s they were pulling away, =iovan, who was driving, said that he was thirsty and wanted to buy cola drin&s. =ina agreed to have one /ee 7xhibit (-F)J. -ut >elen declined since she had dran& plenty of water already at the /ongs a44 -ar (Ibid.). =iovan then drove to what the girls called a convenience store because it was open at odd hours, but which is actually the Bowloon 6estaurant, according to the boys. =iovan and -ryan alighted and returned after some ten minutes with =iovan carrying three plastic cups of /prite or /evenp and -ryan, two cups and a plastic bag containing !hinese food with small lemons to be s%uee4ed on it. -ryan gave >elen and =ina a cup each. /ince she thought it impolite not to drin& what was given her, >elen removed the cover of her cup and sipped from it as there was no straw, although the cup cover had a hole into which a straw is to be inserted. ?n the other hand, =ina did not at first remove the lid of her cup /ee 7xhibit (H)J; she #ust suc&ed from the hole intended for the straw 7xhibit (H-)J. -ut later on she too& off the cover 7xhibit (H)J and drun& from the cup.
ay should be !lub ohn >ayJ where he told the guards at the gate that they were #ust going to chec& on the !lub’s billeting rates. hey par&ed in front of the billeting office. =ina was then about to finish her cola drin& when she felt something gritt y in it which stuc& into her teeth; they were li&e small particles. /he spat them bac& into the cup and dumped out the remaining contents of the cup outside the car and thereafter gave the cup to =iovan who threw it into a trash can. =ina commented out loud about the gritty substance in her drin& and related that in !hina they often found strange things in their food. here was no word from the boys. >elen finished her drin& and then handed the empty cup to =iovan who li&ewise threw it into a trash can. 'E*
After leaving 'lub 1ohn (ay$ the group returned to their hotel" he girls went on to narrate:
=iovan, =ina, -ryan and >elen, in that order entered. >elen no longer noticed where 6i4al was. =iovan directly proceeded upstairs and stopped on the stair #ust above the first landing while =ina followed him and stopped on the first landing. >elen got the &eys to their room while -ryan was behind her tal&ing to the des& cler&. >elen tossed the &ey to the boys’ room to =ina who was about seven to ten feet away and the latter, in turn, gave it to =iovan. >elen also flipped their &ey to =ina who caught it with one hand. >elen waited for -ryan and they went upstairs together. =ina was trying to open her and >elen’s room with difficulty and so the latter got the &ey from her and opened the door. -oth entered the room briefly and when >elen was still by the doorway, =ina went out and wal&ed towards the boys’ room. =ina had no recollection why she did so; all she could recall was that she was standing inside the boys’ room.
?n the other hand, >elen remembered that one of the boys as&ed if she had playing cards but he seemed preoccupied with something else, so she did not ma&e any move to get the playing cards from her bag. /ince she
was very tired she entered their girls’J room, too& off her contact lenses in the comfort room, put them in her contacts case and went to bed. hereupon, she lost her memory. /ometime later, she felt the sensation of wanting to vomit and ran to the comfort room in panic that she might not get there on time. >owever, she did not &now if she vomitted. /he lost her sense of time and did not &now if she ever went bac& to bed. /he had never felt that way before.
/he again regained partial consciousness when she felt being wet on her face and upper chest as though somebody was touching her with the mouth. /he could not tell if her eyes were open but, in any event, she could not see anyone or anything; she only felt that her personal space was being violated. /he curled up li&e a baby in the womb and &ept on saying, (no), until whoever was with her in the room went away. hen, she lapsed into unconsciousness.
t this time in the boys’ room, =ina noticed that one of the boys pushed the two beds in the room together. /he wal&ed up to one of the beds and lay down on her belly. =iovan lay alongside her and forcefully &issed her. /he could not call to mind what else happened as she believed she was drugged. /he could only remember that =iovan was trying to ta&e off her pants while she was trying to prevent him by holding on to its elastic waist line. =iovan was all along &issing her with his tongue in her mouth, lying on top of her and touching her breasts. >e inserted his fingers into her vagina but at this precise moment someone &noc&ed on the door. /o, =iovan got up and it was then that =ina reali4ed that he was completely na&ed and so was she. >e handed the blan&et on the bed to her and she covered her body with it. /he saw lights coming from the hallway and heard =iovan say, (I thin& she is asleep.) /he could not recall removing them again. 8hen that someone laid on top of her, she found out that it was -ryan. >e placed himself between her legs. /he could not recollect if they &issed but she felt his erect penis against her vaginal opening. /he told him that she did not want to have sex; that she was still a virgin. >e as&ed why she was still a virgin and she replied that she wanted to wait for a husband.
he thought occurred to =ina that if she did not do anything, she &new what was going to happen. It dawned on her that if she stimulated him in some other way, he might not penetrate her further. /o, she slid down and did a fellatio or oral sex on him. /he could not explain her feelings then; to her it was li&e a nightmare; it was as if she was observing what was going on and it wasn’t really her; she felt li&e her head was detached from her body. /he did the oral sex for only several seconds because it was as if someone went into the room. hen, she became unconscious.'F*
Again$ Bryan and Giovan had a different story:
'$*rom the /ongs a44 -ar they went to Bowloon 6estaurant because -ryan was hungry and wanted to eat siomai and chic&en pao with /prite. =ina and >elen also wanted /prite while =iovan and 6i4al, grape #uice and root beer, respectively. =iovan and 6i4al went down to buy all these. hey made their orders through a small window
because the main entrance to the restaurant was already closed. hey returned with 6i4al holding three plastic cups of /prite with ice in them and =iovan, root beer and grape #uice and two plastic bags containing siomai and chic&en pao. hen, =iovan drove them to ohn >ay because one of the girls wanted to see the place. hat was already past F:KK o’cloc& in the morning of anuary EL. hey pulled over the premises of the billeting area because =iovan told the guards at the gate that they would #ust chec& on the billeting rates. =iovan went to the billeting office where he stayed for about ten minutes. In the meantime, those left in the car finished their drin&s and -ryan collected the cups and threw them into a trash can at the farther left side of where they par&ed. hey were at ohn >ay for less than EM minutes. hen, they left for the -enguet 9ines ourist Inn at about F:KK o’cloc& in the morning of anuary EL.'L*
As to the events that occurred at the hotel$ accused-appellants had this to say:
-ryan, >elen, =ina and 6i4al got off the car ahead as =iovan went to par& it. =iovan got the &ey to their room from the car’s glove compartment and pic&ed up the &ey to the girls’ room from the bac&seat of the car because he saw it lying there. >e averred that they did not leave their hotel &eys at the front des& when they left for the /ongs a44 -ar since there was no one there at the time. fter giving the girls’ &ey to them at the hallway where they were tal&ing with -ryan, he went to their room followed by 6i4al and then =ina. ?n the other hand, -ryan went with >elen to the girls’ room where he borrowed >elen’s playing cards.
fter -ryan had entered the boy’s room, they #oined together the two beds inside and sat on them 7xhibit ‘N)J. hey taught =ina how to play 6ussian po&er or what is commonly called pusoy for more than thirty minutes. -ut =ina never learned the game and so they switched to blac&#ac&. hen, =ina said that she was hungry. =iovan offered to go out and buy what =ina wanted, to which the latter replied that any food will do. =iovan left with 6i4al. hat was already past H:KK o’cloc& in the morning of anuary EL. fter =iovan had closed the door, she and -ryan continued playing blac&#ac&. fter some ten minutes, =ina put down the playing cards and said that she #ust wanted to tal& with -ryan. /he lay down on her left side facing -ryan with her left hand supporting her head. -ryan moved up on the bed until his face was on the same level as =ina’s. heir heads were more than a foot but less than two feet away from each other. 8hile they were tal&ing =ina was stro&ing -ryan’s head, maybe six times. -ryan #ust &ept silent as he did not &now what to do. ?n the other hand, =ina was smiling at him. >e then smac&ed her on the lips. /he &issed him bac& and they started &issing each other. =ina in%uired if he had had sex before and he replied, (yes), although it was not true because he was afraid that =ina might laugh at him if he told the truth that he has no experience in lovema&ing. -ryan shot bac& a similar %uestion to her and she answered that she has not had sex yet and is still a virgin as she wanted to preserve her virginity for her future husband. t this point they again &issed each other. hen, =ina as&ed if -ryan had a condom and the latter said, (none). /he remar&ed that she was worried about I1/ and he told her that he is not afflicted with the disease. hereupon, =ina said that if they are to do it, he should not tell it to anyone to which he commented that he is not the &issandtell type. /he then undressed and he did the same. hey went bac& to bed and resumed &issing each other. =ina went on top of -ryan and then she slid down and &issed the area around his organ and later did a fellatio on him. fter he had climaxed, =ina moved up and wanted to &iss him but he did not react. /he then as&ed him to enter her and he replied, (yes), and touched her breasts. >owever, he was turned off when, upon feeling her genitals, his hand was smeared with transparent li%uid with something li&e brown or dar& brown or red substance in it which smelled awful. >e concluded that it was menstrual fluid because earlier when they were playing cards
something fell from =ina’s #ogging pants which he pic&ed up. 8hen he handed it to her, she commented that it was tampon used for menstruation. >e told her that he could not do the act anymore to which she replied, (never mind). hey then put bac& their clothes on. -ryan went to the comfort room where he washed his smeared hand. 8hen he came out, he saw =ina lying in bed with her eyes closed. >e switched off the lights and laid beside her but he could not sleep. >e later on got up and went down to see if =iovan and 6i4al had already arrived. >owever, the security guard told him that the two had not yet gone bac&. >e returned to their room and, again, lay down beside =ina. his time he fell asleep. he sun was already somewhat up. >e went to the porch to see if their car was already there and he saw it there. >e went down to the car and found both =iovan and 6i4al sleeping inside the car; 6i4al on the driver’s seat with =iovan beside him.'H*
Giovan claimed that he and Ri9al bought food for Gina at the )owloon Restaurant" /hen Giovan returned to the room$ however$ he found Bryan and Gina sleeping" ,o he !ust ate the food that they bought" (e slept in the car with Ri9al until Bryan woe them up"
Bryan related to Giovan what had transpired between him and Gina" Giovan teased Bryan that he might get A6D," Giovan told Bryan that he would lie to go home to his wife" Bryan ordered breafast$ then the he and Giovan went upstairs to their room" Gina was still there" hey ased her if she would lie some breafast$ but she said no"
Bryan and Giovan then got their things and went downstairs" Bryan finished his breafast" Bryan told Giovan that they should wait for the girls to wae up before leaving Baguio" hey went first to the driving range at 'amp 1ohn (ay$ but it was full$ so they !ust went bac to the hotel" 6t was :33 in the morning" Bryan wrote his phone number on a piece of paper to give to the girls$ since he had promised to show them around Manila" hey went upstairs to the girls8 room and found Gina there" Both girls were still sleeping" Bryan roused Gina and ased her if it was alright for them to leave" Gina said$ %es"& Before leaving$ Brian left the paper with his phone number"
Gina testified that she passed out after doing oral se* on Bryan" ,he woe up at =:33 in the afternoon feeling groggy and confused" ,he was shoced to reali9e what time it was$ since she normally sleeps only seven and a half to eight hours a day" ,he also felt tired" ,he could not remember how she was able to get bac to their room" ,he also felt that her hair$ pillow and underwear$ which was on the floor$ were wet" ,he remembered that chec-out time at the hotel was at 27:33 noon" ,he opened her purse to get money to pay for the room$ but found that her +,C743"33$ .7$333"33$ =33 yuan and +,C733"33 traveller8s chec were all missing" >nly her +, C233"33 traveller8s chec was left" ,he tried to wae (elen up but the latter only rolled over"
,he got up and went out of the room$ but she had difficulty balancing herself" ,he waled to the boys8 room but found that the door was already open and the beddings had been changed" ,he ran
downstairs and met (ilda$ a hotel des girl$ who ased her if she was alright" Gina cried and told her that she had been robbed" (ilda said she will call the police" Gina returned to their room to wae up (elen but the latter still did not wae up"
After sometime$ Gina again went downstairs and was introduced to five or si* members of the 'riminal 6nvestigation ,ervice '6,E" ,he told them that she was robbed and se*ually molested and narrated to them what had happened" wo '6, agents drove Gina to loo for the house of Bryan8s uncle but Gina could not find it"
he hotel owner$ Mrs" Delos ,antos$ ased two hotel guests$ Mariano Robles$ 1r" and Ri99a Lao$ for assistance in helping Gina" ogether$ they went upstairs and found (elen still asleep" ,he was wearing blac tights and a green sweatsuit" A bra lay on the table" Mrs" Delos ,antos tried to wae her up" 6t too a while before (elen opened her eyes and ga9ed around her" Mrs" Delos ,antos introduced Mariano and Ri99a" (elen said nothing" Ri99a propped her up with a pillow on her bac" (elen appeared sleepy$ helpless and unable to move" /hen Ri99a ased her what happened$ she !ust cried" hey thought she was drun but her breath did not smell of alcohol" ,omeone brought in a bowl of soup and Ri99a let her sip from it a little at a time" (elen tried to eat it with a spoon but her hands trembled and she could not put the spoon properly into her mouth" 6t too her about =3 minutes to finish the soup"
Mariano and Ri99a decided to tae (elen for a wal to let her blood circulate" Ri99a helped her into her sandals and pulled her to the side of the bed" (elen tried to stand up but she fell bac" Mariano held her on both arms and pulled her up" (e stood on (elen8s right side$ held her right arm with his right hand and placed his left arm around her waist" Ri99a held (elen8s left arm" Mariano and Ri99a tried to move forward but (elen could not tae a single step" Mariano dragged her forward and she made shay steps" >n the stairway$ Mariano had to remind (elen that they were going downstairs" (e guided her every step until they reached the hotel lobby" 0rom the hotel$ they waled around Burnham .ar for about fifty ?3E minutes to an hour" ;verytime they came upon a stairway$ Mariano had to instruct (elen how to go down step by step" /henever (elen got tired$ they sat on a bench" hey did this four 5E or five ?E times" Mariano had to support (elen8s bac every time they sat down on the par benches to prevent her from falling over"
/hen they returned to the hotel$ they saw Gina" Mariano and Ri99a invited the two girls to have dinner with them" Gina declined" hey too (elen to the Barrio 0iesta Restaurant along ,ession Road" Again$ they had to assist (elen in getting out of Mariano8s car" At the restaurant$ (elen hardly ate" >n the witness stand$ (elen recounted that at that time she felt as if the effects of anesthesia was wearing out" ,he was disoriented and groggy" ,he was di99y and did not feel lie waing up" ,he had difficulty focusing on a single ob!ect" he act of waling was itself an ordeal"
he following morning$ (elen still felt groggy and had difficulty concentrating and waling" ,he and Gina decided to go to Baguio General (ospital for a urinalysis and p elvic e*amination" Dr" Mildred orres M>(;R-6F-LA/ F6 )+A 0L6F 6> A(" (;(;E$ who conducted the tests$ made the following findings:
9erineal 7xam.: 9ositive erythema at the lateral aspect of vaginal wall. o lacerations; no bleeding noted. Internal 7xam.: ulliparous introitus. @agina admits two fingers with difficulty. terus: small. dnexae: negative. -leeding: negative. 1ischarge: minimal; whitish. /pecimen ta&en for sperm analysis and gram straining. rinalysis and pregnancy test re%uested. 6esult: 9regnancy est: egative. rinalysis: 7pithelial cells: occasional. morphous rates: moderate. 9us cells: KL. 6-!:KF =ram /tain: /mear shows gram J reds. 9us cells: 7pithelial cells: many. /mear Identification: egative for sperm cell.
Dr" orres also found erythema on both the lateral aspects of the inner part of the labia minora which could have been caused by infection$ scratching or insertion of any foreign ob!ect into the introitus" Ruling out infection due to the absence of purulent or yellowish discharge$ she supposed that it could have been caused by scratching or coitus" >n cross-e*amination$ she opined that it could also have been caused by the use of tampon during menstruation" ,he concluded that no force could have been applied on Gina8s hymen as it did not have any laceration or bleeding"
Gina liewise underwent urinalysis and her urine sample yielded negative of sperm cell" ,he did not$ however$ undergo drug testing as there were no facilities for such anywhere in Baguio 'ity" he prosecution presented Dr" 0rancisco (ernande9$ a neuro-surgeon$ as e*pert witness to corroborate Gina8s testimony that she was drugged" Dr" (ernande9 testified that in the practice of his
profession$ he uses sedative-hypnotic drugs belonging to the ben9odia9epine family of drugs" According to him$ he uses these drugs as tools$ such that whenever he sees a patient$ he can form an opinion on whether he or she has been drugged"
Based on the set of facts provided by the private prosecutor$ the entries in Gina8s !ournal and the transcript of stenographic notes taen during the preliminary e*amination conducted by the trial court in the afternoon of 1anuary 7 and 7<$ 2445$ Dr" (ernande9 opined that Gina and (elen were drugged$ possibly with lora9epam or ativan$ which is a ben9odia9epine"
he defense presented two e*pert witnesses to counter Dr" (ernande98s opinion" Dr" Rey ,an .edro$ a psychiatrist$ opined that Gina and (elen could not have been drugged because they have not been medically e*amined for the presence of drugs in their system" Feither were the cups used by Gina and (elen e*amined if they were indeed laced with drugs" 6nstead$ the condition described by the girls based on the documents given by the defense could have been caused by the alcoholic drins" (e added$ though$ that while Gina8s behavior as described in her !ournal might have been caused by ativan$ he did not have any basis to conclude the same in much the same way that he concluded that said behavior was caused by alcohol" (e conceded that if ativan were to be taen with alcohol$ there would be a potentiating effect$ meaning$ that because of the alcohol$ the effect of the ativan would last longer or there would be sedation"
he second e*pert witness$ Dr" .edro ,olis$ testified that a person who imbibes alcohol goes through three stages$ namely: aE stage of e*citement# bE stage of into*ication or the proprioception stage# and cE stage of being dead drun or the to*ic stage" >n the basis of the statement of facts and documents provided him by the defense$ Gina was only at the first stage$ the stage of e*citement due to her alcohol intae for the following reasons: she had the power to coordinate when she caught the room ey thrown to her by (elen with one hand# she could properly wal# and she could properly reason out when she decided to do oral se* on Bryan in order to avoid se*ual intercourse" Dr" ,olis e*plained that the rather long sleep e*perienced by Gina and (elen was due to fatigue brought about by their activities the previous day$ their alcohol intae$ their youth and the cool ambience of Baguio 'ity"
(e said it could not be definitely concluded that the girls were drugged because no drug test was conducted" (e added that mere observance of the clinical symptoms can not be a basis for concluding that they were drugged" (e conceded$ though$ that ativan and some other ben9odia9epines are relatively new drugs and$ as yet$ he has had no e*perience observing its effects e*cept from what he has read" Lie Dr" ,an .edro$ he stated that if alcohol is ingested with any of the psychotropic drugs lie ativan$ a potentiating effect would be produced in the sense that the pharmacologic effect of the drug is increased"
he trial court gave credence to the version of the prosecution" >n March 2$ 2445$ it rendered a decision the dispositive portion of which is as follows:
8>767$?67, the !ourt hereby finds and declares both the accused -60 $761I1 10 y 3 <16I1 and =I?@ -7661I? y =6!I guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness as charged and aJ In !rim. !ase o. EFOKK6, for rape, 10 is sentenced, after appreciating in his favor the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and the generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 7I=> NJ 076/ of prision mayor , as minimum, to $?677 EHJ 076/ and 7I=> NJ / of reclusion temporal , as maximum; while -7661I? is sentenced, li&ewise after appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 873@7 EFJ 076/ and ?7 EJ 10 of reclusion temporal , as minimum, to 870 FKJ 076/ and ?7 EJ 10 of reclusion perpetua, as maximum. -oth accused are ordered to pay the offended party =I <6I7 / of arresto mayor ; and -7661I? is sentenced, li&ewise after applying to him the same mitigating circumstance stated above, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 8? FJ / ?$ arresto mayor , as minimum, to 8? FJ 076/ and $?6 HJ / of prision correccional , as maximum. -oth accused shall also indemnify, #ointly and severally, the offended party, =I <6I7
Accused-appellants filed separate appeals" Accused-appellant Bryan Dy assigned the following errors: .
7rrors of 3aw
6" (; D;'6,6>F R;FD;R;D B (; R6AL '>+R ,(>+LD B; R;;R,;D AFD ,; A,6D; >F (; GR>+FD (A F> AL6D ARRA6GFM;F >>) .LA'; D+R6FG (; R6AL B;L>/"
66" ;;F A,,+M6FG (A (; .R>';;D6FG, B;L>/ /;R; AL6DL '>FD+';D$ (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F 06FD6FG A''+,;D-A..;LLAF G+6L >0 RA.; AFD >0 A', >0 LA,'66>+,F;,, B;'A+,;: a" (; '(ARG; >0 A', >0 LA,'66>+,F;,, ,(>+LD (A; B;;F D;;M;D 6F'L+D;D 6F (; '(ARG; >0 RA.;" b" (; L>/;R '>+R ;RR;D 6F +,6FG (; ;,6M>F >0 DR" .;DR> ,>L6,$ (; ;H.;R /6F;,, 0>R (; D;0;F,;$ G6;F B (6M M>R; (AF /;F ;AR, AG> 6F (; 'A,; >0 .;>.L; " ';,AR G+$ 27 '"A" R;." 7nd 7?$ > D6,'R;D6 (; ;,6M>F G6;F B (6M D+R6FG (; R6AL B;L>/" B" ;rrors of 0act 666" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F 06FD6FG A..;LLAF G+6L >0 RA.; B;'A+,;: a" (;R; /A, 6F 0A' F> 'ARFAL )F>/L;DG;# b" (; .R6A; '>M.LA6FAF /A, F> D;.R6;D >0 R;A,>F >R >(;R/6,; +F'>F,'6>+,# c" (;R; /A, F> 0>R'; >R 6F6M6DA6>F" 6" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F 06FD6FG A..;LLAF G+6L >0 A', >0 LA,'66>+,F;,, B;'A+,;: a" (;R; /A, F> A' >0 L;/DF;,, '>MM6;D# b" (; .R6A; '>M.LA6FAF /A, F> D;.R6;D >0 R;A,>F >R >(;R/6,; +F'>F,'6>+,# and c" (;R; /A, F> 0>R'; >R 6F6M6DA6>F" " (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F F> 06FD6FG (A (; ,+B,;I+;F A', >0 A..;LLAF AR; F> '>F,6,;F /6( (; A', >0 A .;R,>F /(> (AD 1+, '>MM6;D AF >00;F,;" 6" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F F> 06FD6FG (A (; .R6A; '>M.LA6FAF8, ,+B,;I+;F A', AFD ,A;M;F, MAD; A, .AR >0 (; RES GESTAE ,(>/ (A ,(; (AD F> B;;F M>L;,;D" 66" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F F> 06FD6FG '>M.LA6FAF8, 'R;D6B6L6 (A, B;;F 6M.;A'(;D"
(A (;
.R6A;
666" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F F> 06FD6FG (A (; 'R;D6B6L6 >0 (; >(;R .R>,;'+6>F /6F;,,;, (A, B;;F 6M.;A'(;D" JK Accused-appellant Giovan Bernardino$ on the other hand$ assigns the following errors:
6" (; R6AL '>+R 0A6L;D > A''>RD (; '>F,6+6>FAL R6G(, >0 (; A''+,;D > D+; .R>';,, >0 LA/ (+, D;.R66FG (;M >0 A 0A6R R6AL" 66" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F 06FD6FG G6>AF B;RFARD6F> G+6L A, A '>'>F,.6RA>R 6F (; 'R6M; >0 RA.; B;'A+,; (;R; /A, F> 'ARFAL )F>/L;DG; B;/;;F BRAF D AFD .R6A; '>M.LA6FAF" 666" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F 06FD6FG G6>AF B;RFARD6F> G+6L A, A '>'>F,.6RA>R 6F (; 'R6M; >0 RA.; B;'A+,; F;6(;R 0>R'; F>R 6F6M6DA6>F /A, ;M.L>;D F>R /A, (; .R6A; '>M.LA6FAF D;.R6;D >0 R;A,>F >R >(;R/6,; +F'>F,'6>+," 6" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F 06FD6FG G6>AF B;RFARD6F> G+6L A, A '>'>F,.6RA>R 6F (; 'R6M; >0 RA.; B;'A+,; BRAF D LA');D (; R;I+6,6; D>L> >R 'R6M6FAL 6F;F > '>MM6 (; ,A6D 6F;F6>FAL 0;L>F" " (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F '>F'L+D6FG (A G6>AF B;RFARD6F> /A, A '>'>F,.6RA>R 6F (; 'R6M; >0 RA.; B R;A,>F >0 '>F,.6RA' >R (A (; .AR6'6.A;D 6F AF /A 6F (; ALL;G;D 'R6M;" 6" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F 06FD6FG G6>AF B;RFARD6F> G+6L >0 (; 'R6M; >0 A', >0 LA,'66>+,F;,, B;>FD R;A,>FABL; D>+B" 66" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F D;'LAR6FG (A (; 'R6M; ALL;G;DL '>MM6;D /A, I+AL606;D RA.;$ AFD 6F 0A6L6FG > 'R;D6 A''+,;D A..;LLAF G6>AF B;RFARD6F> /6( (; M66GA6FG '6R'+M,AF'; >0 M6F>R6" 666" (; R6AL '>+R ;RR;D 6F >RD;R6FG B>( A''+,;D-A..;LLAF, 6F 'R6M6FAL 'A,; Fo" 2733-R > .A (; .R6A; '>M.LA6FAF 060 (>+,AFD .;,>, 0>R (; ALL;G;D RA.;$ A'+AL AFD M>RAL DAMAG;, .L+, '>,,# AFD 6F 'R6M6FAL 'A,; Fo" 2732 > M>RAL DAMAG;, .L+, '>,," J
he defense contends that there was no valid arraignment since they were not furnished a copy of the complaint or information" Moreover$ the complaint or information was not read in a dialect or language nown to them" /hile they waived their right to enter a plea$ they claim that they never waived their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them"
'oncededly$ the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may not be waived" 6ndeed$ the defense may waive their right to enter a plea and let the court enter a plea of %not guilty& in their behalf" (owever$ it becomes altogether a different matter if the accused themselves refuse to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them" he defense can not hold hostage the court by their refusal to the reading of the complaint or information"
he reason proffered by accused-appellants8 for their refusal to be arraigned$ i.e.$ that to do so would supposedly constitute a waiver of their right to appeal the resolutions of the prosecutor to the ,ecretary of 1ustice$JK appears to be specious" ;vidently$ accused-appellants only wanted the trial court to suspend the arraignment to enable them to e*haust their remedy of appeal to the ,ecretary of 1ustice" (owever$ accused-appellants had no valid ground to move that their arraignment be held in abeyance$ considering that at that time they had not filed a petition for review of the prosecutor8s resolution before the Department of 1ustice" 6n Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. How $J4K this 'ourt has held that:
9rocedurally spea&ing, after the filing of an information, the court is in complete control of the case and any disposition therein is sub#ect to its sound discretion. he decision to suspend arraignment to await the resolution of an appeal with the /ecretary of ustice is an exercise of such discretion.
* *
*
*
*
*
***
It bears stressing that the court is however, not bound to adopt the resolution of the /ecretary of ustice since the court is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case, and may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the /ecretary of ustice. 6eliance alone on the resolution of the /ecretary of ustice would be an abdication of the trial court’s duty and #urisdiction to determine prima facie case.
As the ,olicitor General correctly observed$ thus: x x x '*ssuming, arguendo, that appellants were not validly arraigned, such defect, if any, was waived when appellants, without ob#ection, proceeded to trial as if they have been duly arraigned FF !../. OFOJ. ny irregularity in an arraignment, such as failure to deliver a copy of the indictment, or to read the same to accused, or delivering the same to the attorney of the accused, instead of to the accused himself, is waived by failure to ob#ect thereto in the trial court Ibid ., p. OFNJ.
* *
*
*
*
*
***
It is also important to stress that to nullify the proceedings had before the court a %uo would set a dangerous precedent. $or, all that an accused would do is to refuse to be arraigned and then proceed to trial, and if found guilt y would #ust invo&e the absence of arraignment to set aside the proceedings had in the trial court. /uch practice would run counter to the purpose and spirit of our rules of procedure which is: to help achieve an orderly and speedy disposition of cases.'EK*
Fonetheless$ accused-appellants were substantially informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them when their counsel received a copy of the .rosecutor8s resolution maintaining the charge for rape and acts of lasciviousness"J22K he failure to read the complaint or information in a
language or dialect nown to them was essentially a procedural infirmity that was eventually nonpre!udicial to accused-appellants" Fot only did they receive a copy of the information$ they liewise participated in the trial$ cross-e*amined the complainant and her witnesses and presented their own witnesses to debun and deny the charges against them" he conduct of the defense$ particularly their participation in the trial$ clearly indicates that they were fully aware of the nature and cause of the accusations against them"
6nterestingly$ after the arraignment$ the defense never brought up the supposed invalidity or defect thereof" Rather$ accused-appellants and their counsel vigorously and fully participated in the trial of the case"
Accused-appellants are clearly estopped to @uestion the alleged invalidity of or infirmity in their arraignment" By actively participating in the trial of the case$ they have effectively waived whatever procedural error there was in their arraignment" 6n short$ whatever was the defect in their arraignment was substantially cured by their own omission and subse@uent actions"
Accused-appellants ne*t submit that the crime of acts of lasciviousness should have been absorbed by the crime of rape"
he >ffice of the ,olicitor General disagreed arguing$ thus: 8hile it may be true that in certain cases, the crime of acts of lasciviousness may be considered absorbed by the crime of rape, in the instant case, it cannot be so because the two crimes were committed by two different persons acting in conspiracy. /uch being the case, there is no occasion for the application of the procedural rule that one crime whose elements are identical with another crime is absorbed by the more serious crime. here being conspiracy, what is applicable is the rule that the crime committed by one conspirator is added to the crime committed by his coconspirator and viceversa. his is so because in conspiracy, the act of one is considered as the act of the other coconspirator. In the case under consideration, while appellant -ernardino has committed the crime of acts of lasciviousness, his coconspirator appellant -ryan 1y, committed the crime of rape. hey are, therefore, liable for both offenses in view of t he presence of conspiracy.
ppellants, in insisting that the crime of acts of lasciviousness should have been absorbed by the crime of rape, misappreciated the application of /ection M, 6ule EFK when an offense includes or is included in anotherJ of the 6ules on !riminal 9rocedure and the principle of conspiracy.'EF*
he position of the ,olicitor General is well-taen" As will be shown hereunder$ both accusedappellants acted in conspiracy$ especially in their act of offering the girls alcoholic drins at the ,ongs 1a99 Bar and in administering drugs in their cola drins" +nder the principle of conspiracy$ the act of one is the act of all" 'onse@uently$ Bryan should also be held criminally liable for the acts of lasciviousness committed by Giovan on Gina$ made possible by his convenient absence in the room" 'orollarily$ Giovan should be held e@ually guilty for the rape committed by Bryan"
Accused-appellants dispute the factual findings of rape made by the trial court$ arguing that: 2E that there was no carnal nowledge# 7E complainant was not deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious# and =E there was no force or intimidation"
6n rape cases$ courts are guided by the following principles: 2E to accuse a man of rape is easy$ but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent# 7E considering that in the nature of things$ only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape$ the testimony of the complainant should be scrutini9ed with great caution# and =E the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and not be allowed to draw strength from the weaness of the evidence for the defense" J2=K
Accused-appellant Dy insists there was no carnal nowledge between him and complainant" (e avers that %the only intimate contact between them consisted merely of Mobley8s issing him$ holding his penis and eventually sucing it$ and of him in turn issing her and placing his fingers in her vagina"& J25K (e claims that Dr" orres8 and Dr" ,olis8 findings as well as complainant8s !ournal confirmed his testimony" Dr" orres$ in particular$ testified that complainant8s cervi* merely showed reddening and irritation indicating positive erythema at the lateral aspect of the vaginal wall" ,aid erythema could have been caused by coitus$ infection$ scratching$ or the use of a tampon" ,he added that erythema could not be caused solely by se*" he presence of erythema$ however$ cannot give a definitive conclusion as to its cause" ,he also found complainant8s hymen to be intact and that there was no laceration$ bleeding or spermato9oa"
Dr" ,olis$ on the other hand$ submits that erythema or reddening could not have been caused by intercourse as said act would have produced not only irritation on the vaginal wall but also irritation$ swelling and reddening of complainant8s outer genital area" (e added that coitus is a blind act and would have caused irritation to the labia ma!ora$ labia minora and hymen in addition to the vaginal wall$ suggesting that erythema on the vaginal wall was more consistent with scratching or the insertion of a foreign ob!ect such as a tampon"
Accused-appellant Dy8s contention fails to persuade" he medical opinions he cites do not totally rule out penetration or contact of penis with the vagina" 6n fact$ Dr" orres could not give a definitive conclusion that the reddening of the vaginal walls was not caused by se*ual intercourse" ;ven if we were to follow Dr" ,olis8 line of reasoning$ he was not liewise categorical in stating that the reddening of the
vaginal walls was not caused by penetration by a penis" Rather$ he stated that such reddening was %more consistent& with scratching or the use of a tampon"J2?K
0urther$ lac of lacerated wounds does not negate se*ual intercourse" A freshly broen hymen is not an essential element of rape" ;ven the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not negate rape" As e*plained by Dr" Ma*imo Reyes$ medico-legal officer of the FB6$ there are hymens that may admit without necessarily producing laceration and there are hymens that may admit in!uries that will produce such laceration"J2K
;ven the presence or absence of spermato9oa is immaterial in the prosecution of a rape case" 6t is well settled that penetration of the woman8s vagina$ however slight$ and not e!aculation$ constitutes rape" he 'ourt re!ects the argument that the absence of sperm in the vaginal area is a good defense in a rape case"J2
0or rape to be consummated$ full penetration is not necessary" .enile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia" 6t suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ with the labia of the pudendum of the female organ" .enetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina$ even without rupture or laceration of the hymen$ is enough to !ustify a conviction for rape" o repeat$ the rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the woman8s genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape" J2K
Accused-appellant Dy also insists that complainant could not have been drugged$ relying on the opinion of his e*pert witnesses$ namely$ Dr" ,an .edro and Dr" ,olis" he reasoning that complainant could not have been drugged as there was no drug test taen is at least speculative and at most non sequitur. he trial court found that:
he proven reaction of =ina and >elen to the cola drin&s given them by the accused unmista&ably indicates that they were indeed drugged. 1r. $rancisco >ernande4, the prosecution expert witness, opined that the sedative hypnotic drug &nown as ativan or lora4epam could probably be the one used. s explained by him, ativan is a dose related drug. dosage of from K.M milligram to H milligrams could produce in a person of average built or with a weight of ELK pounds anxiolytic effect, visual hallucination, amnesia, confusion, disorientation, gait unsteadiness and sedation. t a Hmilligram dosage, the imbiber would experience sedation and excessive sleepiness /ee 7xhibit (=)J. he onset of the action of the drug is within EM to HM minutes from the time it is ingested; it pea&s after F hours; and the action will last for O to N hours.
he effects of ativan manifested themselves in =ina and >elen but they were more profound in >elen because she dran& all the cola drin& spi&ed with drug and she is slimmer than the EOMpound =ina who did not finish her cola
drin& because when she felt something gritty that stuc& into her teeth, she spat bac& into her cup the cola in her mouth and dumped out the rest of her drin&.
Accused-appellant Dy can not tae comfort in the fact that Gina failed to undergo a drug test" 6n People v. Villanos $J24K the issue of whether the laced softdrin should have been presented in evidence to prove that complainant felt di99y and unconscious after drining the same was resolved thus: rue, there was no test conducted to determine the presence of any sedative or drug in the drin&s given to the victims which caused them to lose momentary control of their faculties. -ut this is of little conse%uence as the same is not an indispensable element in a prosecution for rape. nder the circumstances, it suffices that the victim was found to have been unconscious at the time the offender had carnal &nowledge of her.
Accused-appellant Dy8s submission that the ativan is an an*iety-reducing drug and not a sedative which would not normally produce sleep unless taen in massive @uantities is belied by the undisputed fact that Gina slept for appro*imately thirteen hours while (elen slept for almost eighteen hours" Gina testified that she normally sleeps from seven and a half hours to eight hours" he trial court correctly appreciated the clinical and academic assessment of the potency and effect of ativan which$ according to Dr" (ernande9$ is a ben9odia9epine or a sedative-hypnotic drug" More specifically$ the trial court found that: =ina experienced patchy amnesia, i.e., she could remember some of the events happening to her and in front of her but forget the others, li&e her inability to recall that she went bac& to their room and even bathed. /he also had disorientation and confusion because she did not &now why she went to the boys’ room and why she was na&ed. 1isorientation and confusion, in turn, produce hypnotic effect, ma&ing the one drugged easily suggestible, easily manipulated and easily ta&en advantaged of. =ina li&ewise had visual hallucination since she had the sensation that it was as if her head was detached from her body. /he could resist but she had no means of resisting because ativan is a muscle relaxant and all her muscles were flaccid or lax.
Ruite significantly, 1r. /an 9edro, one of the defense expert witnesses, stated that ativan could also cause =ina’s feeling that she was falling in and out of consciousness during the incident in %uestion. /ignificantly, too, 1r. /an 9edro further testified that =ina’s behavior could be consistent with her ta&ing alcoholic drin&s and ativan on the same occasion. 1r. /olis, the other defense expert witness, also gave the view that imbibing alcohol together with ativan would produce potentiation or increase the pharmacologic effect of the drug.'FK*
Accused-appellant Dy asserts that: aE the combination of drugs and alcohol normally produces a potentiating effect in that the sub!ect can either fall into a coma or do the opposite which is to act aggressively and with e*treme hostility$ and bE the effects described by complainant and (elen ennican are more consistent with alcohol use rather than the effect of drugs" hese assertions are not in accord with the trial court8s findings of fact$ and when combined with the adverbs %normally& and %more consistent$& are not definitive"
;ven so$ the trial court did not err in its assessment of the credibility of Dr" (ernande98s testimony" he fact that Dr" (ernande9 has not been accredited as an e*pert by the Dangerous Drugs Board does not necessarily mean that he is not an e*pert on the effects of drugs$ as accused-appellant Dy would lie this 'ourt to believe" Accreditation by the Board is not an essential element of e*pertise" More properly$ e*pertise pertains to nowledge and e*perience as well as relevant e*posure to a particular field of discipline" 6t appears that Dr" (ernande9 has met these latter re@uisites"
,ince complainant was drugged$ she was effectively deprived of reason if not effectively rendered unconscious"
+nder Article ==? of the Revised .enal 'ode$ as amended by RA Fo" <?4$ rape is committed by having carnal nowledge of a woman who is unconscious" 6n such a case$ the fact of se*ual assault and the identity of the assailant can be established from the events preceding or following the victim8s loss of consciousness"J72K (ere$ complainant was not totally unconscious but was physically helpless to resist or effectively communicate her refusal to the lewd desires of accused-appellants" ,he was aware of the fact of se*ual assault and the identity of her assailants despite her patchy amnesia$ disorientation and confusion" 6n People v. Linta $J77K this 'ourt held that:
'I*f the ability to resist is ta&en away by administering drugs, even though the woman may be conscious, sexual intercourse with her is rape. !itation omittedJ If the woman’s will is affected by the anesthetic so that the connection is had without her consent, though she may be more or less conscious, the act will be rape. !itation omittedJ
6n this regard$ the trial court observed: =ina has positively and steadfastly and unrelentingly claimed that after the effects of the drug had ta&en on her and she lay down on the beds put together in the boy’s room, =iovan lay alongside her and forcibly &issed her with his tongue inside her mouth, &issed her breasts and inserted his index and middle fingers into her vagina followed by -ryan having sexual intercourse with her and #ust to prevent -ryan from penetrating her further, she did oral sex on him.'FL*
'onspiracy e*ists when two or more persons come to an a greement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it" he agreement may be deduced from the manner in which the offense was committed" 6t must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony"J75K
Accused-appellants !oint participation in the crime of rape is clear from the trial court8s findings as follows: aJ
-ryan and =iovan were both at the ngeles $lying !lub when -ryan spotted =ina and >elen;
bJ he two boys and their driver sat at a table next to the girls’ and immediately -ryan and later on =iovan struc& up a conversation with the girls, initially with >elen whom they invited to their table which she declined, and then with =ina after the latter came out of the washroom who accepted the boys’ invitation to their table and >elen then followed suit; cJ pon learning that the girls were coming up to -aguio !ity, the boys intimated that they, too, were coming up as they had planned two wee&s earlier and offered the girls a ride with them. he boys’ pretension could not be true otherwise -ryan, who came from elenJ before driving to -aguio !ity;
* *
*
*
*
*
***
eJ
t the /ongs a44 -ar, -ryan and =iovan &ept on offering and giving =ina and >elen alcoholic drin&s;
fJ
s they left, =iovan suggested that he was thirsty and wanted cola drin&;
gJ
otably, >elen declined any further cola drin& since she had already drun& enough water at the /ongs;
hJ -ut -ryan and =iovan, who went to buy the drin&s at Bowloon 6estaurant, saw to it that the two plastic cups of /prite carried by -ryan be given to =ina and >elen. hey were the drugged cola drin&s; iJ s heretofore stated, they detoured through !lub ohn >ay to let =ina and >elen drin& their druglaced /prite and have the drug ta&e its initial effect; #J 8hen =iovan was satiating his lust on =ina, -ryan was not around to let =iovan freely do what he wanted. 8hen -ryan’s turn came, =iovan also left.
Accused-appellant Bernardino8s contention that he could not have been a co-conspirator in the crime of rape because Bryan Dy laced the re@uisite !olo or criminal intent to commit said intentional felony is unmeritorious" 'omplainant was found to have been drugged" he obvious implication of drugging complainant was to render her unconscious or at least unable to resist the malicious and se*ual designs of accused-appellants on the former" By doing so$ accused-appellants ensured that complainant would be in no position to resist or to effectively say %no&" he fact of drugging complainant betrays both accused-appellants8 intent to se*ually assault complainant or engage in se*ual intercourse with her"
6n addition$ accused-appellant Dy submits that he would not have acted the way he did had he committed the crime of rape" (is argument is non sequitur " /hile an accused-appellant8s post-incident behavior is never proof of guilt$ neither is it of innocence"
By the same toen$ accused-appellant submits that complainant8s acts and statements$ which are allegedly part of the res estae$ indicate that she had not been raped or molested" his contention is$ liewise$ unmeritorious" he behavior and reaction of every person cannot be predicted with accuracy" 6t is an accepted ma*im that %different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling e*perience" Fot every rape victim can be e*pected to act conformably to the usual e*pectations of every one" ,ome may shout# some may faint# and some may be shoced into insensibility$ while others may openly welcome the intrusion"&J7?K Behavioral psychology teaches us that people react to similar situations dissimilarly" here is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocing incident" he worings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable" his 'ourt indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused" his e*perience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances$ but her credibility should not be tainted b y any modicum of doubt"J7K
Accused-appellant Dy also avers that the credibility of complainant and her other witnesses was impeached" 6n effect$ accused-appellants @uestion the trial court8s assessment of complainant8s credibility"
'redible witness and credible testimony are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony" his principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the testimony of the complainant$ corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a physician" Be that as it may$ the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone$ uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim$ provided that her testimony is clear$ convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature" J7
Feedless to say$ this is a matter best assigned to the trial court which had the first-hand opportunity to hear the testimonies of the witnesses and observe their demeanor$ conduct$ and attitude during crosse*amination" ,uch matters cannot be gathered from a mere reading of the transcripts of stenographic notes" (ence$ the trial court8s findings carry great weight and substance"J7K
6n any case$ well-settled is the rule that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its uni@ue position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses8 deportment on the stand while testifying$ which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts" >nly the trial !udge can observe the furtive glance$ blush of
conscious shame$ hesitation$ flippant or sneering tone$ calmness$ sigh$ or the scant or full reali9ation of an oath all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness8 honesty and sincerity" he trial court8s findings are accorded finality$ unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooed$ misunderstood or misappreciated and which$ if properly considered$ would alter the results of the case" J74K +nless certain facts of substance and value were overlooed which$ if considered$ might affect the result of the case$ its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they are lying"J=3K
his 'ourt does not agree that the trial court overlooed or misappreciated any fact of substance or value" 6n assessing the credibility of complainant$ the trial court commented thus: he !ourt had observed her demeanor when she was testifying and she was direct, spontaneous and straightforward, even crying in narrating the sensitive details of her horrible experience; she had also demonstrated much care and concern about her obligation to tell the truth and nothing but the truth under the oath which she had ta&en before sitting on the witness chair .'LE*
he victim8s act of crying during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and e*perience"J=7K
Besides$ no woman would concoct a story of defloration$ allow e*amination of her private parts and sub!ect herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not$ in truth$ been a victim of rape and impelled to see !ustice for the wrong done to her" 6t is settled !urisprudence that when a woman says that she has been raped$ she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed"J==K A woman would thin twice before she concocts a story of rape unless she is motivated by a patent desire to see !ustice for the wrong committed against her"J=5K
Fo decent woman in her right mind would tell a tale that could sully her reputation and bring undue embarrassment and shame to herself and e*pose her family to all sorts of public aspersions if it is not the truth"J=?K 6f her story had only been contrived$ she would not have been so composed and consistent throughout her entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy interrogation" J=K 6ndeed$ if an accused had really nothing to do with the crime$ it is against the natural order of events and human nature and against the presumption of good faith that the prosecution witness would falsely testify against the former" J=
6n this case$ accused-appellants could not even come up with a credible motive for complainant to charge them with rape" At any rate$ ill motive is never an essential element of a crime" 6t becomes
inconse@uential in a case where there are affirmative$ nay$ categorical declarations towards the accusedappellant8s accountability for the felony"J=K
6t is doctrinally settled that the lone testimony of a rape victim$ by itself$ is sufficient to convict if credible" ;@ually settled is the principle that when a woman declares that she has been raped$ she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been raped$ and where her testimony passes the test of credibility$ the accused can be convicted on the basis thereof" his is because from the nature of the crime$ the only evidence that can be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant8s testimony"J=4K
Accused-appellant Bernardino assails the trial court8s failure to credit him with the mitigating circumstance of minority" here is no merit to this contention" Accused-appellant Bernardino was already nineteen when the crime was committed" Moreover$ in the case of People v. A"a!,J53K which accusedappellant Bernardino cites$ the circumstances and immaturity of accused in said case %did not allow him the freedom of initiative and action which should be e*pected of a person who is aware of the full conse@uences and responsibility for his acts"& Accused-appellant Bernardino was not under similar circumstances and neither was there any clinical basis to show he was immature"
+nder the second paragraph of Article ==? of the Revised .enal 'ode$ rape is punished by reclusion perpetua" Although ,ection 2< of R"A" Fo" <?4 fi*ed the duration of reclusion perpetua from 73 years and 2 day to 53 years$ the penalty has remained indivisible"
At the time of the commission of the crime$ accused-appellant Dy was 2< years old$ hence a minor" +nder Article of the Revised .enal 'ode$ when the offender is a minor under 2 years$ the penalty ne*t lower to that prescribed by law shall be imposed$ but always in the proper period"
Minority being a privileged mitigating circumstance$ the proper imposable penalty in this case for accused-appellant Dy is reclusion temporal, which ranges from 27 years and 2 day to 73 years" Appreciating the ordinary generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Dy$ the imposable penalty should be within minimum period of reclusion temporal $ i.e.,27 years and 2 day to 25 years and months" Applying the 6ndeterminate ,entence Law$ the minimum term of the penalty should be within the range of prision ma#or in any of its periods$ i.e., from years and 2 day to 27 years"
'onsidering the foregoing$ accused-appellant Dy is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of years of prision ma#or, as minimum up to 25 years and months of reclusion temporal $ as ma*imum"
As regards accused-appellant Bernardino$ he is not entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority considering that at the time of the commission of the crime$ he was already nineteen years old" J52K (ence$ as to him$ the proper imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua$ an indivisible penalty" +nder Article =$ first paragraph$ of the Revised .enal 'ode$ this penalty shall be imposed regardless of the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender"
he trial court erred in sentencing accused-appellant Bernardino to an indeterminate penalty" ,ince the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed on him$ accused-appellant Bernardino can not en!oy the benefit of the 6ndeterminate ,entence Law"J57K
Accused-appellant Bernardino8s act of issing Gina8s breasts and inserting his finger into her vagina constituted acts of lasciviousness"J5=K he penalty for this felony$ under Article == of the Revised .enal 'ode$ is prision correccional. he penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant Dy$ after appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and the generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender$ is arresto ma#or in its minimum period" 6nasmuch as the 6ndeterminate ,entence Law is not applicable$J55K the trial court correctly imposed on him the straight penalty of two months of arresto ma#or. >n the other hand$ the penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant Bernardino$ considering the generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender$ is prision correccional in its minimum period" he trial court$ therefore$ correctly imposed on him the indeterminate penalty of two months of arresto ma#or $ as minimum$ to two years and four months of prision correccional $ as ma*imum"
0inally$ in the matter of the damages awarded by the trial court$ this 'ourt reduces the award of moral damages from .?33$333"33 to .?3$333"33 in line with prevailing !urisprudence" Moral damages are not awarded to punish the accused but to compensate for the mental anguish$ serious an*iety$ and moral shoc suffered by the victim or his family as the pro*imate result of the wrongful act" he award is not meant to enrich the victim at the e*pense of the accused"J5?K
Liewise$ the award of .27$24?"33 or the e@uivalent of +,C5?3"33 as actual damages is deleted for lac of factual basis" o see recovery of actual damages$ it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty$ premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the in!ured party"J5K
HEREFORE, in view of the foregoing$ the Decision of the Regional rial 'ourt of Baguio 'ity$
Branch ?$ in 'riminal 'ase Fo" 2733-R$ finding accused-appellant BRAF 0;RD6FAFD D y LA MADR6D and G6>AF B;RFARD6F> y GAR'6A guilty of Rape$ and sentencing accused-appellant Bryan
Dy to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision ma#or $ as minimum$ up to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal $ as ma*imum$ is A006RM;D" he said decision$ insofar as accused-appellant Giovan Bernardino8s penalty is concerned$ is M>D606;D in that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
he decision of the trial court in 'riminal 'ase Fo" 2732-R$ finding accused-appellants guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentencing accused-appellant Dy to suffer the straight penalty of two months of arresto ma#or, and accused-appellant Bernardino to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two months of arresto ma#or, as minimum$ to two years and four months of prision correccional, as ma*imum$ is A006RM;D"
Accused-appellants Dy and Bernardino are further >RD;R;D$ !ointly and severally$ to pay complainant$ Gina Marie Mobley$ the amounts of .?3$333"33 as civil indemnity$ .?3$333"33 as moral damages and .233$333"33 as attorney8s fees$ and to pay the costs of the suit" he award of .27$24?"33 or +,C5?3"33 as actual damages is D;L;;D"
SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, .laintiff-Appellee$ vs" ANDRES C. FONTILLAS a-as /ANDING,/ Accused-Appellant" G.R. No. 101$$, D23242' 15, )1)6
LEONARDO#DE CASTRO, J.:
he 'ourt of Appeals correctly re!ected the accused-appellant8s assertion that his e*treme into*ication from alcohol on the night of the rape should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance" ,ection 2? of the Revised .enal 'ode$ on alternative circumstances$ provides: AR" 2?" heir concept" Alternative circumstances are those which must be taen into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission" hey are the relationship$ into*ication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender" ****
he into*ication of the offender shall be taen into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of into*ication$ if the same is not habitual or subse@uent to the plan to commit said felony# but when the into*ication is habitual or intentional$ it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance" Accused appellant did not present any evidence that his into*ication was not habitual or subse@uent to the plan to commit the rape" he person pleading into*ication must liewise prove that he too such @uantity of alcoholic beverage$ prior to the commission of the crime$ as would blur his reason" 75 Accusedappellant utterly failed to present clear and convincing proof of the e*tent of his into*ication on the night of December $ 7332 and that the amount of li@uor he had taen was of such @uantity as to affect his mental faculties" Fot one of accused-appellant8s drining buddies testified that they$ in fact$ consumed eight bottles of gin prior to the rape incident"
PEOPE O THE PHPPNES, 9laintiffppellee, vs. 0OSEPH ATO, ccusedppellant. G.R. No. 17'', Ap!l 16, "##')
RON, J.:
>7 !?6’/ 63I= 8e find that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and therefore !RI him of the crime charged.
’s !redibility
he review of a criminal case opens up the case in its entirety. he totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, avoiding general conclusions based on isolated pieces of evidence. ME In the case of rape, a review begins with the reality that rape is a very serious accusation that is painful to ma&e; at the same time, it is a charge that is not hard to lay against another by one with malice in her mind. -ecause of the private nature of the crime that #ustifies the acceptance of the lone testimony of a credible victim to convict, it is not easy for the accused, although innocent, to disprove his guilt. hese realities compel us to approach with great caution and to scrutini4e the statements of a victim on whose sole testimony conviction or ac%uittal depends.MF
n examination of the appealed decision shows that the appellant’s conviction was based largely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, . his is not at all unusual in rape cases, as the participants are usually
the only parties at the rape scene and only they can testify on what happened. -ut as we stated above, the testimony of a sole witness to the alleged rape must be closely examined when it is the pivotal point on which conviction or ac%uittal will turn. 8e should be ready to accept it if the victim’s sincerity is above reproach, and at the same time re#ect it if indicators point to her doubtful credibility. In the present case, we opt for the latter option as various circumstances show that we cannot wholly believe the victim’s testimony.ML
$irst, the medical findings of 1r. 1e 3una, the examining physician, does not fully support ’s claim that she was raped. 7ffectively, 1r. 1e 3una testified that the victim was no longer a virgin and has had past sexual experience. /he could not, however, conclude whether the healed vaginal lacerations were the result of forced or consensual sexual congress.
0. 73<76 <. /6?: R: onor, that area has already been touched. !?6: 8itness may answer. 16. 17 3: : -ecause the laceration is old, I also placed there that the vagina is vary lax and admits two FJ fingers so I could not tell exactly whether there was voluntary consent or there is forcible penetration, sir. !?6: 7specially so when the victim have had previous sexual intercourseC : 0es, your >onor .MH '7mphasis supplied*
hus, the healed lacerations are undisputed but they can only prove that has had prior sexual experience. 3ac&ing is the specific proof that sexual intercourse occurred on or about the time she was alleged to have been raped by the appellant.
/econd, ’s declaration that her boyfriend, $roilan, watched her being raped by the appellant stri&es us as highly unli&ely and contrary to human nature and experience. his impression is further reinforced by her statement that on 1ecember G, EGGG, or a day after the alleged rape, she went to $roilan’s house to attend the birthday party of his $roilan’sJ brother. o directly %uote from the records:
0. 73<76 <. /6?: R: onor. !?6: 6eform. 0. /6?: ow about this rdy -au4on, what is his participationC" " + hat is a separate incident and that was transpired 'sic* on the following day 1ecember G, EGGG at around O:KK o’cloc& in the evening wherein I attended the birthday party of $roilan’s brother also in -arangay @entinilla, /ta, -arbara, 9angasinan together with my friends ladiesJ but later on they already left me behind and I’m tal&ing to my boyfriend $roilan and that he also give 'sic* me orange #uice which he ordered me to consume all of it. fter consuming, my boyfriend $roilan ordered rdy -au4on to accompany me in going to my grandmother’s house also in -rgy. @entinilla, /ta. -arbara, but while on halfway I was down on my &nees into the ground and I already felt di44y, and as rdy helped me stand, he brought me at the house of his 3ola also in -rgy. @entinilla, /ta. -arbara, 9angasinan." 1o you confirm thatC xxx : : 0es, sir. R: /o, it is clear that despite the alleged rape which happened to you on 1ecember N, EGGG, you still went bac& to your boyfriend $roilan’s houseC : 0es, sir. x x xMM '7mphasis ours*
he idea of the rape victim going to a birthday party the house of her boyfriend + who had watched her J being ravaged + a day after she was raped baffles us no end; the party was at house of one who participated in and who was initially accused of the rap and ordinarily was an occasion an aggrieved rape victim would not attend. >er attendance in our view, was a conduct, done immediately after the rape, that is directly inconsistent with the natural reaction of an outraged woman who had been robbed of her honor. MO ime and again, this !ourt has emphasi4ed that a woman’s conduct immediately after an alleged sexual assault is critically important in gauging the truth of her accusations. he conduct must coincide with logic and experience, ta&ing into account the experience she #ust went through. 8hile it may be true that cannot be expected to act in any particular manner and that people may react differently to a given situation, still, this !ourt finds it hard to believe that she would act as if nothing untoward happened so soon after an allegedly harrowing incident. MQ
hird, ’s statements that that aJ she attended school on 1ecember N, EGGG; bJ she went to the house of ony to loo& for her boyfriend after her class was dismissed at H:KK p.m.; and cJ she was wearing her school uniform when she was raped, were contradicted by the evidence on record.
’s very own class adviser, ovito, testified that she J had dropped out of school as of ?ctober FG, EGGG. 0. 73<76 <. /6?: R: ow, onorable !ourt regarding the attendance of on the month of 1ecember EGGGC : /he has no attendance already in the month of 1ecember, sir. !?6:
R: 8hat do you mean by no attendance in the month of 1ecemberC : /he was already dropped, sir. 0. 73<76 <. /6?: R: 0ou said that is already drop 'sic* in that particular document, will you please show on what date was she considered already as drop 'sic*C ?@I? R. I1?/ : /he was dropped as early as ?ctober FG, EGGG, sir. !?6: R: 8hat was the last attendance of C : ?ctober FG, EGGG, sir. x x xMN '7mphasis and italics supplied*
ovito’s testimony is corroborated by ’s attendance records from /eptember to 1ecember EGGG 7xhibits "O" MG and "Q"OK J, which disclosed that the last time she attended school was on ?ctober FG, EGGG; as well as a certification 7xh "N"JOE dated /eptember FF, FKKK signed by the school principal stating that was dropped from the list of students for the school year EGGGFKKK on ?ctober FG, EGGG. he authenticity and validity of these documents remained unrebutted throughout the trial and w ere never controverted nor assailed by the prosecution.
/ignificantly, no logical reason exists for witness ovito to testify falsely; in fact, the prosecution did not discredit nor attribute any ill motive against him.
$ourth, ’s credibility is further eroded by inconsistencies between her sworn statement, on the one hand, and her court testimony, on the other hand.OF
In her sworn statement, she stated that she felt di44y on arrival at ony’s house because she "already dran& shots of li%uor;" thereafter she accepted ony’s offer to sleep upstairs, thus:
xxx
M. R : 8ill you relate to me in brief how this incident happenedC : his is the story, sir. I’ve #ust dismissed 'sic* from the school last 1ecember N, EGGG at around H:KK o’cloc& in the afternoon when I decided to visit my boyfriend $roilan 9araan in -rgy. @entinilla, /ta. -arbara, 9angasinan wherein upon arrival thereat, at the house of one ony alyas 7nciong -au4on, my boyfriend together with another named oseph $abito were then having a drin&ing spree. 8hile there I told them that I felt di44y because I already dran& shots of li%uor and that this 7nciong -au4on offered me to #ust t a&e a rest upstairs of the house. O. R : 1id you accepted 'sic* his offerC : 0es, sir. x x xOL '7mphasis supplied*
>owever, in her testimony dated /eptember EN, FKKK, she stated that she only became di44y and fell asleep after she consumed the co&e offered by $roilan. 8hen she regained consciousness, she was already lying on a bed in a room and the appellant was already on top of her. 8hen as&ed to explain the inconsistencies between her testimony in court and her affidavit, she simply stated that she forgot to state in her affidavit that she was offered a glass of co&e by her boyfriend. /he also added that she no longer could remember who led or carried her upstairs.
In her sworn statement, she also declared that she did not bother to shout or as& for help because she was scared that the three LJ accused might &ill her; she reiterated this matter in her court testimony of /eptember EN, FKKK. >owever, upon further cross examination, she stated that she as&ed $roilan t o help her, thus:
0. 73<76 <. /6? R: 0ou were already awa&e when you turned your bodyC '* : 0es, sir. R: 1id you shout at himC : I told him do not do this to me, I do not li&e this but he &ept on doing it, sir. R: ow, did you not see& the help of your boyfriend ta&ing into consideration that he was present at that timeC : >e does not want to help me, sir. R: -ut did you try to see& his helpC
: 0es, sir. R: In what wayC : >elp me, help me but he did not help me, sir.OH /he li&ewise stated in her sworn statement that the appellant and ony accompanied her to the public mar&et after the rape incident; thereafter, the three LJ of them parted ways. >owever, in her testimony of /eptember EN, FKKK, she testified that $roilan and the appellant went downstairs after the rape leaving her and ony in the room; thereafter, she got her panty from the floor, wore it, and then left. o directly %uote her testimony: !?6: R: >ow many times did oseph $abito insert his penisC '*: : ?nly once, sir. 96?/7!?6 <63? <77/7/: R: nd so what happened nextC : $roilan 9araan pulled oseph $abito downstairs. xxx R: /o you claimed that $roilan 9araan and oseph $abito went down afterwards, how about ony -au4onC : >e was upstairs, he was with me upstairs, he did not do anything to me, sir. R: 8hat did ony -au4on do to you when you were left alone with himC : othing, sir. R: nd so what happened next after oseph $abito and $roil an 9araan went downC : I got my panty from the floor, I wore it then I left, sir .OM In her subse%uent testimony dated /eptember FM, FKKK, again contradicted herself and declared that no one was in the room when she left. /he testified: 0. 73<76 <. /6?: R: ow,
: obody, sir. R: t the time you left the room where you were allegedly raped, all of the accused were still there and you left them inside the roomC : o, sir. R: t the time you left the room, who were still thereC : obody, sir .OO
8hile rape victims are not re%uired or expected to remember all the details of their harrowing experience, the inconsistencies drawn from ’s sworn statement and her declarations during trial cannot be considered as minor inconsistencies that do not affect her credibility. OQ hese discrepancies are not isolated nor are they on minor details of her tale of rape. >er contradictory statements are on important details and cannot but seriously impair the probative value and cast serious doubt on the integrity of her testimony.ON
$inally, there were facts elicited during trial that give us reasons not to un%uestionably accept ’s testimony. ?ne of these is her testimony that she wo&e up lying on a bed inside a room at the second floor of ony’s house after consuming the co&e that $roilan offered. 8e have to re#ect this testimony because the unrebutted testimony on record is that both rooms in the second floor of ony’s house had neither beds nor doors. rinidad, ony’s mother, testified to this physical fact, confirming ony’s own testimony that there was no bed in the room where the alleged rape too& place. ’s story, on the other hand, remained unsubstantiated.
8e also find it unli&ely that when returned home after the rape incident, --- did not observe anything unusual about her that could have immediately aroused her suspicion that something untoward had happened to her.OG /urprisingly, even told --- that she came from a -ible study.
a&ing ’s testimony in its totality, we find ourselves unable to accord it the same credibility extended to it by the lower courts. $or evidence to be believed, it must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself; it must be one that reason and the common experience and observation of man&ind can approve as probable under the circumstances. hese are the same standards to determine its value in weighing it in the scale of #udicial acceptance.QK
1enial as a defense
=enerally, denial as a defense is wea& and is loo&ed upon with disfavor. 8ea&ness of the defense, however, cannot be the basis for conviction. he primary burden still lies with the prosecution whose evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and who must establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused before there can be conviction. nder this rule, the defense of denial finds its special place and assumes primacy when the case for the prosecution is at the margin of sufficiency in establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt; a validly established denial then becomes sufficient to defeat the prosecution’s case and tilt the outcome in favor of the defense.
In our view, the present case is characteri4ed by a double plus in favor of the defense.
first plus factor is the wea&ness in the prosecution’s case. he prosecution almost solely relied on the testimony of . s discussed above, her testimony is replete with inconsistencies and we cannot accept it, by itself, as sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt that would support a conviction. It could have been helped by the corroborative testimony of rdee who appeared to have been present in the "drin&ing spree" that preceded the alleged rape, but who, inexplicably, was never called by either party. here are, of course, other prosecution witnesses but they did not contribute in any significant way in establishing the level of proof that the law re%uires. In fact, we read the medical evidence as an indicator of how ambivalent the prosecution’s case is. hus, the prosecution’s evidence, by itself, is sufficient to lead to a verdict of ac%uittal on grounds of reasonable doubt.
second plus for the defense is the evidence of denial that it adduced. he evidence was straight forward and needed no elaborate analysis to understand. hree boys were en#oying life on their own, conversing and drin&ing under the shade of a mango tree, when two girls came and #oined them. ?ne girl has had several drin&s before she came and indicated signs of being tipsy. his much was undisputed. t the time they were drin&ing, the family of the owner of the house were at the premises, and the father even as&ed the group to brea& up after some time. hus, the group did and that would have ended that happy afternoon except for the accusation of rape that subse%uently followed. nder these facts, it is not hard to resolve, given the sha&y contrary tale of the prosecution, that a simple denial is all that is needed for a verdict of ac%uittal on grounds of reasonable doubt. 8e thus confirm once more what we said in 9eople v.
In our #urisdiction accusation is not synonymous with guilt. he freedom of the accused is forfeit'ed* only if the re%uisite %uantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. his, of course, re%uires the most careful scrutiny of the evidence for the /tate, both oral and documentary, independent of whatever defense is offered by the accused. 7very circumstance favoring the accused’s innocence must be duly ta&en into account. he proof against the accused must survive the test of reason. /trongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway #udgment. he conscience must be satisfied that on the accused could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged. If the prosecution fails to discharge the burden, then it is not only the accused’s right to be freed; it is, even more, the court’s constitutional duty to ac%uit him.QF
8>767$?67, under these premises, we !RI the appellant oseph $abito on grounds of reasonable doubt. 8e conse%uently 67@76/7 and /7 /I17 the une FG, FKKQ decision of the !ourt of ppeals in !=.6. !6>! o. KKKKO that affirmed with modification the #udgment of conviction of the 6egional rial !ourt, -ranch HL, 1agupan !ity.
AN EXCERPT FROM THE APPEAL BRIEF OF DANIEL SMITH: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA Fifteenth Division
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plintiff!A""ellee, ! ve#s$s % LCPL& DANIEL '& SMITH, A(($se)!A""ellnt& CA!*&R& CR ! H&C& No& +-./ 0C#i1& Cse No& +2!2-34 X X APPELLANTS BRIEF X X X As the S$"#e1e Co$#t hel) in Be#n#)ino v& Peo"le, *&R& No& 3/+5-6, O(to7e# 6+, ++2: The e8$i"oise #$le fin)s ""li(tion if, s in the "#esent (se, the in($l"to#9 f(ts n) (i#($1stn(es #e ("7le of to o# 1o#e e;"lntions, one of hi(h is (onsistent ith the inno(en(e of the (($se) n) the othe# (onsistent ith his <$ilt, fo# then the evi)en(e )oes not f$lfill the test of 1o#l (e#tint9, n) )oes not s$ffi(e to "#o)$(e (onvi(tion & 0E1"hsis n) $n)e#s(o#in< s$""lie)4 X X X 62& It ill 7e #e(lle) tht in the Info#1tion, P#ose($to# 'ln)oni (h#ette S& Ni(ols ;;; ;;; <inst the ill n) (onsent of the si) S$>ette S& Ni(ols, to he# )1ette S& Ni(ols, "sse) o$t n) s #en)e#e) $n(ons(io$s 79 #eson of he# "$#"o#te) )#$n=enness fo# the enti#e )$#tion tht the lle
Constit$tion, <inst hi1&
to
7e
info#1e)
of
the nt$#e
n) ($se of
the
(($stion
This #i, e;"e#t itness fo# the )efense, is ve#9 enliette Ni(olsJ A: I ?$st nt to (l#if9& This "e# se, is #"e (se& This is s$""ose) to 7e the vi(ti1 of #"e 7$t I )i) not fin) n9 in?$#9 si
those 7#sions on the insi)e of the =nees o# loe# thies the 1ist=e of f(t )efense& As ""lie) to n (8$intn(e!#"e (se, this
""ellnts fvo# e#e 1o#e #eli7le& In s"ite of this, the loe# (o$#t hn)le) this iss$e ! 1ist=e of f(t ! s tho$
At n9 #te, the evi)en(e on #e(o#) (le#l9 est7lishe) (o1"linnts 1otives, 7$t the loe# (o$#t si1"l9 ie) s o1n of loose 1o#ls 3-& On the evenin< of Nove17e# 3, ++-, (o1"linnt lin(e of the f(t tht in #$#l #es in the Phili""ines, li=e Al7o#, S$#i<o )el No#te, 9o$n< l)ies #e st#i(tl9 #e8$i#e) to (t ith (i#($1s"e(tion n) "#$)en(e& *#et ($tion is o7se#ve) so tht thei# #e"$ttions shll #e1in $ntinte)& An9 7#eth of s(n)l hi(h 7#ine) s o1n of loose 1o#ls& 3--& Inte#estin
: On "
