ManilaSECOND
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. L-48746
March 15, 1984
-versus-
JULIO
CABANLIG,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
The appellant,
Julio Cabanlig, was accused of
Rape before the defunct Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The
complainant
is Isabel Distor who claimed that the appellant forcibly had coitus
with her on October 30, 1975, in Barangay San Felipe,
Binalonan,
Pangasinan.
In a Decision dated June 20, 1978, the trial court rendered the
following
judgment:
The prosecution having established the
guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there being no aggravating
or
mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the crime, the
accused
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the complainant in the sum of P6,000.00 and to pay the
costs. [Expediente, p. 247].
The People's
statement of the facts adopted that
of the trial court but added the page references to the transcript of
the
stenographic notes and documentary evidence as required by Rule 124,
Sec.
7, in relation to Rule 47, Sec. 17, of the Revised Rules of Court. The
statement reads as follows:
The complainant, Isabel Distor, testified
that
on or about October 30, 1975 there was a girl scout camping at the
school
campus of San Felipe, Binalonan, Pangasinan; that the complainant was a
member of the girl scout of the school; that there were skits and an
induction
program in the afternoon and a campus fire in the evening; that the
day's
celebration was climaxed by a night camping at the school building
where
several scouts took their supper and slept. [pp. 6-7, T.S.N., Oct. 7,
1976;
Exhibit "B"; pp. 17-18, T.S.N., July 8, 1977].
Isabel Distor claims that she was one of
those
slated to sleep in the school building that night of October 30, 1975
and
that while she and others were preparing to spend the night in said
school
building, she was invited by Myrna Tadena and Paulina Bugaoan to
urinate
at the school campus toilet; that she joined the two but instead of
proceeding
to the toilet, Myrna Tadena suggested that they drop at the house of
Julio
Cabanlig only a few meters away from the school campus; that the three
guided by Myrna Tadena proceeded to a camarin owned by the accused
where
there was a bamboo bed [papag] on which they sat and engaged in
conversations; [pp, 8-12, 55-56, 58-61, T.S.N., Oct. 6, 1976; Exhibit
"B";
pp. 3, 28-30, T.S.N., Jan. 28, 1977; pp. 17-20, 35-37, T.S.N., July 8,
1977]; that not long after, Myrna Tadena and Paulina Bugaoan told the
complainant
to wait in the camarin because they were going to urinate but after a
few
minutes and because she could no longer wait for them, she started to
go
back to the school, when the accused Julio Cabanlig arrived and took
hold
of her and after embracing and kissing her, he pushed her on the bamboo
bed. She tried to stand and run away but the accused pushed her down,
pointed
a knife to her neck and warned that if she shouted for help, he would
kill
her. [pp. 12-14, 31, 63-64, T.S.N., Oct. 6, 1976; Exhibit "B"; pp. 3-6,
8, 29-30, T.S.N., Jan. 28, 1977]. After removing his pants and the
panty
of the complainant, he went on top of her, inserted his penis in her
private
parts, and she felt pain as his penis penetrated her." [pp. 14-18, 31,
T.S.N., Oct. 6,1976; Exhibit "B"; pp. 9-10, T.S.N., Jan. 28,
1977].
After the first sexual intercourse, the complainant sat on the papag
and cried. She explained that she could not have run away after the
first
intercourse because the accused was holding her and threatened to kill
her if she made any attempt to run away. [pp. 19-20, T.S.N., Oct. 6,
1976;
Exhibit "B"; pp. 13, 15, T.S.N., Jan. 28, 1977]. That night, the
accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant, Isabel Distor, two
times. On the second attempt to ravish the complainant, the latter
cried
and pleaded with him not to do it again but the accused ignored her
pleas
for mercy and instead boxed her breast and pushed her again on the bed
and had sexual intercourse with her. [pp. 18-19, T.S.N., October 6,
1976;
Exhibit "B"; pp. 10, 15, 18, 28, T.S.N., Jan. 28, 1977].
At about 4:00 o'clock in the morning of
October
31, 1975, the accused finally released Isabel Distor when the latter
went
back to the school campus and the accused accompanied her. She
proceeded
to the school where the girl scouts slept and she saw some of them
already
preparing to go home. She, too, went home but she did not report the
matter
to her parents because she was afraid. In the school campus, however,
where
she saw Clara Apelado, she wanted to tell her what Julio Cabanlig did
to
her. But she was apprehensive Julio Cabanlig might carry out his threat
to kill her and the members of her family if she revealed what happened
to her. [pp. 20-24, 25-26, 28, 50, T.S.N., Oct. 6, 1976; Exhibit "B";
pp.
18-24, T.S.N., Jan. 28, 1977].
Julio Cabanlig thereafter was bragging
about
what he did to the complainant, and the news spread like wild fire in
the
school. The teachers in the San Felipe High School where the
complainant
was a sophomore student, decided to call the father of Isabel Distor
and
informed him of what happened to his daughter. This was already Tuesday
or five or six days after the incident happened. Upon returning home,
Julian
Distor, father of the complainant, asked the latter if what the teacher
told him was true and the complainant told everything to him. [pp.
29-31,
52, T.S.N., Oct. 6, 1976; Exhibit "B"; pp. 25-26, T.S.N., Jan. 28,
1977].
So the father reported the matter to the barrio captain, Felipe Palma,
and he summoned the complainant and Julio Cabanlig, and the accused
admitted
before the barrio captain what he did to Isabel. Then, councilmen Pablo
Meliton, Jesus Malinab and the parents of the accused went to the house
of the complainant for a settlement. This was repeated on the following
day, Sunday, and it was agreed upon that the accused and the
complainant
would marry on December 20, 1975. But before the wedding day set by the
parties arrived, the accused married another woman. [pp. 31-34, 4243,
52-54,
T.S.N., Oct. 6, 1976; Exhibit "B"; pp. 23-31, T.S.N., Jan. 28, 1977;
pp.
32, 42-47, 49, T.S.N., July 8, 1977]. The complainant and her parents
then
decided to file the present action against the accused. [pp. 35-37,
40-44,
T.S.N., Oct. 6, 1976; Exhibit "B"; pp. 24-25, Jan. 28, 1977].
The complainant was subjected to physical
examination
on December 19, 1975, and as a result thereof, Exhibit "C",
Medico-Legal
Certificate of Dr. Tomas Cornel, was issued. [pp. 34-35, T.S.N., Oct.
6,
1976; pp. 2-5, 8-9, 11-14, T.S.N., July 8, 1977]." [Brief, pp. 3-7].
Additionally, according to the trial
court,
"The
following facts are uncontroverted: [1] that the accused had sexual
intercourse
with the complainant; [2] that the complainant Isabel Distor was, at
the
time of the incident on October 30, 1975, only 14 years old; [3] that
both
complainant and accused were single on October 30, 1975; [4] that after
the incident, an attempt, with the intercession of barrio officials,
was
made to settle the case and an agreement was forged between the parents
of the accused and the complainant to have the accused marry the
complainant
but this agreement did not materialize because the accused married
another
woman." [Expediente, p. 237].
In his appeal,
the appellant makes only one assignment
of error, to wit: "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANT
GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE." [Brief, p. 4]. And
because rape is usually committed in sites far removed from prying
eyes,
We have the classic situation in this case where the sole issue is who
to believe - the complainant or the accused. As the trial court well
stated,
"The issue in this case boils down to credibility of witnesses."
[Expediente,
p. 237].
Obviously the
trial court gave credence to the
testimony of Isabel because it "observed that the complainant testified
freely and in a manner that inspires belief." [Idem, p.
239].
Also, "the Court is convinced that the declaration of the complainant
reveals
the truth considering her demeanor in testifying and the innocent way
she
answered questions regarding the incident." [Idem, p. 246].
Accordingly,
it dismissed "the claim of the defense that the complainant was the
sweetheart
of the accused and that she voluntarily submitted herself to him on
several
occasions in the house of the accused, should be considered with
extreme
caution. On October 30, 1975, the complainant was then only 14 years
old
and the accused, 27. Considering her tender age, it is not likely that
she would even go to the very house of the accused in order to have
sexual
intercourse with him. The accused testified that on June 2, 1975, the
complainant
accepted his love and three days thereafter, that is, on June 5, 1975,
they had their first sexual intercourse which was followed in July,
August,
September and October all in the house of the accused. There is no
evidence
to show that the complainant is a woman of loose morals. On the
contrary,
she was then only an innocent young girl who was studying in the
community
high school of her barrio like other girls." [Idem, pp.
237-238].cralaw:red
The rule is
well-settled that because the trial
court was in a better position to examine the real evidence and to
observe
the demeanor of the witnesses, its conclusions and findings of fact
will
not be disturbed unless it appears from the record that it overlooked
some
fact or circumstance or misinterpreted the significance of the same.
The
appellant claims that Isabel's "testimony will readily reveal a series
of prevarications, distortions and inconsistencies which render her
story
unworthy of belief." He points to the following:
1. Isabel testified that she attended the
over-night
girl scouts camping on October 30, 1975; that an of those who attended
signed the list of participants; that "there was a long pad containing
the list which we signed." [T.S.N., p. 173].
The list is
Exhibit 5 which appears on page 211 of
the Expediente. Exhibit 5 does not include Isabel's name. Did Isabel
lie
when she said she signed the list of participants? We believe she did
not
for she explained the omission thus:
My name doesn't appear in this pad xerox
copy
of list of participants because I learned that when they heard about
the
fact that I was abused, the teacher told the students that they were
going
to have a new list of the participants and they had that signed and at
the time, I was not present when they made a new list of participants.
[T.S.N., p. 174].
Whether or not
Isabel signed the list of participants
is a minor matter. The fact is that she was in the place where she said
she was so much so that the appellant was able to have sex with her.
2. The appellant claims that it
taxes
one's
credibility to believe Isabel's testimony that she was invited by Myrna
Tadena and Paulina Bugaoan to urinate at his house and there left by
the
two to provide opportunity for the rape. It was for this reason, he
says,
why Myrna and Paulina were accused in the lower court as accomplices.
It is not
correct to say that Myrna and Paulina invited
Isabel to urinate at the house of the appellant and that the two were
accused
as accomplices in the Municipal Court of Binalonan. It was Myrna only
who
suggested that the trio go to the house of the appellant and it was
Myrna
only who was also accused in the lower court. And there is nothing
improbable
about Isabel's testimony that the trio went to the house of the
appellant
considering that Myrna and the appellant are first cousins. The
dismissal
of the case against Myrna was explained by Provincial Fiscal Rodolfo
Rodrigo.
He said, "Myrna Tadena was not even present during the alleged
commission
of the rape." [Expediente, p. 33]. This was the Fiscal's perception on
the role of Myrna which does not, however, render Isabel's story
incredible.
3. The appellant questions Isabel's
narration
on how she was raped. He states that in her sworn statement, [Exhibit
B"],
there is no mention of a knife but a knife was mentioned when she
testified
in court.
This
circumstance is not significant. The use of
knife was a mere detail for what is significant was the use of superior
force - that of a 27-year old man against a 14-year old who was
described
by the trial court as "only a frail and young woman. "
4. The appellant claims that
Isabel's
testimony
is flawed with respect to the time when the first sexual intercourse
took
place; his threat to kill her if she revealed the rape; what happened
after
each sexual intercourse [there were two]; her failure to cry for help;
why the chickens and pigs nearby were not "disturbed in their nocturnal
repose;" the conduct of the two after she was released in the early
morning
of October 31, 1975; her failure to relate to others on that day what
happened
to her; and the delay of five days before she admitted the rape to her
father.
Suffice it to
say that the above circumstances do
not negate her story. On the contrary, the People has correctly
observed,
"these circumstances are concomitant human behavior and reaction of a
determined
and heartless rapist and a fearful and helpless victim, thus rendering
complainant's testimony more credible and reliable." [Brief, p. 13].
The appellant
also cites "other circumstances
of weight which negate rape" such as the delay in reporting it to the
police
and filing the complaint; the lack of evidence to show external injury;
etc. But these so-called circumstances of weight had been duly
considered
by the trial court and We agree with it that they do not affect the
essential
credibility of Isabel.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
judgment of the trial court, being
in accord with both the facts and the law, is hereby affirmed in its
entirety.
Costs against the appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Aquino, C.J.,
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero,
De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur. |