SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 103633 October 13, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MELCHOR CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

NOCON, J.:

A pentel pen was used to intimidate her into having sexual intercourse with the accused, as testified to by Rosalie Beltran, the alleged rape victim. Not true as she and I are sweethearts, cries the accused-appellant, Melchor Cruz. He points to Rosalie's mother's affirmation that the handwriting in the romantic notes Rosalie sent to him was really her daughter's and that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case. Meticulous examination of the evidence reveals merit in accused's allegations. His acquittal is therefore in order.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The evidence for the People as summarized by the Solicitor General is as follows:

At about 8:30 o'clock in the morning of December 2, 1978, Rosalie Beltran, then fourteen (14) years of age, was inside her room located at the second floor of their house at 84 B. Mariano St., Sta. Ana, San Mateo, Rizal. She was lying on her bed as she was suffering from a headache. At this time, the members of her family were out. Also at the house at the time was appellant Melchor Cruz, the latter being employed by Rosalie's mother (Leonida Beltran) as shoemaker (tsn, April 15, 1980, pages 6-10). Taking advantage of the situation, appellant (Melchor) entered the unlocked room of Rosalie holding a pentel pen with a pointed end. When Rosalie inquired what he was doing there, appellant embraced her. Rosalie tried to shout but appellant covered her mouth with his left hand while he embraced her at the waist with his right hand, which he also used to remove her shorts (tsn, April 15, 1980, pages 11 to 14). Appellant succeeded in removing Rosalie's shorts (tsn, April 15, pages 17 to 18).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Rosalie continued to resist appellant but he gave her a fistblow on the stomach which weakened her. Thereafter, appellant succeeded in forcing Rosalie to lie down on her bed facing upward, with only a portion of the body above her knees actually on the bed (tsn, April 15, 1980, page 26), after which appellant left her with the threat that he would kill her should she tell anyone about the incident (tsn, April 15, 1980, pages 29 to 30).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Intimidated by the threat, Rosalie did not immediately tell anyone about the rape committed by appellant upon her. A week later, however, she related the incident to her grandmother, Isabel Beltran, and on December 10, 1978, Isabel Beltran informed Leonida Beltran (Rosalie's mother) of the incident. Leonida confronted Rosalie who admitted that indeed she was abused by appellant on December 2, 1978 (tsn, May 7, 1980, pages 21 to 23).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On December 15, 1978, Leonida Beltran took Rosalie to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for medical examination. Rosalie was attended to by Dr, Prospero A. Cabayanan who issued Living Case Report No. NBI-78-913 (Exhibits "A" and "A-1"). Dr. Cabayanan stated that Rosalie's case is one of false physical virginity, wherein there is no evidence of any hymenal laceration because the hymen is elastic. However, the orifice or the opening of her vaginal canal was big enough as it measured 2.8 cm., enough to admit a male organ in state of erection without producing any laceration. He was presented as witness for the prosecution and he confirmed that the hymen of Rosalie is elastic and wide enough to admit a male organ in a state of erection without producing any genital injury, to show that there had been penetration prior to the examination (tsn, march 3, 1980, pages 4 to 18). ¹chanrobles virtual law library

Accused-appellant's version is, however, as follows:

Accused testified that he and the private complainant were sweethearts, she answered him on February 10, 1977, the date of birthday of private complainant. They conversed with each other and after the lapse of three months, she agreed to go out with accused to picnics and movies (tsn, dtd. 11-3-81, p. 4). Sexual intercourse happened one morning when accused was making shoes in their house, she approached him and they started to converse and when he asked for one thing, she consented (tsn, p. 4, Ibid.) It happened at the ground floor of the house (Ibid., p. 5). When the accused testified on February 9, 1988, he testified that the sexual relation with the complainant was with the consent of the complainant (tsn, p. 2) and when asked for proof as to his relationship with the complainant he had produced letters dated January 10, 1977, which were marked as Exhibits "1" and "2", respectively, (tsn, dtd. 2-9-88, p. 2). Those letters were sent to him by the complainant (tsn, p. 3). ²chanrobles virtual law library

The trial court disbelieved the accused's story and forthwith sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories provided by law, and to indemnify the private complainant, Rosalie Beltran, in the amount of P30,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. ³chanrobles virtual law library

Hence, this appeal where accused-appellant faults the trial court in -

1. . . . CONVICTING THE ACCUSED WHEN PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND THE ACCUSED WERE SWEETHEARTS AND THERE WAS NO RAPE COMMITTED.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

2. . . . GIVING CREDIT TO PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AS THE ALLEGED RAPE WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAPPEN. ⁴chanrobles virtual law library

The accused presented in court two (2) letters dated January 20, 1977 and February 10, 1977, respectively, which were sent to him by Rosalie. The letters reads as follows:

Mel,chanrobles virtual law library

Alam mo n(an)g matanggap ko ang sulat mo ay hindi ako mapalagay dahil ba sabi ko sa iyo noong tayo ay magkausap ay sa birthday ko nang kita sasagutin kaya kung pupuwede ay maghintay ka na lang tutal mga ilang araw na lang mula ngayon. Siya nga pala salamat sa gift mo hindi ko (,) hindi ko (,) malaman kung paano kita magagantihan. Tungkol naman sa sinasabi mo sa akin na manonood tayo ng sine ay papayag naman ako kapag sinagot na kita.chanrobles virtual law library

Hanggang dito na lamang at maraming salamat

Just me

Rosalie Beltran (Sgd.) Nene ⁵

and,

Mel,chanrobles virtual law library

Siguro kapag natanggap mo ang liham kong ito at iyong mabasa ang nilalaman nito ay baka sabihin mo na sa iyong sarili na ikaw na ang pinakamasayang nilalang sa ibabaw ng mundo dahil ang sulat na ito ay magsasabi sa iyo na sinasagot na kita ng OO kaya simula ngayon ikaw ay akin at ako naman ay sa iyo, pero kung puwede gusto ko ay tayong dalawa lamang ang makaalam nito dahil baka malaman sa amin ay pagagalitan ako at baka paalisin ka pa sa trabaho kaya ililihim natin ang mga bagay na ito.

Love,

(Sgd.) Nene
Rosalie Beltran ⁶chanrobles virtual law library

Private complainant's mother, Leonida Beltran, was presented as a defense witness by the accused and she affirmed, on the witness stand, that the love letters were indeed written by her daughter. ⁷ This is perhaps why, upon seeing for herself said love notes, Leonida testified as follows:

Q So that in this case, of your daughter Rosalie Beltran, you are no longer interested to prosecute the same?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. CRUZ:chanrobles virtual law library

We have no further questions, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

Cross examination?chanrobles virtual law library

PROS. QUITALAN:chanrobles virtual law library

No cross, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

Q By what other name is your daughter known?chanrobles virtual law library

A Nene, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. CRUZ:chanrobles virtual law library

Q So that this Nene appearing in these two letters, Exhibits "1" and "2", is actually your daughter?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. ⁸

At this juncture, mention is made of the fact that aside from the complainant, who was then 15 years old, her mother Leonida also signed the complain charging the accused with rape, ⁹ although it was no longer necessary to do so. ¹⁰ The fact that she did file the complaint, indicates that she was more after the vindication for her honor rather than to right an alleged wrong committed on her daughter, as the records will later show.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the light of Rosalie's love notes, together with Leonida Beltran's statement that she is no longer interested in pursuing the case, the seemingly immaterial inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony as to how the actual rape was committed, had assumed momentous significance, as follows:chanrobles virtual law library

Having testified that the room where was allegedly raped was right beside a store where many people "buy foodstuffs" and where "you can overhear but cannot understand" their conversation, ¹¹ complainant in one part of her testimony stated that:

Q Will you tell how this happened?chanrobles virtual law library

A The incident happened like this. While I was resting inside my bedroom, the accused suddenly went inside. When I inquired what he was doing he just embraced and forced me to lie down, ma'am.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you describe how the accused embraced you and forced you to lie down, will you describe?chanrobles virtual law library

A He placed his left hand to cover my mouth and he used his right hand in embracing me, ma'am.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you step down and assuming that this lady is the accused, will you describe?chanrobles virtual law library

A (Witness demonstrated by placing the right hand of the accused on her mouth and the right hand on the waist and took off her shorts and opened it.)chanrobles virtual law library

Q While he was holding you, by what means did he force you to lie down?chanrobles virtual law library

A He succeeded in forcing me to lie down because he gave me fistblow on the stomach, ma'am. ¹² (Emphasis supplied)

while in another part of the testimony, she not only contradicted herself but also revealed her seemingly puissant response to the accused's assault upon her as to cast doubt to her alleged resistance to the accused's advances:

Q What happened after Melchor Cruz threatened you with the pentel pen?chanrobles virtual law library

A I stand (sic) up and that was the time when he met me with embraces, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What did you do? You did not resist?chanrobles virtual law library

A I resisted, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q How?chanrobles virtual law library

A I kicked him, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When he embraced you, you were standing up?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And how did you kicked him?chanrobles virtual law library

A I kicked him with my feet on his knees, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And in spite of that resistance, you were overtaken by his power?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And what happened after he embraced you?chanrobles virtual law library

A He forced me to lie down, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And during that time, you remember what his hand was doing to your body?chanrobles virtual law library

A He embraced me, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Actually, both his hands are mashing your body?chanrobles virtual law library

A No, sir, he embraced me and forced me to lie down, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Did he mash your body?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q With both hands?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You said you were mashed with both hands, do you know where he place his pentel pen?chanrobles virtual law library

A I did not see where he placed the pentel pen, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q But you know very well that he was no longer holding the pentel pen?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q How long do you think did he take (Melchor Cruz) to force you to, lie down?chanrobles virtual law library

A It took some time, about one minute, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What are the fixtures inside your room?chanrobles virtual law library

A Since the room is only small, it has only the bed, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q It does not have chair, table?chanrobles virtual law library

A None, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q No cabinet?chanrobles virtual law library

A There was one cabinet, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q While you are (sic) struggling with Melchor Cruz, you are (sic) using all your might?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And of course you were able to offer at least some resistance and you were able to push him backward?chanrobles virtual law library

A Hindi ko kaya, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What did Melchor do to you once he was able to lie you to bed?chanrobles virtual law library

A He was holding my hand while we are (sic) already on bed, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Both his hands?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened afterwards?chanrobles virtual law library

A I struggled and I was able to wrestle "naibalya ko siya", sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You are (sic) wearing shorts?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And did you have your panty on?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And did you have your bra?chanrobles virtual law library

A None, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When Melchor Cruz started removing your panty, what were you doing then?chanrobles virtual law library

A I was struggling, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You were continuously struggling but you were not shouting?chanrobles virtual law library

A I cannot shout, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And what was the position of Melchor Cruz when he was trying to remove your shortpants?chanrobles virtual law library

A When I was able to wrest him, I was able to push him, he was standing up, he placed his legs near the door in order to prevent me in going out of the room, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q It was on that spot when Melchor Cruz was able to remove your short pants?

A I stood up AND THEN HE COVERED MY MOUTH and removed my shorts, sir ¹³ (Emphasis supplied).

In the first testimony, accused allegedly covered her mouth immediately to prevent her from shouting while in the second testimony, it took some time for accused to cover her mouth - in fact, he embraced her, she kicked him, he forced her to lie down, he mashed her body with both hands, she was able to wrestle ("naibalya ko siya") with him, he attempted to remove her pair of short pants, she pushed him, he stood up, he stayed near the door to prevent her from going out, and THEN AND ONLY THEN, did he cover her mouth. And all the while that the struggle was on, she did not even make any attempt to shout.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

This testimony alone taxes the Court's imagination as to what really transpired in that small room.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The above-quoted testimonies of complainant were further muddled by her succeeding testimony, as follows:

ATTY. MORETA:chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did Melchor Cruz touch your private part when he was spreading your legs?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And still you were not shouting?chanrobles virtual law library

A I cannot shout, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q After that what happened?chanrobles virtual law library

A He succeeded in raping me, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q How?chanrobles virtual law library

A He inserted his private part inside my organ, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q How did you know that he was able to insert his private part to your organ?chanrobles virtual law library

A I felt it, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you have any sexual intercourse before that incident?chanrobles virtual law library

A None, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q That was your first time?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Of course it was very painful?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And you cried?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And that you cried loud?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q How long was Melchor Cruz on top of you?chanrobles virtual law library

A About two to three seconds, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

Q Are you sure it was two to three minutes?chanrobles virtual law library

A Three minutes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. MORETA:chanrobles virtual law library

Q What were you doing all the time when Melchor Cruz was on top of you?chanrobles virtual law library

A Because he gave me fistblows, I felt weak, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And you just lay on bed doping nothing?chanrobles virtual law library

A I forced myself to fight back, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You were trying to fight back but you never shouted on that occasion?chanrobles virtual law library

A I was crying, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q But you never shouted for help?chanrobles virtual law library

A I was not able to shout because he covered my mouth, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When did he cover your mouth?

A WHEN HE PLACED HIMSELF ON TOP OF ME, SIR. ¹⁴ (Emphasis supplied)

Actually, this last testimony is more of an indication of what really transpired. Unwittingly, private complainant revealed the true nature of her sexual intercourse during cross examination. In this particular sexual intercourse, Rosalie must have cried out in pain that is why accused covered her mouth TO PREVENT the people in the store from knowing that the two of them were having sex inside the room which was just beside the store.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

According to Leonida Beltran, she learned about her daughter's affair with the accused indirectly as follows:

ATTY. CRUZ:chanrobles virtual law library

Q Madam Witness, do you know a person by the name of Rosalie Beltran?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q How are you related to this Rosalie Beltran, Madam Witness?chanrobles virtual law library

A She is my daughter.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And this Rosalie Beltran is the private complainant in this case?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Do you know the accused Melchor Cruz?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Do you know what is the relation of this Rosalie Beltran to the accused Melchor Cruz?chanrobles virtual law library

A Formerly, I do not know what was their relationship, but later on I heard that they were sweethearts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

Q Formerly you were not aware of the relationship between your daughter Rosalie Beltran and the accused in this case, Melchor Cruz?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q But later on you came to know that they were sweethearts?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor. ¹⁵

which she allegedly discovered from Rosalie's grandmother, as follows:

Q When for the first time did you come to know about this case against the accused?chanrobles virtual law library

A Around December 10, Ma'am, when I . . . .chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. CRUZ:chanrobles virtual law library

Q May I request Your Honor that the witness just answer the question.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

FISCAL:chanrobles virtual law library

Q And who informed you about this?chanrobles virtual law library

A My mother-in-law was the one who related to me about this case, Ma'am.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What was the name of your mother-in-law?chanrobles virtual law library

A Isabel Beltran, Ma'am.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And what did she tell you?chanrobles virtual law library

A I was informed by my mother-in-law that Rosalie intimated to her that she was raped, Ma'am, by Melchor Cruz.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Did she mentioned the date when it happened?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Ma'am, it was December 2.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And what did you do upon hearing this report from your mother-in-law?chanrobles virtual law library

A I confronted my daughter about the incident and she admitted to me that something did happen to her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q When do (sic) you confront her?chanrobles virtual law library

A In December 11, Ma'am, after I found out from my mother-in-law, about the incident. ¹⁶

Complainant's immediate failure to notify the authorities or, at the very least, her mother about her alleged experience also seriously affects the truthfulness of her narration. ¹⁷ But would Rosalie have volunteered that information to her grandmother?chanrobles virtual law library

In the light of the love letters she sent to accused, where she herself wanted the whole affair kept secret, it is more credible that someone else also "spilled the beans," as testified to by accused, as follows:

Q. . . . Rosalie Beltran, being your sweetheart, why did she file a complaint against you to the effect that sometime on December 2, 1977 in the municipality of San Mateo, Rizal, with lewd designs, and by means of force, violence and intimidation, you have carnal knowledge with her ?chanrobles virtual law library

FISCAL:chanrobles virtual law library

Objection, Your Honor, he is incompetent to answer the question.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

Let us see.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

A. It happened this way, sir. During the first year of our relationship, our relationship was not known to the family, but because of the teasing around, her uncle happened to know of our relationship but he did not divulge it to anyone, and one evening he was drunk, and maybe he was not able to help himself and he told the mother of Rosalie Beltran of our relationship.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. What is the name of that uncle of Rosalie Beltran ?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Benjamin Beltran, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Now, at the time when Benjamin Beltran was drunk and he informed the mother of Rosalie Beltran about your relationship with her, what happened ?chanrobles virtual law library

A. The uncle of Rosalie Beltran informed the mother and the mother confronted me about our relationship.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And what was your answer ?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I told her that our relationship is true, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. When you confessed to the mother, by the way, what is the name of the mother of Rosalie Beltran ?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Leonida Beltran, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. When you confessed to the mother about your relationship to the daughter, what happened ?chanrobles virtual law library

A. When I confirmed to the mother of Rosalie Beltran our relationship, she requested me to go home to our place because according to her, the uncle of Rosalie Beltran is angry with me.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Now, when Rosalie Beltran told you or rather the mother of Rosalie Beltran told you that the uncle is angry with you, what did you do if any?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I went home to our place, sir. ¹⁸

Indeed, we find it hard to swallow the rape story of complainant hook, line and sinker. Moreover, we are bothered by the following facts which make it difficult for us to accept complainant's version of what happened to he in the morning of December 2, 1978:chanrobles virtual law library

1. The weapon of intimidation was alleged to be a pentel pen "with pointed object" as follows:

Q. How did you first learn that Melchor Cruz entered your room?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I saw him entering the room, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Did he knock?chanrobles virtual law library

A. No, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Did he say anything when he entered the room?chanrobles virtual law library

A. None, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. He was unarmed?chanrobles virtual law library

A. There is, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. He was armed with what?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Pentel pen with pointed object, inside which he made,
sir. ¹⁹

There was no clarification as to what that "pointed object" in the pentel pen was. It could have been the short sharp tip of the pentel pen itself. Definitely, it was not a knife nor a gun nor a club nor a similar weapon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The presence of said pentel pen is important because it was what allegedly instilled fear in her and which intimidated her from shouting even before accused covered her mouth right after he embraced her, assuming that her first version of when the accused exactly covered her mouth was what indeed happened.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

However, in a statement given to TSGT Jose C. Quiocho of the Western Sector, PC Metrocom, San Miguel, Manila, on December 18, 1978, no such pentel pen with a pointed object was mentioned, as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

T. Maaari mo bang isalaysay sa pagtatanong na ito ang buong naganap tungkol sa iyong reklamo?chanrobles virtual law library

S. Ganito po yon, sa nabanggit na oras, at petsa habang akoy nakahiga sa aking kuwarto ay pumasok si Melchor Cruz. Noon tanungin ko kung bakit siyay pumasok sa loob ay bigla na lamang akong niyakap at tinakpan ang aking bibig at ihiniga. Akoy nanlaban at nagpapalag ngunit pinagbantaan akong papatayin kung akoy sisigaw. Akoy patuloy na nanlaban sa kanya ngunit nanghina at siyay umibabaw sa akin at akoy kanyang hinubaran ng aking short pant. Pagkatapos ay sinuntok niya ako sa aking tiyan at tuloy akong nanghina doon niya naisagawa na maipasok ang kanyang ari sa aking pag-aari. Noon matapos siya ay umalis na at nag-iwan pa ng salita na huwag daw akong magsusumbong ako ay papatayin daw niya ako. ²⁰ (SIC omitted in order not to clutter up the quotation)

Granting that this unusual pentel pen had indeed intimidated Rosalie at the start, the records do not show that throughout the alleged rape the accused had consistently threatened or forced complainant at pentel pen point to have sex with him. What Rosalie's testimony shows is that the accused had forgotten all about his pentel pen weapon ²¹ while consummating the act.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

2. While the Medico Legal Officer had testified that there was no hymenal laceration in Rosalie's hymen, he made an observation that the opening of her vaginal canal was big enough (2.8 cms. or 1.123 inches, more or less, in diameter) to admit an erected male organ. ²²chanrobles virtual law library

Dr. Prospero A. Cabayanan testified as follows:

Q. Will you please tell the Honorable Court how you happened to examine this Rosalie Beltran, Doctor?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Well, the subject, Rosalie Beltran was examined upon the request of the mother, Mrs. Leonida Mariano Beltran.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And when did your examination of the subject Rosalie Beltran take place?chanrobles virtual law library

A. It was on December 15, 1978, Ma'am, at around 10:50 A.M.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And for what reason was she examined, for what reason was the request made?chanrobles virtual law library

A. The reason was that, there was a complaint allegedly for rape, and that the subject was accompanied by her mother as to the determination whether or not, there was defloration or not.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And did you proceed with your examination?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, Ma'am.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And what were your findings?chanrobles virtual law library

A Well, in this particular case, this is one of the cases wherein the hymen was elastic and there was no evidence of any hymenal laceration. However, on further examination of the witness subject, the orifice or the opening of the vaginal canal was big enough and it measures 2.8 cms. and enough to admit a male organ or erection without producing any laceration.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Based on your examination, Doctor of the complainant Rosalie Beltran, you measured the orifice as being 2.8 cms. in diameter. Do we understand from you that based on this size penetration by an average size would be had?chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. CRUZ:chanrobles virtual law library

Objection, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

Wide enough to admit a human penis erection.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

FISCAL:chanrobles virtual law library

Q Now, would you know whether this width of 2.8 cms. is natural?chanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

What do you mean by natural. You mean if it really admits tubes measuring 2.8 cms.?chanrobles virtual law library

A There is really an admission, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Without such resistance? ²³

A Yes, Your Honor. ²⁴

Apparently, this is not the first time Rosalie has had sexual intercourse. In the light of the accused's testimony that they have had at least thirty (30) sexual intercourses since February 10, 1977, ²⁵ the 2.8 cm. diameter orifice of Rosalie's private part could be easily explained.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

3. The Court notes that while the alleged rape occurred on December 2, 1978, the complaint was filed only on June 25, 1979. ²⁶ This delay of two hundred and five (205) days is disturbing, to say the least, and is an indication that the complaint for rape was not made in a desire to bring the culprit to justice but, probably, to save the honor of Rosalie's mother, Leonida (the accused was, after all, only her sapatero). It also casts serious doubts as to the charge of rape. ²⁷ It should be noted, as above stated, that Leonida testified in court that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

4. While it may have been that Rosalie and the accused were lovers, and had engaged in regular sex, still, not being married to each other, Rosalie had the right to refuse accused's passionate advances when she wanted to. ²⁸chanrobles virtual law library

If indeed the December 2, 1980 sexual intercourse was without consent of Rosalie, and, that she was indeed raped, then a very vital and material piece of evidence that would show the violence employed on the person of complainant, her pair of short pants, which was allegedly torn when the accused embraced complainant, should have been presented by the prosecution. ²⁹chanrobles virtual law library

A truly aggrieved rape victim and, likewise, a truly aggrieved mother, would have made sure that the torn pair of short pants would have been kept intact for presentation to the police authorities to substantiate their cries of rape. The torn pair of short pants would have strongly corroborated the testimony of the offended party that she was raped. ³⁰chanrobles virtual law library

As the alleged torn pair of short pants was not presented by the prosecution, the Court cannot, in the light of love letters Rosalie sent to the accused, the lack of interest of her mother to further prosecute the case and the three different versions of how the accused allegedly covered her mouth to prevent her from shouting while raping her, state with certainty that she was raped in the morning of December 2, 1978. If at all, what happened is a consented sexual act with the accused.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and appellant Melchor Cruz is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Puno, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1 Rollo, pp. 68-71.chanrobles virtual law library

2 Id., pp. 42-43.chanrobles virtual law library

3 Decision, People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Cruz, Criminal Case No. 31109, penned July 1, 1991 by Hon. Eugenio S. Labitoria, Presiding Judge, Pasig RTC, Br. 165.chanrobles virtual law library

4 Appellant's Brief, p. 8; Rollo, p. 42.chanrobles virtual law library

5 Exh. "1", Record, p. 367.chanrobles virtual law library

6 Exh. "2", Record, p. 368.chanrobles virtual law library

7 ATTY. CRUZ:

Q Madam Witness, you recall that you have already testified in this case, is it not?

A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtual law library

Q By the way, Madam Witness, are you familiar with the handwriting of your daughter, Rosalie Beltran?

A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtual law library

Q And if you will be shown samples of the handwriting of your daughter Rosalie Beltran, would you be able to recognize the same?

A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtual law library

Q Now, I am showing you a letter, which has been previously marked as Exhibit "1", written by one Rosalie Beltran, and signed "Nene", addressed to Mel, or Melchor Cruz, and please go over the same and tell us if you recognize this as the handwriting of your daughter, Rosalie Beltran?

A Yes, sir. This is the handwriting of my daughter Rosalie Beltran.chanrobles virtual law library

Q By the way, what is the nickname of your daughter, Rosalie Beltran?

A Nene, sir.chanrobles virtual law library

Q Now, showing you another letter, already marked previously as exhibit "2", written by one "Nene" or Rosalie Beltran, addressed to Mel, or Melchor Cruz, and please go over the same and tell us if this is also the handwriting of your daughter Nene or Rosalie Beltran?

A Yes, sir." (TSN, Feb. 22, 1989, pp. 709).

8 T.S.N., February 22, 1989, pp. 9-10.chanrobles virtual law library

9 Rollo, p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library

10 People vs. Alib, G.R. No. 100232, May 24, 1993.chanrobles virtual law library

11 T.S.N., April 15, 1980, pp. 54-57.chanrobles virtual law library

12 Ibid., pp. 11, 13-16.chanrobles virtual law library

13 Ibid., pp. 65-73.chanrobles virtual law library

14 Ibid., 75-79.chanrobles virtual law library

15 T.S.N., February 22, 1989, p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library

16 T.S.N., May 7, 1980, pp. 21-23.chanrobles virtual law library

17 People vs. Castillon, G.R. No. 100586, January 15, 1993.chanrobles virtual law library

18 T.S.N., November 3, 1981, pp. 6-7.chanrobles virtual law library

19 T.S.N., April 15, 1980, pp. 57-58.chanrobles virtual law library

20 Exhibit "B", Record, p. 200.chanrobles virtual law library

21 T.S.N., April 15, 1980, pp. 65-68.chanrobles virtual law library

22 "LIVING CASE NO. MGI-78-913; Subject : BELTRAN, ROSALIE V. MARIANO; . . .

xxx xxx xxx

"CONCLUSION

xxx xxx xxx

2. Hymenal orifice, wide, (2.8 cm.), elastic, distensible, as to allow penetration by an average-sized adult, male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury." (Exhibit "A"; Records, p. 199).

23 In true physical virginity, "the hymen is intact with the edges distinct and regular and the opening small to barely admit the tip of the smallest finger of the examiner even if the thighs are separated." SOLIS, LEGAL MEDICINE, 486 (1987).chanrobles virtual law library

24 T.S.N., March 3, 1980, pp. 5-17.chanrobles virtual law library

25 T.S.N., November 3, 1981, p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library

26 Rollo, p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library

27 People vs. Geneveza, 169 SCRA 153, 165.chanrobles virtual law library

28 People vs. Mercado, 161 SCRA 601, 607.chanrobles virtual law library

29 T.S.N., April 15, 1980, p. 15.chanrobles virtual law library

30 Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses. And the physical evidence in this case strongly corroborates the testimony of the offended party that she was raped. They consist of the green color dress and the panty that Erlinda was wearing at the time she was raped and which show a torn portion of the left side of the dress and a torn portion of the panty. According to Erlinda, they were torn when appellant forcibly pulled her dress up and removed her panty shortly before she was raped. . . ." People vs. Sacabin, 57 SCRA 707, 713.