February 1985 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1985 > February 1985 Decisions >
G.R. No. 66970 February 28, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO GOZUM:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 66970. February 28, 1985.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODELIO GOZUM (GUZOM), Accused-Appellant.
The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jose S. Balajadia for Accused-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. — The fact that Gloria did not become pregnant does not militate against the commission of the rape. The doctor’s conclusion that she had lost her virginity is an incontestable fact. The improbabilities recited by appellant in his brief are mere conjectural observations. The circumstance that Gozum was alone with Gloria in the house and that she was asleep renders it probable that he was tempted to rape her. Such a situation arouses the bestiality in a man. This is not the first time a master was accused of having raped his maidservant. The unrebutted fact is that Cosum had sexual congress with Gloria by means of force. She immediately complained to the police. She rejected any compromise settlement.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; UNAFFECTED BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES; CASE AT BAR. — The minor inconsistencies in Gloria’s testimonies are to be expected. Protracted cross-examination of a sixteen-year-old girl not accustomed to a public trial would produce contradictions which, nevertheless, would not destroy her credibility (People v. Limbo, 49 Phil. 94; 6 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 Ed., p. 141).
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; UNAFFECTED BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES; CASE AT BAR. — The minor inconsistencies in Gloria’s testimonies are to be expected. Protracted cross-examination of a sixteen-year-old girl not accustomed to a public trial would produce contradictions which, nevertheless, would not destroy her credibility (People v. Limbo, 49 Phil. 94; 6 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 Ed., p. 141).
D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
Rodelio Gozum appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal finding him guilty of simple rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay an indemnity of P35,000 to the offended party, Gloria P. Buna (Criminal Case No. 15676).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The evidence of the prosecution shows that in the evening of November 11, 1974, while Gloria P. Buna, a 14-year-old housemaid, was sleeping with Gozum’s child in the bedroom of his residence, located at 425 Gomezville Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, his common-law wife being then out of the house, Gloria was awakened when Gozum, 36, placed himself on top of her, covered her mouth, removed her panty, and, notwithstanding her resistance, was able to ravish her. Her pink dress, Exhibit A, was torn.
Lourdes, Accused’s wife, who discovered him in the bedroom with Gloria, confronted him. At that juncture, Gloria ran out of the house. That same evening, she reported the rape to the Mandaluyong police (Exh. 7). The wife went to the police station and pleaded with Gloria to forgive Gozum. She refused. Later, after the complaint for rape was filed, Gozum offered her P500. She did not relent (21, 31-32, tsn Nov. 9, 1976).
Eighty-seven days after the rape or on February 6, 1975, Gloria submitted herself to a medical examination by the medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation. He found her labia majora and minora gaping. Her hymen had a healed deep laceration at the nine o’clock position. Her hymenal orifice admitted a tube two and eight-tenths centimeters in diameter. She was no longer a virgin (Exh. B).
The trial court noted that Gloria was crying uncontrollably when she testified. It observed her demeanor. It found her unsophisticated and shy. It concluded that she could not have concocted the sordid story which she recounted in court. She finished only the sixth grade.
In his defense, Gozum testified that he did nothing to Gloria. He could not have raped her because the door of his house was open and the lights were on. He merely sat beside her when she was asleep. It was his wife who tore her dress.
In this appeal, Gozum contends that the prosecution’s version is incredible, that there are irreconcilable inconsistencies in its evidence and that the trial court erred in its appreciation of the evidence. The ultimate issue is whether his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.cralawnad
He argues that the claim of pregnancy is improbable. Of course, the fact that Gloria did not become pregnant does not militate against the commission of the rape. The doctor’s conclusion that she had lost her virginity is an incontestable fact.
The improbabilities recited by appellant in his brief are mere conjectural observations. The circumstance that Gozum was alone with Gloria in the house and that she was asleep renders it probable that he was tempted to rape her. Such a situation arouses the bestiality in a man. This is not the first time a master was accused of having raped his maidservant.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The minor inconsistencies in Gloria’s testimonies are to be expected. Protracted cross-examination of a sixteen-year-old girl not accustomed to a public trial would produce contradictions which, nevertheless, would not destroy her credibility (People v. Limbo, 49 Phil. 94; 6 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 Ed., p. 141).
The unrebutted fact is that Gozum had sexual congress with Gloria by means of force. She immediately complained to the police. She rejected any compromise settlement.
The trial court did not err in convicting the accused of simple rape. Its judgment is affirmed. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
The evidence of the prosecution shows that in the evening of November 11, 1974, while Gloria P. Buna, a 14-year-old housemaid, was sleeping with Gozum’s child in the bedroom of his residence, located at 425 Gomezville Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, his common-law wife being then out of the house, Gloria was awakened when Gozum, 36, placed himself on top of her, covered her mouth, removed her panty, and, notwithstanding her resistance, was able to ravish her. Her pink dress, Exhibit A, was torn.
Lourdes, Accused’s wife, who discovered him in the bedroom with Gloria, confronted him. At that juncture, Gloria ran out of the house. That same evening, she reported the rape to the Mandaluyong police (Exh. 7). The wife went to the police station and pleaded with Gloria to forgive Gozum. She refused. Later, after the complaint for rape was filed, Gozum offered her P500. She did not relent (21, 31-32, tsn Nov. 9, 1976).
Eighty-seven days after the rape or on February 6, 1975, Gloria submitted herself to a medical examination by the medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation. He found her labia majora and minora gaping. Her hymen had a healed deep laceration at the nine o’clock position. Her hymenal orifice admitted a tube two and eight-tenths centimeters in diameter. She was no longer a virgin (Exh. B).
The trial court noted that Gloria was crying uncontrollably when she testified. It observed her demeanor. It found her unsophisticated and shy. It concluded that she could not have concocted the sordid story which she recounted in court. She finished only the sixth grade.
In his defense, Gozum testified that he did nothing to Gloria. He could not have raped her because the door of his house was open and the lights were on. He merely sat beside her when she was asleep. It was his wife who tore her dress.
In this appeal, Gozum contends that the prosecution’s version is incredible, that there are irreconcilable inconsistencies in its evidence and that the trial court erred in its appreciation of the evidence. The ultimate issue is whether his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.cralawnad
He argues that the claim of pregnancy is improbable. Of course, the fact that Gloria did not become pregnant does not militate against the commission of the rape. The doctor’s conclusion that she had lost her virginity is an incontestable fact.
The improbabilities recited by appellant in his brief are mere conjectural observations. The circumstance that Gozum was alone with Gloria in the house and that she was asleep renders it probable that he was tempted to rape her. Such a situation arouses the bestiality in a man. This is not the first time a master was accused of having raped his maidservant.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The minor inconsistencies in Gloria’s testimonies are to be expected. Protracted cross-examination of a sixteen-year-old girl not accustomed to a public trial would produce contradictions which, nevertheless, would not destroy her credibility (People v. Limbo, 49 Phil. 94; 6 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 Ed., p. 141).
The unrebutted fact is that Gozum had sexual congress with Gloria by means of force. She immediately complained to the police. She rejected any compromise settlement.
The trial court did not err in convicting the accused of simple rape. Its judgment is affirmed. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
