Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > January 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 43602 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PAILANO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 43602. January 31, 1989.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO PAILANO, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raul T. Montesino for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE; HOW COMMITTED. — Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE ACCUSATION; CONVICTION OF A GROUND NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION, AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHT. — Conviction of the accused-appellant on the finding that he had raped Anita while she was unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason — and not through force and intimidation, which was the method alleged — would have violated his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This right is safeguarded by the Constitution to every accused so he can prepare an adequate defense against the charge against him. Convicting him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. This right was, of course, available to the herein Accused-Appellant.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; BURDEN OF PROOFS AND PRESUMPTIONS; PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND OF SANITY; NOT OVERCOME IN CASE AT BAR. — It may be argued that although initially deficient, the criminal complaint was deemed corrected when the prosecution introduced evidence of the complainant’s mental condition and the defense did not object, thereby waiving the procedural defect. Even so, the charge has not been adequately established. In the first place, the doctor who examined Anita reported that he saw no evidence of insanity in her family history nor was there any indication of such condition in the complainant herself. He did observe that she had the mentality of a thirteen-year old, which was not that serious an impediment as her age at the time was only fifteen. Secondly, and more importantly, the prosecution has not proved that during that encounter in the bushes, Anita’s mental condition was so weakened that she could not resist Pailano’s supposed advances. The statutory presumption of sanity and the constitutional presumption of innocence have not been overcome.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


At the time the rape was allegedly committed by the accused-appellant, he was already sixty-nine years old. 1 The prosecution will have to contend not only with the presumption of innocence but also of impotence.

The crime was allegedly perpetrated in October of 1971 in Barrio Sampinit-Baybay in the City of Bago. 2 It was reported to the authorities on December 24, 1971, 3 and the corresponding criminal complaint was filed on July 10, 1972. 4 Judgment was rendered on January 30, 1976, sentencing the accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua plus civil indemnity of P2,000 and the costs. 5 He now wants this decision reversed.

The complainant is Anita Ibañez, who was fifteen years old at the time of the alleged offense. She says that on the day in question, she was dragged by the accused-appellant to a bushy place on the seashore where she was waiting for her mother. She could not resist because he was threatening her with a scythe he was carrying. In the bushes, he pointed the scythe at her neck and then forcibly took her. She could not cry out because she was afraid. She did not report the matter to her mother because the accused-appellant had warned her he would kill her if she did. 6

The accused-appellant has a different version. He does not deny he had sexual intercourse with Anita, but he insists it was voluntary. As a matter of fact, he says, it was the complainant who enticed him into the bushes, where she wantonly opened herself to him. He was unable at first to have an erection because of his age. But Anita herself rubbed his organ in hers until, thus stimulated, he succeeded in penetrating her. Afterwards, noticing some people nearby who might have seen them, the girl put back her panty on and left. He followed a few minutes later. 7

As the medical examination of the complainant was made more than two months afterwards, there naturally could not be any finding of the bruises, cuts and scratches that usually attend forcible rape. But there was the tell-tale hymeneal laceration in the complainant that even the accused-appellant could not dispute. 8

Given the choice between the separate accounts of the complainant and the accused-appellant, the court inclines in favor of the latter. It is in our view more believable. Anita never spoke of any difficulty on the part of Pailano in violating her. She simply said he removed her panty and entered her. No effort was mentioned; it seemed she was talking of a vigorous stud. Yet, the accused-appellant was not a teen-ager or even only in the prime of his life at the time of their sexual encounter. He was all of sixty-nine years old.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Considering his age and the emotional pressures of the moment, we doubt if Pailano could have accomplished the rape as easily as Anita narrated it. The prosecution has not offered any proof of his sexual prowess, and under stress at that. By contrast, the accused-appellant did not hesitate to testify, at the risk of his manly pride, that he did not easily have an erection during the tryst with Anita and that it took some fondling from her before his organ could respond. This was a hard and humiliating fact but it had to be admitted.

We are disposed to believe the testimony of Leonardo Filomeno that he saw Pailano and Anita coupling on the day in question, 9 but not on the other previous occasions claimed by him. His presence in all of these meetings seems too much of a coincidence to be credible. However, Pailano is also corroborated by Natividad Madrigal, who declared she saw Anita and Pailano caressing each other, with the girl in fact assuming the more aggressive role. 10 There is no reason not to believe this witness.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code provides that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

The criminal complaint in this case alleged the commission of the crime through the first method although the prosecution sought to establish at the trial that the complainant was a mental retardate. Its purpose in doing so is not clear. But whatever it was, it has not succeeded.

If the prosecution was seeking to convict the accused-appellant on the ground that he violated Anita while she was deprived of reason or unconscious, such conviction could not have been possible under the criminal complaint as worded. This described the offense as having been committed by "Antonio Pailano, being then provided with a scythe, by means of violence and intimidation, (who) did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant, Anita Ibañez, 15 years of age, against her will." No mention was made of the second circumstance.

Conviction of the accused-appellant on the finding that he had raped Anita while she was unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason — and not through force and intimidation, which was the method alleged — would have violated his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 11 This right is safeguarded by the Constitution to every accused so he can prepare an adequate defense against the charge against him . Convicting him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. This right was, of course, available to the herein Accused-Appellant.

In People v. Ramirez, 12 we held that a person charged with rape could not be found guilty of qualified seduction, which had not been alleged in the criminal complaint against him. In the case of People v. Montes, 13 the Court did not permit the conviction for homicide of a person held responsible for the suicide of the woman he was supposed to have raped, as the crime he was accused of — and acquitted — was not homicide but rape. More to the point is Tubb v. People of the Philippines, 14 where the accused was charged with the misappropriation of funds held by him in trust with the obligation to return the same under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but was convicted of swindling by means of false pretenses, under paragraph 2(b) of the said Article, which was not alleged in the information. The Court said such conviction would violate the Bill of Rights.

It may be argued that although initially deficient, the criminal complaint was deemed corrected when the prosecution introduced evidence of the complainant’s mental condition and the defense did not object, thereby waiving the procedural defect. Even so, the charge has not been adequately established.

In the first place, the doctor who examined Anita reported that he saw no evidence of insanity in her family history nor was there any indication of such condition in the complainant herself. 15 He did observe that she had the mentality of a thirteen-year old, 16 which was not that serious an impediment as her age at the time was only fifteen.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Secondly, and more importantly, the prosecution has not proved that during that encounter in the bushes, Anita’s mental condition was so weakened that she could not resist Pailano’s supposed advances.

The statutory presumption of sanity 17 and the constitutional presumption of innocence 18 have not been overcome.

There is evidence that Filomeno reported the incident in the bushes on the same day to Anita’s mother, 19 but she took no action whatsoever, for reasons not disclosed. It was only two-and-a-half months later that she decided to complain to the authorities, but then it was already suspiciously late. The only possible explanation for her delay is that the liaison between her daughter and Pailano had already become a scandal by that time and she must have thought she could redeem Anita’s honor by initiating the criminal complaint. The delay, however, blunts the charge of rape.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

What we see here is an aging Lothario having his last lustful fling and a young girl with a rather weak mind and a ripe body offering him a flaccid return to his youth. We do not mean to romanticize this sordid affair. It is wrong and is not here excused, made light of, or dismissed. It is disdained for what it is — an unseemly seduction where it is not clear who the tempter and the tempted are although neither can really claim to be blameless. But, in our view, it is definitely not rape.

WHEREFORE, the appealed conviction is REVERSED and the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Orig. Records, p. 313; Plaintiff-Appellee’s Brief, p. 2.

2. Rollo, p. 6.

3. Ibid., p. 7.

4. Id., p. 3.

5. Id., p. 19.

6. TSN, August 14, 1973, pp. 8-10.

7. TSN, January 2, 1975, pp. 14-25.

8. Rollo, p. 9.

9. TSN, June 11, 1974, pp. 8-10.

10. TSN, April 11, 1975, pp. 7-8.

11. Article IV, Sec. 19, Constitution of 1973; now Article III, Sec. 14 (2).

12. 69 SCRA 144.

13. 122 SCRA 409.

14. 101 Phil. 114.

15. TSN, August 14, 1973, p. 4.

16. Ibid., p. 3.

17. Art. 800, Civil Code.

18. Art. III, Sec. 14(2).

19. TSN, June 11, 1974, p. 11.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78315 January 2, 1989 - COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 72806 January 9, 1989 - EPIFANIO CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLANT COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74806 January 9, 1989 - SM AGRI AND GENERAL MACHINERIES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76761 January 9, 1989 - ASST. EXECUTIVE SEC. FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77959 January 9, 1989 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS. v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 79123-25 January 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELIANO TRINIDAD

  • G.R. No. 78169 January 12, 1989 - BIBIANO REYNOSO IV v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 43862 January 13, 1989 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO.

  • G.R. No. 47425 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. METODIO S. BASIGA

  • G.R. No. 51554 January 13, 1989 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. 53955 January 13, 1989 - MANILA BANKING CORP. v. ANASTACIO TEODORO JR.

  • G.R. No. 54330 January 13, 1989 - JULIO E. T. SALES v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 66712 January 13, 1989 - CALIXTO ANGEL v. PONCIANO C. INOPIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 66865 January 13, 1989 - MAGTANGGOL QUE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74047 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GRACIANO E. GENEVEZA

  • G.R. No. 75016 January 13, 1989 - PERLA C. BAUTISTA v. BOARD OF ENERGY

  • G.R. No. 76592 January 13, 1989 - ERDULFO C. BOISER v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77298 January 13, 1989 - ANGELES CENTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79518 January 13, 1989 - REBECCA C. YOUNG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 36187 January 17, 1989 - REYNOLDS PHILIPPINE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 73835 January 17, 1989 - CHINA AIRLINES, LTD. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 33425 January 20, 1989 - PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 42278 January 20, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 48008 January 20, 1989 - BARTOLOME MACARAEG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49739 January 20, 1989 - BONIFACIO LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 55457 January 20, 1989 - FILOMENO QUILLIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 61167-68 January 20, 1989 - FIDEL A. DE GUZMAN v. THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO BENITEZ

  • G.R. No. 66350 January 20, 1989 - ALBERTO DE GUZMAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 67115 January 20, 1989 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74249 January 20, 1989 - CORNELIO T. RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74679 January 20, 1989 - ROSITA DE ASIS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78524 January 20, 1989 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83616 January 20, 1989 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 72306 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 78648 January 24, 1989 - RAFAEL N. NUNAL v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83882 January 24, 1989 - IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU v. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO

  • A.C. No. 3277 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 33955 January 26, 1989 - FORTUNATO DA. BONDOC v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. 34613 January 26, 1989 - ANTONIO J. CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 40778 January 26, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCILLO MANLOLO

  • G.R. Nos. 44715-16 January 26, 1989 - ERLINDA BARRERAS v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 49410 January 26, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 51214 January 26, 1989 - EDGARDO DORUELO v. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. 66807 January 26, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELITONA ALAGAD

  • G.R. No. 74246 January 26, 1989 - MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75079 January 26, 1989 - SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYA v. WENCESLAO M. POLO

  • G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989 - JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA v. IGNACIO ALMODOVAR

  • G.R. No. 75439 January 26, 1989 - SILVINO P. PIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79347 January 26, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 80680 January 26, 1989 - DANILO B. TABAS v. CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 81816 January 26, 1989 - NATIVIDAD Q. SALOMON v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION

  • A.M. No. R-225-RTJ January 26, 1989 - HIMINIANO D. SILVA v. GERMAN G. LEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 29541 January 27, 1989 - CARLOS GABILA v. PABLO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 47027 January 27, 1989 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50041 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO L. ABONADA

  • G.R. No. 56457 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO PEDROSA

  • G.R. No. 56524 January 24, 1989 - RAMON ARENAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79404 January 27, 1989 - FELICIANO BEJER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79955 January 27, 1989 - NELSON L. CERVANTES v. GINA C. FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 29184 January 30, 1989 - BENEDICTO LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 37704 January 30, 1989 - ERLINDA TALAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 44466 January 30, 1989 - MAGDALENA V. ACOSTA v. ANDRES B. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 70149 January 30, 1989 - EUSEBIO C. LU v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72222 January 30, 1989 - INT’L CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74423 January 30, 1989 - EUSTAQUIO BAEL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78298 January 30, 1989 - WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42808 January 31, 1989 - ROSARIO VDA. DE SUANES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 43602 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PAILANO

  • G.R. No. 46807 January 31, 1989 - MAURO OMANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 48066 January 31, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. KALAHI INVESTMENTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 56705 January 31, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG CORP.

  • G.R. No. 58797 January 31, 1989 - ANTONIO QUIRINO v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. Nos. 65345-47 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENEGILDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 66178-79 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN PELOTIN

  • G.R. No. 70446 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 70926 January 31, 1989 - DAN FUE LEUNG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72828 January 31, 1989 - ESTELITA S. MONZON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73886 January 31, 1989 - JOHN C. QUIRANTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73913 January 31, 1989 - JERRY T. MOLES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75082 January 31, 1989 - JOSE F. PUZON v. ALEJANDRA ABELLERA

  • G.R. No. 75853 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES BUGTONG

  • G.R. No. 76988 January 31, 1989 - GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWEAR CORP. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 77116 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND CAMALOG

  • G.R. No. 78687 January 31, 1989 - ELENA SALENILLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79570 January 31, 1989 - GASPAR MEDIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83268 January 31, 1989 - JOSEFINA B. CALLANGAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84423 January 31, 1989 - JOSE B. NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-181 January 31, 1989 - ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON v. MATEO MAGBANUA