Title
People vs. Colcol, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 94554
Decision Date
Feb 19, 1993
A 24-year-old man accused of raping a 14-year-old was acquitted by the Supreme Court due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
rape
conviction
testimony
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 45267)

Facts:

  • Parties and charge
    • People of the Philippines prosecuted Anacleto Colcol, Jr. (accused-appellant) for rape allegedly committed against Nora Escalona.
    • The case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
  • Filing, complaint, and procedural history in the trial court
    • The Information against Anacleto Colcol, Jr. was filed on November 11, 1987.
    • The Information was based on Nora Escalona’s original complaint dated December 19, 1986.
    • After arraignment, the trial was conducted successively by Judge Alfredo P. de Vera, Judge Benito A. Dacanay, and finally Judge Alicia G. Decano.
    • Judge Alicia G. Decano wrote the decision of the trial court.
  • Circumstances of the alleged rapes and the complainant’s testimony
    • At the time of the alleged incidents, Anacleto Colcol, Jr. was 24 years old and engaged in his family’s business of duck farming.
    • Nora Escalona was 14 years old and a second year high school student.
    • They were neighbors in Barangay Sobol, Asingan, Pangasinan, living within a stone’s throw of each other.
    • Nora testified that sometime in the first week of March 1986, at about 6:30 in the morning, she was walking along the barangay road leading to her school when Anacleto confronted her.
    • Nora testified that Anacleto dragged her into nearby bushes and raped her.
      • Nora stated that the road was usually busy but had no people at the time, and no one saw the encounter.
      • Nora stated that Anacleto carried a balisong which he pointed at her neck.
      • Nora stated that Anacleto kicked her when she resisted, and that he succeeded because he was much stronger.
      • After the deed, Nora testified that Anacleto threatened to kill her if she reported it.
    • Nora testified that she bled during the first attack and her body was bruised and scratched.
    • Nora testified that she did not proceed to school and went back home because of her condition.
      • Nora’s parents were out and returned only in the evening.
      • Nora testified that she told them nothing of what happened.
    • Nora testified that one week later she took the same road again on her way to school and that Anacleto was waiting again.
      • Nora testified that the road again had no one else.
      • She stated that Anacleto again dragged her into bushes, pointed the balisong at her, kicked her in the thigh, and raped her again.
      • Nora testified again that the rape was followed by a threat to kill her if she reported it.
      • Nora testified she went back to her house and remained silent to her parents when they returned.
    • Nora testified that another week passed, and at about 6:30 in the morning, she again walked along the road to school where Anacleto again met her.
      • Nora testified that Anacleto once more pulled her into the bushes and forced himself upon her.
      • Nora testified that she received the same death threat afterwards.
    • Nora testified that she became pregnant as a result of the rapes but did not tell anyone about her condition, even Anacleto.
    • Nora testified that her parents did not notice her pregnancy until December 4, 1986, the day she started laboring and delivered her baby.
  • Pregnancy and birth details as testified
    • Nora testified that the boy died five weeks later.
    • Nora stated she named the baby in the death certificate as Joel Escalona Colcol, after Anacleto.
    • Nora testified that she did this on her lawyer’s advice.
  • Medical and corroborative evidence
    • There was no medical evidence of the rapes.
    • The doctor presented by the prosecution testified only to Nora’s delivery and estimated that she must have been conceived sometime in March 1986.
  • Testimony regarding when Nora’s father learned of the pregnancy
    • Nora’s father, Saturnino Escalona, testified that he learned of Nora’s pregnancy only on the day she delivered.
  • Defense evidence: alibi
    • Anacleto denied the charges and testified that he was in Lumayao, San Quintin, Pangasinan at the time of the alleged rapes.
    • He testified he stayed there from February to April 30, 1986.
    • He testified that during that period he attended to pasturing ducks in their farm with his live-in partner Bonifacia Caramat, whom he later married.
    • Juanito Antonio testified that the couple resided in his house and never left Lumayao during the period.
    • Santos Badua, the caretaker of the compound near the alleged crime scene, testified that he saw no one when the rapes were supposedly committed.
  • Additional defense testimony and insinuations
    • Anacleto’s father, Anacleto Colcol, Sr., supported Anacleto’s testimony that Saturnino Escalona offered to withdraw Nora’s complaint for P30,000.00.
    • The defense stated they rejected the offer because the charge was fabricated.
    • The defense insinuated that Nora was a promiscuous girl and that her child could have been sired by any of her several boy friends.
  • Trial court’s evaluation and errors alleged by the Supreme Court
    • The trial court dismissed the defense of alibi and fabrication, noting Nora’s identification of Anacleto and that Lumayao was only 2 or 3 hours ride from Barangay Sobol.
    • The trial court expressed general suspicion toward the alibi.
    • The trial court stated that Nora’s “story was impeccable and rang throughout and bore the stamp of absolute truth and candor.”
    • The trial court added that Nora withstood rigorous cross-examination and answered firmly and steadfastly.
    • Judge Decano was stated to have based her view “on the record” because she did not conduct trial when Nora testified on direct and cross-examination.
    • The Supreme Court noted that Judge Decano took over only during the concluding part of the trial when Anacleto was under cross-examination before the defense rested.
    • The Supreme Court stated that Judge Decano had no opportunity to observe Nora’s demeanor when testifying.
  • Supreme Court’s specific credibility concerns with the complainant’s narrative and trial court findings
    • The Supreme Court stated that its own examination of the record showed Nora was confused, and possibly lying, when she narrated the alleged outrage.
    • The Supreme Court found Nora’s account of three successive rapes difficult to believe due to coincidences and improbabilities.
    • The Supreme Court found it improbable that although the road was usually busy, it was exceptionally deserted each time the alleged attacks occurred.
    • The Supreme Court questioned why no one saw the violent encounter despite the alleged setting.
    • The Supreme Court considered it implausible that after the first rape, Nora would expose herself again the second time and then the third time.
    • The Supreme Court observed that the incidents allegedly occurred with weekly regularity at 6:30 in the morning, in bright daylight when people were already up and about.
    • The Supreme Court observed that Nora’s alleged age of 14 did not mean she was stupid or naive, and suggested (assuming the account to be true) that her conduct indicated willingness.
    • The Supreme Court found the prosecution’s explanation about Nora’s school attendance unpersuasive in light of inconsistencies about enrollment.
    • The Supreme Court noted conflicting testimony:
      • Nora testified she was enrolled in Barangay Sobol High School with a uniform described as a white blouse and a green skirt.
      • Nora testified she was also enrolled in Rizal Academy with a uniform described as a white shirt and a blue skirt.
      • Nora named teachers in both schools and described subjects being taught.
    • The Supreme Court discussed the prosecution’s theory that Nora was not attending classes but only pretending due to fear of her father.
    • The Supreme Court stated that the trial court believed Nora’s story, while the Supreme Court found the duplic...(Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms