G.R. No. L-45533 - People vs. Nazareno

Parties and procedural posture
People of the Philippines prosecuted Jesus D. Nazareno for rape.
The trial court convicted Nazareno of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with indemnification to the offended party in the amount of P5,000.00.
Nazareno appealed the conviction.

Work relationship and complainant’s circumstances
The complainant, Rayda Aumada, served as a maid in Nazareno’s house in Pagongan, Baganga, Davao Oriental.
Her employment began on November 16, 1969.
She continued as a maid up to January, 1971.
On April 14, 1971, she gave birth to a child.
The child was thrown away by her after its birth.
The dead body of the child was discovered in Pagongan creek on the evening of the same day by children of witness Lucrencio Layupan.

Investigation, admission of paternity, and instruction given by the accused
There was an investigation by the barrio captain.
During that investigation, Aumada admitted that she gave birth to the child.
She stated that the father of the child was Jesus D. Nazareno.
She likewise stated that she was under instruction from the accused to throw the baby.
She did not mention, at that time, that force was employed during the sexual act.

Filing of the rape complaint and alleged time of commission
The criminal complaint charging Nazareno with rape was filed on May 5, 1971.
The complaint alleged that the alleged rape took place in the middle part of January, 1970.

Complainant’s testimony on alleged coercion
On the witness stand, Aumada testified that she was compelled against her will to submit to Nazareno’s desire twice.
The first submission was on the first week of January.
The second submission was on the last week of January.
She testified that her sister, another maid in the same house, was not told about the matter.
She was free to visit her parents.
She did not complain to her parents about being abused by Nazareno.
She stayed in the same household for one more year.
Nazareno’s wife remained equally ignorant of the alleged rape and did not notice her pregnant condition all the while, although the delivery occurred barely three months after Aumada left.

Lack of credibility and delayed biological timeline highlighted in the record
The Acting Solicitor General’s Manifestation noted the inherent lack of credibility in crucial points of Aumada’s version.
The Manifestation emphasized the long delayed birth relative to the alleged time of conception.
The Manifestation used pregnancy-duration observations:

It cited the average duration of pregnancy as about two hundred eighty days or forty weeks, roughly nine complete months.
It asserted biological improbability for a baby to remain in the womb beyond more than about six months if dead.

The Manifestation referred to Aumada’s declarations as producing additional biological improbabilities, including admissions that she gave birth in October, 1970 and later on April 14, 1971.
The Manifestation reasoned that:

If Aumada’s October 1970 birth (allegedly fathered by Nazareno) was true, then a further birth on April 14, 1971 would be biologically improbable.
It also argued that if the October 1970 birth were true while she was still staying in Nazareno’s house as a maid, it would have created a “big family scandal.”

Damaging admissions elicited during cross-examination
When asked whether her failure to reveal the alleged rape to her parents was because “Jesus Nazareno never forced you to have intercourse with him,” she answered “Yes, sir.”
On the occasion of the alleged first sexual abuse, when asked whether it was because she “did not put up any resistance,” she answered “Yes, sir.”
When asked whether she “readily submitted to him,” she answered “Yes, sir.”
She admitted she did not move at all to avoid penetration.
She even answered affirmatively when asked whether she enjoyed the whole sexual act.

Accused’s testimony and attendant circumstances the trial court allegedly ignored
Nazareno’s testimony remained uncontradicted by evidence the record described as favorable to him.
The trial court believed that Nazareno’s threat as a possessor of a “.22 caliber revolver Magnum with six live bullets” enabled him to perpetrate the act without resistance.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nazareno committed rape through force and intimidation
Whether the complainant’s testimony and written statement showed sufficient proof that the alleged rape was committed through force and intimidation.
Whether the complainant’s admissions on cross-examination undermined the element of force/intimidation.
Whether the prosecution’s timeline of pregnancy and birth created reasonable doubt as to the act alleged.
Whether uncontradicted evidence and attendant circumstances favorable to the accused were properly disregarded.