Case Summary (G.R. No. L-36941)
Procedural History
The accused was tried before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental on a sworn complaint charging rape. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to death, ordered indemnification of P6,000, and imposed costs. Because the death penalty was imposed, the case was subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court en banc. The Supreme Court reviewed the record, affirmed the conviction, but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increased the indemnity to P20,000, with costs against the appellant.
Prosecution’s Factual Narrative
The prosecution’s account, based on the complainant’s testimony and supporting witnesses, describes the following sequence: the complainant and her young daughter boarded a jeepney with the accused and others; the vehicle could not reach their barrio and the passengers walked; at a point on the trail, the accused allegedly produced an eight-inch dagger, threatened the complainant, put his arm around her neck, and dragged her away from the group while ordering the children to stay behind under threat of death. He then brought the complainant to a secluded spot near a creek and a coconut tree, ordered her to remove her underwear under threat of death, forced her to lie down and had sexual intercourse with her multiple times (described as five separate acts, including both the missionary position and entry from behind). After the acts, the parties returned to where the children had been left, and the complainant, feeling unwell, was taken into a neighbor’s house; she later informed her husband and underwent a medical examination that revealed multiparity and vaginal secretions but no spermatozoa on microscopic exam. Rudy Gonzales corroborated the sequence up to the abduction and return.
Defendant’s Admission and Defense
The accused admitted engaging in sexual intercourse with the complainant but maintained that the intercourse occurred with her consent. On appeal he raised two principal contentions: (I) the trial court erred in finding that the sexual intercourse was without the complainant’s consent; and (II) the trial court erred in its findings as to aggravating circumstances accompanying the offense.
Trial Court’s Credibility Findings and Supreme Court Deference
The trial court expressly found the complainant credible and the accused’s account incredible, basing its conclusion on witness demeanor and on the improbability of the complainant’s purported voluntary conduct given her status as a married schoolteacher of conservative habits. The Supreme Court emphasized deference to the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility because the trial judge personally observed the witnesses; on review, the Court stated that the cold transcript cannot substitute for the trial judge’s assessment of demeanor. The Supreme Court accepted the trial court’s conclusion that the intercourse was nonconsensual and the accused’s claim of consent was not believable.
Aggravating Circumstances — Trial Court Findings and Appellate Assessment
The complaint alleged abuse of superior strength, nocturnity, uninhabited place (despoblado), ignominy, and reiteracion. The trial court ruled as follows:
- Abuse of superior strength: not independently considered because it is absorbed by the element of force inherent in rape.
- Nocturnity: not considered an aggravating circumstance, the court finding no proof that the accused deliberately chose the night to facilitate the crime.
- Despoblado (uninhabited place): found present. The court noted the accused dragged the complainant to a carabao trail some distance from habitation (junction 400 meters from nearest house; the act occurred 40–50 meters below the junction and about 10 meters from it), making the place effectively uninhabited for purposes of the aggravation.
- Ignominy: found present. The court reasoned that multiple and varied sexual acts including entry from behind, when performed against the victim’s will, constitute ignominy; the accused’s contrary argument—relying on consensual sexual practices among consenting partners—was rejected because consent was not established.
- Reiteracion: not found. The trial court stated that subsequent offenses punished after this rape did not establish reiteracion for this charge. The trial court also noted, though not pleaded, aggravation by disregard of rank because the accused knew the complainant was a schoolteacher; the accused and the Solicitor General disputed assigning that circumstance since there was no deliberate intent to offend rank.
Legal Conclusion on Guilt
Based on the testimonial evidence, the medical examination, and corroboration by a young witness as to the abduction and return, and relying on the trial court’s credibility determinations, the Supreme Court concluded the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined in Article 335 of the Revised Penal C
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-36941)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 215 Phil. 134; En Banc; G.R. No. L-36941; Decision dated June 29, 1984.
- Decision authored by Justice Abad Santos.
- This matter is an automatic review of the judgment of the defunct Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental in Criminal Case No. 52-M.
- The trial court convicted Rafael Saylan (alias Pael) of rape and imposed the death penalty; the conviction and sentence were automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court modified the judgment: the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, the indemnity to the offended party was increased to P20,000.00, and costs were imposed against the appellant.
- Concurrences: Fernando, C.J., and Justices Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De La Fuente, and Cuevas concurred. Justice Teehankee took no part. Justice Melencio-Herrera was on official leave.
Criminal Charge and Allegations in the Complaint
- Accused: Rafael Saylan (alias Pael).
- Offense charged: Rape, as stated in the sworn complaint of Eutropia Agno.
- Alleged time and place in the complaint: "on or about the 23rd day of January, 1972, at more or less 7:00 o'clock in the evening, at Sitio Craser, Malinao, Gingoog City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court."
- The complaint alleged use of a dagger, force and intimidation, removal of the victim's pantie, and carnal knowledge against the will of Eutropia Agno y Arcay, described as "a woman of good reputation."
- The complaint alleged the following aggravating circumstances: abuse of superior strength, nighttime (nocturnity), an uninhabited place (despoblado), ignominy, and reiteracion.
Prosecution’s Factual Narrative (as summarized in the People’s brief)
- Initial errands: The complaining witness, Eutropia Agno, a married woman and classroom teacher at Malinao Elementary School, went to the public market to buy foodstuffs and fetched her five-year-old daughter Nilsonita from her mother’s store.
- Jeepney ride and disembarkation: Eutropia, Nilsonita, Rudy Gonzales (a Grade I pupil), appellant Rafael Saylan, and an unknown couple boarded a passenger jeepney that could only travel as far as Malinas citrus farm because the road to Barrio Malinao was impassable by vehicle.
- Time and walk: The jeepney arrived at Malinas citrus farm at almost 6:30 p.m.; the passengers walked about three and a half kilometers to Barrio Malinao and, upon reaching a junction, the couple separated while Eutropia’s group took the opposite road. The appellant joined Eutropia’s group.
- Commencement of attack: When the group reached a plain stretch, the appellant allegedly pulled out an approximately eight-inch dagger, pointed it at Eutropia, said "Do not shout, Nang, I will kill you!", placed his right arm around her neck with the dagger pointed at her left breast, and dragged her forward.
- Separation of children and further dragging: The appellant ordered the children (Nilsonita and Rudy) to stay behind and threatened to kill them if they followed; he then dragged Eutropia toward a creek near a coconut tree about five meters from where the children were left.
- Forced removal of clothing and multiple acts of intercourse: The appellant ordered Eutropia to remove her pantie; she initially refused but complied after threats. The appellant is alleged to have placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina, moving his buttocks up and down. The prosecution recounts successive acts of intercourse: a first act, then a second after ordering her to stand and submitting to another insertion and push-pull motion, a third thereafter, a fourth performed "in the dog's way" (entry from behind), and a fifth which followed the victim being ordered to lie down again.
- Return to the children and to habitation: After the assaults, appellant carried Nilsonita, and all proceeded toward Malinao. Eutropia called for help at the house of her friend "Ben," spent the night there, and asked Ben to fetch her husband.
- Disclosure and medical examination: Eutropia told her husband that she had been raped; she was advised to undergo medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Ireneo O. Pascual at the City Health Department of Gingoog the following morning; a medical certificate was issued reflecting specific findings (see Medical Evidence).
- Witness Rudy Gonzales: Rudy corroborated material aspects of the prosecution’s narrative: the presence on the jeepney of the appellant and others; the appellant pulling a dagger, placing his arms around Mrs. Agno’s neck, dragging her toward the carabao trail, leaving the children behind who fell asleep, and later carrying Nilsonita when returning toward Malinao. Rudy confirmed that Eutropia spent the night at Mang Ben’s house and that later he and the appellant went to Rudy’s house where they slept.
Medical Evidence
- Examiner: Dr. Ireneo O. Pascual of the City Health Department of Gingoog City.
- Certificate findings (as adduced at trial, Exhibit "A"):
- "(1) Multiparous."
- "(2) Presence of viscid whitish secretions at vaginal fornix."
- "(3) Microscopic examination of secretions reveals epithelial cells, but no spermatozoa identified."
- The medical findings were presented at the subsequent medical examination performed the morning after the alleged incident.
Accused’s Admissions and Defense
- Partial admission: The accused did not deny having had sexual intercourse with Mrs. Agno; he admitted that he copulated with her for three successive times in the early evening of January 23, 1972.
- Principal defense: He claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual and not against the will of the complainant.
- Assigned errors on appeal (as stated in appellant’s brief):
- I. The trial court erred in finding that the sexual intercourse had been committed against the will and conse