EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 125542, October 25, 2000 ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
ERLINDO TALO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This case is here on appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 15, Ozamis City, finding accused-appellant Erlindo Talo guilty of
forcible abduction with rape and sentencing him to death and to pay
complainant Doris Saguindang the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages
and the costs of the suit.
The information against accused-appellant recited
That on or about the 12th day of May, 1995, at about 2:00 o'clock dawn, in
barangay Gata Daku, municipality of Clarin, province of Misamis Occidental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused ERLINDO TALO, entered the dwelling by destroying some portion of
the toilet of the offended party, armed with a bolo and hunting knife, and by
means of force, violence, intimidation and threats, did then and there, with
lewd and unchaste designs, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take and
carry away MISS DORIS SAGUINDANG against her will from the house of her
parents, and upon reaching the ricefield, by means of force, violence,
intimidation and threats, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously had carnal knowledge of her against her will.[2]
The evidence presented by the prosecution shows the following:
At around 9 o'clock in the evening of May 11, 1995, complainant Doris
Saguindang retired for the night in her family's house in Gata Daku, Clarin,
Misamis Occidental. At about 2 o'clock in the morning of the following day,
she was awakened by the presence of an intruder in her room, who
identified himself as a rebel and claimed that his "commander" wanted to
see complainant. The man poked a knife at her and covered her mouth to
prevent her from making an outcry. He was wearing briefs, her father's
overseas cap, and her sister's shirt. Complainant was led out of the house
through the back door. Outside, the man twice called out, "Commander, we

are here," but no one responded. The man dragged Doris towards the
ricefield about 800 meters from their house and there, at knife point, forced
Doris to have sexual intercourse with him. Doris tried to fight back but the
man was too strong for her. Doris noticed that, aside from a knife, the man
had a bolo with him.[3]
As the man rolled to his side after consummating the sexual act, Doris
immediately picked her clothes and ran naked as fast as she could towards
the nearby house of her uncle, Margarito Saguindang, who later brought her
home. Complainant was then accompanied by her parents to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) station where she reported the incident. Complainant
described to SPO2 Jesus Macala her attacker. Seven suspects were
presented to her but none was her assailant. For this reason, the incident
was entered in the police blotter of the PNP, but no complaint was filed in
court.[4]
Complainant and her mother also sought the help of their pastor, Ponciano
Ayop, Sr., who arranged for the medical examination of complainant by Dr.
Daniel Medina, municipal health officer of Clarin.[5] Dr. Medina conducted the
examination at around 2 o'clock that afternoon and later issued the following
report:
PHYSICAL FINDINGS:
-Vagina slightly hyperemic with whitish muco[u]s fluid at base of the
vagina[.] [N]o more hymen found at the vagina.
- 3 cm. l[i]near abrasion at the right lower thigh 2 in numbers.
- 2 cm. hematoma at right postero lateral aspect of the chest posterior
axillary line level 5th rib.
- 1.5 cm. hematoma at left posterior chest at med scapular line level 6th rib.
- 1 cm curvel[i]n[e]ar abrasion at right neck above scapula. . . . .
Conclusions:
1). The above described physical injuries are found in the body of the
subject, the age of which is compatible to the alleged date of infliction. . . . .
Remarks:
5 slides negative for sperm determination . . . .[6]

Dr. Medina testified that the perforation of complainant's hymen could have
been caused by sexual intercourse. As for the mucous found in her genitalia,
he said that although it did not contain any spermatozoa, it was a sign of
recent sexual contact. He stated that the absence of sperm in complainant's
genitalia could be due to the fact that she took a bath after the incident.[7]
With regard to his external examination of complainant, Dr. Medina said that
the injury in her neck was caused by a fingernail and is consistent with
complainant's claim that she was choked. The abrasion on her right thigh, on
the other hand, was caused by a rough but not hard object, while the
hematomas on it and on her chest were caused by a hard object.[8]
On cross-examination, Dr. Medina admitted that, although forcible sexual
intercourse could produce lacerations in the vaginal orifice, he did not find
any in complainant. With regard to the perforation of complainant's hymen,
he stated that the same could be caused by other factors such as riding a
bicycle, horse, or carabao, and that the perforation could have occurred
earlier than May 12, 1995.[9]
Pastor Ayop and his family took complainant to Bukidnon for a vacation
because she was having nightmares, coming back to Clarin after three
weeks, in May 1995.[10]
Then, at around seven o'clock in the morning of May 27, 1995, while Doris
and her friends were walking along the road in Tinaclaan, a neighboring
barangay of Gata Daku, she saw accused-appellant in a nearby ricefield,
distributing seedlings to farm workers. Because accused-appellant was not
facing her, complainant could not clearly make out his features but she could
see that his body build resembled that of her attacker. She asked one of her
companions, a certain Enan Undag, accused-appellant's name.[11]
A week later, on June 3, 1995, at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon, while
complainant and a friend, Grace Endab, were walking along the road in
Tinangay Sur, she again saw accused-appellant coming from the opposite
direction. When accused-appellant saw them, he hurriedly walked past
them. Doris, thoroughly shaken, told Endab, who knew of the rape, that the
man they had just encountered was the one who raped her. The latter
corroborated complainant on this matter.[12]
After consulting Ayop and her parents, Doris, on the following Monday, June
5, 1995, filed a complaint for rape against accused-appellant.[13] She later
amended her complaint to charge accused-appellant with forcible abduction
with rape.

Doris positively identified accused-appellant in court as the man who, on

May 12, 1995, abducted and later raped her. She said she saw his face when
she was awakened in her room and in the ricefield where the moon was
bright.[14]
Upon cross-examination by the defense, complainant stated that, although
she was born in Gata Daku, she did not know everybody in the barangay
since she stayed in Iligan City for three years to study. Before May 12, 1995,
she admitted she had seen accused-appellant once but she did not know his
name. She added that when she was in high school in Clarin, she had heard
of a peeping tom named Erlindo Talo.[15]
Accused-appellant, 50, denied the charge against him. He testified that he
was a resident of Barangay Gata Daku and that he managed a farm in the
neighboring barangay Tinaclaan. He further stated that until he met
complainant in court, he had never known her.[16]
As to his whereabouts at the time of the incident, accused-appellant said
that at 9 o'clock in the evening of May 11, 1995, he was in the house of
Otelo Londera in Barangay Kinangay Sur, playing mahjong. Aside from
Londera, the other mahjong players were Laureano Basaya and Buena
Narbay. He said that except for a few breaks, they played mahjong until 5
o'clock in the morning of May 12, 1995. An hour later, accused-appellant
allegedly went home to Barangay Gata Daku. Afterwards, at around 9:30 in
the morning, he went to Barangay Tinaclaan, to the house of Leonardo
Fuentes, whose son, Celso, wanted him to procure a piglet. It was there that
he allegedly heard that someone had been raped in Gata Daku.[17]
Although he had a farm in Barangay Tinaclaan, accused-appellant denied
that he went there at 7 o'clock in the morning of May 27, 1995, when
complainant said she saw him. Accused-appellant said that at that time, he
was in Barangay Kinangay Sur with Celso Fuentes buying a piglet because
the latter's son was celebrating his birthday. Accused-appellant said he went
to his farm in Tinaclaan only at around 11 o'clock to pay his workers.[18]
Accused-appellant likewise denied that he was in Kinangay Sur at around 5
o'clock in the afternoon of June 3, 1995, because at that time he was
allegedly in his farm in Barangay Tinaclaan gathering shells, locally
called kuhol.[19]
On cross-examination, accused-appellant said that Londera's house, where
he was allegedly playing mahjong in the morning of May 12, 1995, is about

500 meters from Gata Daku. He admitted he used to deliver rice to

complainant's house.[20]
Corroborating accused-appellant's alibi were his three alleged mahjong
playmates, Otelo Londera, Buena Narbay, and Laureano Basaya. Londera
stated that the distance between his house and Barangay Gata Daku could
be negotiated in 10 minutes by foot. Narbay, for her part, said she cannot
remember whether she played mahjong in Londera's house on the dates in
question.[21]
Other witnesses were presented by the defense, namely, Celso Fuentes,
Angel Saldaa, and Flaviano Narbay, who corroborated accused-appellant's
testimony that he was not in his farm in Barangay Tinaclaan at 7 o'clock in
the morning of May 27, 1995. On cross-examination, Narbay, who had
testified that he was in accused-appellant's farm on the date and time in
question and that the accused-appellant did not arrive therein until about 11
o'clock, admitted that he did not know the year when the events he testified
to took place and that the date May 27 was only supplied to him by the
defense counsel.[22]
The defense likewise presented the then incumbent barangay chairman of
Gata Daku, Joven Japay. He said that at around 4:00 in the morning of May
12, 1995, Cesar and Margarito Saguindang, complainant's father and uncle
respectively, went to his house to report that complainant had been raped at
around 2 o'clock that morning. Thereafter, the three of them went to the
house of Cesar Saguindang where he and SPO2 Macala questioned
complainant. She allegedly described her attacker to be around 30 years old,
curly haired, bearded, and with a big body build. On the basis of this alleged
description, they did not include accused-appellant among the possible
suspects because, although the latter matches Doris' description as to body
size and height, he is not curly haired nor bearded.[23]
The prosecution recalled complainant to rebut Japay's testimony. She denied
having told Japay that her attacker was curly haired (kulot) because what
she said was that his hair was close-cropped or kopkop. She also denied
having said that her attacker was bearded, because although she used the
local term bangason, which, loosely translated, means bearded, what she
really meant was that the man had newly-grown facial hair.[24]
The prosecution also presented two other witnesses to refute accusedappellant's testimony that he had never been to complainant's house and
that there was an all-night mahjong session on May 11, 1995 in the house of
Otelo Londera in Kinangay Sur.

Cesar Saguindang, father of complainant, testified that for three years,

accused-appellant regularly delivered rice to their house in Gata Daku.[25] On
the other hand, Antonina Mutia, whose house in Barangay Kinangay Sur is
about 200 meters from that of Otelo Londera, testified that at around 10
o'clock in the evening of May 11, 1995, she passed by the Londera residence
on her way home from Barangay Tinaclaan. She noticed that the house was
very quiet and, although the adjoining nipa hut where the mahjong sessions
were usually played was lighted, there was no mahjong game being played
therein. Before 11 o'clock that night, she again passed by Londera's house
on her way back to Barangay Tinaclaan to look for her husband who had
gone there for the barangay fiesta. She again noticed that Londera's house
was quiet.[26]
As sur-rebuttal to Mutia's testimony, the defense presented Catalina
Londera, wife of Otelo Londera, who said that at around 8 o'clock in the
evening of May 11, 1995, she met Mutia and her husband in the house of a
certain Tagaloguin in Barangay Tinaclaan. The three allegedly went back to
Barangay Kinangay Sur on board the Mutia spouses' truck. After arriving
home at around 9 o'clock, her husband, Laureano Basaya, Buena Narbay,
and accused-appellant allegedly started playing mahjong.[27]
The case was thereafter submitted for decision. On April 26, 1996, the trial
court rendered its decision, finding accused-appellant guilty of forcible
abduction with rape. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment finding accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of forcible abduction with rape aggravated by dwelling and
nocturnity and qualified by use of a deadly weapon, sentencing him to
DEATH and ordering him to indemnify the complainant P30,000.00 as moral
damages. With cost.[28]
Hence this appeal.
First. Accused-appellant contends that he and complainant had a "previous
understanding" and that their sexual intercourse was consensual. This
allegedly explains why (1) there was no commotion when he and
complainant went out of the latter's house as shown by the fact that not a
member of the household was awakened when he dragged her out of her
parent's house; and (2) when he removed her pajamas and underwear, or
when he undressed, she did not push him which would then have allegedly
allowed her to escape.[29]
This contention has no merit.

Accused-appellant never claimed that he and complainant had any

relationship. In fact, he claimed he had never met her before. Thus accusedappellant testified:
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A

Do you know the private offended party of this

case, Doris Saguindang?
I don't know her, sir, I have never met her, only
here in Court.
Do you still remember that time when did you
first see or meet her in Court?
The fourth time I attended the hearing, sir. . . . .
...
[D]o you know the residence of the parents of
Doris Saguindang?
I don't know, sir.
You have not gone there ever since?
Never, sir.[30]

Indeed, apart from his bare assertion that he and complainant were lovers,
accused-appellant has shown no other evidence of such relationship, such as
love letters, photographs, or other tokens of endearment. On the contrary,
complainant stoutly maintained that she had never known accused-appellant
before and that the latter, at knife point, forced her to go with him and
molested her in a ricefield. Complainant's testimony must be quoted to
appreciate her claim:
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q

A
Q
A

Now, as you were awaken[ed] . . . by the

accused, what happened?
He choked me up.
What did he say?
He ordered me to stand up because he has some
questions to ask.
Now, what was your reaction?
I was nervous and shocked.
....
Now, after the accused woke you up, choked
you and commanded you to stand up, what
happened?
He covered my mouth.
Why did he cover your mouth?
So that I could not shout.

Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q:

A
Q
A

Why, did you try to shout for help?

I was trying to shout but no voice will come out.
So, what happened afterwards?
He forced me to go outside.
How did he force you to go outside?
He covered my mouth and the other hand has
knife pointing near my chest.
....
Despite of the fact that you were led by that man
outside you did not resist or make any noise in
order your parents to be awaken?
I tried my best but he was so strong.
You mean he has big muscles?
Yes, sir. Strong arms.[31]

Accused-appellant makes much of the fact that he was able to take

complainant out of her parent's house without rousing the household from
their sleep. That was because complainant was alone in her room, far from
where the other members of her family were sleeping. Her parents, her twin
siblings, and her nephew were the other people in the house when accusedappellant broke in and abducted complainant. Her parents slept in a
separate room furthest from her room and, while her twin siblings and
nephew slept in the room adjoining hers, their rooms were separated by a
concrete wall with an opening near the roof. Accused-appellant prevented
complainant from making an outcry by covering her mouth and poking a
knife at her. She was resisting but she was overpowered. After all, what
could an 19-year old girl do to resist a 50-year old man? As complainant
testified:
Q

A
Q
A

By that time when you were led to that dry

ricefield he was no longer dragging you, am I
correct?
Still he drag me and he was holding me.
He was holding both of your hands?
He was walking ahead of me and kept on pulling
me. (Witness keep on crying since the beginning
of her testimony)
If you have resisted at that time when you were
brought to the dry land or ricefield you could
have escape him away from the hold of that
man?
How can I escape from him he was holding me

Q
A

so tightly. It was so painful as if my arm will be

broken.
But he did not twist your arms?
I could not remember but that my shoulder was
sprained.
....

PROS. MEDINA:
Q

A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q

Now, when you reached to that ricefield which

was harvested together with the accused Erlindo
Talo, forcing you to go there, threatening you,
pointing a knife, did you try to escape?
Yes, sir.
How did you do it? (While answering, witness
was crying)
I was trying to fight but he was very strong.
....
Upon reaching that place, what happened, upon
reaching there, did you try to stop him?
Yes, sir.
How did you do it? (Witness burst into tears
continuously)
I kicked him because he was trying to remove
my pajama.
And what happened?
He successfully removed my pajama.
How about your panty?
Including my panty.
How about your blouse?
After removing my panty, he was also removing
my blouse.
What did you do?
I was trying to grapple the knife because he kept
on threatening to stop me.
Afterwards, what happened?
....
He pushed me to lie down on the ground.
Did he remove your clothes when you were
standing up or when you were already pushed

Q
A
Q
A
Q

A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A

down?
While I was still standing up, he removed my
pants, when I was lying down, he removed my
blouse.
All the while, when he was removing your
pants, panty and blouse, what did you do?
I slapped him.
You mean to say, you fought him?
Yes, sir.
Now, when he successfully removed all your
clothes and you were already down, what did he
do next?
He lowered his brief.
And what did he do to you?
Then, he raped me.
....
You mean to say, he placed his penis inside your
vagina?
Yes, sir.
Did his penis penetrate your vagina?
Yes, sir.
You mean to say, his penis stayed inside your
vagina?
Yes, sir.
....
At that time, did you fight him?
Yes, sir.
How did you fight him?
I kicked him.
When you kicked him, what did he do?
Again, he attempted to stop me.[32]

It is settled that a rape victim is not required to resist her attacker unto
death.[33] Force, as an element of rape, need not be irresistible; it need only
be present, and so long as it brings about the desired result, all
considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the
point.[34]Indeed, physical resistance need not be established in rape when,
as in this case, intimidation was exercised upon the victim and she
submitted to the rapist's lust because of fear for her life or for her personal
safety.[35] .

The findings of the medical examination conducted by Dr. Medina a day after
the incident confirm complainant's claim that she had been forced to have
sexual intercourse by accused-appellant. Dr. Medina found abrasions on her
neck and right thigh as well as hematomas on her chest, in addition to the
complete perforation of her hymen. These clearly establish that accusedappellant employed force and intimidation to make complainant submit to
him.
Finally, complainant's conduct after she had been abused negates any
probability that she and accused-appellant had consented sexual
intercourse. After accused-appellant had finished ravishing her, she ran
away naked. She fled to the house of her uncle to whom she reported what
had happened to her. This is not the natural reaction of one who had
engaged in consensual sex. It has been observed that the conduct of a
woman following the alleged assault is of utmost importance as it tends to
establish the truth or falsity of her claim.[36]
Second. In a complete turnabout from his theory that he and complainant
were lovers, accused-appellant contends that complainant's failure to file the
criminal complaint renders her claim of abduction with rape suspect.[37]
This contention has no merit, either. Complainant filed this case less than
three weeks after the incident. The delay was due to the fact that accusedappellant's identity was not ascertained until June 3, 1995 when complainant
came face to face with accused-appellant and learned that his name was
Erlindo Talo.
While it is true that Cesar Saguindang, complainant's father, testified that
accused-appellant had been delivering rice to their house for a period of
three years, there is no evidence to show that complainant knew accusedappellant. Accused-appellant himself testified that he stayed in Cebu City for
sometime to study college, went back to Data Daku, Clarin, Misamis
Occidental in 1982, and decided to work on the farm. It was probably then
that he delivered rice for the barangay captain of Gata Daku, Japay. At that
time, complainant was only eight years old. Furthermore, complainant
studied at the Clarin National High School in the poblacion of Clarin and went
to Iligan City for her college education. It is probable, therefore, she really
did not know accused-appellant.
Moreover, the delay in the identification of accused-appellant was due
mainly to the failure of the Gata Daku police, specifically of SPO2 Jesus
Macala, to include accused-appellant in the lineup of suspects presented to
complainant on May 12, 1995. Macala admitted that complainant's

description of her attacker in fact matched that of accused-appellant, but he

did not include the latter in the lineup because he thought that accusedappellant, whom he admitted was a childhood friend, was innocent.[38]
Accused-appellant points out the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of
complainant as to his age, type of hair, and whether he is bearded or not. As
complainant explained, however, she did not really say that accusedappellant was curly haired or that he had a beard. She testified:
Q

A
Q
A

Q
A

A
Q
A

Miss Doris Saguindang, the Barangay Captain of

Gata Daku, Joven Japay, have testified before
this Honorable Court that you specifically
described to him the person responsible [for]
raping you in the dawn of May 12, 1995, and he
said you specifically described . . . him to be
curly hair[ed], and that his face was full of
beard, what can you say to that statement?
That's not true.
Why do you say that's [a] lie?
Because what I told . . . the Barangay Captain is
that, the hair of the rapist is short to the scalp. In
fact, the Barangay Captain asked, was it curly
hair, I said "no", his hair is short and his head is
somewhat bald because at that time he was
wearing my father's hat.
What about the beard?
I did not say beard. I did not mention that the
face of the man is full of beard because when we
say "bangason" or bearded he has full of beard.
What I told . . . the Barangay Captain [was] that
he has a beard because I have touched the face
of the man, not exactly that he was bearded.
Did you mention to the Barrio Captain that the
person responsible in raping you that you were
able to touch his face, his mustach[e]?
I did not tell him that he has mustach[e], I only
told him a few beard newly grown in his face.
Did you also mention . . . the age . . . of the
person responsible in raping you?
No, sir. I did not mention to him the age, what I
described to him only that the man was similar
to the age of my father.[39]

We find complainant's testimony to be credible. As earlier stated, her story is

corroborated by the findings of the medical examination. On the other hand,
the defense has not shown any ill motive on the part of complainant to
falsely implicate accused-appellant in a very serious charge. As we have said
in a number of cases, no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow
an examination of her private parts and expose herself to the stigma and
humiliation of a public trial if she is not motivated by a desire to seek justice
against the one who had defiled her.[40]
Third. Accused-appellant's defense is that on May 12, 1995, he was in the
house of Otelo Londera in Barangay Kinangay Sur. However, Londera himself
said that Barangay Gata Daku could be reached in 10 minutes by foot from
his house. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be shown not only that
accused-appellant was somewhere else at the time the crime was committed
but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene
of the crime at the time it was committed.[41]
The same is true with regard to accused-appellant's claim that on May 27,
1995 and June 3, 1995, when complainant said she saw him after the
incident, he was in some other place and could not possibly have been seen
by her. Defense witness Narbay, who was supposed to corroborate accusedappellant's testimony that he was not in his farm in Barangay Tinaclaan at
around 7 o'clock in the morning of May 27, 1995, admitted on crossexamination that he did not know the year when the events he testified to
took place and that the date May 27 was just given to him by the counsel for
the defense. On the other hand, accused-appellant's testimony that he was
in his farm in Barangay Tinaclaan and not in Barangay Kinangay Sur at
about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of June 3, 1995 is not only uncorroborated
but also self-serving. It cannot prevail over the testimony of complainant
which was corroborated by Grace Endab.
Fourth. The trial court correctly found accused-appellant guilty of the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. As provided in Arts. 342 and
335, in relation to Art. 48, of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of this
crime are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her
age, civil status or reputation; (2) that she is taken against her will; (3) that
the abduction is with lewd design; and (4) that the abducted woman is raped
under any of the circumstance provided in Art. 335.[42] The evidence shows
that, at knifepoint, accused-appellant forcibly took complainant from her
parents' house and, in a ricefield about 800 meters away, forced her to have
sexual intercourse with him.

In the event of conviction in cases of complex crimes, the penalty for the
most serious crime should be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.[43] Forcible abduction is punishable by reclusion
temporal,[44] while rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, unless it is
committed with the use of deadly weapon, in which case the penalty
isreclusion perpetua to death.[45] Thus, in this case, it is the penalty for rape
which should be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
However, the use of deadly weapon, being a qualifying circumstance, must
be alleged in the information, otherwise it should be treated only as a
generic aggravating circumstance and the lower penalty (reclusion perpetua)
should be imposed.[46]
In the case at bar, the information alleged that "armed with a bolo and
hunting knife, and by means of force, violence, intimidation and threats,"
accused-appellant, "did then and there . . . with lewd and unchaste designs .
. . take and carry away complainant" and that, "upon reaching the ricefield,
by means of force, violence, intimidation and threats," he had carnal
knowledge of her. The allegation of the use of deadly weapon thus refers not
to the rape but to the crime of forcible abduction. We have affirmed
convictions for forcible abduction with rape qualified by the use of deadly
weapon in cases where the use of deadly weapon was alleged in the
information with respect to the crime of forcible abduction,[47] or with
respect to the complex crime of forcible abduction and rape,[48] or to the
portion referring to the crime of rape.[49] Accordingly, to justify the
imposition of the death penalty in this case, the use of deadly weapon
should be alleged with respect to the rape or with respect to both the
forcible abduction and rape. Since, in this case, this qualifying circumstance
was alleged only with respect to the commission of the forcible abduction, it
cannot be taken to qualify the crime of rape. The use of a deadly weapon
can be appreciated only as a generic aggravating circumstance.
The trial court correctly appreciated other generic aggravating
circumstances, namely, dwelling and nighttime. Dwelling was correctly taken
into account as an aggravating circumstance as the evidence shows that
complainant was forcibly taken from the house of her parents. Such was the
ruling in People v. Lacanieta,[50] where, similar to the case at bar, the
complainant was forcibly taken from her house, brought to a nearby
barangay, and then raped by the accused.
The aggravating circumstance of nighttime was also correctly held to be
present. Accused-appellant sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the
commission of the crime. In People v. Grefiel,[51] it was held that forcible

abduction with rape, committed at 2 o'clock in the morning, was attended by

the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
The crime was likewise attended by the aggravating circumstance of
unlawful entry. The barangay chairman of Gata Daku, Joven Japay, testified
that when he went to the house of the victim the day after the rape incident,
he noticed that a baluster in the ceiling at the rear part of the house had
been forcibly removed and that there was a ladder propped nearby.[52] There
was thus entry to complainant's house through an opening which was one
not intended for that purpose.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the penalty to be imposed on accusedappellant is reclusion perpetua. Under Art. 63, a single indivisible penalty
should be imposed regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance
which may have attended the commission of the deed. The damages
awarded by the trial court should be modified. In accordance with recent
rulings of this Court,[53] complainant Doris Saguindang must be paid
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and the
additional amount of P25,000.00, as exemplary damages, in view of the
attendance of the aggravating circumstances, pursuant to Art. 2229 of the
Civil Code.[54]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Ozamis
City, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered
to pay complainant Doris Saguindang the amounts of P50,000.00, as civil
indemnity, P50,000.00, as moral damages, and P25,000.00, as exemplary
damages.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., on leave.

[1]

Per Judge Ma. Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca.

[2]

Records, p.1.

[3]

TSN (Doris Saguindang), pp. 15-16, 18, 20-24, 29-36, Nov. 23, 1995;
TSN, pp. 4, 8, 16-17, 19, Dec. 6, 1995.
[4]

TSN (Doris Saguindang), pp. 36-38, Nov. 23, 1995; pp. 16, 28, Dec. 6,
1995; TSN (Jesus Macala), pp. 3-5, 7, 9, Jan. 22, 1996.
[5]

TSN (Ponciano Ayop, Sr.), pp. 3-5, Jan. 3, 1996.

[6]

Records, p. 14. (Emphasis added)

[7]

TSN (Daniel Medina), pp. 5, 8, 10-14, Dec. 11, 1995.

[8]

Id., pp. 5-6.

[9]

Id., p. 9.

[10]

TSN (Pastor Ayop), pp. 8-9, Jan. 3, 1996.

[11]

TSN (Doris Saguindang), pp. 27-28, March 11, 1996 .

[12]

TSN (Doris Saguindang), pp. 44-48, March 11, 1996; TSN (Grace
Endab), pp. 24-26, Dec. 11, 1995.
[13]

TSN (Ponciano Ayop, Sr.), pp. 9-11, Jan. 3, 1996.

[14]

TSN (Doris Saguindang), pp. 39-41, Nov. 23, 1995.

[15]

Id., pp. 54-55, 57-58.

[16]

TSN (Erlindo Talo), pp. 23-24, March 7, 1996.

[17]

Id., pp. 27-29.

18]

Id., pp. 30-33.

[19]

Id., pp. 33-35.

[20]

Id., pp. 45, 48.

[21]

TSN (Otelo Londera), pp. 17-20, 26, Feb., 8, 1996; TSN (Buena Narbay),
pp. 4-6, 11, Feb. 9, 1996; TSN (Laureano Basaya), pp. 4-7, Feb. 8, 1996.
[22]

TSN (Celso Fuentes), pp. 13-15, March 7, 1996; TSN (Angel Saldaa),
pp. 3-4, March 6, 1996; TSN (Flaviano Narbay), pp. 4-8, March 7, 1996.

[23]

TSN (Joven Japay), pp. 19-21, 25, 31, Feb. 9, 1996.

[24]

TSN (Doris Saguindang), pp. 21-22, March 11, 1996.

[25]

TSN (Cesar Saguindang), p. 30, March 11, 1996.

[26]

TSN (Antonina Mutia), pp. 4-6, 10, 12-13, 19, March 11, 1996.

[27]

TSN (Catalina Londera), pp. 3-5, March 13, 1996.

[28]

RTC Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 31.

[29]

Appellant's Brief, pp. 1-3; Rollo, pp. 101-103.

[30]

TSN (Erlindo Talo), pp. 24-25, March 7, 1996. (Emphasis added)

[31]

TSN (Doris Saguindang), pp. 15 & 18, Nov. 23, 1995; pp. 14-15, Dec. 6,
1995.
[32]

TSN (Doris Saguindang), pp. 28-34, Nov. 23, 1995; pp. 18-19, Dec. 6,
1995.
[33]

People v. Igdanes, 272 SCRA 113 (1997); People v. Gumahob, 265 SCRA
84 (1996).
[34]

People v. Bayani, 262 SCRA 660 (1996).

[35]

People v. Napiot, 311 SCRA 772 (1999); People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411
(1998).
[36]

People v. Bayron, 313 SCRA 727 (1999).

[37]

Appellant's Supplemental Brief, pp. 3-6; Rollo, pp. 110-113.

[38]

TSN (Jesus Macala), pp. 9-10, Jan. 22, 1996.

[39]

TSN, pp. 21-22, March 11, 1996.

[40]

People v. Magalantay, 304 SCRA 272 (1999); People v. Oliver, 303 SCRA
72 (1999).
[41]

People v. Berzuela, G.R. No. 132078, Sept. 25, 2000; People v. Payot,
308 SCRA 43 (1999).

[42]

See People v. Lacanieta, G.R. No. 124299, April 12, 2000.

[43]

REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 48.

[44]

Id., Art. 342.

[45]

Id., Art. 335.

[46]

People v. Bayron, supra.

[47]

See People v. Jose, 71 SCRA 273 (1976); People v. Angeles, 222 SCRA
451 (1993); People v. Lacanieta, supra.
[48]

See People v. Rivera, 245 SCRA 421 (1995); People v. Famador, 113
SCRA 310 (1982).
[49]

See People v. Delovino, 247 SCRA 637 (1995).

[50]

Supra.

[51]

215 SCRA 596 (1992).

[52]

TSN, p. 18, Feb. 9, 1996.

[53]

People v. Baid, G.R. No. 129667, July 31, 2000; People v. Dreu, G.R. No.
126282, June 20, 2000; People v. Licanda, G.R. No. 134084, May 4, 2000.
[54]

See People v. Santos, G.R. Nos. 131103 & 143472, June 29, 2000.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)