3.

Evidence of Force and Intimidation

People v. Eugenio

The accused-appellant, caught in flagrante in the act of rape, insists he did not do it and
instead, boldly attributes it to another person, but fails to convince this Court.

Accused-appellant Ernesto Atuel was charged with the crime of rape under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, 11th Judicial Region, Branch
11,[1] in a Criminal Complaint subscribed by the mother of the complainant and approved by
City Prosecutor Antonio V.A. Tan, which complaint reads as follows:[2]

"The undersigned, mother of the complainant-FELICITAS SAYON, who is a mental patient, after
having been duly sworn to (sic) in accordance with law, accuses the above-named accused of
the crime of RAPE, under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as
follows:

That on or about August 23, 1991, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, by means of force and intimidation,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have (sic) carnal knowledge with the complainant-Felicitas
Sayon, who is a mental patient, against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Davao City, Philippines, August 28, 1991."

Arraigned on September 13, 1991, the accused, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of "not
guilty". Trial on the merits ensued.

In a five-page Decision dated March 29, 1992, the trial court found appellant guilty as charged.
The fallo reads as follows:[3]
"WHEREFORE, finding accused Ernesto Atuel, alias Loloy Bolhog, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of rape, under Nos. 1 and 2, of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged, he is
hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua; to indemnify Felicitas Sayon, the complainant,
in the amount of P40,000.00; and to pay the costs."

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

Severo "Berot" Echavez, a porter, had been neighbors with the accused, a stevedore, since
1987. He knew that the accused and his wife lived with Lydia Atuel, elder sister of the accused,
whose house at V. de Guzman St., Sta. Ana, Davao City was about two (2) arm's lengths away
from Echavez's.[4]

Aside from his house at de Guzman Street, Echavez owned a wall-less shanty located behind
the Sta. Ana Wharf seawall, about 60 to 70 meters from the wharf, where he would sleep at
night whenever he had a cough. There was no other shanty or dwelling in the vicinity.

At dawn during low tide, fishing boats would dock near the Sta. Ana Wharf seawall to discharge
their catch of fish. Fish merchants and traders would congregate at the seawall to await the
fishing boats with their cargo.

In the evening of August 22, 1991, Echavez, afflicted with a cough, slept in his shanty behind the
seawall as he wanted to bathe in the sea the following morning. He was all alone in his shanty
and he had not seen any other person at or near the seawall.

At about 3 o'clock in the morning of August 23, 1991, Echavez was awakened by a woman's
cries for help and entreaties: "Don't, Nong, don't Nong!"[5] Going toward the place where he
heard the shouts, he saw the accused having carnal intercourse with a woman lying on top of a
table. The place, about 20 to 25 meters from Echavez's shanty, was deserted at that time, as
fishing boats had not yet landed, but the scene was illumined by a half-moon.
Echavez immediately ran to the Sta. Ana Police Patrol Station, also known as the Central Patrol
Station, and reported the incident. PO1 Prospero Ondong, Sr., requested the Desk Officer to
contact a mobile patrol car for assistance and then accompanied Echavez to the place indicated
by the latter.[6]

Approaching the place, they saw the accused still having sexual intercourse with the woman.
The accused, wearing a black jacket and nude below the waist, was standing in front of the
woman and furiously pumping into her with push-and-pull motions of his buttocks.[7] The
woman, whose body was reclining inside an unfinished carved banca placed on top of the table
which was about 72 centimeters in height,[8] had her skirt raised up to her stomach and was
completely bare below the waist; her thighs were splayed, her feet dangling downwards.[9] She
was crying "Agay! Tabang!"[10] Officer Ondong arrested the accused, who claimed that the
woman was his wife.[11] The woman fell to the ground, touched her knees and exclaimed to
Ondong, "Gi-rape ko, Sir."[12] Ondong brought the accused, together with the woman, to the
Sta. Ana Patrol Station. He tried to interview her, but she gave inconsistent answers.[13]
Ondong knew the appellant, who had been previously apprehended, there having been several
warrants pending for his arrest.[14]

At around 4:00 in the morning, the complainant was brought by a policeman to the Davao
Medical Center. At that time, she was wearing a crumpled dress, her hair long, disheveled and
loose. When interviewed by Dr. Ma. Lourdes Monteverde, complainant gave her name as Fely
Delgado,[15] and said that she went to Magsaysay Park at 2 o'clock that morning to look for a
prayer book. She was observed to laugh for no reason at all. In accordance with the hospital's
administrative order, she was referred to the Davao City Health Office.[16]

Complainant admitted that, at the time of the incident, she was undergoing treatment for
severe headaches. She testified that at about 3 o'clock in the morning of August 23, 1991, while
at Magsaysay Park, she was approached by a man whom she did not know who forcibly brought
her to a place near the beach where he boxed, slapped and maltreated her, and thereby
rendered her unconscious. She regained consciousness at the police station.[17]

On August 28, 1991, five days after the incident, complainant was examined by Dr. Danilo P.
Ledesma, Medico-Legal Officer of the Davao City Health Office.[18] Dr. Ledesma noticed
complainant was "slightly incoherent". She complained to him that she had been raped. Dr.
Ledesma could not categorically say that the hymenal lacerations were caused by a male organ
for they could have also been caused by a finger or the result of masturbation.[19]

Dr. Melody Yeto, a doctor assigned at the psychiatry department of the Davao Medical Center,
confirmed the insanity of complainant, who was suffering from inappropriate mental status,
that is, her answers to questions were not congruent with her feelings. Based on the recorded
examination conducted by Dr. Enriquez -- another psychiatrist who examined the complainant
on August 16, 1990 -- it was learned that complainant suffered from "sleeplessness" and was
found to have "roamed around aimlessly". Her behavior, based on the observations of Dr. Yeto,
was indicative of the existence of mental disorder.[20] From the medical records at the
psychiatry section of the Davao Medical Center, it was learned that the woman's real name is
Felicitas Sayon, and that she was single, 23 years old and had her legal residence at New
Bataan, Province of Davao (formerly Davao del Norte). However, at the time of the incident, she
was temporarily living with relatives at Ubalde Street, Agdao, Davao City, as she was then
undergoing psychiatric treatment and check-up as an outpatient at the psychiatric section of
the said center for schizophreniform disorder[21]. She was allegedly also being treated by
herbolarios. Although her mental condition improved, her psychosis was not fully cured.[22]

Version of the Defense

The defense presented two witnesses, viz., Lydia Atuel, elder, sister of the accused, and the
accused himself. Lydia, a self-confessed former prostitute, testified that it was a certain Caloy
Reynoso, a friend and neighbor of long standing, whom she met in the evening of August 22,
1991 with the complainant, who was the one who copulated with the complainant. According
to Lydia, at past 1 o' clock in the morning of August 23, 1991, she went to the beach for she
thought she felt labor pains. There she saw two people, one on top of the other. Then she
heard Caloy saying to the other person with him to keep quiet because someone was looking at
them. According to Lydia, the charge of rape against her brother was fabricated by Severo
Echavez who had an ax to grind against appellant, who in turn had taken a gangplank owned by
the former.[23]

Testifying on his own behalf, accused alleged that, at about 2 o'clock in the morning of August
23, 1991, he was serving as a member of the "ronda" team together with his neighbors,
Armando Tadlas and Boyet Mosqueda. The area covered by their "ronda" was from the second
wharf in Sta. Ana up to Carpenter Street. Thereafter, he went looking for Caloy Reynoso who,
according to his sister Lydia, was at the cottage of Echavez. When he went to the beach to look
for him, he saw Caloy together with a woman and Echavez. When he went to the beach to look
for him, he saw Caloy together with a woman and Echavez. Suddenly, someone behind him
shouted. It turned out to be a policeman who ordered him to raise his hands; he was then
frisked and arrested.[24]

The Issues

On appeal, accused-appellant assigned the following errors:[25]

"I

The trial court gravely erred in not finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
substantially insufficient to warrant a conviction.

II

The trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty as charged despite utter
failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt."

The Court's Ruling

First Issue: Credibility of Witnesses

Appellant contends that the prosecution's evidence "does not measure up to the quantum of
proof required by law", aside from being "highly dubious in nature, infirmed (sic) and marred by
improbabilities", and conflicting. According to appellant, the testimonies of Severo Echavez and
the victim are in conflict, for the victim herself testified that she was rendered unconscious by
the blows and physical maltreatment inflicted by the rapist, and therefore she could not have
uttered the cries for help allegedly heard by Echavez.

Appellant's contention is devoid of merit. Rape as a harrowing experience is usually not

remembered in detail. Rather, the victim of such an atrocity would normally be inclined to
forget the execrable event and sweep it into the dustbin of her unwanted experiences and
memories. For such an offense is not something which enhances one's life experience and
therefore worth recalling or reliving, but rather, something which causes deep psychological
wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim for the rest of her life, no matter that it was never
her fault that she met such a fate. A rapist should not expect the hapless object of his lechery to
have the memory of an elephant and the cold precision of a mathematician.[26] In the case at
bar, the rule requiring that minor inconsistencies in testimonies be disregarded should apply
with even greater force, considering that complainant at the time was suffering from insanity as
confirmed by the medical report of August 28, 1991. Complainant was mentally ill at the time of
the incident, and consequently could not be expected to remember in precise detail all that
actually happened to her. Her severe traumatic experience was too much for her unstable
mental faculties. In fact, she was incoherent and violent on the days following the incident.[27]
Her testimony as to what had happened certainly cannot constitute gospel truth, especially
since at the time she gave her testimony she was still undergoing treatment from psychiatrists
and herbolarios, and, therefore, not possessed of completely normal mental faculties. We have
said that a rape victim is not cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic
experience.[28] And the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in
her testimony.[29] On the contrary, it is a recognized axiom in rape cases that inconsistencies in
the victim's testimony do not detract from the vital fact that, in truth, she had been abused.
Testimonial discrepancies could have been caused by the natural fickleness of the memory,
which variances tend to strengthen rather than weaken credibility as they erase any suspicion
of rehearsed testimony.[30]

Moreover, it is doctrinal that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is
accorded the highest respect because it is the trial court that has the direct opportunity to
observe the witness's demeanor on the stand and determine if she is telling the truth or not.
Such assessment is binding on this Court except when the same was reached arbitrarily or
when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of
weight and substance which could have affected the result of the case. But none of such
exceptions apply to this case.[31]

At any rate, what is important is whether the sexual congress was indeed consummated. The
fact was proven not by the testimony of complainant but by that of Severo Echavez. The trial
court correctly relied on the testimonies of Echavez, a long time acquaintance and neighbor of
appellant who witnessed the incident, as well as that of Police Officer Ondong, who responded
to Echavez's report. Echavez's testimony is straightforward, credible and sufficient to convict
appellant, as can be gleaned from the excerpt of testimony given below.[32]

(People vs. Atuel G.R. No. 106962 September 03, 1996)

This decision, and more, can be found at https://www.digest.ph/decisions/people-vs-atuel

In this case, there is no question that the victim was mentally disturbed or insane at the time
the sexual assault was committed. Her inconsistent answers to the queries made by Officer
Ondong; her incongruent reactions as observed by Dr. Monteverde; her tendency to laugh for
no reason at all; and her desire to look for a prayerbook in the wee hours of the morning at the
Magsaysay Park; all these speak of a person not in full control of her senses and mental
faculties. She was, therefore, correctly held by the trial court as being deprived of reason. In the
rape of a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, the victim has no will. Sexual
intercourse with an insane, deranged, or mentally deficient, feebleminded, or idiotic woman is
rape, pure and simple. The deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete;
mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient.[39]

Appellant, therefore, was correctly convicted of the crime of rape, for having had sexual
intercourse with complainant, who suffered from mental disorder. It was not even necessary to
prove the element of force or intimidation in order to secure appellant's conviction, but
nonetheless, the trial court also established the fact that appellant utilized force in the sexual
assault, and that the sexual intercourse was effected against the victim's will as she was shown
to have shouted for help. She also alleged physical maltreatment, which though not proven by
physical evidence was not disputed or rebutted by the appellant. In consonance with recent
jurisprudence to the effect that the rape of a woman deprived of reason or having some mental
defect deserves a heavier penalty in the form of increased civil liability, [40] the civil indemnity
awarded should be, as it is hereby, increased to P50,000.00.

(People vs. Atuel G.R. No. 106962 September 03, 1996)

This decision, and more, can be found at https://www.digest.ph/decisions/people-vs-atuel