People v. Bardaje

Facts:

1.     MARCELINA Cuizon filed a complaint of rape with the CFI against ADELINO BARDAJE and 5 others.

2.     ADELINO was arrested on Dec 17th, and it was on Dec 20th, when he signed the alleged confession, Exhibit "C", admitting having kidnapped and molested MARCELINA

3.     However, the Fiscal amended the complaint and filed for the crime of rape with illegal detention with the court.

a.     MARCELINA merely alleged that she was dragged from her Aunt’s house by means of force and intimidation and at nighttime. On the other hand, the Information added that the accused were "armed with bolos".

b.     the Information included the allegation that the crime of Rape with Illegal Detention was committed with the "aggravating circumstances that it was committed in an uninhabited place and with the aid of armed men".

4.     Of the 6 persons accused, the 5 others were never arrested, and only ADELINO stood trial.

5.     Before the arraignment of ADELINO, the Information was amended to include the allegation that MARCELINA was detained and deprived of liberty for a period of 3 days, which allegation could be taken into account in connection with Illegal Detention but not in connection with Forcible Abduction. Since according to Exhibit "C", MARCELINA was "kidnapped" at midnight of Dec 14th, and ADELINO was arrested in the morning of Dec17th, or an interval of less than 72 hours, it could not be correctly pleaded that MARCELINA was deprived of liberty for 3 days.

6.     Marcelina’s Version:

a.     14 years of age, she and her mother were living in the house of her aunt where she worked as a beautician.

b.     At 7 in the evening of Dec 14, 1965 while she was then eating supper, ADELINO, whom she knew when they were "still small", and who was her classmate in Grade II, accompanied by the 5 others, entered the house and began drinking.

c.      Silvino Odal broke the kerosene lamp causing complete darkness. She then ran to the room where her mother was.

d.     Pedro Odal choked the mother's neck thereby loosening her hold on the daughter and the four males, two of whom were armed with bolos, forced her downstairs and by holding and dragging her, brought her to the mountain. That was about 12 midnight.

e.     On the way, ADELINO slapped her rendering her unconscious. She regained consciousness in a hut, with ADELINO holding her hands, and removing her panty. She bit and kicked him. Despite her struggle, ADELINO succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her while his other companions stayed outside on guard.

f.      Under cross examination, MARCELINA declared that she did not know who owned the hut and that it was just a one-room affair where a woman and two small children lived; that she and Appellant slept in that same room as the woman, while the 5 others slept near the kitchen.

g.     At about 8 the following morning, December 15, ADELINO and the 5 others brought her to another mountain, 6 km farther, arriving there past 12 noon at the house of one called Ceferino who lived there with his family. She was kept in one room. Outside the room were Pedro Odal, Adriano Odal and Fidel Ansuas, still armed with bolos, drinking and guarding her.

h.     In the evening, ADELINO had another sexual intercourse with her even though she bit and kicked him and shouted for help which was to no avail as all present were relatives of ADELINO, with the latter calling Ceferino "Tatay". She curled the hair of Narita (daughter of Ceferino) the next day, because ADELINO threatened to kill her if she did not. Her curling paraphernalia was taken by Adriano Odal, upon ADELINO's instructions, from her cousin who gave the equipment as she was also threatened.

i.       MARCELINA and her "captors" stayed in Ceferino's house for 2 days.

j.       In the morning of Dec 17, two soldiers with her father arrived. The soldiers apprehended ADELINO while the FIVE OTHERS jumped down the window and fled.

k.     She and her mother filed a complaint at the Fiscal's Office on Dec 20, 1965 and submitted to a medical examination.

Medical Certificate with the following findings:

"1. No evidence of external injuries around the vulva or any part of the body.

2. Hymen not intact, presence of old healed laceration at 4, 7 12 o'clock.

3. Vagina easily admits to fingers.

4. Vaginal smear negative for spermatozoa"

Explaining the "old healed laceration", the doctor stated that laceration may have been caused by possible sexual intercourse or other factors, and if it were intercourse, he estimated that it could have occurred "say, two weeks or one month" or possibly more.

l.       When cross-examined, Complainant admitted that Ceferino, his wife and 7 children were living in the same hut where she was taken the second time, which hut was about waist high from the ground, consisted of one room, 3 x 2 meters, a sala, 6 x 3 meters, and a kitchen. Between the room and the sala was a wall of split bamboos so that noise inside the room could be heard clearly from the other side.

7.     Adelino’s Version:

a.     aged 18, admitted having had carnal knowledge of MARCELINA but denied having raped her. He claims that they eloped on Dec 14 to 17, 1965 as previously planned, they having been sweethearts since November 12, 1964.

b.     In the evening of Dec 14, 1965, while Sofia, MARCELINA's mother and others were eating, MARCELINA handed him a bag and beauty culture equipment through the window, went downstairs, after which the two of them walked to the mountains, to Ceferino Armada's house. Ceferino was a cousin of ADELINO's mother.

c.      He and MARCELINA slept in the bedroom with 18-year old Narita, Ceferino's daughter. While in that hut, food was brought to them by his sister, Nenita. MARCELINA curled Narita's hair the next day.

d.     In the morning of Dec 17, 1965, Sgts. Terado and Gacelos, accompanied by MARCELINA's father apprehended him for having kidnapped MARCELINA. The latter ran to him and embraced him and said she was to blame.

e.     Notwithstanding, he was boxed by the soldiers as instructed by MARCELINA's father and taken to Maulong PC Headquarters for questioning.

f.      During the investigation, he was boxed and kicked and was forced to sign a statement implicating the 5 others as his companions even if untrue. He did not know who attested to his statement as one Sgt. Gacelos took the document elsewhere.

g.     Ceferino Armada, 60 years of age, the owner of the hut where MARCELINA was allegedly forcibly brought the second time, corroborated that portion of ADELINO's testimony regarding their stay in his house adding that MARCELINA and ADELINO had told him that they had eloped; that MARCELINA even offered to curl his daughters' hair and helped in house chores and in the threshing of palay, while ADELINO helped in carrying palay because it was rainy.

8.     After the trial was concluded, ADELINO's lawyer submitted his Memorandum in which he specifically argued that "the prosecution did not establish the elements of Rape and Illegal Detention

a.     It was only in the Memorandum of the Fiscal, when the position was taken that the crime which should be imputed to ADELINO is Rape with Forcible Abduction. The prosecution's Memorandum stated:

"Although the information is for Rape with Illegal Detention instead of Rape with Forcible Abduction, yet from the body of the information it could be clearly gleaned that the elements of abduction are sufficiently alleged therein and hence the accused can be convicted thereunder

9.     TC: found ADELINO guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and aid of armed men, and sentenced him to death. *Complainant had no improper motive to implicate ADELINO in such a detestable crime as Rape.

Issue: WON Adelino should be acquitted

Held:Yes

On the basis of the evidence, testimonial and documentary, we find that the guilt of ADELINO has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

In crimes against chastity, the conviction or acquittal of an accused depends almost entirely on the credibility of a complainant's testimony since by the intrinsic nature of those crimes they usually involve only two persons - the complainant and the accused. The offended party's testimony, therefore, must be subjected to thorough scrutiny for a determination of its veracity beyond reasonable doubt.

In the instant case, we find MARCELINA's charge that she was forcibly abducted and afterwards raped by ADELINO in conspiracy with FIVE OTHERS highly dubious and inherently improbable.

To start with, according to the medical findings, "no evidence of external injuries was found around the vulva or any part of the body" of Complainant, a fact which is strange, indeed, considering that Complainant was allegedly "dragged", "slapped" into unconsciousness, "wrestled" with, and criminally abused. Physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together. We are also faced with the medical finding of "old healed lacerations" in the hymen which, according to the testimony of the examining physician would have occurred two weeks or even one month before if said lacerations had been caused by sexual intercourse. This expert opinion bolsters the defense that MARCELINA and ADELINO had previous amorous relations at the same time that it casts serious doubts on the charge of intercourse by force and intimidation.

Secondly, by Complainant's own admission, the first hut she was taken to was a small one-room affair occupied by a woman and two small children. Her charge, therefore, that she was ravished in that same room is highly improbable and contrary to human experience.

Thirdly, from her own lips, Complainant testified that the second hut where she was taken, that of Ceferino Armada, consisted of a small room separated from the sala by a wall of split bamboos. Further, that Ceferino with his wife and seven children all lived therein. It challenges human credulity that she could have been sexually abused with so many within hearing and seeing distance.

It is unbelievable, too, that under those circumstances the FIVE OTHERS could have stood guard outside, armed with bolos and drinking, while ADELINO allegedly took advantage of her. If rape were, indeed, their malevolent intent, they would, in all probability, have taken turns in abusing her. That they did not, indicates that there was, indeed, some special relationship between MARCELINA and ADELINO.

Furthermore, with people around, and the hut constructed as it was, it would have been an easy matter for MARCELINA to have shouted and cried for help. Surely, the old man Ceferino, his wife and/or his children could not have been insensible to her outcries notwithstanding their relationship to ADELINO. The aphorism still rings true that evidence to be believed must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself.

Additionally, Complainant admits that she even curled the hair of Narita, one of Ceferino's daughters, a fact inconsistent with her allegation of "captivity". That she was threatened with death if she did not accede to such an inconsequential request defies credulity.

The likelihood is that, as the defense maintains, MARCELINA was not forcibly abducted but that she and ADELINO had, in fact, eloped and that she had brought her beauty culture paraphernalia with her, or, that she herself had sent for them from her cousin Norma Fernandez voluntarily and not under threat from ADELINO.

The totality of the foregoing circumstances count with such great weight and significance that they lend an aura of improbability and reasonable doubt to the allegation that MARCELINA had been "kidnapped" or "illegally detained" and that when she and ADELINO engaged in sexual intercourse, it was because of force or intimidation exercised upon her. They are circumstances that were overlooked by the trial Court and justify a reversal of its finding of guilt as an exception to the established rule that the findings of fact of a trial Judge based on the relative credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed by appellate Courts.

This case also constitutes an exception to the general belief that a young girl would not expose herself to the ordeal of public trial if she were not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit who had ravished and shamed her placed behind bars.

As we view it, MARCELINA was confronted with a paradoxical situation as a daughter of relatively tender age, who could not shamefacedly admit to her parents that she had eloped and voluntarily submitted to sexual intercourse, since that elopement must have met with righteous indignation on the part of her parents. As a result, MARCELINA was faced with no other choice but to charge ADELINO with rape or incur the ire of her parents and social disrepute from a small community.

In respect of the alleged confession of ADELINO, suffice it to re-state that "an extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti".

Corpus delicti is proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed. That proof has not been met in the case at bar, the evidence establishing more of an elopement rather than kidnapping or illegal detention or forcible abduction, and much less rape. Moreover, ADELINO, aged 18, was by himself when being investigated by soldiers, without benefit of counsel nor of anyone to advise him of his rights.

Aside from his declaration that his confession was obtained through maltreatment and violence, it was also vitiated by a procedural irregularity testified to by no less than prosecution witness Sgt. Pedro Gacelos to the effect that he and ADELINO were ordered to get out from the Clerk of Court's room after he presented the statement to the Clerk of Court, Mr. Rojas. There is reason to believe, therefore, that the so-called confession was attested without ADELINO's presence so that the latter cannot be said to have duly subscribed and sworn to it.

It should also be noted that throughout the hearings before the trial Court, it was assumed that ADELINO was being held responsible for the complex crime of Rape with Illegal Detention. While it is true that an accused can be punished for a crime described by the facts alleged in the Information despite a wrong designation of the crime in the preamble of the Information, yet, in capital cases, it should be desirable that, whenever a discrepancy is noted between the designation of the crime made by the Fiscal and the crime described by the facts pleaded in his Information, the lower Court should call attention of the accused to the discrepancy, so that the accused may be fully apprised of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

This was not done in regards to ADELINO who all the time was under the impression that he was being tried for Rape with Illegal Detention, and not for Forcible Abduction with Rape. If ADELINO had known that he was being tried for Forcible Abduction with Rape, he may have changed the strategy or tactics of his defense. Not that it could be said he would have done so; but he should have been advised he had the right, and given the opportunity, to do so.

Again, one of the rights of an accused is "to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses on his behalf."ADELINO had stated that, while MARCELINA was in the house of Ceferino Armada, she curled the hair of Narita, one of the latter's children, as well as the hair of other girls in the vicinity.

ADELINO wanted to have Narita testify on his behalf, and a subpoena had been issued to her. But instead of taking effective steps to have Narita brought to Court, the lower Court gave responsibility for Narita's attendance to the defense, expressly stating that, if the defense was not able to bring her to the Court, her testimony will be dispensed with.

Considering that this case involved a prosecution for a capital offense, the lower Court acted precipitously in not having Narita brought to Court, by ordering her arrest if necessary. ADELINO was deprived of his right "to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses on his behalf."

Crucial questions should also have been asked by the trial Court of witnesses. MARCELINA testified before the lower Court on December 1, 1966. On December 12, 1966, Pedro Gacelos, the PC Sgt. who investigated the complaint against ADELINO, testified:

"Q. - Was that investigation of Marcelina Cuizon reduced to writing? A. - Yes, Sir."

It would have been advisable if the lower Court had right then and there asked for the production of the written statement of MARCELINA.

The medical report, Exhibit "B", implied that MARCELINA could have had sexual intercourse previous to December 14th. On the other hand, ADELINO had testified that he and MARCELINA used to go together to Tacloban, and while there several times, "we had sexual intercourse because she likes it."

Considering the possible infliction of the death penalty on ADELINO, the lower Court could have asked MARCELINA if she had had sexual intercourse prior to December 14th and, if so, if it was with ADELINO.

Further, there was possibility that ADELINO and MARCELINA had really been sweethearts. The lower Court could have asked MARCELINA if she realized that, charging ADELINO with Rape with Illegal Detention, the latter could be sentenced to death. If that had been explained to her clearly by the lower Court, she might then have admitted that she was neither raped nor "kidnapped" nor illegally detained.

MARCELINA could had been examined on the two matters mentioned above, with the Court excluding the public from the hearing under the provisions of Rule 119, Section 14. MARCELINA might have testified without feeling the pressure of her relatives or other persons, if such pressure had in fact existed.

It may not be amiss to state then that just as in pleas of guilty where a grave offense is charged trial Judges have been enjoined to refrain from accepting them with alacrity but to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that an accused fully understands the import of his plea, so also, in prosecutions for capital offenses, it behooves the trial Courts to exercise greater care in safeguarding the rights of an accused. The trial Judge should also take a more active role by means of searching questions in the examination of witnesses for the ascertainment of the truth and credibility of their testimonies so that any judgment of conviction imposing the supreme penalty may rest on firm and unequivocal grounds. The life and liberty of an individual demand no less.

WHEREFORE, upon reasonable doubt, the judgment appealed from, imposing the death penalty, is reversed and the appellant, Adelino Bardaje, acquitted of the crime with which he is charged. His immediate release is ordered unless he is held on other charges.