Facts:
1.
Defendant was charged with rape of Mirasol Magallanes (12 ½ yrs old)
a. Mirasol was alone at her parents’
house cooking hog feed when Paragsa, armed with a hunting knife, entered the
house.
b. Approaching from behind, he
placed his arm around Mirasol’s neck, pointing the knife at her breast, and
threatened her not to shout otherwise she would be killed.
c. the accused pushed her to a
bamboo bed nearby, rolled up her dress and, with his two hands, removed her
panties.
d. The accused then placed his
hunting knife on the bed by Mirasol's side, opened the zipper of his pants
while kneeling on the bed, opened Mirasol's thighs, picked up the hunting knife
again, placed himself on top of Mirasol, inserted his erect penis into her
sexual organ and then made four push and pull movement until he ejaculated
2.
Mirasol's dress and panties were not torn, since, because of fear, she
allowed the accused to roll up her dress and pull her panties without any
resistance whatsoever. During the intercourse, the accused was not holding the
hunting knife. After the accused had discharged, he ran to the storeroom of the
house upstairs because he heard Mrs. Lita Parochel, wife of the younger brother
of Mirasol's father, calling from outside the gate of the house, asking Mirasol
to open the gate. Mirasol did not answer because she was then in the act of
putting on her panties
3.
After she had put on her panties, she opened the gate and saw her aunt
Lita, who asked her what the accused did to her, but she did not answer because
she was afraid as the accused was still inside the house. She also did not tell
her aunt Lita that the accused had sexual intercourse with her under threats
and against her will. Her aunt Lita then walked away
4.
Mirasol's parents returned but she did not reveal the incident because
she was afraid her father might punish her. It was her aunt Lita who revealed the matter
to Mirasol's mother, who thereupon confronted her daughter. Mirasol had to
reveal the incident of July 13 to her mother only when her mother asked her about
it; because, according to her, she wanted to take revenge on the accused
5.
Three days after her return on July 19, 1971 — Mirasol's mother brought
her to the Hospital in where she was examined by Dr. Luis L. Gandiongco, who
submitted his findings as follows:
a. Discharges sticky, milky in
color, found at the anterior fornix but negative for spermatozoa
6.
The evidence for the prosecution consists of the testimony of Mirasol
Magallanes, the alleged rape victim, her aunt inlaw, Mrs. Lita Parochel, and
Dr. Luis L. Gandiongco
7.
Lita’s testimony
a. Her house is 50 meters away from
the house of her brotherinlaw. In the afternoon of July 13, 1971, she went to
the house of her brotherinlaw.
b. she saw, through the gate which
was made of split bamboos, the accused running away when she shouted to
Mirasol, who was then in the act of putting on her panties, to open the gate.
c. Mirasol opened the gate after she
had put on her panties. Entering the house, Lita asked Mirasol what the accused
did to her, but Mirasol did not answer. So, she hid and from her hiding place
she saw the accused emerge from his hiding place and run away, passing through
the gate of the fence.
d. Lita met Mirasol's father at
about 4:00 o'clock the same afternoon but she did not talk to him about what
she saw However, she revealed the incident to her husband
e. When Mirasol's mother returned
she had a conversation with her regarding the person of the accused and
thereafter Mirasol's mother filed the corresponding complaint against the
accused
8.
in support of the complaint of the mother of Mirasol, Lita executed an
affidavit wherein she stated, among other things:
a. That at about 3:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of July 13, 1971, I went to the house of Ruperto Magallanes, my
neighbor;
b. That when I entered their fence,
I found out that one Benben Paragsa ran from the bed where Mirasol Magallanes
was sitting on while putting on her panties;
c. That she, Mirasol Magallanes,
upon my arrival, did not say anything to me about the happening; and that I was
only thinking that something had happened
9.
the appellant enumerated and discussed five errors as having been
committed by the trial court. These errors may, however, be boiled down to the
issue of credibility.
10.
Appellant admits having sexual intercourse with Mirasol, but he stoutly
denied that he did so by employing force or intimidation. He claims he and
Mirasol were sweethearts; that on the day of the incident, it was Mirasol who
invited him to the latter's house where they had sexual intercourse after
kissing each other; and that the intercourse they had that afternoon was, as a
matter of fact, their third sexual intercourse
11.
The foregoing testimony of the accused was substantially corroborated
by two witnesses for the defense
Issue: WON the accused should be acquitted
Held: YES
A careful scrutiny of the record reveals that the
prosecution's evidence is weak, unsatisfactory and inconclusive to justify a
conviction. Certain circumstances negate the commission by the appellant of the
crime charged and point to the conclusion that the sexual intercourse between
the appellant and the complaining witness was voluntary.
Force and intimidation were not proven. Mirasol did
not offer any resistance or vocal protestation against the alleged sexual
assault. She could have easily made an outcry or resisted the appellant's
advances without endangering her life. But she did not. She was allegedly raped
in her own home, not far from her neighbors and during the daytime. If, indeed,
she was raped under the circumstances narrated by her, she could have revealed
the same the very moment she was confronted by her aunt Lita who asked her what
the accused did to her upon entering the house immediately after the
intercourse took place and when the accused ran from the bed to a storeroom of
the house to hide upon seeing and/or hearing the voice of her aunt Lita. or,
she could have grabbed the hunting knife by her side when the copulation was
going on, and with it she could have possibly prevented the accused from
consummating the sexual act. But she did not.
Another circumstance is that Mirasol did not reveal
immediately to her parents that she was raped. It was only after her mother
arrived from Sagay, Negros Occidental, three (3) days after the incident, and
confronted her about the rape incident that her mother learned through her aunt
Lita that she eventually revealed to her mother what the accused did to her in
the afternoon of July 13, 1971.
Still another circumstance is the fact that Mirasol
did not bother at all to rebut the testimony of the appellant and his witnesses
to the effect that the accused and Mirasol were actually sweethearts; and that
they had had two previous sexual communications before July 13, 1971, one of
which happened on June 29, 1971 in the house of the accused, where Mirasol and
the accused slept together in the evening of the same day after the mother of
the accused and Mirasol had returned from the town fiesta of Bantayan, Cebu
The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as
an implied admission of the truth of the statements uttered in his presence is
applicable in criminal cases. But before the silence of a party can be taken as
an admission of what is said, it must appear: (1) that he heard and understood
the statement; (2) that he was at liberty to interpose a denial; (3) that the statement
was in respect to some matter affecting his rights or in which he was then
interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer; (4) that the facts were
within his knowledge; and (5) that the fact admitted or the inference to be
drawn from his silence would be material to the issue
These requisites of admission by silence all
obtain in the present case. Hence, the silence of Mirasol on the facts
asserted by the accused and his witnesses may be safely construed as an
admission of the truth of such assertion.
One more circumstance which engenders serious doubt on
the truthfulness of Mirasol is the testimony of Dr. Gandiongco that he did not
notice any laceration in the walls of Mirasol's vagina. Considering Mirasol's
tender age, if she had no previous sexual experience, she must have been a
virgin when she was allegedly raped by the accused. Yet she did not state that
she felt some pain as the accused tried to insert his organ into her private
part. Neither did she state that she was bleeding during and after the alleged
forced coition. Instead, she matteroffactly narrated that the accused made
four push and pull movements after which the latter ejaculated — indicating
that he had an easy time doing it.
If WE are to believe her story, certainly the doctor
who examined her could have noticed the lacerations even after the lapse of
three (3) days from the coition, if the intercourse on July 13, 1971 was in
fact her first experience. WE believe the absence of lacerations in the walls
of Mirasol's vagina, as testified to by Dr. Gandiongco, supra, eloquently
confirms the truth of the accused's assertion that before the incident in
question, he and Mirasol had two prior copulations.
And still another circumstance which casts serious
doubt on the credibility of the complaining witness and her aunt Lita is the
matter of the hunting knife. While it is true that on the witness stand these
two witnesses practically corroborated each other on this particular point, the
matter of the accused having a hunting knife with him on the day of the
incident was not, however, mentioned by Mrs. Parochel in her affidavit, Exhibit
1, which she executed on July 30, 1971 — five months before she testified in
court. Besides, at the trial, the prosecution did not bother to present such
"hunting knife".
A last circumstance which also engenders serious doubt
on the veracity of Mrs. Parochel, whose testimony the trial court summarized,
runs thus:
... The victim did not answer the call of her aunt nor
did she open the barred door.
... She returned to the opened door and asked Mirasol
what had happened. Mirasol was very pale, trembling and in a state of
shock, did not answer her inquiries
Nowhere in the record is any evidence of Mirasol
having been in a state of shock.
If Mirasol was in fact in a state of shock —
1. How come she was able to put on her panties and
thereafter open the gate of the house when she heard her aunt Lita calling from
the outside?
2. Her aunt Lita would feel so alarmed and so
concerned that she would not lose any time to bring her to a doctor or to a
hospital for medical treatment or assistance;
3. Her aunt Lita would have confronted the accused who
was still hiding in the closet in a corner of the ground floor, or she would
have gone to the nearest police authority or barrio captain, who could have
easily apprehended the accused:
4. Her aunt could have sought the assistance of their
barriomates or neighbors; or
5. She could have brought Mirasol to her own house
which was on about 50 meters away
But what did she do? She abandoned Mirasol
"because" she Mirasol had to feed her hogs.That Mirasol was pale,
afraid and trembling can only be attributed to the fact that her aunt
discovered her having
sexual intercourse at so young an age and that she
feared that her aunt would report the same to her parents.
And if Mrs. Parochel really believed that her niece
Mirasol was raped by appellant about 3 o'clock that afternoon of July 13, 1971,
why did she not report the outrage to Mirasol's father — her husband's brother
— whom she met about 4 o'clock that same afternoon, just one hour after the
alleged rape?
Mrs. Parochel's close relationship to her
niecedaughter of her brotherinlaw — vitiates her credibility.
WHEREFORE, APPELLANT BIENVENIDO PARAGSA, ALIAS
"BENBEN", IS HEREBY ACQUITTED
No comments:
Post a Comment