THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
GRACIANO GENEVEZA y EVANGELISTA, accused- appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Nicanor B. Gatmaytan, Jr. for accused-appellant.

PADILLA, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision** of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, Branch
CLXIX (169) in Criminal Case No. 069-MN, convicting the accused-appellant Graciano Geneveza of
the crime of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

The People's version of the facts, as summarized by the Solicitor General, is as follows:

Nenita Obogne is a resident of Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City since July 27, 1982 (p.
4, tsn, Sir.6 28, 1983). Prior thereto, she resided in Riverside, Potrero, Malabon for a
period of twenty (20) years. She lived with her mother in a house located at the back
side of the Cosmos Bottling Company (pp. 4 & 5, Ibid).

On March 18, 1982, at around 8:00 p.m. Nenita was walking along Doña Juana road
in Malabon. She had just come from the house of Dr. Erlinda de la Cruz after paying
some obligations. While walking along said Dona Juana road, appellant Graciano
Geneveza poked a knife wrapped in a newspaper at her side and brought her to a
house located at the back of Cosmos Bottling Company. The house belongs to
Melanio Antipuesto (pp. 6-9, Ibid).

After she was brought to the house, Graciano Geneveza ordered her to take off her
clothings but she refused because she was afraid of him. Because of Nenita's
refusal, Graciano personally took off her clothes and after undressing Nenita, placed
himself on top and had carnal knowledge of her. Graciano succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with Nenita twice (pp. 9-12, tsn, Ibid).

After the intercourse, Graciano told her to dress up and they went out of the house at
around 6:00 o'clock in the morning. However, before going out of the house,
Graciano did not say anything to Nenita. Nenita also declared that that was the first
time she knew and saw Graciano Geneveza. (p. 13, Ibid).

She reported the incident only on August 5, 1982 to the Malabon Police Department
and she was examined by the PC Crime Laboratory on August 6, 1982 (pp. 15 & 18,
Ibid).

xxx xxx xxx

As a result of the sex act, Nenita became pregnant and she had herself examined by
a doctor at the San Lazaro Hospital who confirmed her pregnancy (p. 16, tsn, Sept,
 28, 1983). She eventually gave birth to Mark Anthony and Mark Angelo — twins (p.
18, tsn, Jan. 18, 1984).1

On the other hand, the testimony of the appellant Graciano Geneveza as summarized by the trial
court, goes thus:

... Accused Graciano Geneveza, Jr., 36 years old, married, forklift operator and
resident at 837 Vicente G. Cruz, Sampaloc, Manila, testified that he is married since
1976 with five (5) children; that he is presently employed with the Cosmos Bottling
Company as a forklift operator since April 2, 1975; that he knows Nenita Obogne
because she was tending a store near the company where he was working and used
to eat at her store from 1978 up to to 1980; that he saw Nenita Obogne on May 12,
1972; that they were together on March 18, 1982 at 8:00 o'clock in the evening-, that
he denied having forced and had carnal knowledge of Nenita Obogne on March 18,
1982; that on the said date she was in her carinderia cooking food where he greeted
her and he invited her for a walk and she agreed; that while they were walking, he
held her hand and invited her to a merienda and she consented also; that after taking
their snacks he invited her to take a walk until they reached the place of Melanio
Antipuesto at Doña Juana Road, Potrero, Malabon, Metro Manila; that he knocked at
the door of the house of Melanio Antipuesto and the door was opened; that he asked
for a privacy in the house and Melanio Antipuesto obliged and he told them 'Bahala
na kayo diyan' after which he left them; that after Melanio Antipuesto left them in the
house they had some kind of a romance and she voluntarily agreed as they love
each other; she voluntarily went with him and she gave him what he really likes 'pag-
amo-amo', caressing and kissing, that the next morning at 5:30 o'clock they parted
ways and gave her P50.00 for her transportation while he reported for work at 6:00
o'clock in the morning at Cosmos Factory. 2

Defense witness, Buenaventura Santos, Jr., corroborating the appellant's testimony, testified, also
as summarized by the Trial Court —

... that on March 18, 1982, he was working at the Cosmos Bottling Company from
6:00 o'clock in the morning up to 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon; that on the same date
he made a 'bale' and spent the amount in a drinking spree with Graciano Geneveza
and Nemesio Cabilan at Madis place which was 150 to 200 meters away from the
Cosmos Bottling Company and they reached the place by walking, that their drinking
was finished at 7:00 o'clock in the evening in the said place; that as Graciano
Geneveza would want to continue drinking they decided to go to the Antipuesto's
place where they could drink much cheaper; that on the way they met Nenita
Obogne and greeted her; that Graciano Geneveza invited Nenita Obogne to a
merienda but she did not agree; that Graciano Geneveza informed her that they were
going to Antipuesto's place and asked her again to go and finally she consented to
be with them; that before they went to Antipuesto's house they bought drinks and
pulutan; that he noticed Graciano Geneveza and Nenita Obogne as if they were
lovers but did not mind them; that they continued walking to the place of Antipuesto
and upon arrival, Graciano Geneveza knocked at the door and it was opened; that
while at the house they continued drinking and at 9:30 o'clock in the evening, he left
ahead leaving Nenita Obogne and Graciano Geneveza at Antipuestos place and that
he proceeded home. 3

On 13 December 1985, the trial court, finding more credible the prosecution's evidence, convicted
and sentenced the accused as follows:
 WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpertua with all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the costs. 4

On 17 April 1986, accused-appellant filed with this Court a Motion to Fix Bail Pending Appeal.
Subsequently, appellant, with leave of court, amended said motion. There being no objection
interposed thereto by the Solicitor General, the Court resolved to admit appellant to bail, but
increased his bail bond from P20,000.00 (amount initially fixed by the trial court) to P30,000.00.

In this appeal, the appellant raises the following assignments of errors:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE LONE AND SHAKY
TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINING WITNESS NENITA OBOGNE THAT SHE WAS
RAPED BY ACCUSED ON MARCH 18, 1982. DISREGARDING THE REPEATED
MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES OF NENITA OBOGNE.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN BRUSHING ASIDE THE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY

OF ACCUSED THAT NENITA OBOGNE VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED HERSELF
TO THE FORMER AT THE HOUSE OF MELANIO ANTIPUESTO.

III

LIKEWISE, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE

TESTIMONY OF BUENAVENTURA SANTOS, WITNESS OF ACCUSED,
CORROBORATES THE FACT OF VOLUNTARINESS [sic] AS OBOGNE AND
GENEVEZA WERE ON A ROMANTIC MOOD IN PROCEEDING TO THE HOUSE
OF MELANIO ANTIPUESTO.

IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DELAYED

REPORTING TO THE POLICE ON 5 AUGUST 1982 EXHIBIT 'A', AS WELL AS THE
DELAYED SUBMISSION TO A MEDICO LEGAL EXAMINATION ON AUGUST 6,
1985 [sic] EX- EXHIBIT 'E' GREATLY AFFECTED OBOGNE'S CREDIBILITY.

FINALLY, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED ON

THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT (Rollo, p. 73)

As the Court sees it, the issue boils down to the credibility of the complaining witness herself. We
find merit in the appeal.

The prosecution contends that the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant, by force. The
defense claims that Nenita, the complainant, voluntarily submitted herself to the accused. The
question, therefore, is was there really rape?
Due to the nature of the crime of rape, we have been compelled to carefully examine the records of
this case to unearth the truth behind the charge. As held in People vs. Quintal: 5

There is no question that rape is a most detestable crime and should, therefore, be
severely and partially punished. But a rape charge is easy to make, hard to prove
and harder to defend by the party accused, though innocent (Cornelio Flores, 26
Phil. 262. 268; Ignacio Landicho, 8 ACR 580; Rafael Lacson, CA 53 O.G. 1823;
Francisco Salvador, CA 52 O.G. 7290; Lago, CA 45 O.G. 1356; Barbo, 56 SCRA
459). Experience has shown that unfounded charges of rape have frequently been
preferred by women actuated by some sinister, ulterior or undisclosed motive.
Convictions for such crime should not be sustained without clear and convincing
proof of guilt. (Bay, 27 Phil. 495; Pantaleon Ramos, 35 Phil. 671; Brocal, CA 36 O.G.
857; Topacio, CA 36 O.G. 1358). On more than one occasion it has been pointed out
that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the injured woman should not be
received with precipitate credulity. When the conviction depends on any vital point
upon her uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity
and candor are free from suspicion. A little insight into human nature is of utmost
value in judging matters of this kind (Fernando Vausto, 51 Phil. 852) (See The
Revised Penal Code, Vol. III, 1977 Edition, pp. 1679-1680, by Justice Ramon
Aquino).

There are three (3) well-known principles that guide an appellate court in reviewing
the evidence presented in a prosecution for the crime of rape and these are: (1) that
an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove it but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) that in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) that
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

With these three (3) guiding principles in mind, and after a close examination of the records, we hold
that the People failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that rape was committed in the case at bar.

As defined in Article 335 of Revised Penal Code —

Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the

following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the
circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present...

In the instant case, the prosecution did not show with convincing proof that Nenita demonstrated
substantial resistance to the rape allegedly committed by the accused on her. Nenita, when asked
about the fact that the accused dragged and undressed her, and later placed himself on top of her,
would consistenty 'answer that she did not shout or struggle; neither was it shown that the accused
himself used any force, threat or intimidation upon her. The testimony of Nenita reads:

Fiscal Manalaysay (on direct)

 Q From the time the accused poked a knife at your
side up to the time the accused dragged you to the
house did the accused tell you anything?

A None, Sir. 6

xxxxxxxxx

Q And then after the accused succeeded in

undressing you what did the accused do to you?

A He placed himself on top of me.

Q Did you not resist when the accused placed [sic] on

top of you?

A No more Sir because I was very much afraid. 7

xxxxxxxxx

Q Did you remember how many times did Graciano

Geneveza succeed in having sexual intercourse with
you?

A Twice Sir.

Q After this intercourse what did Graciano Geneveza

do to you?

A He told me to dress up.

Q After telling [sic] you to dress up, what did you do?

A Both of us went out of the house already.

xxxxxxxxx

Q Before you came out of the house do you

remember if Graciano Geneveza told you anything.?

A None, Sir. (Emphasis supplied) 8

xxxxxxxxx

Atty. Untalan (on cross)

Q Now, you said when the accused poked a knife

against you, he dragged you to a certain house at the
back of the Cosmos Building, is that right?
 A Yes, Sir.

Q Did you not attempt to shout nor struggle?

A No, Sir I was afraid 9

x x x xxx xxx

Q While he was undressing you did you attempt to

shout to protect yourself?

A No, Sir because I am afraid he might kill me just in

case [sic] I shout. 10

Clearly, therefore, Nenita failed to make an outcry before, during and even after the alleged rape.
She said that the reason why she did not shout or struggle is because she was afraid the accused,
claimed to be armed with a knife, might kill her. Yet, the records of the case do not show that
throughout the alleged rape, the accused had consistently threatened or forced complainant at knife-
point, except at that time when she was allegedly dragged to the house by the accused with a knife
poked at her side.

Neither did Nenita successfully demonstrate that the accused in raping her used upon her any force
of whatever nature or form. Her explanation for failure to shout or struggle is too general and
unconvincing to make this Court believe that she showed tenacious resistance to the alleged sexual
advances made on her by the accused. And if ever she put up any struggle or objected at all to the
complained intercourse, such was not enough to show the kind of resistance expected of a woman
defending her virtue and honor. Well settled is the rule that in the crime of rape, alleged to have
been committed by force, it is essential that the element of voluntariness on the part of the victim be
absolutely lacking.11

In the instant case, Nenita's resistance or struggle is not sufficiently shown to prove that the
intercourse complained of was not completely voluntary.

Moreover, it is unusual that, after the alleged rape, Nenita who was already of legal age at the time,
would not tell her mother about it, and would subject herself to physical examination only after four
(4) months had lapsed from the time the incident happened. Nenita testified as follows:

Atty. Untalan (on cross)

Q This witness [sic] happened on March 18, 1982,

you did not submit yourself for medical examination,
is that right?

A Yes, Sir.

Q And that was some time on August 6, 1982?

A Yes, Sir.

Q In other words there was [sic] four months that

lapsed after [sic] you consulted to a doctor?
A Yes, Sir.

Q Why did it take you four months before you decided

to consult to [sic] a Doctor?

A Because I was afraid in fact I did not tell the incident

to my mother as I was afraid she might kill me.

Q Going back to the time when you left the house

where the alleged incident happened of course you
went back to your residence did your mother or
anybody from the house ask you as to why you were
late?

A Yes, Sir.

Q What did she ask?

A She asked me where I came from and I told her I do

not know where I came from and I do not know where
I slept that night.

xxxxxxxxx

Q Did your mother insist on asking you as to where

you were that previous night?

A No, Sir.

Q By the way before you went to the Dr. for

examination did you finally inform your mother or
anybody from your house as to what had happened to
you?

A No, Sir.

Q And what was your basis in going to the Dr. if you

did not inform your mother or anybody in the house as
to what had happened to you?

A It was there when I was there at the Doctor I was

informed that something happened to me.

Q Court: (to witness)

xxxxxxx