[ G.R. No. L-45857. October 27, 1983 ] 210 Phil. 305; 82 OG No. 21, 4353 (May 26, 1986)
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-45857. October 27, 1983 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO SISON Y AVILES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MAKASIAR, J.:
In her sworn complaint, complainant Violeta Begino y Aquino accused defendant-appellant of forcible abduction with rape allegedly committed as follows:
“That on or about the 15th day of July, 1973, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused with lewd design, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation abduct the undersigned, by then and there forcibly dragging her into a tricycle, after which the undersigned was brought to a house located at Novaliches, this City where said accused by means of force and intimidation had carnal knowledge of the undersigned, all against the will and without the consent of the undersigned, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded to her under the provisions of the Civil Code.
“Contrary to law” (p. 2, rec.).
The trial court convicted him of the charge and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with accessories of the law, to indemnify the complainant in the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs, crediting him however with the entire period of his temporary detention.
Complainant Violeta Begino, a native of Cabcab, Catanduanes, was about 15 years and 10 months old on July 15, 1973, a Sunday. About 4 feet and 7 inches tall and weighing about 93 lbs., she was the housemaid of Jose Baruela of Galas, Quezon City.
Between 3 and 4 o’clock in the afternoon of Sunday, July 15, 1973, Violeta was standing at the corner of Luzon Avenue and Union Civica St., Galas, Quezon City, waiting for a ride to Quiapo, Manila to buy slippers for her employer. Appellant Ernesto Sison, then about 23 years old, who was courting her, approached her and invited her to take the tricycle he was then driving. When she refused, appellant allegedly drew his 7-inch knife and poked it at her abdomen, threatening to kill her if she did not board his tricycle. He allegedly seized her and forced her to get into the tricycle.
This is quite incredible because, on such Sunday afternoon, with many people passing by or idling in the vicinity, as Galas is thickly populated by low-income and middle-class groups – of which fact the Supreme Court can take judicial notice – she could have resisted and shouted for help. It was not easy for appellant to grab her and force her into the tricycle without being noticed by passers-by and by-standers. She claims that after she was seated inside the tricycle, appellant drove his tricycle to the España Rotonda, a busy intersection of España St., Manila, Quezon Avenue, España Extension (now E. Rodriguez Ave.), Mayon St., and Pulog St. going towards Galas, Quezon City. Said rotonda is over one kilometer from Galas, with several street corners to pass along the way.
With appellant driving the tricycle, complainant could have shouted for help while seated in the rear compartment for passengers behind him, since as aforestated, from the corner where she was allegedly forced to board the tricycle up to España Rotonda is quite a distance, with so many houses and several persons along the way. And children would be playing on the streets. Or she could have jumped out of the tricycle for a tricycle does not run fast and the tricycle is always open at its right side just behind appellant who was on the driver’s seat. Appellant could not be poking a knife with one hand at Violeta and driving the tricycle with the other hand.
From the España Rotonda, they took a passenger jeepney for Balintawak, Quezon City. They were allegedly the only passengers of the jeepney, with appellant holding her hands and telling her that he would kill her if she tried to go home. From España Rotonda to Balintawak is a distance of about five kilometers. Being a passenger jeepney, it presumably took the usual passenger jeepney routes. It would be unbelievable that all throughout the distance of about five kilometers, a Sunday afternoon, no other passenger boarded the jeepney between España Rotonda and Balintawak. The route of said jeepney must pass through Mayon St. towards North Cemetery beside Balintawak. But even assuming that they were the lone passengers of the jeepney throughout the distance she could have shouted for help or created a commotion to alert the jeepney driver. It is also possible that she must have seen policemen along the route, especially near the gate of the North Cemetery. The various jeepney routes from Quezon City to North Cemetery include Mayor Norberto Amoranto St. (formerly Retiro), Del Monte Avenue, Dapitan, LaongLaan St., and from Manila to the North Cemetery then to Balintawak, via Dimasalang St., and coming from Rizal Avenue Extension and passing the Chinese General Hospital via Blumentritt. Upon reaching the busy intersection in front of the North Cemetery gate, with a lot of people around, including employees of the gas station just across the gate of the North Cemetery, she could have screamed for help, but she did not.
At Balintawak, appellant allegedly brought her to the house of his aunt, to whom he allegedly introduced her as his girl-friend. After talking to her aunt, he and complainant left the house and rode in a passenger jeepney bound for Novaliches, Quezon City. There were other passengers inside the jeepney but she did not make any outcry nor ask help from the other passengers during that long trip from Balintawak to Novaliches, which is a lot farther than from España Rotonda to Balintawak. Balintawak is also a busy street all the way to Clover Leaf (the hub connecting to Novaliches) and there are many houses and shops along the way – more so upon reaching the busy market near the Clover Leaf. And then from Clover Leaf through Quirino Avenue towards Novaliches, there must have been numerous persons that Sunday afternoon, because Quirino Avenue is likewise a busy avenue, being the only route to Novaliches from the Clover Leaf and the traffic along that thoroughfare is heavy at all hours of the day because of the numerous passenger buses, jeepneys, cargo trucks, and private cars on the road. But she did not cry for help.
At Novaliches, appellant led her to the house of another aunt, Maria Aviles Reyes and took her purse containing P12.00. After eating their supper, appellant allegedly brought her to a room and ordered her to lie down. She resisted and appellant slapped her repeatedly. She became unconscious and upon regaining consciousness, she found herself naked with appellant on top of her and his penis inside her vagina “up to her stomach.” If she resisted as she claimed, there should have been some commotion and maybe pieces of furniture like chairs and tables being pushed or the sound of shuffling feet, accompanied by her cries or screaming indicating resistance. When he slapped her repeatedly, she must have shouted in pain and even cursed him aloud with the usual vulgar invectives. With such commotion, screaming, cries of pain and vulgar curses, it is unthinkable that the aunt and the rest of the inmates of the house would not have heard the same. They could have been curious about the commotion and could have frustrated whatever criminal intention appellant might have towards her.
She alleged that he had sexual intercourse with her three times that July 15 even as she was experiencing pain. The following day (July 16), he had sexual intercourse with her four times. Then on the third day (July 17), he did the same to her. They stayed in Novaliches from July 15 to July 21, 1973. Never did she complain to his aunt or to the other inmates of the house about what appellant did to her. During those six days, she must have gone out of the room to eat or to attend to personal necessities in the bathroom. During those six days too, his aunt and the other members of the family would have noticed her painful expression or her moaning in pain and would have asked her the cause of the same.
In the afternoon of July 21, 1973, appellant, with his mother and his aunt Maria, brought Violeta to his house in Sampaloc, Manila, and from there, to Violeta’s mother at 11-B Luzon Avenue, Galas, Quezon City. All the mother did was to slap her.
It should be stressed, as heretofore intimated, that this Court sitting in Metro Manila, can take judicial notice of the geography of said metropolis, and the approximate distance from Galas to España Rotonda, from España Rotonda to Balintawak, and from Balintawak to Novaliches, the passenger routes to said place, the nature of traffic along said routes, the heavy population in Metropolitan Manila, and the habits of the residents therein.
There is nothing in the record to indicate as to why her mother and her employer did not look for her during the six days that she was missing from the house of her employer and why they did not report to the police authorities said fact of her being missing for almost a week. Neither is there any intimation that her employer inquired about the money he gave to her to purchase slippers, which is quite unnatural.
All the foregoing circumstances not only negate the conclusion that she was sexually assaulted by appellant against her will, but also affirm that she went willingly with the appellant and submitted to his lewd design.
Consequently, the only possible conclusion is that she voluntarily went with appellant on that six-day tryst with him, for which appellant could have been convicted of consented abduction as Violeta was then over 12 but under 18 years of age (Art. 343, R.P.C.), if the complaint included the essential elements of abduction with consent (Valdepeña vs. People, 16 SCRA 871, April 30, 1966; U.S. vs. Asuncion, 31 Phil. 614, Oct. 2, 1915). Unfortunately, the complaint as aforequoted does not allege that the offended party was a virgin, over 12 years and under 18 years of age (Barba vs. People, 89 SCRA 112, March 28, 1979; People vs. Castro, 58 SCRA 473, Aug. 19, 1974; People vs. Samillano, 56 SCRA 573, April 22, 1974; People vs. Magat, 94 Phil. 118, Dec. 29, 1953).
Hence, the appellant should be acquitted of the charge.
WHEREFORE, APPELLANT ERNESTO SISON Y AVILES IS HEREBY ACQUITTED. WITH COSTS DE OFFICIO.
HIS IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS HEREBY ORDERED UNLESS HE IS HELD FOR SOME OTHER VALID CHARGES.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Plana, Escolin, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. Abad Santos and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., join J. Aquino in his dissent. De Castro, J., on leave.