Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
CONCLUSIONS:
1. No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries
noted on the body of the subject at the time of
examination.
2. Old healed superficial hymenal lacerations,
present.[7]
As to private complainant Rachelle C. Francisco,
the result of the examination by Dra. Ida P. Daniel
indicates that:
GENITAL EXAMINATION:
Pubic hair, fine, short, scanty. Labia majora,
coaptated. Labia minora, gaping. Fourchette, lax.
Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen, admits a
tube 2.5 cms., in diameter with moderate
II
III
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
ALIBI NOTWITHSTANDING THE EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
x x x x x x x x x.
xxxxxxxxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the
crime of rape is committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years
of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
10
11
12
13
14
15
xxxxxxxxx
16
17
xxxxxxxxx
Dra. Dayan said that abused wives react
differently to the violence: some leave the house,
or lock themselves in another room, or
sometimes try to fight back triggering physical
violence on both of them. She said that in a
normal marital relationship, abuses also happen,
but these are not consistent, not chronic, are not
happening day in [and] day out. In an abnormal
marital relationship, the abuse occurs day in and
day out, is long lasting and even would cause
hospitalization on the victim and even death on
the victim.
xxxxxxxxx
Dra. Dayan said that as a result of the battery of
psychological tests she administered, it was her
opinion that Marivic fits the profile of a battered
woman because inspite of her feeling of selfconfidence which we can see at times there are
really feeling (sic) of loss, such feelings of
humiliation which she sees herself as damaged
and as a broken person. And at the same time
she still has the imprint of all the abuses that she
had experienced in the past.
xxxxxxxxx
Dra. Dayan said Marivic thought of herself as a
loving wife and did not even consider filing for
nullity or legal separation inspite of the abuses. It
was at the time of the tragedy that Marivic then
thought of herself as a victim.
xxxxxxxxx
19. On 9 February 2001, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, a
physician, who has since passed away, appeared
and testified before RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City.
Dr. Pajarillo was a Diplomate of the Philippine
Board of Psychiatry; a Fellow of the Philippine
Board of Psychiatry and a Fellow of the
Philippine Psychiatry Association. He was in the
practice of psychiatry for thirty-eight (38) years.
Prior to being in private practice, he was
connected with the Veterans Memorial Medical
Centre where he gained his training on psychiatry
and neurology. After that, he was called to active
duty in the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
assigned to the V. Luna Medical Center for
twenty six (26) years. Prior to his retirement from
government service, he obtained the rank of
Brigadier General. He obtained his medical
degree from the University of Santo Tomas. He
was also a member of the World Association of
Military Surgeons; the Quezon City Medical
Society; the Cagayan Medical Society; and the
Philippine Association of Military Surgeons.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SO ORDERED.[40]
The accused, now appellants, interposed their
appeal from the decision of the trial court
contending that it committed reversible errors:
(a) in rejecting appellant Ronalds plea of selfdefense; and (b) in not acquitting appellant
Jaime, Jr. of the crime charged for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
Anent the first issue, appellant Ronald posits that
he adduced proof that he acted in self-defense
when he stabbed the victim.
The Court disagrees with appellant Ronald. The
Court has consistently held that like alibi, selfdefense is inherently weak because it is easy to
fabricate.[41] In a case where self-defense and
defense of relatives is invoked by the accused,
the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove
with clear and convincing evidence the essential
requisites of self-defense, namely (a) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to
repel or prevent it; and (c) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. There can be no complete or incomplete
self-defense or defense of relatives unless the
accused proves unlawful aggression on the part
of the victim.[42] The accused must rely on the
strength of his evidence and not on the weakness
of the evidence of the prosecution for by pleading
self-defense, the accused thereby admits having
killed the victim and he can no longer be
exonerated of the crime charged if he fails to
prove the confluence of the essential requisites
for self-defense and defense of a relative.[43]
32
33
34
35
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S PLEA OF SELFDEFENSE AND FINDING HIM GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF
MURDER.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT
APPRECIATING THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES IN FAVOR OF THE
ACCUSED APPELLANT.
The facts as may be gathered from the records of
the case are as follows:
At about 10:00 or 11:00 o'clock in the evening of
February 23, 1986, prosecution witnesses
Maximo Dinopol and his wife Pablita, who were
neighbors of the accused-appellant Cecilio, saw
accused-appellant with seven other persons
carrying a naked body of a dead person into his
(Cecilio) yard. The aforesaid witnesses alleged
having heard accused-appellant tell his
companions that they should have nothing to
worry about because he will take sole
responsibility for the death of the victim.
b)
wound incised, about 4 inches long,
lower jaw, with underlying bone cracked;
c)
wound, lacerated about 1/2 inch
parietal, left;
d)
wound, lacerated about 1/2 inch
parietal, right.
On the same day, at about 2:20 in the afternoon,
a beheaded human body had also been
examined at the residence of the parents of Pat.
Domiciano Dinopol in Samboan and the
significant findings are as follows:
a)
Wound, incised, 4 1/2" x 1" anterior,
thorax, right;
b)
wound, incised about 4" x 1" at the level
of the Xphoid, right;
c)
wound, incised about 4 1/2" x 1/2", left
lateral side of the body;
d)
left;
e)
wound, incised about 4 inches
supraeliac, left;
36
f)
wound, incised about 6 inches,
abdomen, some intestines exposed and some
portions severed.
Sgd. TRIFANA M. FERRAREN, M. D.
March 6, 1986. 2
The accused-appellant Cecilio Binondo declared
that he killed Pat. Domiciano Dinopol in selfdefense and presented his version of what
transpired, as follows:
At about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of February
23, 1986, he, together with his wife, Valentina
Binondo, his son, Rosendo, and Brgy.
Councilman Severino Dinopol went to the house
of the spouses Bilanghilot to drink tuba thereat.
They left the house at about 11:00 o'clock in the
evening. When they were near the Barangay
Health Center of Basak, the victim, carrying a
gun with the left hand and a bolo in his right
hand, suddenly emerged from under the mango
tree and approached him in an angry mood at the
same time brandishing his bolo as if in an act of
charging him, saying: "Why are you looking for
me? What is your purpose? 3 Valentina
interceded and tried to pacify Domiciano. To
avoid getting into trouble with the enraged victim,
he opted to walk away from him and proceeded
home with his son Rosendo. Severino also went
home ahead of Valentina.
About five minutes after he and Rosendo arrived
at their house, Valentina came gasping for breath
telling him to close all windows and doors
because Domiciano was following her and he
said he would kill Cecilio and Rosendo. Right
away he secured the front door, shut off all the
lights and got his air gun and bolo to defend
himself and his companions should Domiciano
carry out his threat. He also asked Rosendo to go
upstairs to take care of his (Rosendo) wife and
children on the second storey.
Pat. Domiciano Dinopol finally arrived and he
tried to force open the main door but failed. He
asked Cecilio to come out: shouting "Cilio, come
out I will break your head. 4 Domiciano went
towards the kitchen door, awaiting the attack by
Domiciano.
Domiciano forced open the kitchen door. When
he was about to enter with his head protruding
inside the kitchen, Cecilio aimed his rifle at the
head of Domiciano. From a distance of about one
and one half (1-1/2) feet, he fired the rifle. When
this happened, Domiciano was still holding his
firearm and his bolo.
After a single shot from the air gun, Domiciano
turned his head towards him and aimed his gun
37
38
vs.
SONNY BAUTISTA y LACANILAO, appellant.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
In rape, the "sweetheart" defense must be proven
by compelling evidence: first, that the accused
and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she
consented to the alleged sexual relations. The
second is as important as the first, because this
Court has held often enough that love is not a
license for lust.
The Case
Sonny Bautista y Lacanilao appeals the
September 13, 1999 Decision1 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 26) in
Criminal Case No. 96-148248, finding him guilty
of rape. The dispositive part of the Decision
reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this
Court finds accused SONNY BAUTISTA y
LACANILAO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
[of] the crime of Rape under Article 335 of the
Revised [P]enal Code of the Philippines, as
charged in the information. He is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua with all the accessory penalties
provided by law; to indemnify the private
complainant Mischel Amparo the sum of Fifty
Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos by way of moral
damages; and to pay the costs of this suit."2
The Information3 dated March 14, 1996, charged
appellant in these words:
"That on or about March 8, 1996, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd
designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously by means of force, violence and
intimidation, to wit: by then and there forcibly
carrying her and lying her in bed, placing himself
on top of her and kissing and embracing her
tightly, and when said complainant is resisting
and pushing him away from her, said accused
punched her thighs, remov[ed] her clothes and
panty and succeeded in having carnal knowledge
of her against her will and consent."4
Upon his arraignment on April 16, 1996,5
appellant, assisted by his counsel de oficio,6
pleaded not guilty. After trial in due course, the
court a quo rendered the assailed Decision.
The Facts
39
PRELIMINARY REPORT
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to certify that Dr. Maximo L. Reyes, NBI
Medico-Legal Officer, conducted a medico-genital
examination on Mischel Amparo y Amparado, 15
yrs. old, single, of Gen. De Dios Ext., Purok 4
Bgy. Bagong Silang, Q.C. on March 9, 1996 with
the hereunder findings:
40
41
42
Second Issue:
"Sweetheart" Defense
Contending that he and the victim were lovers,
appellant claims that what transpired was
consensual, though illicit, sexual intercourse.
His sweetheart defense must be rejected for lack
of corroboration. As an affirmative defense, it
must be established with convincing evidence35
-- by some documentary and/or other evidence
like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and
the like.36 In this case, the only thing he
proffered to prove that he and the victim were
lovers was his self-serving statement, which she
and her mother categorically denied.37
Besides, even if he and the victim were really
sweethearts, such a fact would not necessarily
establish consent.38 It has been consistently
ruled that "a love affair does not justify rape, for
the beloved cannot be sexually violated against
her will."39 The fact that a woman voluntarily
goes out on a date with her lover does not give
him unbridled license to have sex with her
against her will. This truism was reiterated in
People v. Dreu, from which we quote:
"A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex
against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand
sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse,
employ violence upon her on the pretext of love.
Love is not a license for lust."40
Also noteworthy is the fact that it was the wife of
appellant who (1) accompanied the victim and
her mother to police authorities to report the
incident and (2) informed them of his
whereabouts.41 Such reaction was obviously
inconsistent with that of a wife whose trust was
betrayed by her husband -- as the situation would
have been, if he and the victim were indeed
lovers.
43
44
CAUSE OF DEATH :
...
On December 7, 1992, another autopsy was
conducted at the Veronica Memorial Chapel by
Dr. Maximo L. Reyes, Medico-Legal Officer of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), who
submitted a more detailed description of the
injuries inflicted on the victim as incorporated in
his Medico-Legal Report No. N-92-3370, to wit :
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
Body, previously embalmed.
Hemothorax, 1,000 cc. right; 1,200 left, consisting
of fluid and clotted blood.
Hemorrhage, meningeal: subdural and
subarachnoidal, extensive.
45
46
CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER AND PLEA OF GUILT, AND THE
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELFDEFENSE AGAINST ACCUSED ALFREDO
GALLEGO.
III
THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO EXERCISE
COLD NEUTRALITY IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.[14]
In its Decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that all
the appellants are criminally liable as principals
by direct participation for the killing of Alexander
and that the crime was qualified by abuse of
superior strength; hence, the appellants are guilty
of murder, and sentenced the appellants, except
Alfredo to reclusion perpetua.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals certified the
case to this Court in view of the penalty imposed
on some of the appellants.
While awaiting resolution of the instant appeal,
appellant Samuel Dellona y Bebing filed on
February 2, 1999, an Urgent Motion to Withdraw
Appeal from the trial courts May 6, 1994
judgment. The Court, in a Resolution dated June
9, 1999,[15] dismissed the appeal insofar as
appellant Samuel B. Dellona was concerned. The
Resolution became final on July 21, 1999.
Hence, the present appeal involves only the
remaining three other appellants: Alfredo
Gallego, Leobert Gajeto and Erwin Villaros. The
May 6, 1994 Decision of Branch 48 of the
Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Masbate in
Criminal Case No. 6955 has now become final
and executory as to appellant Samuel Dellona.
The appellants did not file an additional Brief with
this Court; hence, this case will be resolved by
the Court on the basis of the Briefs of the parties
in the Court of Appeals.
The issues posed in this case may be
synthesized, thus: (a) whether appellant Alfredo
acted in self-defense; and (b) whether the three
appellants are guilty of murder.
Appellant Alfredo Gallegos
plea of self-defense is barren
of merit.
Like alibi, self-defense in criminal prosecutions is
a weak defense because it is easy to fabricate
and difficult to disprove.[16] Whether or not an
accused acted in self-defense, complete or
incomplete, is a factual issue to be determined by
the trial court based on the evidence on record.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54