4/21/2016

PeoplevsPadrigone:137664:May9,2002:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.137664.May9,2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. ROBERTO PADRIGONE

a.k.a.ROBERTOSANMIGUEL,accusedappellant.
DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

Roberto Padrigone a.k.a. Roberto San Miguel, Michael SanAntonio, Jocel Ibaneta andAbelardo
Triumpantewerechargedwithrapeinanamendedinformationwhichreads:
Thatonoraboutthe3rddayofJanuary,1995,inSalvacion,Buhi,CamarinesSur,Philippinesandwithin
thejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,conspiring,confederatingtogether
andmutuallyhelpingeachotherandbymeansofforceandintimidation,didthenandtherewillfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgewith(sic)RowenaContridasagainstherwill,toher
damageandprejudiceintheamountthatmaybeprovenincourt.
Actscontrarytolaw.[1]
Alltheaccusedpleadednotguilty.Trialonthemeritsthereafterensued.
Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:
Itappearsthatat3:00inthemorningofJanuary3,1995,appellantRobertoPadrigoneandtheother
accusedbrokeintothehouseofRowenaContridas,then16yearsold,situatedinSanBenito,Salvacion,
Buhi,CamarinesSur.AppellantRobertoPadrigoneandaccusedJocelIbanetapokedaknifeatRowena
and her fourteen yearold sister, Nimfa,[2] and threatened to kill them if they reported the incident to
others. They gagged Rowena with a handkerchief and Nimfa with a handtowel. Then, appellant
undressedRowena,forcedhertoliedownandsexuallyviolatedherwhilehiscoaccusedwatchedwith
glee.AccusedJocelIbanitatriedtorapeNimfabutfailedbecauseshewasabletoeludehim.
After appellant satisfied his lust on Rowena, the other accused took their turns. Every one of the
accusedrapedRowena.Before they left, they warned the sisters not to report the incident or else they
willkillthem.
Despitethethreats,RowenaandNimfareportedtheincidenttothepoliceandidentifiedappellant
andhiscoaccusedastheperpetrators.However,basedonthepoliceblotter,Rowenastatedthatitwas
onlyappellantwhorapedher.
Dr.DamianaClaveria,MunicipalHealthOfficer,conductedamedicalexaminationonRowenaand
foundthefollowing:
patientverytalkative,incoherentastoquestionsasked.
PEnosignsofexternalinjury
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/137664.htm

1/6

4/21/2016

PeoplevsPadrigone:137664:May9,2002:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

IEhymenaltear,recent6,9dontbleedonmanipulation,butcomplainedoftendernessuponinsertionof
1finger,copiousvaginaldischarge.[3]
AccordingtoDr.Claveria,thereisapossibilitythatthefluidsfoundinsideRowenasvaginamaybe
semen.SheaddedthatitwaspossibleforRowenatohaveonlytwohymenaltearseveniffourmenhad
sexualintercoursewithher.
Dr. Chona C. Belmonte, a psychiatrist of Cadlan Mental Hospital in Pili, Camarines Sur, testified
thatwhilesheinterviewedRowena,thelatterwascrying,incoherentandhadshoutingepisodes.Shewas
confined at the Cadlan Mental Hospital for further treatment. Upon further medical consultation, Dr.
Belmonteobservedthus:
Rowenawasinadepressedmoodandatthesametimeoveractive.Shewascombative,violent,andwas
experiencingauditoryhallucination,meaning,sheheardthingsthatonlyshecouldhear.Shewasalso
grandiouslydeluded,falselybelievingthatshecoulddothingsotherscouldnotdo.Bythattime,
accordingtoDr.Belmonte,Rowenahadalreadylosttouchwithreality.[4]
Dr.BelmontediagnosedherillnessasAcutePsychoticDepressiveCondition. [5]Shefoundthather
mental disorder was not hereditary because before the incident took place, she did not exhibit any
unusualbehavior.Sheconcludedthathermentalillnesswasstronglyrelatedtoatraumaticexperience.
Shenotedthatatonepointinthetreatment,Rowenaconfidedtoherthatshewasraped.[6]
Alltheaccused,includingappellantRobertoPadrigone,interposedthedefenseofdenialandalibi.
Appellant claimed that in the evening of January 2, 1995, he and his companions, Jocel Ibanita and
Michael SanAntonio, visited Rowena at her house.According to him, Rowena was crying when they
arrived.Whenappellantaskedherwhatwaswrong,shetoldhimthatshewantedtoelopewithhim.He
repliedthathewasnotreadyashewasstillstudying.Rowenasnapped,itsuptohimbuthemightregret
it.[7] While appellant and Rowena were talking, Jocel Ibanita and Michael San Antonio were in the
kitchen cooking noodles. Later, a certain Ismeraldo Quirante, in the presence of several barangay
watchmenpatrollingthearea,passedbytheContridashouseandadvisedtheaccusedtogohomebecause
itwasgettinglate.TheyheededtheadviceandlefttheContridashouseataround11:30p.m.
The trial court gave credence to the prosecution evidence and rendered a decision, the dispositive
portionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,thisCourtfindstheaccused,ROBERTO
PADRIGONEa.k.a.ROBERTOSANMIGUEL,GUILTYofthecrimeofRape,underArticle335ofthe
RevisedPenalCode(asamendedbySection11,R.A.7659)andherebysentenceshimtosuffer
imprisonmentofRECLUSIONPERPETUA,consideringthemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntary
surrender.Heislikewisedirectedtoindemnifytheoffendedparty,RowenaContridas,theamountof
FiftythousandPesos(P50,000.00)asmoraldamagesandtopaythecostsofthissuit.AccusedJOCEL
IBANITA,MICHAELSANANTONIOandABELARDOTRIUMPANTEareACQUITTEDfor
insufficiencyofevidence.ItbeingshownthatthethreeaccusedarepresentlydetainedattheMunicipal
JailatPNP,Buhi,CamarinesSur,theirimmediatereleaseisherebyordered.
SOORDERED.[8]
Appellantinterposedtheinstantappealbasedonthefollowingarguments:
I

THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINCONVICTINGACCUSEDAPPELLANTOFTHE
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/137664.htm

2/6

4/21/2016

PeoplevsPadrigone:137664:May9,2002:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

CRIMEOFRAPEINSPITEOFTHEINHERENTWEAKNESSESANDINSUFFICIENCYOF
PROSECUTIONSEVIDENCE.
II

THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINDECIDINGTHEINSTANTCASENOTIN
ACCORDANCEWITHTHEESTABLISHEDPRINCIPLEINCRIMINALLAWTHATTHE
PROSECUTIONMUSTRELYONTHESTRENGTHOFITSEVIDENCEANDNOTONTHE
WEAKNESSOFTHATOFTHEDEFENSE.
Appellant contends that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond
reasonabledoubt.
Appellantarguesthataccordingtotheprosecutionwitness,Nimfa,heandhiscoaccusedMichael
SanAntonio,AbelardoTriumpante and Jocel Ibanita, took turns in raping Rowena while Jocel Ibanita
alsoattemptedtorapeher.However,afterpreliminaryinvestigation,theMunicipalTrialCourtofBuhi,
Camarines Sur, dismissed Nimfas complaint for attempted rape against Jocel Ibanita because of its
findingsthatthelattercommittedonlyactsoflasciviousness,consideringhisvoluntaryandspontaneous
desistance from continuing to perform the acts leading to carnal knowledge. Furthermore, the
investigatingJudgeentertaineddoubtsaboutthetruthofherstory,whichwasuncorroborated.[9]
WeagreewiththefollowingobservationoftheSolicitorGeneral:
[T]hedismissalofthecomplaintforattemptedrapefiledbyNimfaagainstoneoftheaccused,Jocel
Ibanita,duringthepreliminaryinvestigationstageshouldnotdetractfromthecredibilityofher
testimony.Eveniftheprosecutionwantedto,themeritsofthedismissalofNimfascomplaintfor
attemptedrapecouldnotbeproperlychallengedinthecriminalproceedingsbelowsincethesaid
proceedingsinvolvedonlytheculpabilityofthefouraccusedforthecrimeofrapecommittedagainst
Rowena,thesisterofNimfa.[10]
Appellant further claims that Nimfas lack of credibility was underscored when the trial court
acquittedappellantscoaccused.Appellantsclaimisnotwelltaken.Evidenceshowsthatthetrialcourt
acquittedappellantscoaccusedbecauseofdoubtengenderedontheextentoftheirparticipationinthe
sexualassaultcommittedagainstRowenainlightofRowenasownstatementasrecordedinthepolice
blotter.[11]
Appellant alleges that Nimfas reactions after the rape of her sister are unnatural, unexpected and
mindboggling,[12] specifically when she resumed her sleep after having been raped and even reported
for work the following day.The contention deserves scant consideration. It is an accepted maxim that
differentpeoplereactdifferentlytoagivensituationortypeofsituationandthereisnostandardformof
behavioralresponsewhenoneisconfrontedwithastrangeorstartlingexperience.[13]
Further,appellantarguesthatNimfaadmittedbeforethepolicethatshedidnotrecognizetherapists
ofRowena.Inthisconnection,wequotewithapprovaltheobservationoftheSolicitorGeneral,towit:
AnenttheportionofNimfastestimonywhereinsheadmittedtothedefensecounselthatshetoldthe
ChiefofPolicethatshewasnotabletorecognizethepersonswhorapedhersisterRowena,thesameis
capableofexplanation.AccusedappellantRobertoPadrigonewaspresentwhenNimfautteredthe
statement.Hence,shewasafraidtotellthetruthbecauseoftheearlierthreattoherandsisterRowenas
livesbyaccusedappellantPadrigone.[14]
We find that Nimfas credibility has not been impaired despite rigorous crossexamination.In fact,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/137664.htm

3/6

4/21/2016

PeoplevsPadrigone:137664:May9,2002:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

defense counsel was not able to point to any inconsistency in Nimfas testimony. A perusal of the
transcriptsofstenographicnotesrevealsthatshewassteadfastinnarratingthecircumstancesoftherape
andinpointingtoappellantasoneoftheperpetrators.
Appellant likewise alleges that it was error for the trial court to have dismissed his sweetheart
defensebythemereabsenceoflovenotes,mementosorpictures.
InPeoplev.Corea,[15]weheldthat:
xxxMoreover,evenifsuchavermentistrue,itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthatnorapecanbe
committedagainstonessweetheart.Sucharelationshipprovidesnolicensetoexploreandinvadethat
whicheveryvirtuouswomanholdssodearlyandtrampleuponherhonoranddignity.Thatrelationshipis
heldsacredbymanyxxx.Asweetheartcannotbeforcedtoengageinsexualintercourseagainsther
will.Asamatteroffact,proofevenofapriorhistoryofacommonlawmaritalrelationshipwillnot
prevailoverclearandpositiveevidenceofcopulationbytheuseofforceorintimidation.
Regardless,themosttellingindicationthatwouldbelieappellantssweethearttheorywasthefactthat
hehadcarnalknowledgeofRowenainthepresenceofNimfaandhiscoaccused.Itismostunnaturalfor
loverstoengageintheultimateexpressionoftheirloveforeachotherinthepresenceofotherpeople.
Appellant assails the procedural irregularities committed by the prosecution and by the trial court.
HeclaimsthattheprosecutionsuppressedevidencebynotpresentingRowena,thevictim,whenthelatter
should have had her sane moments. As a consequence, the trial court deprived appellant of the
opportunitytocrossexamineherwhensheallegedlydeclaredbeforetheChiefofPoliceofBuhithatit
wasonlyappellantwhorapedherwhichdeclarationbecamethebasisforthelattersconviction.
Appellantscontentionismisplacedifnotmisleading.ThebasisofhisconvictionwasnotRowenas
declarationbeforetheChiefofPolicebutratherNimfastestimonybeforethetrialcourtthatitwashim
whorapedRowena,amongothers.[16]Infact,thetrialcourtfound,thus:
xxxTheevidenceadducedbythepartiesinthiscasedisclosedthataccusedRobertoPadrigone,a.k.a.
RobertoSanMiguel,JocelIbanita,MichaelSanAntonioandAbelTriumpanteenteredthedwellingof
theContridassistersat3:00a.m.ofJanuary3,1995,andatknifepointsuccessivelyrapedRowena
Contridas,a16yearoldlass.Thevictimbecameinsaneaftertheincidentandwasnotabletotestifyin
Court.NimfaContridas,herfourteenyearoldsister,whowasalsopresentthattimenarratedtheincident
whenhereldersistersinnocencewasforciblyviolated.Accusedinterposedthedefenseofdenialand
alibi.xxx
TheprosecutionhasestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubtthataccusedRobertoPadrigoneravished
RowenaContridasagainstherwillandconsent,andwiththeuseofabladedweapon.[17]
Besides,thenonpresentationofRowenaonthewitnessstandcannotbeconsideredassuppression
of evidence. Under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that evidence willfully
suppressed would be adverse if produced does not apply if (a) the evidence is at the disposal of both
parties (b) the suppression was not willful (c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative and (d) the
suppressionisanexerciseofaprivilege.[18]
Plainly,therewasnosuppressionofevidenceinthiscase.First,thedefensehadtheopportunityto
subpoenaRowenaeveniftheprosecutiondidnotpresentherasawitness.Instead,thedefensefailedto
call her to the witness stand. Second, Rowena was certified to be suffering from Acute Psychotic
DepressiveConditionandthuscannotstandjudicialproceedingsyet.[19]Thenonpresentation,therefore,
ofRowenawasnotwillful.Third,inanycase,whileRowenawasthevictim,Nimfawasalsopresentand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/137664.htm

4/6

4/21/2016

PeoplevsPadrigone:137664:May9,2002:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

infactwitnessedtheviolationcommittedonhersister.
AppellantcannotclaimthatthetrialcourterredinconvictinghimonthebasisofRowenasstatement
as recorded in the police blotter. His conviction was based on the trial courts findings of facts and
assessmentofthewitnessescredibility.Wellsettledistherulethatthefindingsoffactsandassessment
ofcredibilityofwitnessesisamatterbestlefttothetrialcourtbecauseofitsuniquepositionofhaving
observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses deportment on the stand while
testifying,whichopportunityisdeniedtotheappellatecourts.Onlythetrialjudgecanobservethefurtive
glance,blushofconsciousshame,hesitation,flippantorsneeringtone,calmness,sigh,orthescantorfull
realizationofanoath,allofwhichareusefulaidsforanaccuratedeterminationofawitnesshonestyand
sincerity.Thetrialcourtsfindingsareaccordedfinality,unlessthereappearsintherecordsomefactor
circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated
andwhich,ifproperlyconsidered,wouldaltertheresultsofthecase.[20]
Besides, in rape cases where the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of
twelve to sixteen, we have consistently held that the victims version of what transpired deserves
credence, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to
whichsuchagruelingexperienceasacourttrial,wheretheyarecalledupontolaybarewhatperhaps
shouldbeshroudedinsecrecy,exposedthemto.Thisisnottosaythatanuncriticalacceptanceshouldbe
therule.Itisonlytoemphasizethatskepticismshouldbekeptundercontrol.[21]
Nonetheless,noyounganddecentFilipinawouldpubliclyadmitthatshewasravishedandherhonor
taintedunlessthesameweretrue,foritwouldbeinstinctiveonherparttoprotectherhonorandobtain
justiceforthewickedactscommitteduponher.[22]Nottobeoverlookedisthecomplainantswillingness
to face police investigators and to submit to a physical examination which are eloquent and sufficient
affirmationsofthetruthofhercharge.[23]
As regards the matter of damages, the trial court ordered accusedappellant to indemnify the
offendedparty,RowenaContridas,theamountofFiftyThousandPesos(P50,000.00)asmoraldamages.
[24]InPeoplev.Belga,[25]itwasheldthatcivilindemnityismandatoryuponthefindingofthefactof
rapeitisdistinctfromandshouldnotbedenominatedasmoraldamageswhicharebasedondifferent
juralfoundationsandassessedbythecourtintheexerciseofsounddiscretion.Thus, consistently with
present case law which treats the imposition of civil indemnity as mandatory upon a finding of rape,
accusedappellantisorderedtopaytheadditionalamountoffiftythousand(P50,000.00)pesosascivil
indemnityexdelicto.[26]
WHEREFORE,based on theforegoing,theassailed Decision, findingaccusedappellantRoberto
Padrigonea.k.a.RobertoSanMiguelguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrapeandsentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is
ordered to pay Rowena Contridas civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 in addition to moral
damagesintheamountofP50,000.00.Costsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Puno,Kapunan,andAustriaMartinez,JJ.,concur.
[1]Rollo,p.10.
[2]SpelledasNymphainherAffidavitandintheTSNs.
[3]ExhibitA,Records,p.219.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/137664.htm

5/6

4/21/2016

PeoplevsPadrigone:137664:May9,2002:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

[4]AppelleesBrief,Rollo,pp.112113.
[5]ExhibitB,Records,pp.220221.
[6]TSN,June17,1997,pp.711.
[7]TSN,January14,1998,p.4.
[8]Decision,Records,p.283.
[9]Ibid.,pp.4869.
[10]SeeNote4,p.118.
[11]Supra,p.117.
[12]AppellantsBrief,Rollo,p.77.
[13]Peoplev.Dy,G.R.Nos.11523637,January29,2002.
[14]AppelleesBrief,Rollo,p.119,citingTSN,May15,1996,pp.1112.
[15]269SCRA76[1997]citingPeoplev.Cabilao,210SCRA326[1992].
[16]TSN,January25,1996,pp.310.
[17]Decision,Records,pp.281282.
[18]Peoplev.Andal,279SCRA474[1997].
[19]SeeNote22,p.278.
[20]Peoplev.Mangat,310SCRA101[1999].
[21]Peoplev.Castillo,335SCRA100[2000].
[22]Peoplev.Palma,308SCRA466[1999].
[23]SeeNote20.
[24]Decision,Records,p.283.
[25]Peoplev.Belga,G.R.No.129769,January19,2001.
[26]Peoplev.Antonio,333SCRA211[2000].

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/137664.htm

6/6