4/17/2017 People vs Salvador : 136870-72 : January 28, 2003 : J.

Puno : Third Division

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.Nos.13687072.January28,2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. WILSON SALVADOR y

GAGARIN,accusedappellant.

DECISION
PUNO,J.:

BeforeusisanappealfromthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofCauayan,Isabela,Branch
19,inCriminalCaseNo.191191promulgatedonOctober20,1998,findingaccusedappellantWilson
SalvadoryGagaringuiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrape.[1]
TheInformationinCrim.CaseNo.191191states:

That on or about the 30th day of August, 1995, in the municipality of San Mateo, province of Isabela,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of force and
intimidation, and with lewd designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lay (sic) with; and
have carnal knowledge with (sic) one Myra S. Aucena, against her will and consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]

Accusedpleadednotguiltyuponarraignmentandunderwenttrial.
It appears from the evidence that private complainant, Myra S. Aucena, is the niece of the
accused,beingthedaughterofhisoldersister,LydiaSalvador.Shewastwoyearsofagewhenher
motherdiedin1979.HerpaternalgrandparentsbroughtherupinManaoag,Pangasinanwhereshe
stayeduntilshefinishedhersecondaryeducation.Aftergraduationfromhighschool,thebrothersof
herlatemother,namely,Maximo,WenceslaoandNestor,allsurnamedSalvador,offeredtosendher
tocollege.Itwasagreedthatshestaywithhermaternalgrandmother,PriscilaSalvador,atthelatters
residence at Salinungan East, San Mateo, Isabela to facilitate her studies.[3] She transferred there
aroundMarch1995.[4]
Priscilas house consists of two stories. Priscila slept at the ground floor, while accused Wilson,
Priscilas son and Myras uncle, slept at the second floor. The second floor has only one room but is
dividedintotwosleeping quarters by a collapsible divider. Myra used tosleepwithhergrandmother
Priscila.However,inAugust1995,shewasadvisedbyPriscila,whowasthensick,tosleepupstairsto
avoidbeingcontaminatedbyherillness.AccusedWilsonsleptonabedatonesidewhileMyraslept
onthebamboofloorattheothersideofthedivider.[5]
MyratestifiedthatintheearlyeveningofAugust30,1995,shewasawakenedbyaheavyweight
on top of her. She recognized the person to be accused Wilson, her uncle. She froze because the
accusedwaspokingaknifeatherrightneck,atthesametimetellinghersaankangaagriyaotano
agriyaokapatayinka(DontshoutorelseIwillkillyou).[6]Accusedkissedallpartsofherbodywhile
shewasstilldressed.Thereafter,stillholdingtheknifewithhislefthand,accusedremovedhershirt,
shortpants,pantyandbrawithhisrighthand.Hemashedherbreasts,forciblyseparatedhertwolegs
andsucceededinhavingsexualintercoursewithher.Havingbeenseizedwithfear,shewasnotable
todoanythingbutcryaftertheaccusedwasdonewithhisbastardlyact.Thisabusewasrepeatedon
severaloccasionsforoverayearduringherstaywithhergrandmotherandtheaccused.[7]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/136870_72.htm 1/7
4/17/2017 People vs Salvador : 136870-72 : January 28, 2003 : J. Puno : Third Division

Myrastoppedlivinginthehouseofhergrandmotherwhenanotheruncle,NestorSalvador,took
herandbroughthertohishouseinCalamagui,Ilagan,IsabelaonJanuary19,1997.OnFebruary24,
1997,herfather,SisenandoAucena,fetchedherfromNestorshousebecausehisyoungerson,Luther
John,suspectedthatsomethingwaswrongwithher.Whilethere,Sisenandonoticedherpregnancy.
Myra thus had to reveal the ordeal she underwent in the hands of the accused. She gave birth to
CherryMayonJune20,1997asaresultoftheforcedcoitus.
Sisenando Aucena, the father of Myra, testified as to the efforts of Dolores Ramones, Panting
Manuel, Sangguniang member Pulig, Sangguniang member Fermin, Nestor Salvador, Santiago
Manguba, Maura Salvador, Angelito Manguba and Kagawad Dominador Bonalos, relatives of the
accused,toseekacompromiseagreementorsettlementofthecaseoftheaccused.Theyfirstoffered
togivethelandsupposedtobeinheritedbyhis(Sisenandos)children.Theyalsoofferedtogivethe
landthatwassupposedtobeinheritedbyWilsonSalvador.However,therelativesdidnotcomplywith
theirpromisesothesettlementdidnotmaterialize.
AccusedappellantdeniedtherapechargeandallegedthatitwasMyrawhoseducedhimandthat
whatoccurredwasconsentedsexualintercourseastheysharedaromanticrelationship.He claimed
thatitwasMyrawhofirstcametohisbedtosleepwithhiminthemonthofJuly1995.Hescoldedher
buteventually,theydevelopedmutualloveforeachotherandthushadnumerousconsentedsex.He
alsodeniedknowledgeoftheofferofcompromiseofhisrelatives.Heallegedlydidnotauthorizethem
toenterintoanysettlementwithSisenando.[8]
As aforestated, the trial court rendered a joint decision convicting the accused on one count of
rape committed on August 30, 1995, and acquitting him from the two other counts committed on
September6,1995andOctober4,1996,thedispositiveportionofwhichstates:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed on 30 August 1995 and
charged in Criminal Case No. 19-1191, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to
indemnify the offended party, Myra S. Aucena in the amount of P200,000.00; and

2. For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitting him from
the offense charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 19-1189 and 1190.

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.[9]

From this decision, the accusedappellant interposed the present appeal, raising the following
assignmentoferrors:
I.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE
SINCE NO FORCE WAS EMPLOYED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE
OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.[10]

Theappealhasnomerit.
At the time the acts were committed by the accused, rape was punished under Article 335,
paragraph1oftheRevisedPenalCode.Itcanbecommittedbyhavingcarnalknowledgeofawoman

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/136870_72.htm 2/7
4/17/2017 People vs Salvador : 136870-72 : January 28, 2003 : J. Puno : Third Division

underanyofthefollowingcircumstances:

a.) Through force, threat or intimidation;

x x x x x x x x x.

Thegravamenofrapeiscarnalknowledgeofawomanagainstherwillorwithoutherconsent.[11]
Appellantarguesthatthetrialcourterredwhenitfailedtoappreciatethefactthatthevictimdid
not offer any resistance against the alleged sexual assault made by the accusedappellant. He
contendsthatduringtheact,thevictimnevershoutedforhelpnorcreatedanycommotionthatcould
havearousedhergrandmotherintocomingtoheraid.Thesecircumstances,accordingtohim,show
that no force was employed by the accused and that what happened was the product of two (2)
personsfreelyandvoluntarilyconsentingtoeachothersadvances.[12]
We disagree. The evidence is clear that accused forced Myra to have sexual intercourse. She
testified:
Atty.Garcia:
Q:Whiletheaccusedwashavingsexualintercoursewithyou,didyounotresisthim?
A:Yes,sir,Iresisted.
Q:Howdidyouresistyouruncle?
A:Iboxedhim,sir.
Q:Withyourresistance,wasyourunclesuccessfulinhavingsexualintercoursewithyou?
A:Yes,sir.[13]
Itisalsoshownthatthevictimwascowedintosubmissionbecauseoftheknifepokedatherright
neck by the accused. She was also warned: saan ka nga agriyao ta no agriyao ka patayin ka,
translated:DontshoutorelseIwillkillyou.[14]
Furthermore, the fact that the accused is the uncle of the victim bolsters the presence of
intimidation.Itwasfoundbythetrialcourtthatthevictimlookedupontheaccusedasherfather.[15]For
ayounglassfromtheprovince,thiscircumstanceissufficienttoshutherupandgiveintothewhims
oftheaccused.
Theaccusedalsocontendsthatthedelayoftwo(2)yearsinreportingtheactschargedrendered
thetruthofherchargedoubtful.[16]
Again,wedonotagree.Thesilenceofthevictimforaperiodoftimedoesnotnecessarilyindicate
abaselessandfabricatedcharge.[17]ThisCourthasoftenruledthatdelayinreportingrapeincidents
inthefaceofthreatsofphysicalviolencecannotbetakenagainstthevictim.[18]Rapevictimspreferto
sufferinprivatethanrevealtheirordealtothepublicandsufferthehumiliationandsimultaneouslyrisk
therapistsmakinggoodthethreattohurtthem.[19]Myraexplainedwhysheoptedtosufferinsilence,
viz:
Atty.Garcia:
Q:Thosethingsdidtoyoubyyouruncle,didyoureportthemtoanyauthorities?
A:BecauseIwasafraidthen,sir,Ididnotreport.
Q:Whywereyouafraid?
A:Becauseofhisthreattokillme,sir.[20]
Atty.Labog:
Q:Youfeltsorryforwhathappenedtoyouthefirsttime,August30,1995?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/136870_72.htm 3/7
4/17/2017 People vs Salvador : 136870-72 : January 28, 2003 : J. Puno : Third Division
A:Yes,sir.
Q:ButyoudidnottellthisexperienceyouhadonAugust30,1995toyourlola?
A:Nosir,becauseIwasafraid.
Q:Youwereafraidoftheaccused?
A:Yes,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Atty.Garcia:
Q:You said that you did not tell your lola (about) what happened to you on the night of August 30,
1995,whywereyouafraid?
A:Becauseofthethreatofmyunclethatheisgoingtokillmeandmybrother,sir.
Q:Whendidhemakethethreat?
A:Afterhavingsexualintercoursewithme,sir.[21]
Thedefenseofconsensualintercoursemeritsnoconsideration.The accused has the burden of
establishing by convincing proof his affirmative defense of an alleged romantic relationship.[22] The
sweetheart theory hardly deserves any attention when an accused does not present any evidence,
such as love letters, gifts, pictures and the like to show that indeed, he and the private complainant
weresweethearts.[23]Inthecaseatbar,theaccusedwasunabletopresentevenaniotaofproofto
substantiatehisclaimthatheandthecomplainantaresweethearts.Thiswasbroughtoutinhiscross
examination:
Atty.Garcia:
Q:Yousaidthatyouhavethisrelationshipassweetheartsto(sic)thecomplainantMyraAucena,isit
not?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Beforeyoubecamesweethearts,youcourtedher,ofcourse?
A:Ourrelationshipjustdeveloped,sir.
Q:Yes,butbeforethatrelationshipdeveloped,ofcourseyoucourtedher?
A:Ididnotcourther,itwas(sic)justdeveloped,sir.
Q:Whendidyoustarttohavethissweethearts(sic)relationshipwithMyra?
A:LastweekofJuly1995,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Q:At(sic)thisdurationoftimefromJuly1995toJanuary1997,youassweetheartswithMyra,doyou
havemomentousremembrancegivenbyeachotherinconsiderationofbeinga(sic)sweethearts?
A:None,sir.
Q:ButyouknowofcoursethebirthdayofMyra?
A:Yes,sir,January17.
Q:Likewiseyouknowtheyear?
A:January17,butIcannotremembertheyear,sir.
Q:Sothat(during)thedurationofyoursweethearts(sic)withMyrafromJuly1995toJanuary1997,
youcelebratedherbirthday1996and1997whenshewaswithyou?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Andduringthatthis(sic)occasionassweethearts,doyougive(a)gifttoMyra?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/136870_72.htm 4/7
4/17/2017 People vs Salvador : 136870-72 : January 28, 2003 : J. Puno : Third Division
A:None,sir.
Q:HowaboutMyra,doesMyraknows(sic)yourbirthday?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Andwhenyoucelebratedyourbirthday,Myragaveyou(a)giftasatokenofhis(sic)lovetoyou?
A:None,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Q:And of course, as shown (sic) of your love and devotion with (sic) Myra, you even gave material
love,moneyandothergifts?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:ButMyrainreturnnevergaveyouanygift?
A:None,sir.
Q:Evenduring(C)hristmasand(V)alentines(D)ay,shenevergaveyouanygreetingcardoranygift,is
itnot(sic)?
A:None,sir.
Q:Duringthedurationofyoursweethearts(sic)relationshipfromJuly1995toJanuary1997,shedid
notgiveyouanyloveletterexpressingherlovetoyou?
A:None,sir.[24]
We likewise agree with the argument of the Office of the Solicitor General that even if the trial
court acquitted the accused of the subsequent acts of sexual intercourse on the ground that these
werealreadyconsensual,theensuingvoluntaryrelationshipdoesnotcuretheforceandintimidation
whichappellantemployedintheinitialactconstitutingonechargeforrape.[25]Wellentrenchedisthe
principlethateachactofrapeisconsideredseparateanddistinctfromoneanother.[26]Thus,evenif
the subsequent acts of sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant were to be
considered as consensual, still this does not negate the fact that their first sexual encounter due to
force,constitutesagroundforonechargeofrape.
Lastly,theofferofsettlementmadebytherelativesoftheaccusedtoMyrasfatherfurthermilitates
against the innocence of the accused. Indeed, an offer of compromise by the accused in criminal
cases, except those involving quasioffenses or those allowed by law to be compromised, may be
receivedinevidenceasanimpliedadmissionofguilt.[27]
Undoubtedly,rapeisnotaquasioffense.Thus,thetestimonyofSisenando,complainantsfather,
thattherelativesoftheaccusedmadetwoofferstosettlewiththeknowledgeoftheaccused,should
betakenasanimpliedadmissionoftheguiltoftheaccused,thus:
Atty.Garcia:
Q:WhydidthisgroupcometoyouonNovember22,1997?
A:TheywenttoourhouseinordertosettlethefaultofWilsonSalvador.
Q:Andyousaidtheycametooffersettlement,whatdidtheyoffer?
A:Thefirstofferisthattheyaregoingtogivethelandsupposedtobeinheritedbymychildren.
Q:Andyousaidthatisthefirstoffer,wasthereanyotheroffer?
A: The second offer is that the land supposed to be inherited by Wilson Salvador be offered as
payment.
Q:DidyoucometoknowifthesepersonswereauthorizedbyWilsonSalvadortotalktoyou?
A:Beforewehadaconversation,IaskedfirstifWilsonSalvadorandhismotherknows(sic)abouttheir
offerandtheysaidyes.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/136870_72.htm 5/7
4/17/2017 People vs Salvador : 136870-72 : January 28, 2003 : J. Puno : Third Division
Q:Withwhomdidyouinquire(about)thatinformationamongthepersonswhocametoyou?
A:NelsonSalvador,sir.[28]
Withregardthemonetaryaward,lawandjusticedictatethatuponthefindingofthefactofrape,
theawardofcivilindemnityexdelictobecomesmandatory.However,wefindthetrialcourtsawardof
P200,000.00 as excessive. Consonant with decided cases, we reduce the civil indemnity to
P50,000.00.[29] We also grant P50,000.00 as moral damages, without need of proof,[30] and
P25,000.00asexemplarydamages,todiscourageabuseofyounggirls,especiallybytheirrelatives.
[31]

INVIEWWHEREOF,thedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofCauayan,Isabela,Branch19,in
Criminal Case No. 191191, finding accusedappellant Wilson Salvador y Gagarin guilty beyond
reasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrapecommittedonAugust30,1995,andsentencinghimtosufferthe
penaltyofreclusionperpetuaisAFFIRMED,withmodificationthattheaccusedisorderedtopaythe
victim civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00, and exemplary
damagesofP25,000.00.
SOORDERED.
Panganiban,SandovalGutierrez,CoronaandCarpioMorales,JJ.,concur.

[1]AccusedappellantwaschargedwiththreecountsofrapebutwasacquittedinCrim.CasesNos.191189and191190.

[2]Rollo,pp.54and85.

[3]TSN,MyraAucena,December11,1997,pp.35.

[4]TSN,MyraAucena,January26,1998,p.4TSN,WilsonSalvador,June16,1998,pp.47.

[5]TSN,MyraAucena,January26,1998,pp.59TSN,WilsonSalvador,June16,1998,p.9.

[6]TSN,MyraAucena,December11,1997,p.8.

[7]TSN,MyraAucena,December11,1997,pp.69December22,1997,pp.311January26,1998,pp.915.

[8]TSN,WilsonSalvador,June16,1998,pp.910,1213and1518.

[9]Originalrecords,p.116Rollo,pp.55,70and87.

[10]Rollo,p.53.

[11]Peoplevs.Ponsica,G.R.Nos.13766163,July4,2002,citingPeoplevs.Cario,362SCRA292(2001).

[12]Rollo,p.60.

[13]TSN,December22,1997,p.9.

[14]TSN,MyraAucena,December11,1997,p.8.

[15]Rollo,p.67TSN,WilsonSalvador,June16,1998,p.16.

[16]Rollo,p.61.

[17]Peoplevs.Villanueva,G.R.Nos.14646467,November15,2002.

[18]Peoplevs.DeLeon,332SCRA37(2000).

[19]Supranote17,citingPeoplevs.Ardon354SCRA609(2001)andPeoplevs.Alvero,329SCRA737(2001).

[20]TSN,MyraAucena,December22,1997,p.12.

[21]TSN,MyraAucena,January26,1998,pp.16and2122.

[22]Peoplevs.Cepeda,324SCRA290(2000)Peoplevs.Barcelona,325SCRA168(2000).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/136870_72.htm 6/7
4/17/2017 People vs Salvador : 136870-72 : January 28, 2003 : J. Puno : Third Division
[23]Peoplevs.Palma,308SCRA466(1999).

[24]TSN,WilsonSalvador,June16,1998,pp.12and1618.

[25]Rollo,p.104.

[26]Peoplevs.Esguerra,256SCRA657(1996).

[27]Section27,Rule130oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.

[28]TSN,SesinandoAucena,January26,1998,p.30.

[29]Peoplevs.Ferrer,G.R.No.139695,August26,2002.

[30]Peoplevs.Sitao,G.R.No.146790,August22,2002.

[31]Peoplevs.Ylanan,G.R.No.131812,August22,2002.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/136870_72.htm 7/7