People of the Philippines vs. Arcito Magdaraog

The conviction for Forcible Abduction with Rape was affirmed where the complainant's prompt medical examination and complaint, the accused's flight, and his attempt to compromise corroborated her testimony; as a policeman who used his service firearm, the accused's indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.

Arcito Magdaraog was a policeman of Capul, Northern Samar, authorized to carry a service firearm. Adelaida Vicario was betrothed to Macario Castillo, with their wedding set for June 1, 1972. The charge against Magdaraog was Forcible Abduction with Rape, an offense penalized by reclusion perpetua. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the Court of First Instance of Northern Samar.

Adelaida Vicario was betrothed to Macario Castillo, and their wedding was set for June 1, 1972. In the afternoon of May 28, 1972, Adelaida, Macario, and Adelaida's mother went to the poblacion of Capul to have her wedding dress sewn. They arrived at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, and Adelaida stayed at Macario's house, where she met and conversed with Diena Castillo, Macario's sister. Diena told her that her seamstress was Marcelina Magloyoan. At about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, Adelaida, Diena, and Adelaida's small sister Greta went to Magloyoan's house at Tando Street to have the wedding gown sewn. After Magloyoan took Adelaida's measurements, they proceeded home.

According to the prosecution, when they were about 20 meters away from Magloyoan's house, Adelaida saw Arcito Magdaraog coming from the dark and running toward them. He grabbed Adelaida's left hand and pointed his revolver at Diena, saying that Adelaida was his and not Diena's. Diena was afraid of the revolver and did not answer. Arcito pulled Adelaida to his side; Diena tried to pull her back, but when Arcito pointed the gun at her, Diena released her hold. Arcito then fired his gun. He dragged Adelaida toward the seashore. She resisted, sitting and kicking, but he was strong and pulled her away. He told her, "I will bring you anywhere because you are mine," and she answered, "Do not bring me anywhere as I do not like you." They reached the gate of a fence, where Adelaida rested on the gate sill. Arcito saw Diena following them and fired his gun again. He continued dragging Adelaida to the shore and fired his gun once more. From the seashore, he brought her to the hills. As she resisted, he pointed the revolver at her and said, "If you will not go with me I will shoot you." She again refused. Finally, he brought her to the house of Mrs. Maria Manaog. He knocked at the back of the house three times with his gun, and Mrs. Manaog opened the door. Adelaida said, "Let me go home because I do not like Arcito," but Mrs. Manaog did not answer. Arcito dragged Adelaida inside a room, pushed her, and closed the door. She tried to open the door but could not. He held her two hands at the back, lifted her, brought her to the mat, and made her lie down. He tried to remove her pants and bikini. She resisted, but weakened by her long and continuous struggle, he overpowered her and succeeded in taking them off. He inserted his fingers inside her vagina, causing her to shout in pain. Thereafter, Arcito succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Adelaida attempted to open the door several times but failed because Arcito blocked her way. In the morning, she heard her father's voice looking for her. She hurriedly opened the door, ran to her father in the sala, and embraced him, saying, "Let us go home now father as the rapist is inside the room." Her mother, who was also there, went with them out of the house. As they walked out, Arcito shouted from the gate, "If you are going to accuse Adelaida, I will kill you all." Adelaida turned around and answered, "Even you will kill us, the whole family still I will continue to accuse."

Immediately afterward, Adelaida and her parents proceeded to Landusan. Her father took her to Allen for medical treatment. She was examined by Dr. Conchita O. Tomada as a victim of rape. The medical certificate, Exhibit "A," stated that the incident was sustained on May 28, 1972 at 8:00 P.M., and the examination was conducted on May 29, 1972 at 7:30 P.M. The internal examination revealed a non-porous vagina, a fresh laceration at 6 o'clock, 3 cm in length and superficial, and a hymen freshly lacerated at 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock. It also noted abrasions and hematoma on the dorsal aspect of both feet. The doctor found Adelaida suffering from pains on her breast, back, shoulder, knees, legs, and vagina, which lasted for more than a month. The following day, May 30, 1972, she went to the Office of the Fiscal in Allen to complain. On May 31, 1972, she returned and executed her letter-complaint, Exhibit "E." On June 1, 1972, she went to the Fiscal's office and took her oath on Exhibit "B." Diena Castillo also executed an affidavit corroborating Adelaida's allegations.

The appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with the complainant but denied using force. He claimed that he and the complainant were sweethearts and eloped on the evening of May 28, 1972. To prove their relationship, he presented a letter written by the complainant and addressed to him about three months before the incident, in which she expressed her preference for him over her suitor, Max Castillo, who was preferred by her mother. He declared that he and the complainant had previously agreed to elope on the eve of the barrio fiesta of Dalupirit on May 26, 1972, but that the complainant changed her mind, saying that it would be a great scandal if it were known they eloped during the fiesta, that she was afraid her mother might die, and that it was better to do it in Capul. She allegedly told him to intimidate her companions so that her mother would be freed from shame before Max Castillo's parents. He insisted on the elopement since everything had been arranged, but relented when she promised they would elope on May 28, 1972. She allegedly said, "It is up to you provided that on Sunday, the 28th day of this month, I will go to the house of Celing Magloyoan and there you force me to go with you while already on the street because I will go with you." On the evening of May 28, 1972, he stood in front of the house of Tomas Moya and waited for the complainant. At about 6:30 o'clock in the evening, the complainant, her sister Greta, and Diena Castillo passed by. He lost heart but later mustered courage. When they returned, he took hold of the complainant's hand and told Diena, "this is mine this is not yours," and pulled the complainant, who did not resist, to his side. Diena and Greta held on to the complainant, so he used both hands in pulling her. Upon reaching the gate of a fence near the seashore, the complainant allegedly sat down and said, "I am not going with you," for the benefit of Diena and Greta, at the same time signaling him to go ahead. They stepped over the stile and ran toward the schoolhouse. The complainant suggested that he fire his revolver to discourage pursuit, so he fired his service pistol into the air. They went to the back of the schoolhouse, where they found a hut in the coconut grove. There they rested and planned where to spend the night. At first they decided to go to the complainant's house at Landusan, but the complainant changed her mind, and they went back to the poblacion, to the house of Primitive Manaog, Jr. When he asked Manaog permission to spend the night there, Manaog replied, "Yes, because it has been rumored in the street that you eloped." They were given the room facing the coconut trees and a mat was laid on the floor. As they lay on the floor, he was able to remove the complainant's underwear and had sexual intercourse with her. In the morning, his mother Marcela and Lorenzo Guardiano arrived. Upon seeing her, the complainant kissed Marcela's hand. Marcela inquired what happened, and the complainant replied that it was their agreement. The complainant then suggested that Max Castillo be reimbursed his expenses. Marcela asked how much, and the complainant told her to arrange it with her father. Marcela left and later came back with the town mayor and the complainant's parents. The complainant kissed her father's hand, but when she and the appellant went to her mother, the latter refused to be kissed and left. The father tried to placate them, promising to return at noontime. As promised, the parents came back at noontime and informed them that Max Castillo had spent P1,100.00. Marcela asked for time, and the father replied, "If you can have that amount already you can just go to Landusan any time." They then went home. As they turned to go, they asked the complainant to go home with them, but she refused, saying, "I will not go anymore because it is already shameful to the town people as we were already known that we are living together as husband and wife." However, they prevailed upon her to go home with them, leaving the appellant behind.

On June 1, 1972, the appellant and other policemen of Capul went to Laoang, Northern Samar, to take an agility test. After the test, he went to his uncle in Catubig to ask for financial assistance, and his uncle Vicente Tan gave him P500.00. On June 5, 1972, he left for Capul. When he arrived at Allen, Northern Samar, he was informed that the complainant had gone to the hospital there for medical treatment of her vagina. He went to San Isidro, from where he mailed his application for leave of absence as a policeman of Capul, and then went to Manila. In Manila, he wrote a letter to the complainant instructing her to ask for money from his mother and to join him, but he received no reply. Later, he learned that the complainant and Max Castillo were living together as husband and wife. He also learned that a case had been filed against him, so he went home to Capul. The trial court found that the defense "appears to be an elaborate, well-orchestrated scheme designed to exculpate the accused," gave it no credence, and found him guilty as charged.

• Consent and Sweetheart Defense: The appellant insisted that there was consent in the sexual act, claiming that he and the complainant were sweethearts and had eloped on May 28, 1972; he presented a letter written by the complainant three months before the incident expressing her preference for him over Max Castillo, and claimed that they had agreed she would pretend to be forced so they could elope.
• Failure to Prove Force and Evidentiary Gaps: The appellant argued that the complainant was not laid down on the ground nor abused in the hut under the coconut trees; that he had only one sexual act with the complainant despite the length of time they stayed together and his youth, health, and capacity to repeat the act; that torn or soiled garments worn by the complainant were not presented in court; and that the medical certificate did not allege that the complainant sustained injuries at her back despite her claim that she was pinned to the mat.
• Planned Abduction: The appellant assailed the trial court for not giving credence to his claim that the complainant actually planned her supposed abduction.
• Forgiveness and Pardon: The appellant contended that the complainant had forgiven him when she suggested to his mother that the expenses incurred by Max Castillo be reimbursed, and when she refused to go back with her parents to Landusan because the public had already known that she and Arcito had lived as man and wife.
• Instigation: The appellant claimed that the case was instituted upon the instigation of Max Castillo.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant forcibly abducted and raped the complainant, notwithstanding his defense of consensual elopement and the alleged evidentiary gaps.
• Flight and Offer of Compromise: Whether the appellant's immediate flight and attempted payment to the complainant may be considered as implied admission of guilt.
• Pardon: Whether the complainant's alleged forgiveness or refusal to return home amounted to an express pardon under Art. 344, par. 3, Revised Penal Code.
• Instigation: Whether the case was instituted upon the instigation of Max Castillo.
• Penalty and Indemnity: Whether the appellant's status as a policeman and use of a service firearm warranted an increased indemnity.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The conviction was affirmed because the trial court's credibility findings were supported by the evidence, and the alleged inconsistencies did not rule out rape; the complainant's testimony and prompt conduct established force and lack of consent.
• Flight and Offer of Compromise: Yes. Immediate flight for about 18 months and the attempt to pay the complainant to drop the case were admissible as implied admissions of guilt under Sec. 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
• Pardon: No. Pardon must be express, not implied; the complainant denied the alleged forgiveness, and Art. 344, par. 3, Revised Penal Code requires an express pardon.
• Instigation: No. The complainant filed the case almost immediately after the incident and despite the appellant's threat, showing her own desire for justice rather than instigation by Max Castillo.
• Penalty and Indemnity: Yes. The appellant's abuse of his public position as a policeman and use of his service firearm warranted an increased indemnity of P30,000.00 to the offended party.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court noted that the issues raised by the appellant boiled down to one of credibility. The trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless shown not to be supported by the evidence or that the court failed to consider material facts and circumstances which, if considered, would alter the result. No cogent reason existed to disturb the trial court's finding that the appellant was guilty as charged. The appellant's specific arguments did not rule out rape: why he did not have sexual intercourse on the ground or in the hut, or why he had only one carnal act, was known to the appellant alone; the circumstances did not rule out the possibility that rape had been committed as testified to by the complainant. The failure to present the torn garment was explained by the complainant's testimony that the appellant forcibly removed her panty before she was abused, and that when her parents arrived the following morning, she did not bother to look for it because she only wanted to get away from the appellant. The absence of a statement in the medical certificate that the complainant sustained injuries at her back was satisfactorily explained by the physician, who testified that the complainant was already complaining of pain but that she did not put it in writing because anybody can complain of pain. The claim that the complainant planned the abduction was vehemently denied by the complainant. The Court held that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless that was the truth, as it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. The appellant's claim was further belied by the conduct of the parties after the sexual act: the complainant immediately went to Allen for physical examination the following morning, arrived at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening, was examined at about 7:30 o'clock that evening, told the physician she was raped the night before, and was found to have fresh lacerations and a ruptured hymen. She went to the Fiscal's office on May 30, 1972, returned on May 31, 1972, to execute her letter-complaint, and on June 1, 1972, accompanied Diena Castillo for the taking of Diena's affidavit. The fact that she lost no time in denouncing the wrong done to her negated the appellant's submission of voluntary submission to the sexual intercourse.

• Flight and Offer of Compromise: The Court considered the appellant's conduct after the incident. Upon learning in Allen that the complainant had gone to the hospital for medical examination of her vagina, the appellant became scared and immediately went to San Isidro, about 18 kilometers south of Allen, where he prepared an application for an indefinite leave of absence from his duties as policeman of Capul and sent it to the chief of police by registered mail. In San Isidro, he met his cousin Lorenzo Guardiano, a municipal councilor of Capul, to whom he entrusted his service pistol to be returned to the proper authorities. He then chartered a motorboat to Matnog, Sorsogon for P30.00 and proceeded to Manila, where he stayed for about one and a half years. The trial court noted that he would have spent much less than P30.00 had he taken the usual mode of transport, which would have cost only P6.00. The only logical inference was that the appellant was escaping. A subpoena was issued to him on June 1, 1972, the preliminary investigation was set for June 6, 1972, and the chief of police of Capul returned the subpoena on June 2, 1972. The immediate flight and sojourn of the appellant in other places for about 18 months after the consummation of the sexual act complained of were, in a sense, a silent admission of guilt and incompatible with his claim that the carnal act was voluntary and consented to by the complainant. Separately, the unrebutted testimony of the complainant showed that Lorenzo Guardiano and Esquillo came to her and said they were requested by Arcito and his parents to see if it was possible that she be paid provided she would not continue the case. She answered that even if they paid her any amount, she would not receive money but would proceed with the case because he had done wrong to her. An offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases which are not allowed by law to be compromised may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.

• Pardon: The appellant claimed that the complainant had forgiven him when she suggested to his mother that the expenses incurred by Max Castillo be reimbursed, and when she refused to go back with her parents to Landusan because the public had already known that she and Arcito had lived as man and wife. The complainant denied these allegations. She testified that she did not meet the mother of the appellant on May 29, so she could not have suggested that Max Castillo be reimbursed his expenses; besides, Max Castillo had not incurred any expense. The Court held that pardon, to be effective, should be express, and not implied. The alleged forgiveness therefore did not bar the prosecution.

• Instigation: The appellant claimed that the case was instituted upon the instigation of Max Castillo. The Court rejected this claim. The immediacy with which the case was instituted showed that it was solely the complainant's desire for justice that impelled her to prosecute the appellant. She filed the case almost immediately after the incident occurred and despite the threat of the appellant to kill her family if he should be accused. The Court also noted the complainant's statement that after the incident, she was not sure if Max Castillo would still marry her for having been deflowered by the appellant, and that if Max changed his mind, she would nevertheless not marry the appellant.

• Penalty and Indemnity: The trial court failed to consider that the appellant was a policeman and committed the crime with the aid of a gun which he had been authorized to carry as a peace officer. Instead of upholding the law, the appellant broke the law; instead of using his service firearm for good, he used it for evil. Clearly, his crime was graver and his responsibility greater. The Court quoted U.S. vs. Pabalan: "The policeman who, taking advantage of his public position, maltreats a private citizen, merits no judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by medieval practice are surely not appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization. While the law protects the police officer in the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same time just as effectively protect the individual from the abuse of the police." The Court further noted that the offended party was forcibly abducted and dragged across trackless ground and thereafter violated only a few days before her wedding, and she had to postpone her marriage to a very much later date because of the expenses her family had incurred in prosecuting the case. An increase in the indemnity to P30,000.00 would help alleviate the physical and mental pains she suffered at the hands of the appellant.

• Credibility of a Rape Complainant / No Young Filipina Doctrine — No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been criminally abused and ravished unless that is the truth, as it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. The Court applied this doctrine to reject the appellant's claim of consensual elopement and planned abduction.
• Trial Court's Findings of Fact — Findings of fact of trial courts are entitled to great weight and respect and should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that such findings are not supported by the evidence or that the court failed to consider material facts and circumstances which, if considered, would alter the result. The Court applied this doctrine to affirm the conviction.
• Flight as Implied Admission of Guilt — Immediate flight and sojourn in other places for about 18 months after the consummation of the sexual act complained of are, in a sense, a silent admission of guilt and are incompatible with a claim that the carnal act was voluntary and consented to by the complainant. The Court applied this doctrine to the appellant's conduct after the incident.
• Offer of Compromise as Implied Admission of Guilt — An offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases which are not allowed by law to be compromised may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. The Court applied this rule to the appellant's attempt to pay the complainant to drop the case.
• Express Pardon in Crimes Against Chastity — Under Art. 344, par. 3, Revised Penal Code, pardon, to be effective, should be express, and not implied. The Court applied this provision to reject the appellant's claim that the complainant had forgiven him.
• Abuse of Public Position by a Policeman — A policeman who, taking advantage of his public position, maltreats a private citizen merits no judicial leniency; while the law protects the police officer in the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same time just as effectively protect the individual from the abuse of the police. The Court applied this principle to justify the increased indemnity and to emphasize the appellant's graver responsibility.

• "It has long been held that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been criminally abused and ravished unless that is the truth. It is her natural instinct to protect her honor." — The Court used this passage to assess the complainant's credibility and to reject the appellant's defenses of consent and planned abduction.
• "The immediate flight and sojourn of the defendant-appellant in other places for about 18 months after the consummation of the sexual act complained of, are, in a sense, a silent admission of guilt and are incompatible with his claim that the carnal act complained of was voluntary and consented to by the complainant." — This passage states the Court's treatment of the appellant's flight as corroborative evidence of guilt and as inconsistent with consent.
• "An offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases which are not allowed by law to be compromised may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt." — The Court applied this rule to the appellant's attempt to pay the complainant to drop the case.
• "The policeman who, taking advantage of his public position, maltreats a private citizen, merits no judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by medieval practice are surely not appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization. While the law protects the police officer in the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same time just as effectively protect the individual from the abuse of the police." — The Court quoted this passage in increasing the indemnity and emphasizing the appellant's graver responsibility as a policeman who used his service firearm.

• People vs. Ramilo, G.R. No. 52230, Dec. 15, 1986, 146 SCRA 256 — Cited in support of the doctrine that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit rape unless it is the truth.
• People vs. Daing, Jr., L-40574, Nov. 29, 1984, 133 SCRA 448 — Cited for the principle that immediate flight and sojourn after the sexual act amount to a silent admission of guilt.
• People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-33154, Feb. 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 474 — Cited in relation to the appellant's graver responsibility as a policeman who abused his public position.
• U.S. vs. Pabalan, 37 Phil. 352, 354 — Quoted for the rule that a policeman who takes advantage of his public position to maltreat a private citizen merits no judicial leniency and that the law must protect the individual from police abuse.

• Sec. 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court — An offer of compromise by the accused in criminal cases which are not allowed by law to be compromised may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. The Court applied this provision to the appellant's attempt to pay the complainant to drop the case.
• Art. 344, par. 3, Revised Penal Code — Pardon, to be effective, should be express, and not implied. The Court applied this provision to reject the appellant's claim that the complainant had forgiven him.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.