People of the Philippines vs. Lor, et al.

The lone testimony of the offended party in a prosecution for rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction, the nature of the offense being such that the victim's testimony is oftentimes the only evidence that can be adduced to establish the guilt of the accused; and a pardon by the offended party that operates to divest the court of jurisdiction must be given before the institution of the criminal prosecution, not during the pendency of the appeal.

The three accused — Leonardo Lor, Alfredo Ruiz, and Domingo Ruiz — were friends and residents of Barrio Concepcion, Hilongos, Leyte, while the three complainants — Juanita Lamadura, Concepcion Lor, and Victoria Erit — were housemaids in the poblacion of Hilongos who had come separately to the barrio and knew neither one another nor any of the accused. Rape was then defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, while Article 344 of the same Code barred its prosecution except upon complaint of the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, and prohibited prosecution where the offender had been expressly pardoned by those persons. Those provisions supplied the statutory framework against which the conviction and the belated attempt at pardon were measured.

On August 23, 1975, the barrio of Concepcion in Hilongos, Leyte, celebrated its fiesta, and a drama was staged for the public. Three housemaids from the poblacion of Hilongos, seven kilometers away — Juanita Lamadura, fourteen years old; Concepcion Lor, twenty-three; and Victoria Erit, eighteen — traveled separately to the barrio to watch the presentation. The three women did not know one another, and none of them knew Leonardo Lor, Alfredo Ruiz, or Domingo Ruiz, three friends and residents of Barrio Concepcion. Lor, twenty-three, was a motorcab driver; Alfredo Ruiz, twenty-six, and Domingo Ruiz, twenty-four, were his companions.

After the drama ended at about eleven o'clock that evening, each of the three women looked for a motorcab to take her back to the poblacion. Lor allowed them to board after informing them that he was taking passengers to the poblacion. Juanita took the seat beside Lor; Concepcion sat in front beside Alfredo Ruiz; Victoria occupied the rear seat beside Domingo Ruiz. Lor drove toward the poblacion, but upon reaching the crossing to Barrio Proteccion he diverted the motorcab toward that barrio, about three kilometers from Barrio Concepcion. When the women noticed the change of direction, Victoria and Juanita asked where they were going, and Concepcion expressed anger. Lor explained that he had to drop a PC soldier at the river, pointing to Alfredo Ruiz.

At the Salog River in Barrio Proteccion, Lor parked the motorcab by the side of the river along the dried river bed. Alfredo Ruiz, whom Lor had identified as the PC soldier, alighted first and pulled Concepcion Lor from the motorcab; Domingo Ruiz pulled Victoria Erit; and Lor pulled Juanita Lamadura and dragged her away from the vehicle. According to the prosecution, Lor brought Juanita to a remote place, mashed her breast, and held her. She struggled and managed to run a distance of about six arms' length, but he overtook her. He boxed her stomach; she did not fall from the first blow, but the second caused her to fall and lose consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she had no panties, felt pain all over her body and inside her genital organ, and found her genital organ bleeding. She saw Lor standing where she lay and found her panties on the spot where she had fallen. She put them on, cried, and returned to the motorcab.

Juanita reported the incident to her landlord, Lando Urgel, telling him that one of the men had taken advantage of her. On Urgel's advice, she reported the matter to the police department of Hilongos. The three complainants were then examined by Dr. Antonia Ladion, a resident physician of the Hilongos General Hospital, on August 26 and 27, 1975. The external physical examination of Juanita on August 26 was conducted only because the three women refused an internal examination on that date; it showed no marks such as blue marks, no contusions, and no external wounds on her body. Dr. Ladion testified that it was possible that, because Juanita came for examination three days later, some marks could no longer be seen. The internal examination on August 27 showed lacerations of the hymen at eleven o'clock and one o'clock, already healed but with fresh scars, and was negative for the presence of spermatozoa.

Leonardo Lor denied the charge. He claimed that he was not with Juanita Lamadura at the time of the alleged rape and that he remained in the motorcab with Concepcion Lor, doing nothing but talking with her during the two hours or so that they stayed by the river bank.

Three informations dated October 29, 1975 were filed by First Assistant Provincial Fiscal Marcial B. Estela, charging Lor with the rape of Juanita Lamadura, Alfredo Ruiz with the rape of Concepcion Lor, and Domingo Ruiz with the rape of Victoria Erit. In reviewing Lor's conviction, the Court relied on the undisputed circumstances that the three victims had not known one another or any of the accused, and, as the trial court had observed, that the three accused knew one another and were friends and that Lor made no effort to prevent the crimes being committed against the other two complainants a short distance away.

• Denial and Alibi: Appellant Leonardo Lor claimed that he was not with Juanita Lamadura at the time of the alleged rape; he maintained that he remained in the motorcab with Concepcion Lor and did nothing but talk with her during the two hours or so that they stayed by the river bank.
• Inconsistencies in the Complainant's Account: Appellant pointed to Juanita Lamadura's refusal of an internal examination during her external physical examination on the ground that "nothing happened," to her affidavit declaring that the accused did everything to her "except one thing," and to her initial complaint for acts of lasciviousness which she later changed to rape.

• Penetration, Not Emission: The People maintained that the important consideration in the crime of rape is not the emission of male semen but the penetration of the male penis into the female genital organ, citing People vs. Jose, People vs. Selfaison, People vs. Hernandez, and People vs. Llamas.
• Credibility of the Prosecution's Version: The People narrated the factual setting in detail, stressing that the three complainants did not know one another or any of the accused, that Lor diverted the motorcab under the pretext of dropping a PC soldier, and that each accused dragged his victim to a separate place.

• Sufficiency of the Lone Testimony of the Victim: Whether the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the offended party is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape.
• Credibility of the Complainant: Whether the complainant's credibility is impaired by the absence of external marks of violence, the negative finding for spermatozoa, her initial refusal of an internal examination, her affidavit stating that the accused did everything to her "except one thing," and her initial complaint for acts of lasciviousness later changed to rape.
• Denial and Alibi: Whether the appellant's denial and claim that he was not with the complainant at the time of the alleged rape can overcome the prosecution's evidence.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether nighttime, use of motor vehicle, abuse of superior strength, craft or fraud, and uninhabited place attended the commission of the rape.
• Effect of the Motion to Withdraw Complaint and Pardon: Whether the joint motion to withdraw complaint and the affidavits exempting Leonardo Lor barred the Court from deciding the appeal.

• Sufficiency of the Lone Testimony of the Victim: Yes. The lone testimony of the victim in a rape prosecution, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction, owing to the nature of the offense.
• Credibility of the Complainant: Yes, the complainant was credible. The absence of external marks of violence does not negate rape, and her testimony was found clear, sincere, and candid.
• Denial and Alibi: No. The appellant's version defied belief, the three complainants having positively identified him as the one who dragged Juanita Lamadura to a secluded area.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Craft or fraud, use of motor vehicle, and uninhabited place attended the crime; nighttime and abuse of superior strength did not.
• Effect of the Motion to Withdraw Complaint and Pardon: No. A pardon that divests the court of jurisdiction must be given before the institution of the criminal prosecution; one given during the pendency of the appeal does not bar the Court from deciding the appeal.

• Sufficiency of the Lone Testimony of the Victim: Having been dragged away from her companions before the assault on her chastity, Juanita Lamadura's testimony was the only available evidence on the assault itself. This did not preclude conviction, since the rule consistently adhered to is that the lone testimony of the victim in a prosecution for rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction; the rationale is that, owing to the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be adduced to establish the guilt of the accused is the offended party's testimony. The Court found her testimony credible and sufficient, citing People vs. Ramos, People vs. Selfaison, and People vs. Macaya.

• Credibility of the Complainant: The Court observed that there were no positive signs of physical violence nor traces of the alleged rape on Juanita Lamadura's body. The August 26, 1975 external examination showed no pertinent findings of marks of violence, and the August 27, 1975 internal examination was negative for spermatozoa, showing only healed lacerations with fresh scars. The absence of marks of violence, however, does not negate the commission of rape, since the external examination was conducted three days after the assault and the marks could have healed by then; during those three days she must have urinated and thereby expelled all the spermatozoa. The important consideration in rape is not the emission of male semen but the penetration of the male penis into the female genital organ. The Court further noted that Juanita was only fifteen when she testified, was unlettered, and was a simple provincial lass doing the menial tasks of a housemaid; it was inconceivable that she could have concocted a story of rape with such convincing details unless she had been the victim of such a detestable assault. Her refusal of an internal examination, her affidavit declaring that the accused did everything to her "except one thing," and her initial complaint for acts of lasciviousness later changed to rape did not deviate from her sincerity and candor; her conservative and provincial values put her on guard, and she was equally ashamed and afraid for her life, but only her sense of justice overwhelmed her hesitation. The rule applied is that the testimony of the victim, whose chastity has not been questioned, is generally accorded credence because such offended party would not have fabricated facts that could bring shame and dishonor on her, nor disclose her humiliating experience at a public trial unless her motive was to bring to justice the person who grievously wronged her. At the same time, the Court cautioned that while rape is an abominable crime, it is an accusation easy to make, hard to prove, and still harder to defend; a charge based on the lone and uncorroborated testimony of the victim must therefore be regarded with utmost caution and examined with the greatest care, and to warrant conviction the testimony must be clear and free from serious contradictions, with sincerity and candor free from suspicions.

• Denial and Alibi: The appellant's version defied belief. The three complainants, including Juanita Lamadura herself, positively identified Leonardo Lor as the one who dragged Juanita to a secluded area where he took advantage of her. It was undisputed that the three victims did not know any of the accused, and neither did they know one another; considering that all three victims resided in the province, their outlook provincial and conservative, it was hardly natural for them to have easily acquiesced to go with the three accused separately to separate secluded areas. On the other hand, the three accused knew one another and were friends. If Leonardo did not participate in any criminal design but was admittedly only present when his two companions were perpetrating their own criminal designs, it was inexplicable that he made no effort to prevent the crimes against the other two complainants taking place a short distance away. His active participation in a criminal design was borne by the fact that he was driving the motorcab on which the other accused and the three victims rode, that he directed the course of the trip, that he actively represented one of his companions as a PC soldier, that he conferred with the two other accused before taking the three victims into his motorcab, and that he participated in the deception that culminated in his own forcible defloration of the helpless Juanita Lamadura.

• Aggravating Circumstances: The general rule is that the aggravating circumstance must have been purposely sought by the offender to facilitate the commission of the offense. No showing existed that Lor purposely and deliberately sought nighttime to perpetrate and facilitate his criminal design, so nighttime was not appreciated. The use of a motor vehicle, however, was deliberately sought: Lor did not immediately take the victims into the motorcab when they hailed it but instead conferred with his two male companions, and only after their brief conference did he agree to take the victims in; at that point the criminal design of all three accused to sexually assault the three girls began to be evident. The motorcab was thus used to facilitate the commission of the rape and aggravated the crime. For superior strength to aggravate, it must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent to take advantage of the same, and there must be notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor; no such showing appeared, and the fact that the victim was only fourteen at the time of the assault while the aggressor was twenty-three did not reflect notoriety of inequalities in strength. While craft or fraud was not alleged in the information, there was evidence that it was employed: to convince the victims that the change of route was a necessity, Lor told them that they had to drop a PC soldier-passenger somewhere near the river bank. Finally, the nearest house to the river bank, the site of the crime, was about 300 to 450 meters away, which qualified the place as uninhabited, a place where there are no people or any number of houses within a perimeter of less than 200 meters being uninhabited; the deliberate bringing of the three victims to the river bank proved that the uninhabited place was purposely sought for the commission of the crime.

• Effect of the Motion to Withdraw Complaint and Pardon: Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code prohibits a prosecution for rape except upon a complaint made by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, and in no case if the offender has been expressly pardoned by those persons. The Court found the documents suspect: Juanita Lamadura affixed her fingerprint on the motion to withdraw complaint and on her own affidavit, but both documents were written in English; she had no educational attainment at all and did not know how to read and write, and there was no showing that the documents were read and explained to her in a language or dialect she understood prior to her affixing her fingerprint thereon. Even granting that the documents operated as a pardon, they did not bar the Court from deciding the appeal. The pardon that operates to divest the court of jurisdiction to continue hearing a case involving a private offense is one that is given before the institution of the criminal prosecution, and not one given, as in the present case, during the pendency of the appeal thereon. Article 344 does not prohibit the continuance of a prosecution if the offended party pardons the offender after the dismissal of the cause; the only act that according to Article 344 extinguishes the penal action and the penalty that may have been imposed is the marriage between the offender and the offended party. The Court therefore resolved to review Lor's appeal on the merits.

• Lone Testimony of the Rape Victim — The lone testimony of the victim in a prosecution for rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. The rationale is that, owing to the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be adduced to establish the guilt of the accused is the offended party's testimony. The Court applied this rule because Juanita Lamadura had been dragged away from her companions before the assault, leaving her testimony as the only available evidence on the assault itself.

• Penetration, Not Emission — The important consideration in the crime of rape is not the emission of male semen but the penetration of the male penis into the female genital organ. Thus, the negative finding for spermatozoa on internal examination did not negate the commission of rape.

• Credibility of the Victim Whose Chastity Is Not Questioned — In weighing the testimony of the complainant in an accusation for rape, the testimony of the victim, whose chastity has not been questioned, is generally accorded credence because such offended party would not have fabricated facts that could bring shame and dishonor on her, nor disclose her humiliating experience at a public trial and thus give rise to gossip and slander, unless her motive was to bring to justice the person who grievously wronged her. The Court applied this to Juanita Lamadura, an unlettered fifteen-year-old housemaid.

• Absence of External Marks of Violence Does Not Negate Rape — The absence of any marks of violence on the body of the victim does not negate the commission of rape, since such marks may have healed by the time of the examination, especially where the external physical examination was conducted three days after the assault.

• Pardon Under Article 344, Revised Penal Code — The pardon that operates to divest the court of jurisdiction to continue hearing a case involving a private offense is one that is given before the institution of the criminal prosecution, and not one given during the pendency of the appeal. Article 344 does not prohibit the continuance of a prosecution if the offended party pardons the offender after the dismissal of the cause; the only act that extinguishes the penal action and the penalty that may have been imposed is the marriage between the offender and the offended party.

• Aggravating Circumstances Must Be Purposely Sought — The general rule is that the aggravating circumstance must have been purposely sought by the offender to facilitate the commission of the offense. Nighttime was not appreciated because there was no showing that Lor purposely and deliberately sought it to perpetrate and facilitate his criminal design.

• Use of Motor Vehicle as Aggravating Circumstance — The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating where it was deliberately sought to facilitate the commission of the crime. Lor's prior conference with his co-accused before allowing the victims to board, and his use of the motorcab to take them to a secluded place, established that the vehicle facilitated the rape.

• Abuse of Superior Strength — For superior strength to aggravate a crime, it must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent to take advantage of the same, and there must be notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor. The disparity between a fourteen-year-old victim and a twenty-three-year-old aggressor did not reflect notoriety of inequalities in strength.

• Craft or Fraud as Aggravating Circumstance — Fraud constitutes deceit and is manifested by insidious words and machinations; craft is cunning or trickery. Although not alleged in the information, craft or fraud was employed when Lor told the victims that they had to drop a PC soldier-passenger somewhere near the river bank in order to convince them that the change of route was a necessity.

• Uninhabited Place as Aggravating Circumstance — A place where there are no people or any number of houses within a perimeter of less than 200 meters is uninhabited. While uninhabited place is not aggravating when there is no showing that the accused selected the place of commission of the crime, the circumstance is present where there was a deliberate selection of an isolated place, as when Lor and his co-accused brought the three victims to a river bank whose nearest house was 300 to 450 meters away.

• "It is a rule consistently adhered to that the lone testimony of the victim in the prosecution for rape, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction, the rationale being that, owing to the nature of the offense, the only evidence that can oftentimes be adduced to establish the guilt of the accused is the offended party's testimony" — This states the ratio decidendi on the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence and is the formulation of the lone-testimony rule most frequently invoked in subsequent rape cases.

• "The important consideration in the crime of rape is not the emission of the male semen but the penetration of the male penis into the female genital organ" — This is the canonical formulation of the penetration rule, cited to explain why the negative finding for spermatozoa did not negate the commission of rape.

• "In weighing the testimony of the complainant in an accusation for rape, the rule often applied by the courts is that the testimony of the victim, whose chastity has not been questioned, is generally accorded credence because such offended party would not have fabricated facts that could bring shame and dishonor on her. Nor would she disclose her humiliating experience at a public trial, and thug give rise to gossip and slander, unless her motive was to bring to justice the person who grievously wronged her" — This defines the credibility doctrine applied to the complainant and explains why her initial hesitation and inconsistent filings did not impair her testimony.

• "The pardon that operates to divest the court of jurisdiction to continue hearing a case involving a private offense is one that is given before the institution of the criminal prosecution ... and not that which is given, as in the present case, during the pendency of the appeal thereon" — This is the ratio decidendi on Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and disposes of the belated motion to withdraw complaint.

• People vs. Balbuena, G.R. Nos. L-44859-60, April 27, 1984 — Cited for the rule that the absence of marks of violence on the victim's body does not negate the commission of rape, and for the credence generally accorded to the victim's testimony.
• People vs. Selfaison, 110 Phil. 889 — Cited, together with People vs. Ramos and People vs. Macaya, for the rule that the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, suffices to sustain a conviction for rape.
• People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 50450, March 16, 1984 — Cited for the same lone-testimony rule.
• People vs. Macaya, et al., 85 Phil. 540 — Cited for the same lone-testimony rule.
• People vs. Olalia, G.R. No. L-50669, March 12, 1984 — Cited for the cautionary rule that a rape charge based on the lone and uncorroborated testimony of the victim must be regarded with utmost caution and examined with the greatest care.
• People vs. Infante, et al., No. 36270, August 31, 1932, 57 Phil. 138 — Controlling precedent for the holding that the pardon which divests the court of jurisdiction is one given before the institution of the criminal prosecution.
• People vs. Miranda, No. 38171, October 6, 1932, 57 Phil. 274 — Cited for the rule that the only act that extinguishes the penal action and the penalty under Article 344 is the marriage between the offender and the offended party.
• People vs. Coderes, Nos. L-32509, April 27, 1981, 104 SCRA 255 — Cited, with People vs. Apduhan, Jr. and People vs. Condemena, for the rule that the aggravating circumstance must have been purposely sought by the offender.
• People vs. Parayno, No. L-24804, July 5, 1968, 24 SCRA 3 — Cited to show that abuse of superior strength was not appreciated even where the accused was 61 years old and the victim only 9 years old.
• People vs. Famador, No. L-36553, March 30, 1982, 113 SCRA 310 — Cited for the appreciation of the use of a motor vehicle as an aggravating circumstance and for the illustration of fraud.
• People vs. Ong, et al., No. L-37908, October 23, 1981, 108 SCRA 267 — Cited for the appreciation of the use of a motor vehicle and of the deliberate selection of an isolated place as aggravating circumstances.
• People vs. Capillas, No. L-27177, October 23, 1981, 108 SCRA 173 — Cited for the rule that uninhabited place is not aggravating absent a showing that the accused selected the place of commission of the crime.
• People vs. Revotoc, No. L-37425, July 25, 1981, 106 SCRA 22 — Cited as an illustration of craft as an aggravating circumstance.
• People vs. Lobetania, No. L-56973, August 30, 1982, 116 SCRA 297 — Cited as an illustration of craft as an aggravating circumstance.
• People vs. de Leon, No. 26867, August 10, 1927, 50 Phil. 539 — Cited as an illustration of fraud or deceit as an aggravating circumstance.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code — Defined and penalized rape, the crime of which the accused were charged and convicted. The informations against all three accused were filed under this article.
• Article 344, Revised Penal Code — Barred the prosecution of rape except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, and prohibited prosecution where the offender had been expressly pardoned by those persons. The Court applied it to hold that the pardon which divests the court of jurisdiction must be given before the institution of the criminal prosecution, and that only marriage between the offender and the offended party extinguishes the penal action.
• Paragraph 14, Article 14, Revised Penal Code — Defined craft or fraud as an aggravating circumstance. Although not alleged in the information, the Court found that it was employed when Lor told the victims that they had to drop a PC soldier-passenger near the river bank to convince them that the change of route was a necessity.
• Article 14, Revised Penal Code (nighttime, use of motor vehicle, abuse of superior strength, uninhabited place) — The informations alleged nighttime, use of motor vehicle, and taking advantage of superior strength as aggravating circumstances. Nighttime and abuse of superior strength were not appreciated for lack of proof that they were purposely sought or that there was notorious inequality of forces; use of motor vehicle and uninhabited place were appreciated, the latter having been deliberately selected.

Abad Santos, Escolin, and Cuevas, JJ., concur. Aquino, J., concurs in the result. Concepcion, Jr. and Guerrero, JJ., are on leave.