People v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendants-appellants, Bermillo Soriano and Antonio Gallardo, were convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for having carnal knowledge of Farmacita Tanigue, a 14-year-old minor, on February 17, 1968. Farmacita testified that she was lured by Soriano under the pretense that her mother was calling for her, and upon reaching a dark place, she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse by both Soriano and Gallardo, who took turns. She reported the incident two days later after being persuaded by her uncle. The defense claimed the sexual act was consensual, with Gallardo testifying that a third person, Gil Aquino, also had intercourse with Farmacita. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan convicted both defendants-appellants of rape, sentencing each to life imprisonment and to jointly and severally indemnify the offended party. They appealed the decision. The Petition: The defendants-appellants appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in believing the testimony of Farmacita Tanigue and in finding the defense's version unworthy of credence.
Issue(s)
Whether the sexual act was committed against the will of Farmacita Tanigue or with her consent. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the offended party and discrediting the defense's version. Whether the defendants-appellants acted in conspiracy with each other. Whether the penalty imposed was in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, with modification as to the penalty. The conviction of Bermillo Soriano and Antonio Gallardo for the crime of rape was upheld. Each appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, to jointly and severally indemnify the offended party in the sum of P3,000.00, and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of consent and credibility of witnesses: The Court found the testimony of Farmacita Tanigue, the 14-year-old victim, to be credible and consistent with the evidence. Her testimony was corroborated by the medical examination conducted by Dr. Zenaida M. Aquino, and by the testimonies of her grandmother, Maria Manuel, and cousin, Marvini Panaligan, who confirmed that Farmacita had been crying incessantly since the incident. The Court found the defense's version inherently incredible, stating that no woman would consent to sexual intercourse with two men in the presence of each other unless she were a prostitute, which Farmacita, a minor high school student, was not. The Court also noted that the appellants could not provide any motive for Farmacita to falsely accuse them. The subsequent conduct of the parties, particularly Farmacita's immediate departure from the scene and her delayed reporting, was consistent with her testimony of being a victim. Furthermore, the repeated offers by the mothers of the appellants to have them marry Farmacita, which were rejected, were considered an implied admission of guilt under Section 24, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. On the credibility of defense witnesses: The Court found the testimonies of Primitiva de la Cruz, Remedios Trinidad, and Jesus Valencia to bear "all the earmarks of artificiality." Primitiva's account of following the couple and her explanation for not intervening were deemed questionable. Remedios Trinidad's testimony, where she asked Farmacita about the previous night without any prior knowledge of any incident, was considered illogical and lacking basis. The Court concluded that these testimonies were fabricated to support the defense's claim of consent. On the issue of conspiracy: The Court found that the appellants acted in conspiracy with each other. They cooperated in abusing Farmacita Tanigue, and each was held guilty as a principal not only for the rape committed by him but also for that committed by his co-defendant. This conclusion was based on their concerted actions in luring the victim, overpowering her, and taking turns in committing the sexual acts. On the penalty for rape: Pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4111, the penalty for rape committed by two or more persons is life imprisonment to death. The Court held that since the offense was committed at nighttime, but it did not appear that the nighttime was sought purposely, taken advantage of, or facilitated the commission of the offense, the minimum penalty of life imprisonment was appropriate. The Court noted that while each appellant had twice ravished the complainant, they could only be convicted of one rape each due to the lack of specific allegations in the information for multiple counts of rape. Therefore, each appellant was sentenced twice to the minimum of the penalty, which is life imprisonment.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for rape, holding that the testimony of the victim, a minor, was credible and corroborated by subsequent conduct and circumstances, while the defense's version was inherently incredible. The Court also held that the offer of marriage by the accused's mothers constituted an implied admission of guilt. Conspiracy was established, making each accused liable for the rape committed by the other.