Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-28884 July 25, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NOLY SIA, defendant-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Ciriaco C. Sayson for defendant-appellant.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Appeal by defendant Noly Sia from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Masbate, convicting him of the crime of rape and sentencing him to life imprisonment, to acknowledge the child born to complainant Rubina Aguirre, in consequence of the criminal act committed by him on March 27, 1967 and to support said child, as well as to indemnify the aforementioned complainant in the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
Complainant Rubina Aguirre is a first grade public school teacher in the Buracan Elementary School, Municipality of Dimasalang, Province of Masbate. Defendant, Noly Sia, a fourth grade teacher in the same school, was, admittedly, her sweetheart since November 21, 1966. According to Miss Aguirre, on March 27, 1967, at about 8 p.m., appellant visited her in the house of Cayetano Yanson, in Buracan, where she was boarding. Upon learning that she then had a headache, appellant gave her two (2) tablets stating that they were good therefor. Accordingly, at about 9 p.m., she took the tablets, with a glass of water, but, soon thereafter, she felt dizzy. She, therefore, bade appellant to go home and, entering her own room, she slept therein. Sometime later, she was awakened by the weight of a man having carnal knowledge of her. Feeling helpless, because she was very weak, she wanted to scream, but her lips were numb. Although her eyes could hardly be opened, she recognized appellant as the satyr. Thereafter, he stood up, buttoned his clothes, and sitting beside her, begged her to tell nobody about it, as well as promised to marry her. She could only answer with tears in her eyes, being too weak to speak. Presently, appellant left and she fell asleep once more, despite the pains in her vagina. About a month later, she began to feel the signs of pregnancy. This notwithstanding, she did not report the matter to the authorities, expecting, as she did, that appellant would keep his promise. However, early in August, 1967, he married Leonor Antonio, in view of which, on August 21, complainant initiated the present action by filing the corresponding complaint. On the same date, complainant submitted herself to medical examination, which confirmed the fact that she was in the family way. It is not disputed that, sometime in December 1967, she was delivered of the baby boy begotten by her to appellant herein.
The latter testified that he had carnal knowledge of the complainant with her consent. He would have us believe that they had been intimate many times, in several places, including her classroom. The lower court, however, gave no credence to his testimony and a reading of the transcript thereof has not impressed us, except in one respect: that he is mischievous and morally unsound. Thus, for instance, he revealed, mainly on cross-examination by His Honor, the trial Judge, that when he went to Masbate, he was engaged to be married to his present wife, Leonor Antonio; that he remembered his promise to marry her, when he courted complainant herein; and that, this notwithstanding, he promised to marry the latter. Then, again, the manner in which he made this revelation indicates that he had no qualms of conscience about what he had done.
Appellant introduced, also, the testimony of one Domiciano Banaag, who said that, on December 15, 1966, between 2 and 3 a.m., he saw appellant and the complainant, lying side by side with each other, inside her classroom; but, the lower court did not believe Banaag, and, we think, correctly, for he was a farmer living some distance away from the school building and he has not explained satisfactorily why he happened to be in the school building that late and to peep through an opening in the window of said classroom, or how he could distinguish what allegedly took place inside the room, which was closed and had no light.
Just the same, this case hinges on complainant's testimony — uncorroborated, insofar as the deceit imputed to appellant herein — vis-a-vis the latter's testimony, coupled with the fact that the complaint herein was not filed until almost five (5) months after the alleged rape and immediately after appellant had married another woman. Considering our human fallibility and the gravity of the offense charged, the Court feels it cannot legally declare that appellant's guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. This does not imply that complainant's version is false or that we doubt her probity or morals. It simply means that the quantum of evidence required by law to justify conviction for said crime has not been clearly met.
This notwithstanding, since the commission of the carnal act is admitted and the paternity of the child resulting therefrom has not been denied, the obligation to acknowledge and support said child, as well as the indemnity to the complainant, as directed in the decision appealed from, are still in order.
WHEREFORE, except insofar as appellant's conviction for rape, which is hereby reversed, and penalty of life imprisonment imposed therefor, which is, accordingly, eliminated, said decision is affirmed, in all other respects, with the costs of this instance de officio. Considering, however, that the sum due to the child by way of support is not determined in the aforementioned decision, let the record of this case be remanded to the lower court for the fixing of the sum he may thus recover from his father, appellant herein. It is so ordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
