G.R. No. 96988 August 2, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
REYNALDO BALAJADIA y PESTAÑO, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Fernandez, Velasco & Grapilon Law Offices for accused-appellant.
Separate Opinion
MELO, J., dissenting:
I dissent from the majority opinion which is anchored on absence of evidence "that the complainant is a nymphomaniac, a promiscuous woman, or a prostitute" and the presumption—that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been criminally abused and ravished unless it is the truth—totally ignoring the concrete evidence on record. Complainant's behavior, action, and inaction, as clearly revealed by the evidence on record, do not jibe with her protestation of lack of consent to their sexual congress. Upon alighting from the pedicab, instead of telling the pedicab driver to call the police, she instructed the pedicab to wait for them:
Q — While you were alighting from the tricycle according to you, you told the tricycle driver not to leave no matter what happened. That is contained in your sworn statement Exhibit B?
A — Yes, Sir.
Q — To quote question and answer No. 9 appearing on page 2 of your sworn statement marked as Exhibit B in answer to question No. 9 which reads: A—Ano pa ang pangyayari?" you answered: "A—Nang kami ay lumabas ay akbay pa rin ako at sumakay siya nang tricycle napinagsakyan namin. Kasi sinabihan ko itong tricycle boy na huwag kaming iwan ano mang mangyari.
Did the accused also tell the tricycle boy not to leave the hotel premises and wait for you?
A — No, Sir.
(TSN, Feb. 28, 1990, pp. 49-50)
From the moment that she and accused-appellant alighted from the pedicab, she had many occasions and opportunities to raise an outcry for help.ℒαwρhi৷ She did nothing of the sort but instead she freely followed accused-appellant in registering at the cashier's counter and entering Room 34 of the lodge. They alighted from the pedicab near the guard house towards which she could have immediately run as there were persons there, among whom are Luis Andaya, the cashier of Ginza Lodge, and Wilson Zamora, bellboy, but she did not. When the roomboy, Rodel Cantos, met them, she could have told him that she was being forced to go with accused. Again she did not. When they were registering at the cashier's desk, she could have told Cecilia Zamora, the cashier on duty at that time, that she (complainant) was being brought to the lodge against her will. Again she did not. It is to be emphasized that at the time they were registering, by her own testimony, complainant was standing behind accused-appellant.—
A — The roomboy was behind me while I was behind the accused.
(TSN p. 11, July 30, 1990
and accused-appellant was not holding any icepick with which, she had previously alleged, he had threatened her —
Q — While the accused was paying the receptionist with his right hand was he still holding the icepick with his right hand also
A — No. Sir.
Q — In other words, when he was making payments he was already no longer holding the icepick which he was keeping at that time?
A — No, Sir.
Q — That was still the situation until you reached the room assigned to you?
A — Yes, Sir.
(TSN, Feb. 28, 1990, p. 48)
Q — But when you were in front of the cashier his right hand was empty?
A — Yes, Sir.
Q — And still it did not occur to you to seek help from the cashier and roomboy who were both present at that time?
A — Yes, Sir. I was not able to do anything.
Q — It was the roomboy who guided you to the second floor?
A — No, Sir. He left after he said the room number and so, we two only who went up.
Q — He did not even try to point to you or the accused where the room is located?
A — No, Sir.
(TSN, July 30, 1990, pp. 17-18)
Yet, during all this time and all the way up to Room 34 she did not ask for help or raise an outcry. This but shows that she went with accused-appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and willingly.
Finally, I find it absurb that a would rapist would parade himself and his would-be victim in front of several persons who could be potential witnesses against him. Four (4) lodge employees, Cecilia Zamora, Luis Andaya, Wilson Zamora, and Rodel Cantos, who were in the best position to observe the behavior and demeanor of complainant and accused-appellant, categorically testified that they did not notice anything unusual in the behavior of complainant and accused-appellant. These lodge employees are impartial witnesses, not related in any manner to accused-appellant. True, they may be working in an establishment of low repute, but this does not mean that they will countenance the commission of a crime. There is not a shred of evidence on record that they are suborned witnesses. Their testimony must thus be given full credit.
I am thus of the opinion that complainant freely and voluntarily consented to have sexual intercourse with accused-appellant.
I, therefore, DISSENT from the majority opinion and Vote for the acquittal of accused-appellant.
Bidin, J., concurs.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
