PEOPLE vs. MANUEL BAGOS

PEOPLE vs. MANUEL BAGOS
G.R. No. 177152, January 6, 2010

Leonardo-De Castro, J.:

Facts: Manuel Bagos was charged with the crime of rape committed on or about the month of May, 1998 along the river bank of Baling-caguing River, Mabini, Pangasinan against AAA (real name of the victim was withheld by the court in its decision), a 10 year old minor while bathing in the river by grabbing and pulling her to sit in his in his lap, thereafter removed her panty and his pants, inserted his penis to her vagina and have carnal knowledge with her. Accused denied the allegation and stated that the victim’s family accused him of raping [AAA] due to a family misunderstanding. On December 15, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of the crime he was charged for. The CA upheld the decision of the RTC and added an award for exemplary damages. From the CA, the case was elevated to the SC upon filing of the accused-appelant of a notice of appeal on January 8, 2007. On his appeal, accused-appellant contends that the testimony of [AAA] is incredible, unconvincing and inconsistent with human nature. He particularly points out the part of her testimony where accused-appellant allegedly pulled her panty down to her knees, removed his pants while standing, made her sit on his lap while in the water and inserted his penis into her vagina. On appeal, accused-appellant claims that this is incredulous, considering that he had a slight physical defect on his leg and could not have inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina with ease and without ripping her panty if the same had been pulled down only to AAA’s knees. According to accused-appellant, that AAA did not shout for help during the incident was likewise contrary to common experience.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:
1. Credibility of the victim’s testimony.

When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the finding of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is so because the trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.

2. Failure of the victim to shout for help.

This Court has noted in several cases that minors could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives. Be that as it may, the absence of struggle or an outcry from the victim is immaterial to the rape of a child below 12 years of age. The law presumes that such a victim, on account of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own.

Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, as in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and have the offender apprehended and punished. The crime of rape is essentially one committed in secrecy, hence it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of forced coitus. As a result, conviction may be based solely on the plausible testimony of the private complainant.