This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
T-799 Reynaldo Navales and Nilda Navales met in 1986 in a local bar where Nilda worked as a waitress. The two became lovers and Nilda quit her job, managed a boarding house owned by her uncle and studied Health Aide financed by Reynaldo. Upon learning that Nilda's uncle was prodding her to marry an American, Reynaldo, not wanting to lose her, asked her to marry him. This, despite his knowledge that Nilda was writing her penpals and was asking money from them and that she had an illegitimate son by a man whose identity she did not reveal to him. The two got married on December 29, 1988, before the Municipal Trial Court Judge of San Fernando, Cebu.4 Reynaldo claims that during the first year of their marriage, their relationship went well. Problems arose, however, when Nilda started selling RTWs and cosmetics, since she could no longer take care of him and attend to household chores.5 Things worsened when she started working as an aerobics instructor at the YMCA, where, according to Reynaldo, Nilda's flirtatiousness and promiscuity recurred. She wore tight-fitting outfits, allowed male clients to touch her body, and introduced herself as single. Reynaldo received phone calls from different men looking for Nilda. There was also a time when Nilda chose to ride with another man instead of Reynaldo; and another when Nilda went home late, riding in the car of the man who kissed her. Reynaldo also claims that Nilda refused to have a child with him, as it would destroy her figure.6 On June 18, 1992, Reynaldo left Nilda and never reconciled with her again.7 On August 30, 1999, Reynaldo filed a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage and Damages before the RTC, Toledo City, Cebu, docketed as Civil Case No. T-799 claiming that his marriage with Nilda did not cure Nilda's flirtatiousness and sexual promiscuity, and that her behavior indicates her lack of understanding and appreciation of the meaning of marriage, rendering the same void under Article 36 of the Family Code. Reynaldo testified in support of his petition and presented telephone directories showing that Nilda used her maiden name "Bacon" instead of "Navales." Reynaldo presented Leticia Vatanagul, a Clinical Psychologist and Social Worker who drafted a Psychological Assessment of Marriage dated March 28, 2001. In said Assessment, Vatanagul concluded that Nilda is a nymphomaniac, who has a borderline personality, a social deviant, an alcoholic, and suffering from anti-social personality disorder, among others, which illnesses are incurable and are the causes of Nilda’s psychological incapacity to perform her marital role as wife to Reynaldo. Nilda, for her part, claims that Reynaldo knew that she had a child before she met him, yet Reynaldo continued courting her; thus, their eventual marriage.She claims that it was actually Reynaldo who was linked with several women, who went home very late, kept his earnings for himself, and subjected her to physical harm whenever she called his
v. by her refusal to accompany with [sic] her husband despite of the latter's insistence. by preferring to loss [sic] her husband rather than losing her job as aerobic instructress and on top of all. Nilda also avers that the guidelines in Republic of the Phillippines. it was clearly established that the defendant had no full understanding of [the] effects of marriage and had no appreciation of [the] consequences of marriage as shown by her x x x act of concealing her marital status by using her maiden name "Nilda T. and that such incapacity was incurable and grave enough to bring about the disability of the wife to assume the essential obligations of marriage. assuming that such incapacity existed. She questions the lower courts’ finding that she is a nymphomaniac. and that. augmenting her pretense of being still single through the telephone directories. Nilda filed a Motion for Reconsideration. respect and fidelity. it was already existing at the time of the marriage. Molina25 were not complied with. The expert opinion was given weight. 2002. Bacon". affirming the RTC Decision Nilda now comes before the Court alleging that: Nilda claims that she did not fail in her duty to observe mutual love. that no case for inchastity was initiated by Reynaldo against her. by her act of allowing a man other than her husband to touch her legs even in her husband's presence. . by allowing another man to kiss her even in the full view of her husband. which the RTC denied on April 10. Reynaldo abandoned her for other women. by refusing to bear a child fathered by her husband because it will destroy her figure. There is also not a single evidence to show that she had sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband while they were still living together.attention to his vices. but rather opted to ride other man's jeep. together with Reynaldo. She worked at the YMCA to cope with the needs of life. 2001 stating that she was an aerobics instructress for a program that was exclusively for ladies. since she was never interviewed by the expert witness to verify the truth of Reynaldo's allegations. The CA dismissed Nilda’s appeal. The RTC resolved the doubt on her motive for using her maiden name in the telephone directory in favor of the dissolution of the marriage instead of its preservation. RTC Held: x x x From the testimonies and evidences x x x adduced. the latest of whom was Liberty Lim whom she charged. with concubinage. even though it was baseless to establish that petitioner had psychological incapacity to comply with her marital obligations as a wife. Nilda presented a certification from the YMCA dated October 17. that she never had any illicit relationship with any man. and she taught only female students. whose name her husband did not even know. and that it was actually Reynaldo who had a pending case for concubinage. is a clear indication of the herein defendant's psychological incapacity.
T-799. the psychological report lacked specificity.Simply stated. which in turn manifests her lack of understanding of the consequences of marriage. While Reynaldo and Nilda's marriage failed and appears to be without hope of reconciliation. the essential marital obligations. The answer. Reynaldo failed to specify. is in the negative. is DISMISSED. Reynaldo also presented Clinical Psychologist Vatanagul to bolster his claim that Nilda is psychologically incapacitated. While it is true that the Court relies heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality. Indeed. however. is not always to have it declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. is not a null and void marriage. the conclusions drawn by the report are vague. the remedy. sweeping and lack sufficient factual bases. no matter how unsatisfactory. The petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and damages. As pointed out by Nilda. the issue posed before the Court is whether the marriage between Reynaldo and Nilda is null and void on the ground of Nilda's psychological incapacity. The standards used by the Court in assessing the sufficiency of psychological reports may be deemed very strict.70 And this Court. even as the highest one. the petition is GRANTED. it failed to show the root cause of Nilda's psychological incapacity. the names of the men Nilda had sexual relationship with or the circumstances surrounding the same. can only apply the letter and spirit of the law. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.71 WHEREFORE. contrary to the findings of the RTC and the CA. The Court cannot agree with the RTC that said telephone listings show that Nilda represented herself to be single. there is not even a single proof that she was ever involved in an illicit relationship with a man other than her husband. and thereby complying with. however. no matter how harsh it may be. . and failed to demonstrate that there was a "natal or supervening disabling factor" or an "adverse integral element" in Nilda's character that effectively incapacitated her from accepting. A marriage. docketed as Civil Case No. but that is only proper in view of the principle that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage and the indissolubility of the marital vinculum. and that her psychological or mental malady existed even before the marriage. Costs against respondent.
FRANCIS GAVINA Y QUEBEC. Inside the motel room.: MILET JURIAL hails from San Jose. Fearing that their employer’s security guard might find them. They left Susan behind. Appellant brought them to Harrison Street. but wound up as a cook in Malate. to work as a saleslady. J. No. appellant offered her shelter for the night and brought her to Mahal Kita Motel in Pasay City. the two girls readily went with him. but promised to be back for her. and slept. she fled from her employer on the night of January 18. as she believed he would not "touch her. where they had a meal. they went for a stroll at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) complex. with co-employee Susan Yap." They took a cab to Pasay Rotonda. she found herself naked on the bed with appellant lying on top of her. He introduced himself as a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent investigating cases of missing children and offered to help the two distressed girls.6 . Aldwin accompanied Milet to the office of the mall security force where she revealed that Gavina had raped her. fell on the bed. They were seated near the Rizal Monument. 1999. 2002 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.M. As the uncle was not there. Despite her tender age. She claimed to be only 14 years old at the time of the incident. Aldwin informed her that the man she was with was a pimp. He then brought her to Baclaran Church where they stayed until 4:00 A. After appellant left. vs. Responding policemen immediately arrested appellant upon his return. she admitted to having been deflowered by a boy friend in the province. when appellant approached them. After she drank the water. They wound up in Luneta Park. she came to Manila on October 20. she asked for help from one Aldwin Coronel who was also inside the chapel. DECISION QUISUMBING. supposedly resided. She could not leave as appellant sat near the bedroom door. accused-appellant. He left her at the chapel after telling her he would look for money. complainant felt thirsty and asked for a glass of water from appellant.G. she felt dizzy. appellant brought Milet to Harrison Plaza where they had lunch. Digos. Davao del Sur. They stayed in the motel until about 12:00 o’clock noon. his penis inside her vagina. 1998. plaintiff-appellee. Manila where his uncle. Unable to take her employer’s maltreatment. He next brought her to a chapel on the second floor of the mall. When Milet complained she was sleepy. At the invitation of one Erlinda Undang. She voluntarily went with appellant. She tried to push him aside but he threatened to kill her if she resisted and shouted for help. Appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. When she came to. 143237 October 28. Appellant then invited her to buy buko.R. From the motel. a policeman.
after Aldwin Coronel informed her that he was a pimp. They then went to Harrison Plaza to eat and visit the mall chapel. she lay down on the bed with appellant. such that the injuries on her genitals could have also been due to consensual sexual intercourse. complainant knew that the place they were going to was a motel. When the guard left. He offered them shelter at a friend’s house in Malate. the girls came out of their hiding place. Unable to reach his brother. After praying. has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. so he offered to bring her to Mahal Kita Motel.M. the Harrison Plaza security guards apprehended him and brought him. Milet complained that she was sleepy. they slept until noon of January 19. From there. 1999. they left Susan and took a cab to Pasay Rotonda where they again ate. It was already 4:00 A. He was subsequently brought to the Pasay City Police Station. on cross-examination. She then invited him to go to Baclaran Church. She agreed. They told him that they had run away from their employer who maltreated them and his guard was looking for them. Appellant insisted that Milet went with him freely and voluntarily and that they had consensual sex. according to appellant. According to appellant. a security guard chased the girls who promptly hid among the bushes. They took shelter at a nearby building where he sat beside complainant. On the pretext of looking for buko. MARIELLA SUGUE CASTILLO. Thereafter. However. the doctor admitted that there were no signs of physical abuse on complainant’s body. he went back to the chapel as promised. and sentenced him to an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim indemnity of P75. With only a towel wrapped around her. a doctor at the Child Protection Unit of the UPPhilippine General Hospital. they proceeded to the PICC site where they had snacks until it began to rain.DR. together with Milet. Milet changed attire and put her soiled clothes in appellant’s bag. The lower court found the prosecution version credible. He claimed that Milet charged him with rape only because she was influenced by the guards to do so. appellant told Milet to wait for him at the chapel while he called up his brother. At the church.00 for moral damages. The issue for resolution is whether or not the guilt of appellant. Appellant FRANCIS GAVINA was the sole witness for the defense.00 and P50. conducted the medico-genital examination on Milet. as charged. complainant fell asleep. when Milet woke him up. Her findings were consistent with complainant’s allegations that she had been sexually abused the day before. . convicted appellant of the charge. He woke her up and they went out for coffee.M. To his surprise.000. 1999. They began to kiss and proceeded to have sex for four consecutive times. He testified that around 9:00 P. Milet took a shower and asked appellant to hang her freshly washed underwear. he was walking in Luneta when he saw complainant and Susan Yap. The latter whispered that she wanted to leave Susan as she was bad company. of January 18. Moments later. He wanted her to stay at his brother’s house. to their office. when they reached the motel. The two girls smiled at him. They went to Malate but his friend was not around.000. Once inside.
Yet. appellant had "sweet-talked" her into going with him to the motel and having sexual relations with him. and after the alleged rape. we must find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused. and thereafter. tells a different story. First. . now appellant. complainant’s conduct sows the seeds of grave doubt concerning her credibility. they were in a crowded shopping mall. We find absent here the element of force or intimidation to support a charge for rape. to wait for her ravisher to return. and she had every opportunity to flee from her supposed rapist. and ask for help. Before tagging along with him. but rape. note that the information charges rape allegedly committed by means of force or intimidation. during. In rape committed by force or intimidation.The trial court indeed has overlooked certain factual circumstances that could lead to a different result. We are constrained to remain within the parameters of the charge. even went to the chapel with him. if indeed she was. The record shows that after she was allegedly raped. as gleaned from her testimony. the trial court relied upon a finding that complainant was unconscious when the appellant had carnal knowledge of her. it is imperative that the prosecution should establish that voluntariness on the part of the offended party was absolutely lacking. It is not inconceivable therefore that.19 In this instance. The element of unconsciousness on the victim’s part was not alleged much less specified in the information. in convicting appellant. lies squarely upon the prosecution. complainant willingly went with appellant on board a cab to Harrison Plaza. she developed instant trust and confidence in a man whom she hardly knew at all. In the present case. to use the trial court’s language. the charge is not for pimping or trafficking in women. she chose to leave this companion behind to go with a stranger whom she met only that night. Surprisingly. Where the accused raises doubt as to any material element. It appears rather unusual and contrary to human experience for a rape victim. And the burden of proof. Yet she did not. Appellant had no weapon with him and used none in the commission of the alleged crime. It could be some other offense. appellant was unarmed. Nowhere in complainant’s testimony do we find such degree of intimidation as to cause her to believe that appellant was at that time capable of harming her or killing her had she refused him. but the prosecution is unable to overcome such doubt. that the crime of rape as charged had been committed. had a long lunch with him. Yet. It is noteworthy that before the incident. But here. must be acquitted."14 There was no showing of such compelling fear. However. complainant’s conduct before. seen in its totality. much less child abuse. Appellant was charged with rape committed by means of force or intimidation. the only finding made by the trial court concerning the element of force and intimidation is a perfunctory sentence that "she pushed him but accused threatened her. "sweet-talking" a girl into sex is not rape. complainant freely and voluntarily went with appellant to several places before they ultimately ended up in a motel. Second. Thus. This contradicts the allegation in the information. she was with her friend and co-worker whom she had known far longer than appellant. It cannot be made the basis of conviction.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is further ordered to report to this Court. Bellosillo. and after coitus. including one indicating consensual copulation. the presumption of innocence continues and must prevail. could lend themselves to different interpretations. SO ORDERED. . it is necessary to examine the basis for each presumption and determine which should logically prevail. The factual circumstances that attended the alleged rape. its decision totally disregarded the more paramount constitutional presumption that an accused is deemed innocent until proven otherwise. during.. 99-0295 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. compliance with this decision. suffices to overcome the presumption of innocence by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. relied on the presumption hominis that a woman who cries rape says all that need to be said. Branch 109 in Criminal Case No.without violating appellant’s right to due process. Mendoza. and Callejo. (Chairman). in holding for conviction. He is ordered RELEASED forthwith from confinement. Acting Chief Justice. concur. Sr. Until the appellant’s guilt is shown in this manner. and no young Filipina would cry rape if it were not true. The trial court. the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. in the light of the medical evidence and testimony of the UP-PGH doctor. JJ. in particular to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. WHEREFORE. particularly complainant’s conduct before. one tending to show the guilt of the accused and the other to sustain his innocence. When two or more conflicting presumptions are involved. A presumption indicating guilt does not by itself destroy the presumption of innocence unless the inculpating presumption. together with all the evidence adduced. However. within five days from notice.. unless held for another valid cause. Appellant FRANCIS GAVINA Y QUEBEC is ACQUITTED of rape on the ground of reasonable doubt.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?