Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. Nos. 11590809. December 6, 1995.
PEOPLE OF THE
**
PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.
DANNY GODOY, accusedappellant.
______________
* EN BANC.
677
(2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution and (3)
that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own
merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the evidence for the defense.
Same Same Presumption of Innocence Where the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence is
not sufficient to support a conviction.Doctrinally, where the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to
support a conviction.
Same Same Flight It is not the natural tendency of a man to
remain for long by the side of the woman he had raped, and in
public in a highly populated area at thatit is to be expected that
the one who is guilty of a crime would want to dissociate himself
from the person of his victim, the scene of the crime, and from all
other things and circumstances related to the offense.It was
further alleged by complainant that after her alleged ravishment,
she put on her panty and then appellant openly accompanied her
all the way to the gate of the house where they eventually parted
ways. This is inconceivable. It is not the natural tendency of a
man to remain for long by the side of the woman he had raped,
and in public in a highly populated area at that. Given the stealth
that accompanies it and the anxiety to end further exposure at
the scene, the logical postincident impulse of the felon is to
distance himself from his victim as far and as soon as practicable,
to avoid discovery and apprehension. It is to be expected that one
who is guilty of a crime would want to dissociate himself from the
person of his victim, the scene of the crime, and from all other
things and circumstances related to the offense which could
possibly implicate him or give rise to even the slightest suspicion
as to his guilt. Verily, the guilty flee where no man pursueth.
678
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
679
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
680
681
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
party making it, the accused may show that the offer was not made
under a consciousness of guilt but merely to avoid the
inconvenience of imprisonment or for some other reason which
would justify a claim that the offer was not in truth an admission
of guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would
ordinarily ensue therefrom.The prosecution insists that the offer
of compromise made by appellant is deemed to be an admission of
guilt. This inference does not arise in the instant case. In criminal
cases, an offer of compromise is generally admissible as evidence
against the party making it. It is a legal maxim, which assuredly
constitutes one of the bases of the right to penalize, that in the
matter of public crimes which directly affect the public interest,
no compromise whatever may be entered into as regards the penal
action. It has long been held, however, that in such cases the
682
accused is permitted to show that the offer was not made under a
consciousness of guilt, but merely to avoid the inconvenience of
imprisonment or for some other reason which would justify a
claim by the accused that the offer to compromise was not in truth
an admission of his guilt or an attempt to avoid the legal
consequences which would ordinarily ensue therefrom.
Same Same Same Same Where the accused was not present
at the time the offer for monetary consideration was made, such
offer of compromise would not save the day for the prosecution.It
has been held that where the accused was not present at the time
the offer for monetary consideration was made, such offer of
compromise would not save the day for the prosecution. In
another case, this Court ruled that no implied admission can be
drawn from the efforts to arrive at a settlement outside the court,
where the accused did not take part in any of the negotiations and
the effort to settle the case was in accordance with the established
tribal customs, that is, Muslim practices and traditions, in an
effort to prevent further deterioration of the relations between the
parties.
Same Same Same Affidavits of Desistance While an
affidavit of desistance by the complainant is not looked upon with
favor, it may, however, create serious doubts as to the liability of
the accused.Generally, an affidavit of desistance by the
complainant is not looked upon with favor. It may, however,
create serious doubts as to the liability of appellant, especially if it
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
683
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
684
685
686
that Republic Act No. 7659 which reimposed the death penalty on
certain heinous crimes took effect on December 31, 1993, that is,
fifteen days after its publication in the December 16, 1993 issues
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
REGALADO, J.:
______________
1 Rollo, 10.
2 Ibid., 11.
3 In its decision, the trial court declares that it took only eight (8) days
to conduct and finish the joint trial of these caseson April 27, 28 and 29,
1994, and on May 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18, 1994. The promulgation of the
decision in these cases is set on Monday, May 23, 1994, five (5) days after
these cases are finally terminated and submitted for decision. (Rollo, 57).
688
_____________
690
_____________
691
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
Point.
Later, Fruit Godoy, the wife of appellant, went to their
house and offered P50,000.00 for the settlement of the case.
On their part, her husband insisted that they just settle,
hence all three of them, Adjeril, Helen and Mia Taha, went
to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor where they met
with the mother of appellant who gave them P30,000.00.
Adjeril and Helen Taha subsequently executed an affidavit
of desistance in Criminal Case No. 7687 for kidnapping
pending in the prosecutors office, which was sworn to
before Prosecutor II Chito S. Meregillano. Helen Taha
testified that she agreed to the settlement because that was
what her husband wanted. Mia Taha was dropped from the
school and was not allowed to graduate. Her father died
two months later, supposedly because of what happened.
The defense presented a different version of what
actually transpired.
According to appellant, he first met Mia Taha sometime
in August, 1993 at the Palawan National School (PNS).
Although he did not court her, he fell in love with her
because she often told him Sir, I love you. What started
as a joke later developed into a serious relationship which
was kept a secret from everybody else. It was on December
20, 1993 when they first had sexual intercourse as lovers.
Appellant was then assigned at the Narra Pilot Elementary
School at the poblacion because he was the coach of the
Palawan delegation for chess. At around 5:00 P.M. of that
day, complainant arrived at his quarters allegedly because
she missed him, and she then decided to spend the night
there with him.
Exactly a month thereafter, specifically in the evening of
January 20, 1994, Erna Baradero, a teacher at the PNS,
was looking inside the school building for her husband, who
was a security guard of PNS, when she heard voices
apparently coming from the Orchids Room. She went closer
to listen and she heard a girls voice saying Mahal na
mahal kita, Sir, iwanan mo ang iyong asawa at tatakas
tayo.Upon hearing this, she immediately opened the door
and was startled to see Mia Taha and Danny Godoy
holding hands. She asked them what they were doing there
at such an unholy hour but the two, who were obviously
caught by surprise, could not answer. She then hur
693
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
694
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
697
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
699
_____________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
701
10
with serious illegal
11
detention. However, pursuant to a
joint resolution issued on March 11, 1994 by Prosecutor II
Reynaldo R. Guayco of the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, two separate informations for rape and for
kidnapping with serious illegal detention were nevertheless
filed against appellant Danny Godoy with no bail
recommended in both charges.
Appellant is now before us seeking the reversal of the
judgment of the court below, on the following assignment of
errors:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
VI. The trial court erred in giving full faith and credence to
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and completely
ignoring the testimonies of the defense witnesses.
VII. The trial court erred in concluding that there was implied
admission of guilt on the part of the accusedappellant in
view of the offer to compromise.
VIII. The trial court erred in ordering that the complainant be
indemnified in the sum of one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) for each of the alleged crimes committed.
IX. The trial court gravely erred by imposing the death
penalty for each of the crimes charged on the accused
appellant despite the fact that the crimes were allegedly
committed
12
prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No.
7659.
______________
10 Ibid., 115.
11 Ibid., 44.
12 Brief for AccusedAppellant, 12 Rollo, 184185.
702
_______________
13 People vs. Managbanag, G.R. No. 66550, November 27, 1987, 155
SCRA 669.
14 People vs. Alfonso, G.R. No. 72573, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 487.
15 Whartons Criminal Evidence, Vol. I, 12th ed., Sec. 14, pp. 414 2.
16 People vs. Sequerra, G.R. No. 58574, October 12, 1987, 154 SCRA
657.
703
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_____________
17 People vs. Del Pilar, G.R. No. 75852, August 11, 1988, 164 SCRA
280.
18 People vs. Capilitan, G.R. No. 73382, February 15, 1990, 182 SCRA
313.
19 People vs. Bacdad, G.R. Nos. 7171920, May 8, 1991, 196 SCRA 786.
704
______________
20 People vs. Co, L38052, July 14, 1988, 163 SCRA 453.
705
______________
21 People vs. Taruc, G.R. No. 74655, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA 178.
22 People vs. Herrick, G.R. No. 85137, July 12, 1990, 187 SCRA 364.
23 Whartons Criminal Evidence, Vol. 1, 12th ed., Sec. 185, p. 367.
24 People vs. Sujetado, G.R. No. 103967, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 382.
706
25
ing house which is just across the street, and the PNS 26
schoolbuilding which is only around thirty meters away.
Complainant mentioned in her narration that right after
the incident she went directly to her boarding house where
she saw her landlady. Yet, the landlady was never
presented as a witness to corroborate the story of
complainant, despite the fact that the former was the very
first person she came in contact with from the time
appellant allegedly left her at the gate of the Casantosan
boarding house after her alleged traumatic ordeal. Even
though they supposedly did not talk, the landlady could at
least have testified on complainants physical appearance
and to attest to the theorized fact that indeed she saw
complainant on said date and hour, possibly with
dishevelled hair, bloody skirt and all.
We are, therefore, justifiedly inclined to believe
appellants version that it was Mia Taha who invited him
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_____________
707
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
______________
708
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
______________
709
33
body is an indication of complainants consent to the act.
While the absence in the medical certificate of external
signs of physical injuries on the34victim does not necessarily
negate the commission of rape, the instant case is clearly
an exception to this rule since appellant has successfully
cast doubt on the veracity of that charge against him.
Even granting ex gratia argumenti that the medical
report and the laceration corroborated complainants
assertion that there was sexual intercourse, of course the
same cannot be said as to the alleged use of force. It has
been held that such corroborative evidence is not
considered sufficient, since proof of facts constituting one
principal element of the crime is not corroborative proof of
facts necessary to constitute
35
another equally important
element of the crime.
Complainant testified that she struggled a little but it
was not really strong because she was afraid of appellant.
Again assuming that a sexual assault did take place as she
claims, we nevertheless strongly believe that her supposed
fear is more imaginary than real. It is evident that
complainant did not use the manifest resistance36
expected of
a woman defending her honor and chastity. She failed to
make any outcry when appellant allegedly grabbed her and
dragged her inside the house. There is likewise no evidence
on record that she put up a struggle when appellant forced
her to lie on the floor, removed her panty, opened the
zipper of his trousers, and inserted his organ inside her
genitals. Neither did she demonstrate that appellant, in
committing the heinous act, subjected her to any force of
whatever nature or form.
Complainants explanation for her failure to shout or
struggle is too conveniently general and ruefully
unconvincing to make this Court believe that she
tenaciously resisted the alleged sexual attack on her by
appellant. And, if ever she did put up any
_____________
710
_____________
37 People vs. Geneveza, G.R. No. 74047, January 13, 1989, 169 SCRA
153.
38 State vs. Raymond, supra, fn. 35.
39 People vs. Managbanag, supra, fn. 13.
40 People vs. Baderes, et al., supra, fn. 29.
711
_______________
41 People vs. Martinez, G.R. No. 95849, March 4, 1993, 219 SCRA 502.
42 People vs. Nuez, G.R. No. 79316, April 10, 1992, 208 SCRA 34.
43 Ibid., id.
712
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
713
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
714
_______________
715
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
53 See People vs. Llarena, G.R. No. 74182, December 19, 1989, 180
SCRA 289.
716
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
54 People vs. Austria, et al., G.R. No. 55109, April 8, 1991, 195 SCRA
700.
717
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
718
_______________
64 See People vs. Villarin, G.R. No. 96950, January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA
165.
65 See People vs. Sonico, G.R. No. 70308, December 14, 1987, 156 SCRA
419.
66 See People vs. Damaso, et al., G.R. Nos. 4149092, October 18, 1990,
190 SCRA 595.
67 People vs. Godoy, L31177, July 15, 1976, 72 SCRA 69.
68 People vs. Pacis, et al., L3295758, July 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 540
People vs. Baao, G.R. No. 68574, July 7, 1986, 142 SCRA 476.
69 People vs. Ocimar, et al., G.R. No. 94555, August 17, 1992, 212
719
27 Feb. 94
Dane,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
SCRA 646.
70 Original Record, Vol. I, 113.
720
3/1/94
Dane,
Im sorry kong problema ang ipinadala o sinulat sa
iyo sa halip sa kasiyahan. oo nag usap na tayo nagawa
ko lang naman ang sumulat sa iyo dahil naiinis na ako
sa pagmumukha ng mga magulang kong suwapang.
Ang paglayas ko sana ay dahil sa narinig ko. Sir
narinig ko na magreklamo si nanay kay Arquero yong
superentende sa Palawan high tapos ang sabi ay
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
71 Ibid., 114.
721
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
72 Bautista vs. Castro, etc., et al., G.R. No. 61260, February 17, 1992,
206 SCRA 305.
73 Court Administrator vs. Villanueva, etc., et al., A.M. No. MTJ90460,
June 3, 1993, 223 SCRA 41.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
722
ATTY. EBOL:
Q Did I get you right on rebuttal that Mrs. Erna Baradero
and Filomena Pielago were your teachers?
A Yes, sir.
Q And they have been your teachers for several months
before this incident of January 21, 1994, am I not
correct?
A That is true, sir.
Q And you have (sic) during these past months that they
have been your teachers you took examinations in their
classes in their particular subject(s)?
A Yes, sir.
Q And some of those test papers are in the possession of
your teachers, am I correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q I will show you Exhibit 4 previously marked as
Exhibit 4, it appears to be your test paper and with
your signature and the alphabet appears in this exhibit
appears to be that of Mia Taha, please examine this and
tell the Honorable Court if that is your test paper?
A Yes, sir.
Q That signature Mia Taha I understand is also your
signature?
A Yes, sir.
Q I will show you Exhibit 4A, will you please examine
this Exhibit 4A and tell this Honorable Court if you
are familiar with that.
A What subject is that?
Q I am just asking you whether you are familiar with that.
A I cannot remember if I have this kind of subject, sir.
Q How about this signature Mia Taha, are you not
familiar with that signature?
A That is min(e), sir.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
723
xxx
Q You will deny this Exhibit 1 your signature?
xxx
Q You will deny that this is your handwriting?
A That is my handwriting, sir.
Q Also Exhibit 2?
74
A Yes, sir.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
724
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 52/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
.
725
_______________
80 People vs. Castillon, et al., G.R. No. 100586, January 15, 1993, 217
SCRA 76.
81 People vs. Pascua, G.R. No. 82303, December 21, 1989, 180 SCRA
472, and cases therein cited.
726
82
their commission. This is a case in point. The Court,
therefore, cannot abdicate its duty to declare that the
prosecution has failed to meet the exacting test of moral
certainty and proof of guilt of appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.
This is not to say that the Court approves of the conduct
of appellant. Indisputably, he took advantage of
complainants feelings for him and breached his vow of
fidelity to his wife. As her teacher, he should have acted as
adviser and counselor to complainant and helped her 83
develop in manners and virtue instead of corrupting her.
Hence, even as he is freed from physical detention in a
prison as an instrument of human justice, he remains in
the spiritual confinement of his conscience as a measure of
divine retribution. Additionally, these ruminations do not
rule out such other legal options against him as may be
available in the arsenal of statutory law.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
727
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 55/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
84Whartons Criminal Evidence, Vol. 1, 12th ed., Sec. 89, pp. 173174.
85People vs. Andaya, G.R. No. 86364, May 6, 1991, 196 SCRA 660.
86Wharton, op. cit., Sec. 93 p. 186.
728
_______________
87People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 86172, March 4, 1991, 194 SCRA
601.
88Wharton, loc. cit, p. 188.
89People vs. Puno, et al., G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993, 219 SCRA
85.
729
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/62
8/15/2016 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME250
_______________
90People vs. Leoparte, G.R. No. 85328, July 4, 1990, 187 SCRA 190.
730
_______________
91People vs. Manliguez, et al., G.R. No. 91745, March 4, 1992, 206
SCRA 812.
92People vs. Tiengo, et al., G.R. No. 55832, November 20, 1984, 133
SCRA 290.
93People vs. Cunanan, et al., L17599, April 24, 1967, 19 SCRA 769.
731
_______________
94Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix Insurance Co., 52 Phil. 807 (1929).
732
_______________
95People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555. Since
it was declared effective 15 days after its publication, this means that its
effectivity was on the 15th day after such publication. Had it been made
effective after 15 days following its publication, the effectivity would have
been on the 16th day thereafter. This is an accepted mode of computing
dates of effectivity and was last adopted in fixing the effectivity of the
Family Code (see Art. 257, Executive Order No. 209 and Memorandum
Circular No. 85, Office of the President, dated November 7, 1988).
733
[1993])
o0o
734
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001568e666413ccdd644e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/62