People of the Philippines vs.

Nestor Ganduma

Facts: This appeal involves a rape case allegedly committed by Nestor

Ganduma who was convicted before the RTC of Leyte.

Now the prosecution before the lower court presented the testimonies of
the witnesses, one of whom is Eva Cornista, the alleged offended party.
The version of her story is as follows:

It was 3 in the afternoon of September 8, 1980, while Eva Cornista, a 15-

year-old girl was attending to her two younger brothers at the yard of her
house, the accussed-appellant Nestor Ganduma, 21 years old, passed by
and suddenly pointed a bolo at Eva’s breast. Threatening her with death if
she shouted, Nestor dragged Eva to the bushes which was about 10
meters from her house, then pushed her to the ground. When Eva fell face
upward, the appellant placed himself on top of her. Still holding the bolo
with his right hand, and pointing it at Eva’s breast, Nestor removed her
underwear, then his trousers with his left hand, and successfully had carnal
knowledge of her. Eva screamed and this was allegedly heard by her aunt
Eugenia who proceeded to the place where she witnessed Nestor sexually
abusing Eva. Surprised, Nestor picked up his clothes then fled.

Now, the appellant Nestor Ganduma offered a different version of story. He

testified that Eva was his sweetheart, their love affair having started some
two years before the alleged crime happened, that is, when the Nestor was
still employed as a helper in the household of Eva. Nestor’s employment
was however terminated eventually by Eva's father because of his failure to
pay a loan. On the day of the alleged crime, the Nestor testified that he was
invited by Eva to her house.

When he was asked during the trial how did Eva invite him to her house,
Nestor declared that Eva called his name and made a gesture, directing
him to go inside her house. As soon as Nestor arrived at the house, the two
began sharing intimacies in the sala until Eva suggested that they should
not do it at her house because her "father might see." So, the two
proceeded to the bushes where they continued kissing and caressing each
other. Eva later suggested that they undress. It was while they were
removing their clothes that Eugenia, Eva's aunt, surprised them. Nestor
even recalled Eugenia's words, scolding Eva for what she was doing while
her parents were not around. Thereafter, Eva asked Nestor to leave and he
did.

Now, this appeal wherein Nestor is questioning the decision of the trial
court.

Issue: Whether the decision of the trial court is contrary to law and
therefore null and void

Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court held that physical evidence being of the
highest order, the absence of external injuries belies the complainant’s
testimony that she was dragged to the bushes thus rendering her credibility
in doubt. In this case, the Supreme Court was not convinced that Eva
resisted to the alleged sexual assault because based on her testimony,
while she was dragged to the bushes, which was some 10 meters away,
and that she allegedly struggled to free herself from the grip of the
accused-appellant. It was for this reason that she fell twice and sustained
bruises on her knees and left arm. However, while the examining
physician's findings showed the presence of some linear abrasions inside
of the complainant's thigh, none was found on her arms or legs. It is,
therefore, a possibility that the complainant did not actually trip while she
was allegedly being dragged to the bushes against her will. It is more
believable that she went with the appellant to the bushes willingly and
voluntarily.

As to the presence of the linear abrasions found inside the left thigh of the
complainant, the Supreme Court held that those cannot be appreciated as
indications of force and violence. As pointed out by the counsel for the
appellant, the wounds may have been caused by blades of grass or by
some hard object while the complainant and the appellant were caressing
each other by the bushes. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court mentioned that
the wounds were too superficial to corroborate the complainant's allegation
that she resisted the appellant's sexual advances which compelled the
complainant to use force. In a rape case, the testimony of the complainant
must be corroborated by physical evidence showing use of force.

As to the testimony of the Eva’s aunt, nothing was mentioned about the
struggle when she caught the two in the act nor she mentioned seeing a
knife or deadly weapon at the scene of the supposed crime. What she
heard was only one shout “ouch or agui” which may actually not a cry of
resistance or help but a cry of discomfort or pain that naturally felt by a
woman who was experiencing sexual intercourse in such place.

Lastly, the Supreme Court held that while in numerous cases, it affirmed
the judgments of conviction rendered by the trial court in rape charges
especially where the offended parties were very young and presumptively
had no ill motives against the accused, the Supreme Court in this case
cited jurisprudence where it reversed the ruling of the trial court after finding
strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charges were
merely motivated by some factors except the truth as to their commission.
In this case, the Supreme Court suspected and believed that the
complainant was impelled by some motive to file a case. Accused was
employed in the complainant’s house for years, if he had indeed some
lustful intentions towards the complainant, he would have committed the
crime long before when there were many instances that only the two of
them were left in the house. The Supreme Court suspected that
complainant only filed the case against Nestor because of fear for his
father’s anger for her having carried on a relationship with a man who was
not only her family's former helper but also the man her father hated, not to
mention the the social consequences of the act.

This being the case, the court reversed the ruling of the lower court and
acquitted Nestor Ganduma for the crime of rape.