People v.

Bardaje

G.R. No. L029271

August 29, 1980

Melencio-Herrera, J:

Facts:

 Accused Adeline Bardaje has been convicted of Forcible Abduction with Rape, and sentenced to
death. This is a case on automatic review (because of death penalty)
 The complaint lodged by Marceline Cuizon against Adelino and five others, Lucio, Malate, Pedro
Odal, Adriano Odal, Silvino Odal and Fidel Ansuas of the crime of rape. 1 Adelino was arrested
when he signed an alleged confession admitting having kidnapped and molested Marcelina which
is probable the basis for her complaint. While Marcelino mentioned that there was another person
with the group when Marcelina was allegedly kidnapped, he was not included in the complaint.
 In the information, the fiscal accuses Adelino Bardaje, Lucio Malate, Pedro Odal, Adriano Odal,
Silvino Odal and Fidel Ansuas of the crime of Rape with Illegal Detention with the aggravating
circumstances that it was committed in an uninhabited place and with the aid of armed men. It will
be noted that the complaint led directly by MARCELINA with the Court was amended by the Fiscal
in the Information. While MARCELINA charged ADELINO only with Rape, the Fiscal charged him
with "Rape with Illegal Detention". Other changes in the complaint and information are:
o Marcelina only alleged that she was dragged from the house of Norma Fernandez by
means of force and intimidation and at nighttime while the information added that the
accused were armed with bolos
o Barrio name changed from Lopig to Crossing
o Information included the allegation that the crime was committed with the said aggravating
circumstances
 Only Adelino stood trial and the five others were never arrested. Both complain and information
also indicated that Adelino was the only one who committed the rape.
 At first the information was amended to include the allegation that Marceline was detained and
deprived of liberty for a period of three days, which allegation could be taken into account in
connection with illegal detention since Marceline was “kidnapped” at midnight of Dec. 14 and
Adelino was arrested in Dec. 17. After trial, Adelino submitted that the grounds for rape with illegal
detention has not been established. It was only in the Memorandum of Fiscal that the position was
taken that the crime which should be imputed to Adelino is rape with Forcible Abduction.
 The Trial Court found ADELINO guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape with the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and aid of armed men, and sentenced him to death.
o Marcelina Cuizon, 14-year-old, narration:
 In December, 1965, she and her mother were living in the house of her aunt, Soa
Fernandez, at Barrio Crossing, Sta. Rita, Samar, where she worked as a
beautician. At the evening of December 14, 1965 while she was then eating
supper, ADELINO, whom she knew when they were "still small", and who was her

1
"The undersigned complainant, after having been duly sworn to according to law, accuses Adelino Bardaje, Lucio Malate, Pedro
Odal, Adriano Odal, Silvino Odal and Fidel Ansuas of the crime of Rape, committed as follows: That on or about the period from the
14th day to 17th day of December, 1965, in Bo. Lopig, Sta. Rita, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, with lewd design, by
means of force and intimidation, and at nighttime, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously drag one Marcelina Cuizon
from the house of one Norma Fernandez and brought her to a far away place and once there, accused Adelino Bardaje, by means
of force and intimidation forcibly had sexual intercourse with her several times while hisco-accused were on guard.”
 classmate in Grade II (1960), accompanied by the FIVE OTHERS, entered the
house and began drinking "sho hoc tong" which they brought along.
 After the liquor had been fully consumed, Silvino Odal broke the kerosene lamp
causing complete darkness. She then ran to the room where her mother was.
ADELINO, Pedro Odal, Fidel Ansuas, and Adriano Odal, followed her, tried to
extricate her from her mother's embrace and dragged the two of them to the sala.
She was forced her downstairs and by holding and dragging her, brought her to
the mountain about two kilometers from Barrio Crossing.
 On the way, ADELINO slapped her rendering her unconscious. She regained
consciousness in a hut, with ADELINO holding her hands, and removing her panty.
She bit and kicked him. Despite her struggle, ADELINO succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with her while his other companions stayed outside on guard.
 The next day Adelino and the others brought her to another mountain, 6 kilometers
farther, arriving there past twelve o'clock noon at the house of one called Ceferino
(also called Cipriano) who lived there with his family. She was kept in one room.
Outside the room were Pedro Odal, Adriano Odal and Fidel Ansuas, still armed
with bolos, drinking and guarding her.
 In the evening, ADELINO had another sexual intercourse with her even though
she bit and kicked him and shouted for help which was to no avail as present were
relatives of ADELINO, with the latter calling Ceferino "Tatay" She curled the hair
of Narita (daughter of Ceferino) the next day, because ADELINO threatened to kill
her if she did not. Her curling paraphernalia was taken by Adriano Odal, upon
ADELINO's instructions, from Norma Fernandez (her cousin) who gave the
equipment as she (Norma) was also threatened. MARCELINA and her "captors"
stayed in Ceferino's house for two days. In the morning of December 17, two
soldiers with her father, Alejo Cuizon, arrived. The soldiers apprehended ADELINO
while the FIVE OTHERS jumped down the window and escaped. Upon seeing her
father, she embraced him and cried. The next day she submitted to a medical
examination.
 (MOST IMPORTANT PART FOR EVIDENCE) Dr. Vitus Hobayan, Jr., Resident Physician at the
Samar Provincial Hospital, declared that he examined MARCELINA on December 20, 1965 and
issued a Medical Certificate with the following findings:
o No evidence of external injuries around the vulva or any part of the body.
o Hymen no intact, presence of old healed laceration at 4, 7, 12 o'clock.
o Vagina easily admits two fingers.
o Vaginal smear negative for spermatozoa
 Explaining the "old healed laceration", the doctor stated that laceration may have been caused by
possible sexual intercourse or other factors, and if it were intercourse, he estimated that it could
have occurred "say, two weeks or one month" or possibly more.
 Adelino denied raping her but admitted to have had carnal knowledge of Marcelino. He said that
they have been sweethearts since Nov 1964. Ceferino Armada corroborated Adelino’s defense
saying that Marcelina and Adelino had told him that they eloped. Marcelina even offered to curl his
daughter’s hair and helped in chores.

Issue/Held:

Whether or not Adelino is guilty of rape with forcible abduction beyond reasonable doubt? -NO

Ratio:

 In crimes against chastity, the conviction or acquittal of an accused depends almost entirely on the
credibility of a complainant's testimony since by the intrinsic nature of those crimes they usually
involve only two persons - the complainant and the accused. The offended party's testimony,
 therefore, must be subjected to thorough scrutiny for a determination of its veracity beyond
reasonable doubt.
o In the instant case, the court found that Marcelina’s charge that she was forcibly abducted
and afterwards raped by Adelino in conspiracy with five others highly dubious and
inherently improbable.
o To start with, according to the medical findings, "no evidence of external injuries was found
around the vulva or any part of the body" of Complainant, a fact which is strange, indeed,
considering that Complainant was allegedly "dragged", "slapped" into unconsciousness,
"wrestled" with, and criminally abused.
o Physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all
witnesses put together. The Court is also faced with the medical finding of "old healed
lacerations" in the hymen which, according to the testimony of the examining physician
would have occurred two weeks or even one month before if said lacerations had been
caused by sexual intercourse.
o This expert opinion bolsters the defense that MARCELINA and ADELINO had previous
amorous relations at the same time that it casts serious doubts on the charge of intercourse
by force and intimidation.
 By Complainant's own admission, the first hut she was taken to was a small one-room affair
occupied by a woman and two small children. Her charge, therefore, that she was ravished in that
same room is highly improbable and contrary to human experience. As to the second hut where
she was taken which is a small room separated from sala by walls of split bamboo in which Ceferino
and his wife and seven children were living. It is improbable that she could have been sexually
abuse with so many people within hearing distance.
o There was also some indication that had relationship since if rape were indeed their
malevolent intent, all six of them would take turns in abusing her.
o It is more probable that they eloped since she had brought her beauty paraphernalia with
her.
 This case constitutes as an exception to the general belief that a young girl would not expose
herself to the ordeal of public trial if she were not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit
who had ravished and shamed her. She was young and was faced with a situation where she could
not admit that she eloped and voluntarily submitted to sexual intercourse. As a result, she had no
choice but to charge Adelino with rape.
 In respect of the alleged confession of ADELIINO, suffice it to re-state that "an extrajudicial
confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated
by evidence of corpus delicti". Corpus delicti is proved when the evidence on record shows that the
crime prosecuted had been committed.
 That proof has not been met in the case at bar, the evidence establishing more of an elopement
rather than kidnapping or illegal detention or forcible abduction, and much less rape. Moreover,
ADELINO, aged 18, was by himself when being investigated by soldiers, without benefit of counsel
nor of anyone to advise him of his rights.
 Furthermore, in capital cases, it should be desirable that, whenever a discrepancy is noted between
the designation of the crime made by the Fiscal and the crime described by the facts pleaded in
his Information, the lower Court should call attention of the accused to the discrepancy, so that the
accused may be fully apprised of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.