Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 73996 August 28, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DANILO TAGLE, alias "Danny Tagle," accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Guillermo M. Pasion for accused-appellant.

CRUZ, J .:
The Court is not convinced that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution has failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The prisoner
must be acquitted.
The accused was a 35-year old man with a wife and four children at the time of the alleged offense.
The complaining witness was 19 years old and unmarried when she claims she was raped by Danilo
Tagle.
As found by the trial court
1
on the basis of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the crime was
committed on October 29, 1982, at about ten o'clock in the evening, in a wooded area in Pagudpud,
Ilocos Norte.
On October 18, 1982, Iluminada Damo went to the house of Tagle to consult him about her cough.
Tagle is a herb doctor or "arbularyo." According to Iluminada, the accused ask her her to come back
with a maiden 18 years or older to pick the needed herbs with him.
Accordingly, she went back to Tagle's house on October 29, 1982, at about four o'clock in the
afternoon, bringing Arcelie with her.
Tagle began treating his patient by pressing a glass of water on her breasts. This treatment
continued for some time. Later in the evening, Tagle asked Arcelie to go with him so they could pick
the herbs. He stressed that it was necessary to do this at that time as otherwise the herbs would
have no healing power. The presence of Arcelie was also indispensable, for the same reason.
Arcelie said she hesitated because of the late hour. Nevertheless, she finally consented, to
accommodate her ailing sister-in-law. She even donned a skirt because the accused had asked her
not to wear pants. After walking for some three kilometers, she and the accused stopped at a spot
near the seashore where there were many trees. There she started to pick some herbs as indicated
by Tagle.
While she was doing so, Tagle suddenly grabbed her arm and warned her not to cry out. Sensing his
intentions, she remonstrated and said, "Do not do this to me, Manong." He pointed a knife at her
neck to stop her resistance. Not satisfied with the threat, he boxed her in the abdomen and rendered
her unconscious.
When she recovered, she found she had been deflowered. She still ached from the blow to her
stomach. Her exposed vagina was painful and a warm fluid was oozing from it. Tagle was standing
before her, also naked from the waist down. He handed her panty which she put on. They then
started to walk back to his house.
She was crying all the way but stopped when they reached his residence because he had
threatened to kill her if she said anything about her rape. She proceeded upstairs and stayed near
the place where Tagle's wife and children were sleeping. She was restless the whole night.
The complainant, declared that she left early the following morning, and in the afternoon of the same
day, told her brother about her rape. She underwent two medical examinations, first on October 31,
1982, and the second on November 3,1982. The report thereon, issued on November 1 5, 1982,
reads as follows:
General Condition-Patient is about 4'10" in height with a very good built. She is shy and hardly
speak,
Physical Examinations:
No visible external physical injuries, on the face, body and extremities.
Breasts conical firm, nipples are small.
Internal Examination:
Labia-Majora firm and well rounded
Labia-Minora soft, pinkish and not in close apposition with one another.
Hymen healed laceration at 6 o'clock and 12 o'clock with rounded non-coaptible borders.
Examination of vagina Smear (Microscopic) negative of spermatozoa.
2

Iluminada Damo corroborated Arcelie's testimony up to the point where she left with the accused to
pick the medicinal herbs. She also testified on the girl's conduct upon her return. This witness added
that the accused admitted to her in the evening of October 30, 1982, after Arcelie had left, that he
had raped the complainant.
The trial court noted in its decision that after the filing of the information against the accused, his
father, Fernandico Tagle, approached the complainant's family for a possible settlement out of court.
But he was rebuffed by Arcelie.
Tagle's defense was that he and Arcelie were in fact lovers. Although this explanation is often
enough rejected by the Court, there are some circumstances in this case that give it some credence.
Tagle testified that he met Arcelie sometime in 1979 and courted her for two years until she
accepted his love on December 13,1981, when he gave a birthday party at the beach. They
exchanged rings in token of their troth. (He submitted in evidence the one he says Arcelie gave
him.)
3
On October 10, 1982, when his wife and children were away, Arcelie stayed with him in his house
all night. They had sex twice, once before they slept and once again at dawn.
The accused stated that he did not rape Arcelie on October 29, 1982, and that they did not even
have voluntary sexual intercourse then. Arcelie wanted it, but he claimed he was ailing with influenza
at the time and had gone out only because he had to pick the herbs for Iluminada. He admitted that
Arcelie had come along but not because he had asked her; in fact, she had insisted on
accompanying him against his will.
Although Arcelie denies this, Tagle said that the two of them were together at a benefit dance on
October 30,1982, the night following the alleged rape. He even bought then her "social box" for
P100.00 for the privilege of dancing with her. It was while they were dancing that Arcelie slapped
him and accused him of lying to her about his wife and children. Tagle said that Arcelie warned him
then that she would file a case against him.
Fernando Pia testified for his "barkada," as he described Tagle. He confirmed the story of Tagle's
birthday party at the beach. He particularly remembered the night of October 10, 1982, when he
visited Tagle in his house to borrow money and came upon his friend in bed with Arcelie. He also
said that in the evening of October 29, 1982, he was in Tagle's house and saw Arcelie follow the
accused when he went out to get the herbs. Upon her return, Arcelie joined them in singing and
appeared to be in good spirits. The following morning, he and Arcelie went out to pick some orchids
and later had breakfast in Tagle's house.
What the Court finds especially intriguing and revealing is the testimony of Dr. Rogelio Balbag, who
conducted the medical examination of Arcelie and rendered the report thereon. We find the following
disturbing exchange in the transcript of his testimony:
COURT:
Q Doctor, in your medico-legal certificate marked Exhibit C, there is
an entry here which says "laceration at six o'clock and twelve o'clock
with rounded coaptible border," could you tell us what this means?
A May I see it your Honor. As I read . . . I compared . . . I noticed
there are some erasures that I found at the part of the hymen healed
laceration. The word "healed' was erased on that, your Honor.
Q Do you have the duplicate copy?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q So, now you would want to say there is a word "healed" ?
A I wish to inform the court that excited me; that could be tampered.
Q I will show you again Exhibit C, will you find out if there is the
erasure?
A There is something applied in this part, your Honor.
Q You did not erase that before you signed it, Doctor?
A No, your Honor. There is the duplicate of the one I issued.
Q So, you want to impress the court that regarding Exhibit C it should
be healed laceration?
A It should be healed laceration, your Honor.
4

As for the length of the healing period, the doctor testified as follows:
COURT:
Q When did you examine the patient?
A October 31, 1982, your Honor.
Q What was the nature of the wound, the laceration wound at six
o'clock and twelve o'clock according to you at the time you examined
the patient?
A It is healed laceration, your Honor.
Q Freshly healed?
A Newly healed.
Q In your opinion, when were those lacerations inflicted?
A It can be one or two weeks before. I can't say, your Honor, one or
two weeks before.
COURT:
Any more questions, Fiscal.
FISCAL ALEJANDRO:
Q You said, Doctor, that the laceration of the hymen was newly
healed. Could it be two days before when you examined that woman?
A That would be very hard because two days that would be fresh
laceration.
COURT:
Q Normally, the laceration of the hymen, what is the healing period?
A Five days. It depends from the environment of the wound, your
Honor.
Q Now, after five days the laceration is healed?
A That is my opinion, your Honor.
Q And you say as newly healed?
A Yes, your Honor, but the wound could not heal within two days. It
cannot completely heal within two days. That would be very hard
because if it is inflicted within two days, it would be mere fresh
laceration.
COURT: Continue.
FISCAL ALEJANDRO:
Q You said, Doctor, that the healing period of the laceration of the
hymen may differ on some factors?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would it be possible by the natural power of the victim could cause
the healing of the wound inflicted?
A What do you mean by "natural power"?
Q On your own human capacity, would the healing be possible cause
immediate healing of the wound?
A In my opinion, a wound inflicted two days will not heal immediately.
Q At any rate, Doctor, is it not a fact that you also requested the
victim to come to your office ... I withdraw the question. That is all,
your Honor.
5

It is significant that although Arcelie said she was examined twice, Dr. Balbag said the second one
was more of a mental examination.
6
The medical examination itself was concluded on October 31,
1982.
The trial judge dismissed the matter of the ruptured hymen and noted that virginity is not an essential
element of the crime of rape. Citing jurisprudence, he said even prostitutes could be raped. That is
true enough. But what he failed to consider is that the physical evidence of the healed laceration
reflected on Arcelie's credibility, especially in her narration of her claimed violation.
Asked if she had any previous sexual experience, she said none
7
That would mean she was
deflowered on October 29, 1982. This was only two days before her medical examination, which revealed
that the laceration of her hymen had already healed. Her recuperation was truly amazing if wonders are
to be believed.
In the light of this undeniable physical evidence of the miraculously healed maiden head, the Court is
more inclined to accept Tagle's testimony that he and Arcelie were lovers and had sex twice on
October 10, 1982. Her hymen must have been ruptured then, or perhaps later, but not as late as
October 29, 1982, when she claims Tagle forced himself upon her.
In fact, it is not even certain that she had sexual intercourse that night, as there was no showing of
this in the medical report. No trace of spermatozoa was found in her vagina. The panty and skirt she
wore, both of which she said she used for wiping the red and white fluid oozing from her groin,
8
were
not presented at the trial.
It is true that there are flaws in the evidence of the defense that invite disbelief. Tagle clearly
proclaimed himself a liar when he confessed his deception in concealing from Arcelie the fact that he
had a wife and children. Also, there is no corroboration of his testimony that he and Arcelie were
together at a benefit dance the night after the alleged rape. The slapping incident he narrated could
surely have been witnessed by many persons who were at that social gathering, but none of them
came forward at the trial.
As for Pia, the impression of the Court is that he was testifying more out of loyalty for his friend than
in the interest of truth. It is not easy to accept, for example, that although he said he had gone
several times to Tagle's house to borrow money, the only date he could remember having done so,
conveniently enough, was October 10, 1982. The other dates are a blur. And, interestingly, although
he claimed the accused was a close friend of his and lived only twenty meters away from his own
house, this witness did not know that Tagle was married and had four children.
9

But in a criminal action, the conviction of the accused depends not on the weakness of the defense
but on the strength of the prosecution.
10
Even if it be supposed that the defense in the case at bar is
weak, the prosecution, as it happens, is even weaker. The Office of the Solicitor General seems to think
so too, if the half-hearted appellee's brief it submitted is any indication.
The Court finds it hard to accept that a young maiden like Arcelie would go out late at night with a
man she had met only six hours before to a wooded and secluded place where her only possible
protection against his temptation would be his own forbearance. Unsophisticated girls may be naive
to a certain degree but they cannot be that trusting.
Arcelie says she hesitated when Tagle asked her to come with him. However, she changed her mind
later for the benefit of her sister-in-law. Iluminada seems also to have completely trusted Tagle even
if she herself had met him only once before, on October 18, 1982. And it is also curious that she did
not even inquire why, as she said she noticed, Arcelie was silent and apparently under stress when
she returned from her nocturnal trip. This witness was apparently not much interested either when
Arcelie left her early the next morning without any explanation, Iluminada did not bother to ask.
The strangest piece in this puzzle is Tagle's nameless wife and children who were either
conveniently absent or unobtrusive even when present. Tagle says they were in Nueva Ecija when
he gave his birthday party at the beach and won Arcelie and on October 10, 1982, when Arcelie
slept with him in his house. But October 29, 1982, was different. The wife was there but did not
object when Tagle and Arcelie went out into the night together. She was not heard to say anything
either when the two returned hours later from whatever they might have been doing in the dark. She
accepted Arcelie back into her house and even slept in the same place with her, presumably with
complete peace of mind. There was not one ounce of jealousy in her.
But that is another story.
In the case before us, we feel that the prosecution has failed to establish the necessary quantum of
evidence to justify the conviction of the accused-appellant. To repeat, the Court regards as
especially significant the physical evidence of the healed hymen, which suggests that Arcelie was
not telling the truth about her alleged violation on the night in question. Her innocence was ruptured,
but not on that night of October 29, 1982.
It looks to us that Arcelie has acted out of spite over her discovery that she had been deceived by
her married lover and she is now using this case to wreak her vengeance. Our finding is that Arcelie
was not a violated virgin but a betrayed and resentful sweetheart bent on the revenge of a woman
scorned.
Let it not be supposed from this decision that the constitutional presumption of innocence commands
the exoneration of the guilty. The presumption is certainly not conclusive and may yield to positive
proof that the crime has been committed by the prisoner on the dock as charged. But that proof, if it
is to prevail, must be strong enough to dispel all doubt and sustain the defendant's conviction. It is
absolutely indispensable that it be convincing enough to warrant his punishment, not the least of
which, along with the loss of his liberty or property, is the stain upon his honor.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and the accused-appellant is ACQUITTED. It
is so ordered.
Narvasa, Gancayco, Gri;o-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 Decision penned by Judge Manuel D. Victoria Regional Trial Court, Branch XIX,
Bangui, Ilocos Norte.
2 Exhibit 2
3 Exhibit "1;" TSN, July 10, 1985, p. 5. 3
4 TSN, February 25,1985, p. 12.
5 Ibid., pp. 7-9.
6 Id., pp. 1 0-1 1.
7 Decision, p. 14.
8 TSN. October 25, 1984, pp. 62-64.
9 TSN, June 10, 1985, pp. 12 and 29.
10 People v. Go Bio, Jr. 142 SCRA 238: People v. Co., G.R. No. 38052, July 14,
1988; People 7 Nazareno, 80 SCRA 484; People Roveras, 130 SCRA 259.