GR No.. 58 847 August 31,1989 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. BARTOLOME BARRANCO, accused-appellant. GANCAYCO, J.

: A common saying is "the dignity of a human equivalent of his life," and especially if the agenda is the dignity, honor or pride of a woman. Therefore the law, the destruction of the pride of a woman felony and if it is made mandatory the punishment is prison for life equivalent. What and how the rape lethal weapons are used or produced two or more men, or exploited is dead or broken bait, the levy penalty law is death. 1 Yet in our constitution forbidden to apply the punishments. 2 This is the subject of this claim. Rosalia was a virgin Barranco is nineteen years old. He was the eldest of seven children of James and Aurora Barranco couple. Every Saturday, the brothers except Rosalia help their parents in farming in their farm Abanay, a distance of three kilometers of their residence in Madong, Janiuay, Iloilo. One was left to Rosalia at home so he could look at pigs and serve as guard their homes. Bartholomew Barranco has wife and five children. He was cousin twice Rosalia's father and closest neighbor of the family in Barangay Madong Barranco. Between the two quarters was approximately only one hundred (100) meters. He was kumare wife Rosalia Bartholomew. At noon on the 10th of February, 1980, while Rosalia is to a sleeping in their home, he suddenly felt someone nakadagan him. When Rosalia's open his eyes, he saw naked Softcore Bartholomew to its surface. In what way they entered the house the man said he could not imagine. When he saw the face Bartholomew he thought the incident was just a bad dream but he was surprised when Bartholomew itinutok a knife (butcher's knife) in his neck. He warned that if he tries to move or shout he will kill it.No panic move was Rosalia. Bartholomew raised her skirt and her panties suddenly binatak. For the contiguous legs of Rosalia, Bartholomew commanded him to unfold it. He did not comply so he threatened to kill Bartholomew again when she opened her thighs. Becomes hard as the fear was Rosalia. Bartholomew divided the thigh of Rosalia, and it attempted to enter his property to the owner of Maid. After twice being forced Bartholomew failed attempts to enter the property and eventually abused her was Rosalia. Rosalia felt extreme smart in front of his property. Then, rested Bartholomew of five minutes while its owner was standing on the property of Rosalia. He continued his worldly desires. And while Bartholomew was raped Rosalia he held the knife that focuses on the neck of Rosalia. Before finally leaving Bartholomew, he warned the girl not to accusers to his parents he would not die. Rosalia Sumusulak the will of the overwhelming hatred ruin the fruit of his pride, but she did not move because of terror that he might kill Bartholomew time he disclosed what had happened. So it decided that only he close his mouth and withstand the bitter fate. It was the 19th of March, 1980, nine in the morning then, while Rosalia was busy preparing a meal of pigs, was suddenly swallowed by Bartholomew from behind to pagsamantalahang again. Her mother was arbitrarily away from home then come to the conclusion because one of his sisters. In his shock, Rosalia picked up a piece of wood and he did it on the head smotest Bartholomew. He spoke Bartholomew. He was immediately out of the house and shout for help if you said do not stop Bartholomew. Consequently, immediately leave Bartholomew. Arrival of her mother, nuong the nineteenth century, one morning, saw it was Rosalia crying. It asked the reason.Rosalia was not to be endured and forced to confess to his mother occurred on 10 February. The next day, he along with his mother Rosalia has brought accusation to the head of police in Janiuay, Iloilo. They counseled the young woman tested first physician of the NBI in Iloilo City. In that office, he reviewed Dr.. Ricardo H. Jaboneta. Yet if she looked pregnant (pregnancy test) and that he is napagalaman pregnant. On the 16th of April, 1980, filed a lawsuit on charges that rape was Rosalia against Bartholomew the lower court (municipal circuit court) of Janiuay, Badiangan, Iloilo. Bartholomew and arrested after the initial investigation, the relevant lawsuit filed by chief prosecutor of the county court. When asked to Bartholomew if he admitted charges against him in court, he declined seepage has initiated the proceedings until it is complete. On 3rd April, 1981 the court issued a verdict. Bartholomew was proven guilty of rape with deadly weapon. Imposed on him the penalty of imprisonment for life with other statutory penalties and ipinagbabayad he cost of litigation.The court ordered her daughter to recognize the consequences of his sin. And because he has been detained since the 3rd of July, 1980, ordered that his temporary imprisonment will be counted along with the penalty imposed because he has signed an agreement to comply with all mandatory in naparusahang detained . Now claiming the defendant in this Court and say: (1) must not believe the testimony of plaintiffs because no one else witnessed it, (2) that he should not punish innocent rape, and (3) he should be instructed to acknowledge children He was the descendant of Rosalia. After reviewing the evidence presented, can not find a sufficient reason for this Court to change the decisions of lower courts. The offense was very difficult to prove rape because it usually knows only the exploited and took advantage.Therefore, we expect that other can declare the event. Not common that the trespass is occurring with the witness.For this reason the court relies on honesty statement of Complainant and weighing it against the rejection or refutation of persecution. Saying the defendant should not believe the statements of the plaintiff because of its harmony. First, was said to the plaintiff stated that he was scared so he obeyed the defendant to unfold his legs. But when he again asked the defendant's lawyer became the answer is the defendant is the disperse his thigh. No awkward in these statements. Clearly influenced by the fear of Rosalia, opened her legs and allowed the defendant FU her thigh. Second, said raw nahahabla litigate uprooted by his own after he entered it and only use it when he abused again.When he was asked about the defendant's counsel in this matter, has said he rested nahahabla that its owner is left standing within his own. Remember that litigate a young woman who just experienced the matter. She felt intense pain on his own and besides the terror sumagila him. Not expect to know

whether he drew or not the defendant that his property. Can he still standing on his own persecuted him after this motion the defendant does not leave pagkakadagan him as it was once rested. Third, non-claimed, corrupt litigate the statement that on 19 March when he again attempted rape defendant had beaten him a wooden head, and he also said that if the nahahabla will come, he will appear and ask for help.There is no wrong here. Clearly, said the plaintiff to be beaten on his head the defendant so he nabitawan it. And it is also clear that the plaintiff cry out and said when he went to the defendant's bad intention. However, if there is any inconsistency the statement litigate, it is in small part and it is not enough reason to not believe the court the sum of its declared. The fact that, due to painful as that experienced by plaintiff unreliable that he retains the smallest portion of the event. A witness statement had some mistakes usually telling the truth. On the other hand, no conclusive statement of the defendant that he had forced the plaintiff on 10 February.Voluntary Daw their lovemaking and one year with pagkakaugnayan them long before the said day. It was discredited fallacies of the outcome of the evaluation of physician owned by NBI in Rosalia, as follows: labia majora and minora coaptated. Fourchette vestibular moncoss vilacious tense. Fleshy hymen, presence of superficial laceration at 9 o'clock position Im face of a watch. Coaptable edges and fairly congested. Hymenal orifice adnidts originally angular glass tube and three cms. diameter with moderate resistance. This is the usual condition of the property of virgin female after her first experience. Therefore, ridiculous statement nahahabla with them sets aside a year before the plaintiff on 10 February. He also said the defendant that the plaintiff tempted him so they had a relationship. Pinangalawahan of his wife, Salvacion Sarno expressed that the plaintiff is openly attracted to his wife before him on the breast ikinaskas its wife. When he rebuked them, the non-response said to him "you do not care because I'm Molly!. Unbelievable! There is not any evidence presented the defendant that the plaintiff was flirty and vile woman. Even a prostitute can not ipagsisiksikan his body than a male especially as when faced with his wife. And especially hard to believe when they magkumare. And if this is true whether the plaintiff made in the presence of the spouse of the defendant, why not even this angry? That the defendant is only sand naglulubid also detected lower court as he expresses it. When he told them the plaintiff was a relationship, the judge noticed that long and he reluctantly answering questions. When the judge inquired why he did not immediately speak the answer was he was afraid, but he did not say what he fears. 3 It is clear that fear was the big lie that he had to survive hinahabi him in his iniquity. Ipinagdidiinan the defendant that the complaint against him pagbabangong defamation plaintiff simply because they are pregnant. Why should other ipaghayagan the fate of the plaintiff in court if it is not the truth? Whether they had the trail not so pleases more than the plaintiff's only endure his fate condition rather than bring shame on his family? The apparent reason the Court because the plaintiff wanted to maibangon nilugsong his pride and penalties applied to the defendant. Ipinagtatalo nahahabla why the accusation is not immediately litigate his parents, that he immediately got a doctor, that he did not ask for help when she was raped, without any wounds or scratches on his body, not torn her panties or clothing, and why the mother complained attempt on the 19th of March but not the pagkagahasa complaint on 10 February. The answer is simple. Great was the fear of litigate. He endured the bitter experience and this is why he immediately accusation of his parents, he immediately went to the doctor, and he nakasigaw for help. Because of his fear, he uncovered free and napagsamantalahan the defendant. So he had worn on the body. She had torn clothes or panties. But after more than a month endurance, and for its attempt to re-purl, nagputok the will of the plaintiff. Extremely so. Surplus. Should kalusin. He picked a piece of wood and ipinukpok head to the defendant.And try to pursue the malice, the plaintiff said that he appear and shout for help. His rage was dominant in his fear.Only then stopped the dark pursuit of defendant. Enough of it. The grating produced nahahabla is clear. He abused the honor of a young woman left nagusa in their home. Nominal turn on the relative nahahabla of prosecuting and nearest neighbors to expect, who will but he still took advantage of it. He should blame his sordid made. The purl of a splendor is his life. Correct penalty of perpetual prison the defendant. But there are mistakes lower court order that children recognize nahahabla as the result of his sin. The nahahabla married. Can not identify the young fruit of sin, the son of a mate. 4 But there is the provision child responsibilities according to law. 5 furthermore be charged the nahahabla great harm he did to Rosalia Barranco value P 30 000 .00. 6 THEREFORE, the claim Bartholomew Barranco are hereby void and the judgments of the lower court was affirmed without any change except that he was commanded to sustentohan the consequences of his sin on the amount and time papasiyahan the lower court reading the verdict that and he shall give the plaintiff of P 30000.00. Mandatory ORDERS. Narvasa, Cruz, grin, or Medialdea Aquino, JJ., Agree.