752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 114791. May 29, 1997.

NANCY GO AND ALEX GO, petitioners, vs. THE

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
HERMOGENES ONG and JANE C. ONG,
respondents.

Marriages; Husband and Wife; In our society, the

importance of a wedding cerem ony cannot be overestimated
as it is the matrix of the family, and therefore, an occasion
worth reliving in the succeeding years.—No less than the
Constitution commands us to protect marriage as an
inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family.
In our society, the importance of a wedding ceremony cannot
be underestimated as it is the matrix of the family and,
therefore, an occasion worth reliving in the succeeding years.
Same; Contracts; Where the contract entered into is one of
service, that is, for the video coverage of a wedding, it can
hardly be said that the object of the contract was the video
equipment used.—Petitioners’ argument that s ince the video
equipment used belonged to Lim and thus the contract was
actually entered into between private respondents and Lim is
not deserving of any serious consideration. In the instant
case, the contract entered into is one of service, that is, for
the video coverage of the wedding. Consequently, it can
hardly be s aid that the object of the contract was the video
equipment used. The use by petitioners of the video
equipment of another person is of no consequence.
 Contracts; Agency; Evidence; Witnesses; Where a party
fails to present a vital witness, it would not be unwarranted
to assum e that such failure would have an adverse result on
the case.—It must also

______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

753

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 753

Go vs. Court of Appeals

be noted that in the course of the protracted trial below,

petitioners did not even present Lim to corroborate their
contention that they were mere agents of the latter. It would
not be unwarranted to assume that their failure to present
such a vital witness would have had an adverse result on the
case.
Same; Marriages; It is contrary to human nature for any
new-lywed couple to neglect to claim the video coverage of
their wedding.—As correctly observed by the Court of
Appeals, it is contrary to human nature for any newlywed
couple to neglect to claim the video coverage of their
wedding; the fact that private respondents filed a case
against petitioners belies such as sertion. Clearly, petitioners
are guilty of actionable delay for having failed to proces s the
video tape. Considering that private respondents were about
to leave for the United States, they took care to inform
petitioners that they would just claim the tape upon their
return two months later. Thus, the erasure of the tape after
the lapse of thirty days was unjustified.
Same; Damages; Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those
who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages.—In this regard, Article 1170 of the Civil Code
provides that “those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those
who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable
for damages.” In the instant case, petitioners and private
respondents entered into a contract whereby, for a fee, the
former undertook to cover the latter’s wedding and deliver to
them a video copy of said event. For whatever reason,
petitioners failed to provide private respondents with their
tape. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of contravening their
obligation to s aid private respondents and are thus liable for
damages.
Same; Same; Quasi-Delicts; While generally moral
damages cannot be recovered in an action for breach of
contract, the sam e may be recovered where the breach was
palpably wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith,
oppressive or abusive, such as when a party’s act or omission
in recklessly erasing the video coverage of a couple’s wedding
was precisely the cause of the suffering the latter had to
undergo.—Generally, moral damages cannot be recovered in
an action for breach of contract because this case is not
among those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
However, it is also accepted in this jurisdiction that liability
for a quasi-delict may still exis t despite the presence of
contractual relations, that is, the act

754

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Court of Appeals

which violates the contract may also cons titute a quasi-

delict. Consequently, moral damages are recoverable for the
breach of contract which was palpably wanton, reckless,
malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive. Petitioners’
act or omiss ion in recklessly erasing the video coverage of
private respondents’ wedding was precisely the cause of the
suffering private respondents had to undergo.
Same; Same; The award of exemplary damages is
justified where there was an attendant wanton negligence
committed by the guilty party.—Considering the attendant
wanton negligence committed by petitioners in the case at
bar, the award of exemplary damages by the trial court is
justified to s erve as a warning to all entities engaged in the
same business to obs erve due diligence in the conduct of
their affairs.
Same; Obligations; Joint and Several Liability; Husband
and Wife; Since the wife may exercise any profession,
occupation or engage in business without the consent of the
husband, the husband may not be held jointly and severally
liable with his wife for breach of a contract that the latter had
entered into.—Finally, petitioner Alex Go questions the
finding of the trial and appellate courts holding him jointly
and severally liable with his wife Nancy regarding the
pecuniary liabilities imposed. He argues that when his wife
entered into the contract with private res pondent, she was
acting alone for her sole interest. We find merit in this
contention. Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article
73 of the Family Code), the wife may exercise any profession,
occupation or engage in business without the consent of the
husband. I n the instant case, we are convinced that it was
only petitioner Nancy Go who entered into the contract with
private respondent. Consequently, we rule that she is solely
liable to private respondents for the damages awarded below,
pursuant to the principle that contracts produce effect only
as between the parties who execute them.

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Veronico R. Sardoncillo for petitioners.
     Saleto J. Erames for private respondents.
755
 VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 755
Go vs. Court of Appeals

ROMERO, J.:

No less than the Constitution commands us to protect

marriage as an inviolable social
1
institution and the
foundation of the family. In our society, the
importance of a wedding ceremony cannot be
underestimated as it is the matrix of the family and,
therefore, an occasion worth reliving in the succeeding
years.
It is in this light that we narrate the follow ing
undisputed facts:
Private respondents spouses Hermogenes and Jane
Ong were married on June 7, 1981, in Dumaguete
City. The video coverage of the wedding w as provided
by petitioners at a contract price of P1,650.00. Three
times thereafter, the newlyweds tried to claim the
video tape of their wedding, w hich they planned to
show to their relatives in the United States where they
were to spend their honeymoon, and thrice they failed
because the tape was apparently not yet processed.
The parties then agreed that the tape would be ready
upon private respondents’ return.
When private respondents came home from their
honeymoon, however, they found out that the tape had
been erased by petitioners and therefore, could no
longer be delivered.
Furious at the loss of the tape w hich was supposed
to be the only record of their wedding, private
respondents filed on September 23, 1981 a complaint
for specific performance and damages against
petitioners before the Regional Trial Court, 7th
Judicial District, Branch 33, Dumaguete City. After a
protracted trial, the court a quo rendered a decision, to
wit:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby granted:

 Ordering the rescission of the agreement entered into
1. between plaintiff Hermogenes Ong and defendant
Nancy Go;
2. Declaring defendants Alex Go and Nancy Go jointly
and severally liable to plaintiffs Hermogenes Ong and
Jane C. Ong for the following sums:

______________

1 Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution.

756

756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Court of Appeals

a) P450.00, the down payment made at contract time;

b) P75,000.00, as moral damages;
c) P20,000.00, as exemplary damages;
d) P5,000.00, as attorney’s fees; and
e) P2,000.00, as litigation expenses;

Defendants are also ordered to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.”

Dissatisfied with the decision, petitioners elevated the

case to the Court of Appeals which, on September 14,
1993, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial
court’s decision.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred
in not appreciating the evidence they presented to
prove that they acted only as agents of a certain Pablo
Lim and, as such, should not have been held liable. In
addition, they aver that there is no evidence to show
that the erasure of the tape was2 done in bad faith so as
to justify the award of damages.
The petition is not meritorious.
 Petitioners claim that for the video coverage, the
camera-man was employed by Pablo Lim who also
owned the video equipment used. They further assert
that they merely get a commission
3
for all customers
solicited for their principal.
This contention is primarily premised on Article
1883 of the Civil Code which states thus:

“ART. 1883. If an agent acts in his own name, the principal

has no right of action against the persons with whom the
agent has contracted; neither have such persons agains t the
principal.
In such case the agent is the one directly bound in favor of
the person with whom he has contracted, as if the
transaction were his own, except when the contract involves
things belonging to the principal.
x x x      x x x      x x x.”

_______________

2 Rollo, pp. 15-23.

3 Ibid., p. 7.

757

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 757

Go vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners’ argument that since the video equipment

used belonged to Lim and thus the contract was
actually entered into between private respondents and
Lim is not deserving of any serious consideration. In
the instant case, the contract entered into is one of
service, that is, for the video coverage of the wedding.
Consequently, it can hardly be said that the object of
the contract was the video equipment used. The use by
petitioners of the video equipment of another person is
of no consequence.
It must also be noted that in the course of the
protracted trial below, petitioners did not even present
Lim to corroborate their contention that they were
mere agents of the latter. It would not be unwarranted
to assume that their failure to present such a vital 4
witness would have had an adverse result on the case.
As regards the award of damages, petitioners would
impress upon this Court their lack of malice or
fraudulent intent in the erasure of the tape. They
insist that since private respondents did not claim the
tape after the lapse of thirty days, as agreed upon in
their contract, the erasure was done in consonance 5
with consistent business practice to minimize losses.
We are not persuaded.
As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, it is
contrary to human nature for any newlywed couple to
neglect to claim the video coverage of their wedding;
the fact that private respondents filed a case against
petitioners belies such assertion. Clearly, petitioners
are guilty of actionable delay for having failed to
process the video tape. Considering that private
respondents were about to leave for the United States,
they took care to inform petitioners that they would
just claim the tape upon their return two months later.
Thus, the erasure of the tape after the lapse of thirty
days was unjustified.

______________

4 Section 3(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states, “(t)hat

evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.”
5 Rollo, p. 19.

758

758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Court of Appeals

In this regard, Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides

that “those who in the performance of their obligations
are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who
in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable
for damages.”
In the instant case, petitioners and private
respondents entered into a contract whereby, for a fee,
the former undertook to cover the latter’s w edding and
deliver to them a video copy of said event. For
whatever reason, petitioners failed to provide private
respondents w ith their tape. Clearly, petitioners are
guilty of contravening their obligation to said private
respondents and are thus liable for damages.
The grant of actual or compensatory damages in the
amount of P450.00 is justified, as reimbursement of
the down-payment
6
paid by private respondents to
petitioners.
Generally, moral damages cannot be recovered in an
action for breach of contract because this case is not
among those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil
Code. However, it is also accepted in this jurisdiction
that liability for a quasidelict may still exist despite
the presence of contractual relations, that is, the act
which violates7
the contract may also constitute a
quasi-delict. Consequently, moral damages are
recoverable for the breach of contract which was
palpably wanton, reckless,
8
malicious or in bad faith,
oppressive or abusive.
Petitioners’ act or omission in recklessly erasing the
video coverage of private respondents’ wedding was
precisely the cause of the suffering private respondents
had to undergo.
As the appellate court aptly observed:

“Considering the sentimental value of the tapes and the fact

that the event therein recorded—a wedding which in our
culture is a significant milestone to be cherished and
remembered—could no

_______________

6 Article 2200, Civil Code of the Philippines.

7 PARAS, Civil Code of the Philippines, V, 1990, pp. 995-996; Singson v.
Bank of the Philippine Islands, 23 SCRA 1117 (1968).
 8 TOLENTINO, COMM ENTARIES & JURISPRUDENCE ON THE
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V, 1995, p. 656.

759

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 759

Go vs. Court of Appeals

longer be reenacted and was lost forever, the trial court was
correct in awarding the appellees moral damages albeit in
the amount of P75,000.00, which was a great reduction from
plaintiffs’ demand in the complaint, in compensation for the
mental anguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights and
humiliation that the appellees suffered and which under the
circumstances could be awarded9 as allowed under Articles
2217 and 2218 of the Civil Code.”

Considering the attendant wanton negligence

committed by petitioners in the case at bar, the award 10
of exemplary damages by the trial court is justified to
serve as a warning to all entities engaged in the same
business to observe due diligence in the conduct of
their affairs.
The award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses
11
are likewise proper, consistent with Article 2208 of
the Civil Code.
Finally, petitioner Alex Go questions the finding of
the trial and appellate courts holding him jointly and
severally liable with his wife Nancy regarding the
pecuniary liabilities imposed. He argues that when his
wife entered into the contract with private 12
respondent,
she was acting alone for her sole interest.
We find merit in this contention. Under Article 117
of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code),
the wife may exercise any profession, occupation or
engage in business without the consent of the husband.
In the instant case, we are convinced that it was only
petitioner Nancy Go who entered into the contract with
private respondent. Consequently, we rule that she is
solely liable to private respondents for the damages
awarded below, pursuant to the princi-

______________

9 Rollo, p. 37.
10 Article 2232, Civil Code of the Philippines.
11 “ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered,
except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

x x x      x x x      x x x”

12 Rollo, p. 23.

760

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Soriano

ple that contracts produce13 effect only as between the

parties who execute them.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated
September 14, 1993 is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that petitioner Alex G o is absolved
from any liability to private respondents and that
petitioner Nancy Go is solely liable to said private
respondents for the judgment award. Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

          Regalado (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza and

Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Note.—“Secret marriage” is a legally non-existent

phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage
celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives
and/or friends of either or both of the contracting
parties. (Republi c vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 257
[1994])

——o0o——
*
G.R. No. 114901. May 29, 1997.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff -appellee,

vs. LITO SORIANO Y SAGUCIO alias “LORETO
SORIANO Y SAGUCIO,” accused-appellant.

Evidence; Witnesses; Factual findings of trial courts are

accorded the highest respect as they are in the best situation
to observe the deportment and demeanor of witnesses and to
assess their credibility.—It is doctrinally entrenched that
factual findings of trial courts are accorded the highest res
pect as they are in the best situa-

_______________

13 Article 1311, Civil Code of the Philippines.

* FIRST DIVISION.

761

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 761

People vs. Soriano

tion to observe the deportment and demeanor of witnesses

and to assess their credibility. Their factual findings are
disturbed only if there is abuse of discretion. But we are
unable to discern any committed by the trial court.
Criminal Law; Rape; The absence of spermatozoa does
not negate rape.—Then too, the defense harps on the fact
that no sperm was found on Hilda thus disproving her
testimony that appellant allegedly raped her. But the
absence of spermatozoa does not negate rape. For in rape of
this nature, it is only necessary to prove carnal knowledge by
using force and intimidation, which the prosecution in this
case has more than sufficiently established.
Same; Same; Since normally only two (2) persons are
privy to the commission of rape, the evaluation of the evidence
presented therein ultimately revolves around the credibility of
the complaining witness.—If there is any testimony that is
incredible and contradictory, it is that of appellant. His
denials are self-serving and do not deserve any credence at
all, especially when assayed against the positive and candid
testimony of Hilda. Since normally only two (2) persons are
privy to the commission of rape, the evaluation of the
evidence presented therein ultimately revolves around the
credibility of the complaining witness. It is Hilda’s account of
the case that we are most inclined to accept.
Same; Same; There is absolutely no nexus between the
reputation of a rape victim and the odious deed committed
against her.—The above narration cannot inspire belief. For
if indeed the accused caught his “girlfriend” in flagrante with
another man, he would not have reacted as mildly as he did.
Again, appellant lost no effort in describing Hilda as a
woman of loose morals. But this serves no useful purpose at
all. For the character of a rape victim will not disprove rape.
There is absolutely no nexus between the reputation of a
rape victim and the odious deed committed against her.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Bangui, Ilocos Norte, Br. 19.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

762

762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Soriano
BELLOSILLO, J.:

LITO SORIANO Y SAGUCIO alias “Loreto Soriano y

Sagucio” was found by the court a quo to have raped
Hilda Acio. The evidence confirms his culpability;
hence, we affirm.
On 22 March 1991 Hilda Acio and Lesley Oania, a
neighbor and friend, attended the foundation
anniversary of their school. At around eight-thirty in
the evening they left the festivities and proceeded to
the house of Hilda’s grandmother Mercedes de la Cruz
in Bgy. Lanao, Bangui, Ilocos Norte, to pass the night
there. When they arrived Mercedes and Hilda’s tw in
sisters w ere already asleep in the sala. Hilda had to
use her own key to enter the house. Hilda and Lesley
then slept with them.
At around one-thirty the following morning, Hilda
was awakened when she felt somebody’s legs on top of
hers. She imm ediately switched on the light. She saw
Lito Soriano y Sagucio alias “Loreto Soriano y Sagucio”
sitting by her side with a long bolo on hand. He was
reeking of liquor. Then Lesley Oania, the twins and the
70-year-old Mercedes also woke up. Mercedes asked
Lito why he was inside their house. He answered that
he was just seeking refuge as he had killed somebody.
He warned them not to disclose his presence in the
house or he would kill all of them.
Lito sat on the sofa and ordered Hilda to sit at his
side. Gripped with fear, she obeyed; she had no
recourse. Lito placed his bolo on top of her thighs and
started kissing her on the lips and cheeks, at the same
time mashing her breasts. She pushed his hands away.
This annoyed him. He stood up and poised to strike
Mercedes on the neck. He returned to the sofa and
continued kissing Hilda, mashing her breasts and
touching her thighs. She parried him off. This all the
more angered him. He stood up and smothered
Mercedes’ face with a pillow. He commanded Hilda to
open the main door and said that he would only leave
the premises if she would kiss him.
 Hilda refused; surprisingly, he did not insist.
Instead, he asked Hilda to fetch him a glass of water
and to open the kitchen door. Hilda offered to open the
main door for him but

763

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 763

People vs. Soriano

he said he preferred to pass through the kitchen door

because his NPA companions were waiting for him
outside the kitchen.
When the kitchen door was opened Lito
immediately pulled Hilda and pinned her against the
concrete wall of the kitchen. He removed his shorts
and briefs and started kissing her again. She struggled
so he boxed her on the stomach. This visibly weakened
her. As he dragged her she held on to her shorts in an
effort to thwart his sexual assault. But all her
resistance proved futile. Lito forcibly removed her
panty, laid on top of her, inserted his penis into her
vagina and had intercourse with her. He kissed her
from the face down to her most coveted part. After
slaking his lust, Lito got up and put on his clothes.
Hilda seized that opportunity to escape. She
immediately gathered her clothes and ran towards the
kitchen. Once inside, she locked the door. He lingered
outside the house for awhile but left soon after.
Hilda lost no time in narrating her harrowing
experience to Lesley. Even without being told,
Mercedes sensed that Lito had offended Hilda. At
around five o’clock that same morning, the incident
was relayed to Victoria de la Cruz, aunt of Hilda, who
in turn asked someone to report the matter to the
police. Hilda was then brought to the Bangui District
Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Diosdado I.
Garvida. The medico-legal examination disclosed that
Hilda suffered abrasions on the right side of her neck;
another just below the mandible; and still another, on
the level of the larynx. She also sustained a contusion
on the right buccal area, and an erythema at the
vaginal orifice. She was also found to have an old
hymenal 1laceration at 3:00 o’clock and 9:00 o’clock
positions.
Lito Soriano was apprehended and brought to the
police station for investigation. On 25 March 1991
Hilda Acio filed a complaint against Soriano with the
Municipal Circuit 2 Trial Court of Bangui-Pagudpud-
Adams-Dumalneg. After preliminary examination, the
investigating judge found a prima facie

______________

1 Exh. “B,” Folder of Exhibits.

2 Docketed as Crim. Case No. 4049-B.

764

764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Soriano

case against the accused, and on 13 May 1991 he was

formally charged with rape before
3
the Regional Trial
Court of Bangui, Ilocos Norte.
Lito Soriano told a different story. At the pre-trial
conference he admitted having sexual intercourse with
Hilda. However his admission was later withdrawn for
having purportedly been made improvidently. O n the
witness stand he claimed that since 15 August 1988
until the alleged rape he and Hilda were sweethearts.
On 17 March 1991, or three (3) days before the
incident, he saw Hilda having sexual intercourse with
her boyfriend Joemer Rumbaoa. He felt bad about it.
On 22 March 1991, while he was having a snack at
Hilda’s store, she approached him and asked if she
could talk to him later at her grandmother’s house. So,
at around eight-thirty that evening, he went to their
tryst and then and there ended their relationship. He
stayed there for only thirty (30) minutes and then left
for home and slept. The following morning he was
picked up by the police and taken to the municipal jail.
On 16 November 1993, after trial, the Regional
Trial Court found Lito Soriano y Sagucio alias “Loreto
Soriano y Sagucio” guilty of rape and sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to4 indemnify
Hilda Acio P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.
Accused-appellant imputes the following errors to
the court a quo: (1) in holding that force and
intimidation attended the carnal act between accused-
appellant and private complain-ant; (2) in finding
accused-appellant guilty of rape despite the incredible
testimony of private complainant; and, (3) in finding
accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged despite
the failure of the 5prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
It is doctrinally entrenched that factual findings of
trial courts are accorded the highest respect as they
are in the best situation to observe the deportment and
demeanor of wit-

______________

3 Docketed as Crim. Case No. 833-19.

4 Decision, RTC-Br. 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte, p. 17; Rollo, p. 42.
5 Appellant’s Brief, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 89-90.

765

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 765

People vs. Soriano

nesses and to assess their credibility. Their factual

findings are disturbed only if there is abuse of
discretion. But we are unable to discern any committed
by the trial court.
Accused-appellant contends that the testimony of
Hilda Acio is incredible and unworthy of belief. We
hold otherwise. Hilda had no ill motive in filing this
case 6 against appellant who himself acknowledged this
 6
fact. Hilda successfully weathered not only the direct
and redirect examinations but also the grueling and
probing cross and re-cross questions. Not for a moment
did she contradict herself. She cried on the witness
stand when she recalled her horrendous ordeal in the
hands of appellant. The lapse of two (2) years did not
stop her tears from falling again when she took the
witness stand as a rebuttal witness.
Accused-appellant theorizes that Hilda could have
easily resisted the sexual assault on her person had
she wanted to. Her failure to do so could only mean
that she voluntarily submitted to the sexual congress.
But the evidence at hand confutes this assertion. From
the very start Hilda parried off the improper advances
of appellant, but every tim e he countered by
threatening to strike her grandmother and twin
sisters. He even boxed Hilda on the stomach. What is
more, he had a long bolo on hand which he brandished
whenever she resisted.
Then too, the defense harps on the fact that no
sperm was found on Hilda thus disproving her
testimony that appellant allegedly raped her. But the
absence of spermatozoa does not negate rape. For in
rape of this nature, it is only necessary to prove carnal
knowledge by using force and intimidation, which the
prosecution in this case has more than sufficiently
established.
If there is any testimony that is incredible and
contradictory, it is that of appellant. His denials are
self-serving and do not deserve any credence at all,
especially when assayed against the positive and
candid testimony of Hilda. Since normally only two (2)
persons are privy to the commission of

______________

6 TSN, 3 March 1993, p. 83.

766
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Soriano

rape, the evaluation of the evidence presented therein

ultimately revolves around the credibility of the
complaining witness. It is Hilda’s account of the case
that we are most inclined to accept.
Accused-appellant’s persistent avowal that Hilda
has been his sweetheart since 27 October 1988 appears
farfetched. Hilda was born on 8 February 1975 and
this makes her only thirteen (13) years old when she
allegedly became romantically linked to him, who by
then was already twenty-eight (28) years old.
Furthermore, he was living in w ith a certain Evelyn
Ramos. Lito also testified that he was not Hilda’s first
boyfriend. Thus—

Atty. Reyes:
  Now, you mentioned a certain Lando Aguinaldo
and Joemer Rumbaoa as sweetheart(s) of Hilda
Acio, do you know who was the first among (sic)
these two (2) persons (to be) the sweetheart of
Hilda Acio?
xxxx
A. Orlando Aguinaldo, sir.
Q. A resident of that place?
A. Yes sir, we are neighbors.
Q. Do you know why they broke the relationship?
A. Because Orlando died during the NPA and PNP
encounter in Dumalneg, sir.
Q. Do you know how long the relationship went on?
  xxxx
A. I do not know how many years they were staying
with each other, sir.
Q. But very long?
A. Perhaps about three years, sir.
Q. And immediately after that relationship (you)
became sweethearts?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At what moment did Joemer Rumbaoa become the
sweetheart of Hilda Acio?
7
A. On March 17, 1991, sir x x x x

Assuming that Orlando “Lando” Aguinaldo was Hilda’s

first boyfriend and that the relationship lasted for
about three

______________

7 TSN, 17 February 1993, pp. 76-77.

767

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 767

People vs. Soriano

years, this would make Hilda only ten (10) or eleven

(11) years old at the start of the supposed relationship.
This by itself begs credibility which can only lead to
the conclusion that all these are only the product of the
accused’s distorted imagination.
Accused-appellant claims that on 17 March 1991 he
saw Joemer Rumbaoa and Hilda indulging in sexual
intercourse inside the latter’s store. If the accused was
Hilda’s boyfriend at that time, as he would have us
believe, his reaction to the incident would be no less
than atypical:

Atty. At what moment did Joemer Rumbaoa

Reyes: become the sweetheart of Hilda Acio?
Lito On March 17, 1991, sir, when I went to buy
Soriano: cigarettes at the store of Hilda Acio, I heard
somebody moaning, and when I peeped
through the hole on the wall, I saw Hilda and
a man inside. The man was on top of Hilda.
 At the mom ent I had not yet recognized
Joemer Rumbaoa. After a while I knocked on
the small window of the store and Hilda Acio
asked “who is that”; I simply answered, “it is
me,” then Hilda opened the small wind ow
and I looked inside and I saw Joemer
Rumbaoa who was putting on his pants and
left the place in a hurry.
  xxxx
Atty. Will you describe Hilda and Joemer at the
Reyes: first time you saw them at the store on
March 17, 1991?
Lito Both of them were naked, sir. Joemer was on
Soriano: top of Hilda Acio, and they were kissing each
other.
Q. How were you able to recognize Joemer
Rumbaoa and Hilda Acio in that condition?
A. When Hilda Acio opened the window I
peeped through it, I saw them and there is
(sic) also a small bulb which was lighted near
the image of Virgin Mary sir.
Q. Where was (sic) Hilda and Joemer lying
when you saw them?
A. On a folding bed, sir.
Q. What was your reaction when you s aw them
?
  xxxx
Lito Of course I felt bad about it, and I did not
Soriano: expect Hilda to do that, sir.

768

768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Soriano

Atty. Were you able to talk to Hilda immediately

Reyes: after you saw them in that situation?
 A. I did not talk to her after she handed the
cigarettes I went already, sir.
Q. Were you able to talk to Joemer Rumbaoa?
A. No, sir, we talked the following day.
Q. Where did you talk?
A. On the street when we chanced upon each
other, sir.
Q. What did you converse about?
A. We talked about what happened to them. I told
Joemer Rumbaoa to marry Hilda Acio
otherwise I would report to the father of Hilda,
but Joemer declined because he said he found
out that Hilda was no longer a virgin woman,
sir.
  xxxx
Q. After that incident, did you have a chance to
talk to Hilda Acio?
A. On March 22, 1991, sir.
Q. Where did you talk with Hilda Acio?
A. When I went to take merienda at the store at
about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, sir.
Q. Did she call for you at the store?
A. She told me, “Would you mind
8
to come at the
house of my grandmother?”

The above narration cannot inspire belief. For if indeed

the accused caught his “girlfriend” in flagrante with
another man, he would not have reacted as mildly as
he did. Again, appellant lost no effort in describing
Hilda as a woman of loose morals. But this serves no
useful purpose at all. For the character of a rape victim
will not disprove rape. There is absolutely no nexus
between the reputation of a rape victim and the odious
deed committed against her.
But if there be any doubt still on the culpability of
appellant, his letter to Hilda and her parents (Exhs.
“C” and “C-1”) should dispel that doubt and clinch the
case for the prosecution. In the letter, appellant
repeatedly admitted the wrong he committed against
Hilda and begged for her forgiveness and

_______________

8 Id., pp. 77-80.

769

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 769

People vs. Soriano

that of her parents, brothers, sisters and grandmother.

The letter which appellant admitted to have w ritten
on 19 December 1991 in 9
the Ilocano dialect and now
translated into Eng-lish pertinently reads—

Dearest Uncle, Auntie and Ading ko (a younger

person) Hilda,
I hope to God that your family is fine x x x x I truly
repent from the grave sin I have committed against
you. And I will never stop from asking forgiveness
from you and from praying to the Lord God (italics
supplied).
Uncle, Auntie and particularly to you ading ko
Hilda, Leslie O., Josie, Joseph, Jacky, Merie Flor,
and Merie Jane and Lola Merced, do forgive m e
now from that grave sin I have comm itted against
your whole family x x x x I truly repent from
having offended you, for I was heavily drunk at
that time and did not know what I was doing at
that day. And I promise and I swear to you that I
will never commit any sin again x x x x Do forgive
me now, Uncle, Auntie and especially you, ading
ko Hilda. And I promise and swear to you again
that I will not sin again and please give me
another chance to change and atone (for) my
offense agains t you (italics supplied).
 Do forgive me now Uncle, Auntie and ading ko
Hilda x x x x for I can no longer sleep thinking and
praying to our Lord God, asking with all my heart
forgiveness from you x x x x Yes, Uncle, Auntie and
ading ko Hilda, I again ask your forgiveness and I
promise and swear that I will never commit any sin
again. Not anymore for I have come to realize the
gravity of my offense against you. Yes, Uncle and
Auntie, do forgive me now and if possible let us s
ettle this case (italics supplied).
I know that our Lord God understands and
forgives all sinners like me.
Till now, my regards to all of you and may the
Lord our God grant you peace and answer your
prayers.
Asking your forgiveness,
(Sgd.) LITHO SORIANO

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding

accused-appellant LITO SORIANO Y SAGUCIO alias
“Loreto

_______________

9 Exh. “C-2,” Records, p. 178.

770

770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Paterno vs. Court of Appeals

Soriano y Sagucio” GUILTY of RAPE and sentencing

him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all
the accessory penalties provided by law, to pay Hilda
Acio moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and
to pay the costs, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

          Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ.,

concur.
      Padilla (Chairman), J., On leave.

Judgment affirmed.

Notes.—Clothes of the victim are not essential and

need not be presented as they are not indispensable
evidence to prove rape. (People vs. Budol, 143 SCRA
241 [1986])
It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for
some time the assaults on their virtue because of the
rapist’s threats on their lives. (People vs. Errojo, 229
SCRA 50 [1994])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.