VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 105: People vs. Paragsa

9/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 084
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 105

People vs. Paragsa
No. L-44060. July 20, 1978.*
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. BIENVENIDO PARAGSA, alias “BENBEN”, defendant-
appellant.
Rape; Evidence; Circumstances showing that the intercourse

between appellant and alleged victim of rape was mutually
voluntary.—Certain circumstances negate the commission by the
appellant of the crime charged and point to the conclusion that
the sexual intercourse between the appellant and the complaining
witness
_______________
* EN BANC.
106
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Paragsa
was voluntary. Force and intimidation were not proven. Mirasol

did not offer any resistance or vocal protestation against the
alleged sexual assault. She could have easily made an outcry or
resisted the appellant’s advances without endangering her life.
But she did not. She was allegedly raped in her own home, not far
from her neighbors and during the daytime. If, indeed, she was
raped under the circumstances narrated by her, she could have
revealed the same the very moment she was confronted by her
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d0cc45e3f6b064dfd003600fb002c009e/p/APJ629/?username=Guest 1/26
aunt Lita who asked her what the accused did to her upon
entering the house immediately after the intercourse took place
and when the accused ran from the bed to a storeroom of the
house to hide upon seeing and/or hearing the voice of her aunt
Lita. Or, she could have grabbed the hunting knife by her side
when the copulation was going on, and with it she could have
possibly prevented the accused from consummating the sexual
act. But she did not.
Same; Same; Same.—Still another circumstance is the fact
that Mirasol did not bother at all to rebut the testimony of the
appellant and his witnesses to the effect that the accused and
Mirasol were actually sweethearts; and that they had two
previous sexual communications before July 13, 1971, one of
which happened on June 29, 1971 in the house of the accused,
where Mirasol and the accused slept together in the evening of
the same day after the mother of the accused and Mirasol had
return from the town fiesta of Bantayan, Cebu.
Same; Same; Estoppel; Requisites of the rule that silence of a
person may be taken as admission of the truth of the statements
uttered in his presence.—The rule allowing silence of a person to
be taken as an implied admission of the truth of the statements
uttered in his presence is applicable in criminal cases. But before
the silence of a party can be taken as an admission of what is
said, it must appear: (1) that he heard and understood the
statement; (2) that he was at liberty to interpose a denial; (3) that
the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights
or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an
answer; (4) that the facts were within his knowledge; and (5) that
the fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence
would be material to the issue (IV Francisco, The Revised Rules of
Court in the Philippines, 1973 ed., p. 316). These requisites of
admission by silence all obtain in the present case. Hence, the
silence of Mirasol on the facts asserted by the accused and his
witnesses may be safely construed as an admission of the truth of
such assertion.
107
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 107
People vs. Paragsa
Same; Same; Facts that victim of alleged rape was of tender

age yet no lacerations were found in her vagina and that she felt
no pain during the time of intercourse may adversely affect her
claim that she was raped.—Considering Mirasol’s tender age, if
she had no previous sexual experience, she must have been a
virgin when she was allegedly raped by the accused. Yet she did
not state that she felt some pain as the accused tried to insert his
organ into her private part. Neither did she state that she was
bleeding during and after the alleged forced coition. Instead, she
matter-of-factly narrated that the accused made four push and
pull movements after which the latter ejaculated—indicating that
he had an easy time doing it. If WE are to believe her story,
certainly the doctor who examined her could have noticed the
lacerations even after the lapse of three (3) days from the coition,
if the intercourse on July 13, 1971 was in fact her first experience.
WE believe the absence of lacerations in the walls of Mirasol’s
vagina, as testified to by Dr. Gandiongco, supra, eloquently
confirms the truth of the accused’s assertion that before the
incident in question, he and Mirasol had two prior copulations.
Aquino, J., dissenting:
Rape; Appellant should be convicted as there is sufficient

evidence to prove existence of rape.—The accused was twenty-one
(21) years old while the victim was twelve years and six months
old. The act of the accused in taking advantage of the victim’s
immaturity is a form of unpardonable sexual perversion which is
worse than the offense committed by Roman Polanski, the
Hollywood director who was convicted of cohabiting with a
thirteen-year old girl. To acquit the accused would be a
miscarriage of justice. The lower court’s judgment of conviction
should be affirmed and the accused should be sentenced to
reclusion perpetua.
MAKASIAR, J.:
Bienvenido Paragsa, alias “Benben”, appealed to the Court

of Appeals the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Cebu (Judge Agapito Hontanosas, presiding), the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered convicting the

accused Bienvenido Paragsa of the crime of Rape as charged in
the Information beyond reasonable doubt and applying the

Indeter-
108

People vs. Paragsa
minate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him to suffer the

indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as
minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one 1) day
of reclusion temporal as the maximum and to indemnify the
complaining witness in the amount of P8,000.00 (People vs.
Rogato Rivera, 58, O.G. and People vs. Chan et al., CA No. 03545-
GR, August 11, 1967) with all legal accessories and to pay the
costs. Being a detention prisoner, he is entitled to the full credit of
his preventive imprisonment from the time of his confinement up
to the date of the promulgation of this judgment.
“x x x x x”
(pp. 10-19, rollo).
Because the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed by

the Court of Appeals on the accused, this case is now before
US for review pursuant to Section 34, Republic Act No.
296, as amended, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of
1948.
The evidence for the prosecution consists of the
testimony of Mirasol Magallanes, the alleged rape victim,
her aunt-in-law, Mrs. Lita Parochel, and Dr. Luis L.
Gandiongco of the Bantayan Emergency Hospital,
Bantayan, Cebu, who examined the offended party and
submitted Exhibit A embodying his findings thereon.
Substantially, the records show that in the afternoon of
July 13, 1971, Mirasol, who was then a little over twelve
and a half (12½) years old (Exhibit B, p. 7, rec.), was alone
in her parents’ house in Sitio Tabagac of Barrio Bunacan,
Municipality of Madridejos, Cebu, cooking hog feed. Her
parents were away at the time—her father was in Cadiz,
while her mother was in Sagay, both in Negros Occidental
(p. 16, t.s.n., Jan. 5, 1972)—while the rest of the family
were with Mirasol’s grandmother in Barrio Codia; also in
Madridejos, Cebu. Mirasol was a 6th grade student of the
Bunacan Elementary School (p. 6, t.s.n., Dec. 3, 1971).

Upon instruction of her mother, she did not go to school
that afternoon so that she could look after the pigs and
cook their feed. Thus, she was alone in the ground floor of
their house cooking hog feed when the accused, Bienvenido
Paragsa,
109
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 109

People vs. Paragsa
armed with a hunting knife, entered the house and closed

the door after him. Approaching from behind, he placed his
left arm around Mirasol’s neck, encircled her abdomen with
his right arm, at the same time pointing the hunting knife
with his right hand at her breast, and threatened her not
to shout otherwise she would be killed. Thereafter, the
accused pushed her to a bamboo bed nearby, rolled up her
dress and, with his two hands, removed her panties. The
accused then placed his hunting knife on the bed by
Mirasol’s side, opened the zipper of his pants while
kneeling on the bed, opened Mirasol’s thighs, picked up the
hunting knife again, placed himself on top of Mirasol,
inserted his erect penis into her sexual organ and then
made four push and pull movement until he ejaculated (pp.
7, 10-11, 12, 13, 14, t.s.n., ibid). In the process, Mirasol’s
dress and pan-ties were not torn, since, because of fear, she
allowed the accused to roll up her dress and pull her
panties without any resistance whatsoever. During the
intercourse, the accused was not holding the hunting knife.
After the accused had discharged, he ran to the storeroom
of the house upstairs because he heard Mrs. Lita Parochel,
wife of the younger brother of Mirasol’s father, calling from
outside the gate of the house, asking Mirasol to open the
gate. Mirasol did not answer because she was then in the
act of putting on her panties (p. 14, t.s.n., ibid; p. 10, t.s.n.,
Jan. 5, 1972). After she had put on her panties, she opened
the gate and saw her aunt Lita, who asked her what the
accused did to her, but she did not answer because she was
afraid as the accused was still inside the house She also did
not tell her aunt Lita that the accused had sexual
intercourse with her under threats and against her will.

Her aunt Lita then walked away.
Thereafter, the accused reappeared in the room and told
Mirasol that if she would tell her aunt Lita what he did, he
would kill her (pp. 13-14, t.s.n., Dec. 3, 1971). After the
incident, Mirasol went to Barrio Codia later in the
afternoon of the same day and joined her brother and sister
and grandmother. She did not reveal to any of them what
transpired between her and the accused in Tabagac.
Mirasol’s father returned from Cadiz, Negros Occidental
that same day; but Mirasol did not also reveal the incident
to
110

People vs. Paragsa
him because she was afraid her father might punish her.
Her mother returned home on July 16, 1971 from Sagay,
Negros Occidental; but Mirasol did not also tell her mother
about what happened to her on July 13 in Tabagac. It was
her aunt Lita who revealed the matter to Mirasol’s mother,
who thereupon confronted her daughter. Mirasol had to
reveal the incident of July 13 to her mother only when her
mother asked her about it; because, according to her, she
wanted to take revenge on the accused (p. 15, Dec. 3, 1971).
Three days after her return from Sagay, Negros Occidental
—on July 19, 1971—Mirasol’s mother brought her to the
Bantayan Emergency Hospital in Bantayan, Cebu, where
she was examined by Dr. Luis L. Gandiongco, who
submitted his findings as follows:
“Abrasion of inguinal region

“Abrasion, left thigh, medial side
“INTERNAL FINDINGS:
“1. Discharges sticky, milky in color, found at the anterior

fornix but negative for spermatozoa” (Exh. A, p. 8, rec.; p. 2, t.s.n.,
Nov. 16, 1971).
Mrs. Lita Parochel, the aunt-in-law of Mirasol, testified

that she is the wife of the younger brother of Mirasol’s
father. Her house is fifty (50) meters away from the house
of her brother-in-law, Ruperto Magallanes. In the
afternoon of July 13, 1971, she went to the house of her
brother-in-law in Tabagac. Arriving there, she saw,
through the gate which was made of split bamboos, the
accused running away when she shouted to Mirasol, who
was then in the act of putting on her panties, to open the
gate (p. 10, t.s.n., Jan. 15, 1972). Mirasol opened the gate
after she had put on her panties. Entering the house, Mrs.
Parochel asked Mirasol what the accused did to her, but
Mirasol did not answer. So, she hid and from her hiding
place she saw the accused emerge from his hiding place
and run away, passing through the gate of the fence.
Thereupon, she told Mirasol to go home to barrio Codia
because she was also going there (p. 15, t.s.n., ibid.).
111
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 111

People vs. Paragsa
Mrs. Parochel met Mirasol’s father at about 4:00 o’clock the

same afternoon but she did not talk to him about what she
saw earlier in Tabagak. However, she revealed the incident
to her husband (p. 17, t.s.n., ibid.).
When Mirasol’s mother returned from Sagay, Negros
Occidental, Mrs. Parochel had a conversation with her
regarding the person of the accused and thereafter
Mirasol’s mother filed the corresponding complaint against
the accused (p. 18, t.s.n., ibid.).
Incidentally, in support of the complaint of Bernandina
Magallanes, mother of Mirasol, Mrs. Parochel executed an
affidavit which she subscribed and swore to before the
municipal judge of Madridejos, Cebu, on July 30, 1971,
wherein she stated, among other things:
“1. That at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July

13, 1971, I went to the house of Ruperto
Magallanes, my neighbor;
“2. That when I entered their fence, I found out that
one Benben Paragsa ran from the bed where
Mirasol Magallanes was sitting on while putting on
her panties;
That she, Mirasol Magallanes, upon my arrival, did

“3.
not say anything to me about the happening; and
that I was only thinking that something had
happened” (Exh. 1, p. 5, rec.). In his typewritten
brief, the appellant enumerated and discussed five
errors as having been committed by the trial court.
These errors may, however, be boiled down to the
issue of credibility.
Appellant admits having sexual intercourse with Mirasol,

the complaining witness, but he stoutly denied that he did
so by employing force or intimidation against Mirasol. He
claims he and Mirasol were sweethearts; that on the day of
the incident, it was Mirasol who invited him to the latter’s
house where they had sexual intercourse after kissing each
other; and that the intercourse they had that afternoon
was, as a matter of fact, their third sexual intercourse (pp.
2, 3, 5, 6, 8-9, t.s.n., March 21, 1972).
The foregoing testimony of the accused was
substantially corroborated by two witnesses for the
defense, Mercedo
112

People vs. Paragsa
Batosbatosan and Eduardo Ducay (pp. 5, 6-7, 12, 15-16, 17,

18-19, 20, 25, t.s.n., Feb. 1, 1972).
A careful scrutiny of the record reveals that the
prosecution’s evidence is weak, unsatisfactory and
inconclusive to justify a conviction.
Certain circumstances negate the commission by the
appellant of the crime charged and point to the conclusion
that the sexual intercourse between the appellant and the
complaining witness was voluntary. Force and intimidation
were not proven. Mirasol did not offer any resistance or
vocal protestation against the alleged sexual assault. She
could have easily made an outcry or resisted the appellant’s
advances without endangering her life. But she did not.
She was allegedly raped in her own home, not far from her
neighbors and during the daytime. If, indeed, she was
raped under the circumstances narrated by her, she could
have revealed the same the very moment she was

confronted by her aunt Lita who asked her what the
accused did to her upon entering the house immediately
after the intercourse took place and when the accused ran
from the bed to a storeroom of the house to hide upon
seeing and/or hearing the voice of her aunt Lita. Or, she
could have grabbed the hunting knife by her side when the
copulation was going on, and with it she could have
possibly prevented the accused from consummating the
sexual act. But she did not.
Another circumstance is that Mirasol did not reveal
immediately to her parents that she was raped. It was only
after her mother arrived from Sagay, Negros Occidental,
three (3) days after the incident, and confronted her about
the rape incident that her mother learned through her aunt
Lita that she eventually revealed to her mother what the
accused did to her in the afternoon of July 13, 1971.
Still another circumstance is the fact that Mirasol did
not bother at all to rebut the testimony of the appellant
and his witnesses to the effect that the accused and Mirasol
were actually sweethearts; and that they had had two
previous sexual communications before July 13, 1971, one
of which happened on June 29, 1971 in the house of the
accused, where Mirasol and the accused slept together in
the evening of the same day
113
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 113

People vs. Paragsa
after the mother of the accused and Mirasol had returned

from the town fiesta of Bantayan, Cebu (p. 10, t.s.n., March
21, 1972).
The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an
implied admission of the truth of the statements uttered in
his presence is applicable in criminal cases. But before the
silence of a party can be taken as an admission of what is
said, it must appear: (1) that he heard and understood the
statement; (2) that he was at liberty to interpose a denial;
(3) that the statement was in respect to some matter
affecting his rights or in which he was then interested, and
calling, naturally, for an answer; (4) that the facts were
within his knowledge; and (5) that the fact admitted or the
inference to be drawn from his silence would be material to
the issue (IV Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the
Philippines, 1973 ed., p. 316). These requisites of admission
by silence all obtain in the present case. Hence, the silence
of Mirasol on the facts asserted by the accused and his
witnesses may be safely construed as an admission of the
truth of such assertion.
One more circumstance which engenders serious doubt
on the truthfulness of Mirasol is the testimony of Dr.
Gandiongco that he did not notice any laceration in the
walls of Mirasol’s vagina, thus—
“Q—Doctor, you testified that according to your findings a foreign

body might have inserted the internal organ of the offended
party?
“A—Yes, sir.
“Q—And as a matter of fact, in your examination there was no
laceration?
“A—There was no laceration” (p. 5, t.s.n., November 16, 1971;
italics supplied).
Considering Mirasol’s tender age, if she had no previous

sexual experience, she must have been a virgin when she
was allegedly raped by the accused. Yet she did not state
that she felt some pain as the accused tried to insert his
organ into her private part. Neither did she state that she
was bleeding during and after the alleged forced coition.
Instead, she matter-of-
114

People vs. Paragsa
factly narrated that the accused made four push and pull
movements after which the latter ejaculated—indicating
that he had an easy time doing it.
If WE are to believe her story, certainly the doctor who
examined her could have noticed the lacerations even after
the lapse of three (3) days from the coition, if the
intercourse on July 13, 1971 was in fact her first
experience. WE believe the absence of lacerations in the
walls of Mirasol’s vagina, as testified to by Dr. Gandiongco,
supra, eloquently confirms the truth of the accused’s

assertion that before the incident in question, he and
Mirasol had two prior copulations.
And still another circumstance which casts serious
doubt on the credibility of the complaining witness and her
aunt Lita is the matter of the hunting knife. While it is
true that on the witness stand these two witnesses
practically corroborated each other on this particular point,
the matter of the accused having a hunting knife with him
on the day of the incident was not, however, mentioned by
Mrs. Parochel in her affidavit, Exhibit 1, which she
executed on July 30, 1971—five months before she testified
in court Besides, at the trial, the prosecution did not bother
to present such “hunting knife”.
A last circumstance which also engenders serious doubt
on the veracity of Mrs. Parochel, whose testimony the trial
court summarized, runs thus:
“. . . . . . The victim did not answer the call of her aunt nor did she
open the barred door.”
“. . . . She returned to the opened door and asked Mirasol what
had happened. Mirasol was very pale, trembling and in a state of
shock, did not answer her inquiries . . . . .” (p. 3, Decision; p. 64,
rec.; emphasis added).
The Solicitor General adopted the above factual summary

made by the trial court by stating that—
“Mirasol’s aunt, Lita Parochel . . . . found her niece in a state of

shock” (p. 4, Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee; p. 49, rec.; italics
OURS).
115
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 115

People vs. Paragsa
A painstaking scrutiny of the record, particularly the

transcript of stenographic notes, shows that contrary to the
finding of the trial court, Mirasol answered the call of her
aunt and opened the gate of the house after she had put on
her panties (p. 14, t.s.n., Dec. 3, 1971); and that Mirasol
only seemed to be afraid, besides trembling (p. 23, t.s.n.,
1972); nowhere in the record is any evidence of Mirasol

having been in a state of shock.
If Mirasol was in fact in a state of shock—
1. How come she was able to put on her panties and

thereafter open the gate of the house when she
heard her aunt Lita calling from the outside?
2. Her aunt Lita would feel so alarmed and so
concerned that she would not lose any time to bring
her to a doctor or to a hospital for medical
treatment or assistance;
3. Her aunt Lita would have confronted the accused
who was still hiding in the closet in a corner of the
ground floor, or she would have gone to the nearest
police authority or barrio captain, who could have
easily apprehended the accused;
4. Her aunt could have sought the assistance of their
barriomates or neighbors; or
5. She could have brought Mirasol to her own house
which was only about 50 meters away (pp. 7, 20,
t.s.n., Jan. 5, 1972) But what did she do? She
abandoned Mirasol “because she (Mirasol) had to
feed her hogs” (p. 24, idem.).
That Mirasol was pale, afraid and trembling can only be

attributed to the fact that her aunt discovered her having
sexual intercourse at so young an age and that she feared
that her aunt would report the same to her parents.
And if Mrs. Parochel really believed that her niece
Mirasol was raped by appellant about 3 o’clock that
afternoon of July 13, 1971, why did she not report the
outrage to Mirasol’s father—her husband’s brother—whom
she met about 4 o’clock that same afternoon, just one hour
after the alleged rape?
Mrs. Parochel’s close relationship to her niece—
daughter of her brother-in-law—vitiates her credibility.
116

People vs. Paragsa
Appellant cannot be legally convicted of simple seduction

under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code, for the same
is not warranted by the wording of the information, which
does not alleged deceit, although appellant testified that he
promised to marry Mirasol if “something happens to her
body.” Much less can simple seduction include rape.
WHEREFORE, APPELLANT BIENVENIDO
PARAGSA. ALIAS “BENBEN”. IS HEREBY ACQUITTED,
WITH COSTS DE OFICIO, AND HIS IMMEDIATE
RELEASE IS HEREBY ORDERED UNLESS HE IS
BEING DETAINED ON OTHER CHARGES.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, Concepcion Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and

Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Castro, C.J., concurs in the dissent of Mr. Justice R.
C. Aquino.
Teehankee, J., concurs in a separate opinion.
Barredo, J., concurs in the dissent of Justice
Aquino.
Antonio, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of
Justice Aquino.
Muñoz Palma, J., vote for the affirmance of the
judgment.
Aquino, J., dissents. See dissenting opinion.
CERTIFICATION
Castro, C.J., there being only five (5) votes for conviction of
the appellant Bienvenido Paragsa and seven (7) votes for
his acquittal, I certify that it is the judgment of the
Supreme Court that the appellant Paragsa should be, as he
is hereby, acquitted.
TEEHANKEE, J., Concurring:
I concur in the acquittal of the accused-appellant in the

light of the salient facts and circumstances discussed in the
decision
117
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 117
People vs. Paragsa
1
penned by Mr. Justice Makasiar which justly cast serious
doubts on the guilt of the accused and entitle him to a
verdict of acquittal founded on the constitutional
presumption of innocence.
The ratio decidendi in the analogous case of People vs.
Ramirez2 (where the 15-year old daughter of the accused’s
common-law wife charged him with double rape and his
defense was “that there was consent on her part, as indeed
there had been previous instances where he had access to
her”) is fully applicable to the case 3at bar, thus: “The
pronouncement in People vs. Dramayo as to the extent of
the protection accorded by the Constitution to a person
indicted for a criminal offense once again possesses
relevance. Thus: ‘Accusation is not, according to the
fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent
on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies.
Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence
on their behalf. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite
quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence.
Their guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. To
such a standard, this Court has always been committed.
There is need, therefore, for the most careful scrutiny of the
testimony of the state, both oral and documentary,
independently of whatever defense is offered by the
accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal
could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been
committed precisely by the person on trial under such an
exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is
thus required that every circumstance favoring his
innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against
him must survive the text of reason; the strongest
suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The
conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be
laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only
did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted
4
to a crime;
What is required then is moral certainty.”
_______________
1 At pages 6-10.
2 69 SCRA 144 (1976) and cases cited, per Fernando, J.
3 42 SCRA 59 (1971).
4 69 SCRA at pp. 149-150.
118

People vs. Paragsa
There as in this case, we held that the accused could not be

convicted of seduction under
5
the rape charge, citing the
case of People vs. Castro because “the rape charge did not
place [the accused] in jeopardy of being convicted for
qualified seduction. He is entitled to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.”
I have written this brief 6concurrence, principally,
because I noted from the decision that this is a case where
as against the prevailing view and practice under section
34 of Republic Act 296, as amended (the Judiciary Act of
1948) and incorporated in Rule 124, section 12 of the Rules
of Court (whereby in any criminal case submitted to a
division of the Court of Appeals whenever said court should
be of the opinion that the higher penalty of death or life
imprisonment should be imposed than the lesser penalty
imposed by the trial court in the decision subject of the
appeal before it, said court “shall refrain from entering
judgment thereon and shall forthwith certify the case to
the Supreme Court for final determination, as if the case
had been brought before it on appeal”) the Court of Appeals
rendered judgment imposing the penalty of reclusion
perpetua instead of forthwith certifying by resolution the
case to this Court as falling with this Court’s exclusive
appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Judiciary Act.
Some members of the Court have asked for
reexamination of the prevailing view and practice and to
set down as the proper procedure that followed by the
Court of Appeals in the case at bar. But since the Court’s
verdict is one of acquittal, there was no need to take up the
question in this case. I make this of record so that the
present decision may not be taken as impliedly sanctioning
such procedure, or as an indication of approval thereof on
the part of any member of the Court taking part herein.
The question will be definitively resolved in several cases
pending before the Court where such reexamination has
been squarely raised, e.g. in Case L-40330, entitled People
of the Philippines vs. Amado Danie alias “Amado Ato”.

submitted for decision of August 5, 1975.
_______________
5 58 SCRA 473 (1974), per Aquino, J.

6 At page 2.
119
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 119

People vs. Paragsa
AQUINO, J., dissenting:
The evidence for the prosecution was summarized by the

Solicitor General in this wise:
“Mirasol Magallanes, aged twelve-and-a-half, was alone
in her parent’s house in Sitio Tabagak of Barrio Bunacan,
in Madridejos, Cebu in the early afternoon of July 13, 1971,
cooking hog feed. Both of her parents were then away, in
Negros Occidental, and the rest of the family were with
Mirasol’s grandmother in Barrio Codia, also in Madridejos,
Cebu. Mirasol, although a six-grader in the Bunacan
Elementary School, was at home on this date, on
instructions of her mother to look after their pigs, and cook
hog feed in the afternoon.
“While thus alone on the ground floor of their house in
Tabagak, innocently cooking food for the family’s pigs, the
accused Bienvenido Paragsa, with a hunting knife in hand,
stealthily entered the house, barring the door as he
entered. And approaching Mirasol from behind, he hooked
his left arm around the young girl’s neck and
simultaneously thrust his knife at Mirasol’s tender breast,
barking at the same moment for the girl not to shout,
under threat of instant death.
“His left arm still hooked around the poor girl’s neck,
and the knife he held perilously poised upon the girl’s
vulnerable breast, the accused pushed the girl to the
bamboo bed nearby, and there laid her down. He then
removed her panties, and opened the fly of his own pants.
Forcibly, he opened the girl’s thighs, and himself in-
between, he then penetrated young Mirasol’s private part
with his erect private part, and hastily consummated his
guilt-ridden, forcible, physical intrusion into the young

girl’s body.
“Mirasol’s aunt, Lita Parochel, arriving later, too late to
prevent the dastardly abuse of her niece, nevertheless, saw
the accused as he surreptitiously fled the scene and found
her niece in a state of shock. Subsequently, report of the
crime was made to the girl’s parents, and a complaint
lodged against the accused for the crime of rape. (pp. 6-8,
tsn Dec. 3, 1971; pp. 7-18, tsn Jan. 5, 1972; pp 1-3, tsn Nov.
16, 1971; Exh. A).”
The accused admitted that he had sexual intercourse
with the complainant girl. His defense is that the
copulation was
120

People vs. Paragsa
voluntary. The doctor, who examined the complainant,

found that she sustained an “abrasion, left thigh, medial
side” in addition to an “abrasion of inguinal region” (Exh.
A). He testified that there was laceration of the hymen. The
pertinent portion of his testimony is quoted below:
“Q.—Can you tell us your external findings?

A.—My external findings is that there was an abrasion of
inguinal region and abrasion, left thigh, medial side.
“Q.”—How about your internal examination?
A.—I was able to get some of the secretion found at the
anterior fornix of the cervic.
x x x x x x x x x
“Q.—From your findings, Doctor, there was something foreign

which got inside the vaginal tract of the complainant.
A.—There might be foreign body which got inside the vaginal
tract not so deep that caused laceration of the hymen.
“Q.—In your study of medicine, when a foreign object is
penetrated but not so deep, will that produce laceration of the
vaginal tract or the hymen of a woman, is that possible?
“Q.—When there is a penetration but not deep, will it produce
laceration of the vaginal tract of a woman?
A.—Yes, sir.”
x x x x x x x x x
“Fiscal: Can you tell us what could have possibly caused the
abrasion on your external examination of the woman Mirasol
Magallanes?
x x x x x x x x x
“A.—Maybe the assailant used force.” (3 tsn).
The trial court and the Court of Appeals (Justice Lorenzo

Relova, ponente) both held that rape was committed. That
conclusion is supported by the following testimony of the
complainant:
121
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 121

People vs. Paragsa
“Q.—You said that in the afternoon of July 13, 1971, you saw
Bienvenido Paragsa entered under your house where you were
cook-ing the hog feeds, can you tell this Honorable Court what
was he doing when he entered your premises?
A.—Yes, sir.
“Q.—What did he do?
A.—When he entered under the house he immediately held my
neck and then embraced my abdomen and he was carrying a
hunting knife.
“Q.—When he grabbed your neck and hugged you, did he say
anything to you?
A.—Yes, sir, he told me, ‘Do not shout, if you will shout, I will
kill you.’
“Q.—After hugging you and telling you not to shout, what did
Paragsa do next?
A.—He pushed me to bed and he let me he on the bed and he
immediately pulled out my panty.
“Q.—After removing your panty, what next did Paragsa do?
A.—He tried to open my thigh but I insisted closing them
because I was ashamed.
“Q.—In effect, was he able to open your thigh?
A.—Yes, sir, because he threatened me with his hunting knife:
‘You will not open, if you will not open, I will stab you.
x x x x x x x x x
“Q.—After he succeeded in inserting his penis into your sexual

organ, what did he do next?
“ATTY. FLORES: I want to make of record that witness is
spontaneous in answering the question, considering that she is
minor and this is her first time.
“WITNESS: He made a push and pull movement.
“ATTY. SALGADO: Q.—After he finished picking you, what
was or where did Paragsa go?
A.—He ran to one of the room of the house to hide.
x x x x x x x x x
“Q.—Did you have a conversation with your Tia Lita after you
opened the door?
122

People vs. Paragsa
A.—Tia Lita asked me what Benben did to me but I did not

answer because I was afraid.
“Q.—That was the only question that was being asked on you
by your Tia Lita?
A.—Yes, sir.
“Q.—You did not make any answer?
A.—I did not.
“Q.—Did you tell anybody of what had happened to you as
what you had testified?
A.—I did not.
“Q.—Why?
A.—I did not tell because I was warned by the accused that if I
would tell he would be coming back to kill me.
x x x x x x x x x
‘Q.—And after that while he was holding your neck and

embracing your abdomen you were then sitting near the place
where you were cooking your hog’s feeds?
A.—When he entered under our house when he was nearing I
immediately stood up; I was no longer sitting.
“Q.—So, you recognized him before he took hold of your neck?
A.—Yes, sir.
“Q.—And when he took hold of your neck and embraced your

abdomen, what did he do next?
A.—He told me: ‘Do not shout, if you will shout I will kill you.’
“Q.—He was uttering those words when he was holding your
neck and embracing your abdomen?
A.—Yes, sir.
“Q.—And after that he immediately carried you to the bed
inside your house?
A.—He did not carry me but he pushed me to the bed.
“Q.—How far was the bed to the place where you were pushed
by accused Paragsa?
A.—One and one-half meters.
x x x x x x x x x
“ATTY. FLORES: Q.—And how long did your Tia Lita went
home after the conversation?
123
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 123

People vs. Paragsa
A.—Tia Lita walked away passing thru our ‘banguera and Ka

Benben appeared and he told me that if I will tell Tia Lita he will
kill me and I was afraid because he was still holding the hunting
knife.
x x x x x x x x x
“Q.—You did not tell your father about the incident that
evening?
A.—No, I did not tell because I was afraid, he might punish me
and he might kill me.
x x x x x x x x x
“Q.—When your mother arrived home, did she inquire from

you about the incident?
A.—Yes, she asked me because Tia Lita related to her the
incident.
ATTY. FLORES: Q.—You want to tell the Court that if your
mother had not inquired from you about the incident you have not
told Your (mother) about the incident?
A.—No, I will not tell
“Q.—How would you reconcile your testimony when a moment

ago you said that you told the incident to your mother because
you took revenge of what Ka Benben had done to you?
A.—Because before she asked me of the incident I had in mind
not to tell her of the incident but after she asked me I (told) her of
the incident because I want to take revenge on Ka Benben. (TSN,
hearing on December 3, 1971, pp. 6 to 15).”
The trial court’s vivid summary of the prosecution’s

evidence, which reveals how the rape was committed and
why the complainant did not disclose the outrage right
away to her aunt and parents and which mentions the
flight of the accused, and the trial court’s reasons for
convicting the accused are as follows:
“The prosecution thru the testimonies of the complaining witness

and the other State witnesses has established the following facts:
That at about 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon of July 13, 1971, the
offended party, Mirasol Magallanes, aged 12 years, 6 months and
4 days as shown in Exhibit “B”, was in the house of her parents at
124

People vs. Paragsa
Sitio Tabagak, Barrio Bunacan, Municipality of Madridejos,

Province of Cebu. She was alone and under the house cooking hog
feeds. The house, the lower portion of which, is fenced with
bamboo strips, while the surrounding lawn is likewise enclosed
with fence. Her father at the time was in Cadiz, Negros
Occidental, where he was employed in one of the Fishing Outfits.
Her mother was in Sagay, Negros Occidental, while all her
younger sisters and brother were in the house of her grandmother
at Barrio Codia, Madridejos, Cebu, where all of the children were
left for care when their mother left for Sagay on July 10, 1971.
“The girl Mirasol Magallanes was a grade six pupil in the
Bunacan Elementary School, and she did not attend her classes
on that day upon instruction of her mother not to attend her
classes during the period of her (mother’s) absence. She was
instructed to go to Bunacan in order to feed their pig in the
morning, cook its foods in the afternoon and after feeding return
to the house of her grandmother at Codia.
“While Mirasol was cooking the hog feeds, at about 1:30 in the
afternoon of July 13, 1971, the accused Bienvenido Paragsa,
armed with a hunting knife, surreptitiously entered the fenced
ground floor of the house, then barred the door after him. The
accused approached Mirasol from behind, hook his left forearm
around her neck, at the same time thrust the knife which was
held by his right hand at the breast of Mirasol Magallanes, and
told her not to shout for help under the threat of instant death.
“With his left forearm still around the neck of Mirasol and the
knife’s point at her breast, the accused pushed the victim to a
nearby bamboo bed and laid her. He then placed the knife beside
Mirasol, removed her panty, and opened his pants. He forced the
victim to open or spread her legs by placing his hands on the
inside portion of both thighs according to the testimony of Mirasol
and corroborated by Medical Certificate, Exhibit “A”, indicating
contusion.
“Placing himself between the legs, directly in front of the
sexual organ of Mirasol, the accused inserted his erected penis
into her vagina and hurriedly proceeded with the act of copulation
by up and down movement. After completing the act, the accused
was about to leave when, unexpectedly, Lita Parochel, aunt of
Mirasol (wife of the younger brother of victim’s father), arrived
outside the barred door. She called for Mirasol, who was already
sitting at the edge of the bamboo bed, putting on her panty, to
open the door. On hearing the call, the accused ran away and hid
himself in a closet located at the corner of the ground floor.
125
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 125

People vs. Paragsa
“The victim did not answer the call of her aunt nor did she open
the barred door. Lita Parochel, suspecting that something
unusual had happened to her niece, walked away from the door,
making it appear that she was going out and hid herself behind
an outside projection of the ground floor where she could see and
observe the door. No sooner had she hidden herself when she saw
the accused came out of the door, holding a hunting knife in his
right hand, and ran towards the general direction of the seashore.
“She returned to the opened door and asked Mirasol what had
happened. Mirasol was very pale, trembling and in a state of
shock did not answer her inquiries. Without pressing further, the
aunt instructed her niece to return immediately to her

grandmother’s home at Barrio Codia after feeding the pig, then
she (Lita) returned to her house which is about 50 fathoms away.
“At about 4:00 o’clock that same afternoon, before Mirasol
Magallanes could return to her grandmother’s house, her father
arrived from Cadiz, Negros Occidental. Lita Parochel, having only
her suspicion as she did not actually see the accused abuse her
niece, did not report the incident to her brother-in-law. But she
reported the incident to her husband at 7:00 o’clock that evening
on his return home.
“On July 15, 1971, upon the return of Mirasol’s mother from
Sagay, Negros Occidental, Lita Parochel personally reported the
matter to the mother. Acting upon the report, the mother
immediately investigated her daughter who, having been given
the assurance that she would not be subjected to physical
punishment, and who had already recovered from her fears and
shock, readily told her mother that she was raped by Bienvenido
Paragsa. She was brought to the Bantayan Emergency Hospital
and subjected to an internal examination by Dr. Luis L.
Gandiongco, M.D. Medico-Legal-Incharge, who found her positive
of having sexual intercourse.
“A complaint for rape was filed against Bienvenido Paragsa by
the Chief of Police of Madridejos, Cebu, at the instance of
Bernardina R. Magallanes, mother of the victim, who at the time
she was raped was a little more than 12 years old as stated above
(Exhibit “B”. In the meantime the accused had left Madridejos,
Cebu, and was finally arrested at Danao City on the strength of a
Warrant of Arrest issued by the Municipal Judge of Madridejos,
Cebu, before whom the complaint for rape was filed.
x x x x x x x x x
126

People vs. Paragsa
“After a careful consideration of the evidence of the parties in its

totality, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has been
able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
committed the crime of RAPE as charged in the Information. It is
true that the offended party did not exert strong and effective
efforts to thwart the attack of the accused in disgracing or
dishonoring her womanhood but considering that the accused was

carrying with him a knife which he used in threatening her to
death, it is not unusual that the young and innocent girl of over
12 years of age would just meekly submit for fear of her life.
x x x x x x x x x
“In the instant case, the accused admitted having sexual

intercourse with the complaining minor of a little over 12 years of
age and his testimony regarding their being sweetheart and
especially as to the first intercourse he allegedly had with the
victim in their house in the first week of July 1971 and the second
in the first week of June 1971 is so unnatural, unbelievable and
contrary to common sense that this Court is of the opinion and so
holds that his story is fabricated and self-serving and
untrustworthy for it if it were true that the victim was his own
sweetheart and he was her boyfriend then there could have been
no reason for this young innocent girl of a little above 12 years to
tell her mother about the criminal attack by the accused upon her
womanhood and virginity. Her story regarding her being
threatened to death by the accused who carried with him a
hunting knife is being corroborated by witness Lita Parochel who
had no motive whatsoever to declare falsely against the accused.
x x x x x x x x x
“The Court had observed that Mirasol Magallanes is an

intelligent, honest and reliable witness notwithstanding the fact
that she was of a very tender age and the Court cannot accept the
theory of the defense that the intercourse that took place on July
13, 1971 was voluntary on her part. It would be very hard to
believe that the complainant would easily submit to such an
intercourse if her will to resist had not been overpowered or
overcome by threat, intimidation and force on the part of the
accused who was armed with a knife.”
The accused was twenty-one (21) years old while the victim
was twelve years and six months old. The fact of the
accused in taking advantage of the victim’s immaturity is a
form of un-
127
VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 127

People vs. Paragsa
pardonable sexual perversion which is worse than the

offense committed by Roman Polanski, the Hollywood
director who was convicted of cohabiting with thirteen-year
old girl.
To acquit the accused would be a miscarriage of justice.
The lower court’s judgment of conviction should be affirmed
and the accused should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Muñoz Palma, J., concurs with Justice Aquino that

the conviction of appellant should be affirmed.
Antonio, J., concurs in the foregoing dissent.
Notes.—Virginity as an essential ingredient of

abduction with consent does not exclude the idea of
abduction of a virtuous woman of good reputation.
(Valdepeñas vs. People, 16 SCRA 871).
The presence or absence of lewd design is inferred from
the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental
circumstances of the case. (People vs. Balbar, 21 SCRA
119).
Deceit, through an essential element of simple
seduction, need not be proved in a charge of qualified
seduction. It is replaced by abuse of confidence. The law
assumes the existence of deceit as an integral element of
said crime. (People vs. Fontanilla, 23 SCRA 1227).
Lust or lewd design is an element that characterized all
crimes against chastity, apart from the felonious or
criminal intent of the offender, and such element must
always be present in order that they may be considered in
contemplation of the law. (People vs. Luansing, 27 SCRA
305).
Lewd design is inherent in the very act of having sexual
intercourse with a chaste woman over 12 and under 18
years under a false promise of marriage, which act
constitutes the crime of seduction. (People vs. Luansing, 27
SCRA 305).
The circumstance that the alleged victim of abduction
with rape did not show any manifestation of outrage on the
same morning she was allegedly abused is one to be
considered against her. (People vs. Ilagan, 64 SCRA 170).
In order to consider the existence of the crime of rape, it
is not necessary that the force employed in accomplishing it
be so
128

Rural Bank of Barotac Nuevo, Inc. vs. Cartagena
great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only

necessary that the force used by the guilty party be
sufficient to consummate the purpose which he had in
view. (People vs. Sarile, 11 SCRA 593.)
In rape cases, where there is a contradictory version of
what transpired, corroboration of material events must be
supplied to overcome presumption of innocence, the
statement in the medical certificate that the alleged victim
of rape had contusions on her left arm cannot be considered
corroborative evidence of the force allegedly used by the
accused-appellant where the facts show that they were
inflicted by the complainant’s aunt and when she refused to
file the complaint. (People vs. Godoy, 72 SCRA 69.)
Where the offense charged is rape through force, there
must be a showing of compulsion being resorted to and
coercion being employed. The element of voluntariness
must be lacking if there be an indication of willingness,
even if half-hearted the complaint must be dismissed.
(People vs. Lopez, 74 SCRA 205.)
——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 105: People vs. Paragsa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 105: People vs. Paragsa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 105: People vs. Paragsa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 084

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 105

No. L-44060. July 20, 1978.*

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Rape; Evidence; Circumstances showing that the intercourse

106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Paragsa

was voluntary. Force and intimidation were not proven. Mirasol

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 107

People vs. Paragsa

Same; Same; Facts that victim of alleged rape was of tender

Aquino, J., dissenting:

Rape; Appellant should be convicted as there is sufficient

Bienvenido Paragsa, alias “Benben”, appealed to the Court

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered convicting the

the Information beyond reasonable doubt and applying the

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

minate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him to suffer the

(pp. 10-19, rollo).

Because the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed by

Bunacan Elementary School (p. 6, t.s.n., Dec. 3, 1971).

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 109

armed with a hunting knife, entered the house and closed

intercourse with her under threats and against her will.

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“Abrasion of inguinal region

“1. Discharges sticky, milky in color, found at the anterior

Mrs. Lita Parochel, the aunt-in-law of Mirasol, testified

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 111

Mrs. Parochel met Mirasol’s father at about 4:00 o’clock the

“1. That at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July

That she, Mirasol Magallanes, upon my arrival, did

Appellant admits having sexual intercourse with Mirasol,

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Batosbatosan and Eduardo Ducay (pp. 5, 6-7, 12, 15-16, 17,

have revealed the same the very moment she was

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 113

after the mother of the accused and Mirasol had returned

“Q—Doctor, you testified that according to your findings a foreign

Considering Mirasol’s tender age, if she had no previous

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

supra, eloquently confirms the truth of the accused’s

The Solicitor General adopted the above factual summary

“Mirasol’s aunt, Lita Parochel . . . . found her niece in a state of

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 115

A painstaking scrutiny of the record, particularly the

1972); nowhere in the record is any evidence of Mirasol

1. How come she was able to put on her panties and

That Mirasol was pale, afraid and trembling can only be

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Appellant cannot be legally convicted of simple seduction

Fernando, Concepcion Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and

TEEHANKEE, J., Concurring:

I concur in the acquittal of the accused-appellant in the

VOL. 84, JULY 20, 1978 117

People vs. Paragsa

4 69 SCRA at pp. 149-150.

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

There as in this case, we held that the accused could not be